EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18854 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 04 2017 02:21 urmomdresslikafloozy wrote: Attorney Mark Geragos believes their is a cover up. Nobody has a cohesive story that doesn't contradict itself. The security guy interview on Ellen was also very strange. The guard was supposedly shot but looked fine didnt walk with a limp or anything. I don't know what people expect an Ellen interview with a security guard involved in a mass shooting is supposed to look like. I imagine they would all look "very strange." | ||
|
urmomdresslikafloozy
191 Posts
http://archive.is/KVU5B If you use medical marijuana, you must turn in your guns. That’s according to the Honolulu Police Department, which has been sending out letters to legal users of medicinal weed that they must forfeit their weapons, as reported by multiple news organizations. The first legal medical marijuana dispensary opened in Hawaii this August, according to the Associated Press, even though medicinal pot was first legalized in 2000. There are currently 29 states that have some form of legalized medical pot. But the drug is still illegal under federal law, which trumps any laws on weed that states may pass, Joshua E. Jackson, spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), told LeHigh Valley Live in Pennsylvania. Never miss a local story. Sign up today for a free 30 day free trial of unlimited digital access. SUBSCRIBE NOW “There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana used for medicinal or recreational purposes,” he said. The letters in Hawaii have been coming out at least since the beginning of this year, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported, including one dated Nov. 13 that told medical weed card holders they “have 30 days upon receipt of this letter to voluntarily surrender your firearms.” “Your medical marijuana use disqualifies you from ownership of firearms and ammunition,” read the letter signed by police chief Susan Ballard, according to the Star-Advertiser. The Honolulu Police Department confirmed the news to Leafly, which also included an image of the letter in its story. It has been sent to about 30 registered medical cannabis users so far, according to the Star-Advertiser. Michelle Yu, a spokeswoman for the Honolulu Police Department, wrote in an email to the Honolulu Civil Beat that medical weed patients have had their permits for gun ownership denied “for years.” That includes 67 patients from between 2013 to 2016. In 2011, the ATF wrote an “open letter to all federal firearms licenses” that said “any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana … is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.” Hawaii, which requires all medical marijuana users to register in a state-run patient registry, is the first state to make gun owners register all their weapons with the county police chief, according to Guns.com. HPD spokeswoman Yu told the Civil Beat that the police department has been able to access the list of medical marijuana patients since 2000, when it was started by the state’s Department of Public Safety. “Checking the database is now part of the department’s standard background verification for all gun applicants,” she wrote. Reason.com, which noted that it is still not known what will happen to those who don’t turn over their guns, suggested that those two databases for guns and marijuana are “how (police chief) Ballard knew where to send her warning.” The letters come after a 2016 ruling from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that said it isn’t an infringement of someone’s Second Amendment rights to ban them from buying a gun if they use weed. “It is beyond dispute that illegal drug users, including marijuana users, are likely as a consequence of that use to experience altered or impaired mental states that affect their judgment and that can lead to irrational or unpredictable behavior,” the court said. Police Officers need to start locking up their firearms | ||
micronesia
United States24754 Posts
What seems to be happening is, any time there is an event which shows guns in a bad light, gun owners fear that the government will overreact to that one particular incident and stock up on guns, ammo, and related items before any changes can go into effect. In response, prices rise and manufacturers increase production to match demand better. Recently, the government seems unlikely to suddenly implement any significant restrictions on gun ownership at the national level (due to the current composition of all three branches of government) and so the impetus to buy buy buy has mostly gone away. Gun manufacturers did not match this change and thus there is a surplus of items for sale. There are still plenty of gun sales, but shoppers are more interested in finding a discount than stocking up as soon as possible (both of these effects explain why Black Friday saw a record number of background checks for gun purchases). It seems like this issue (general restrictions on gun use and ownership) is suffering from the same general problem as other areas of politics. In particular, both sides of the issue fear that the other side is ultimately unwilling to compromise and there can only be one winner and one loser. It's easy to feel a knee-jerk reaction of "that's just an illusion that is undermining all efforts to enact common sense gun reform that most people would actually agree with in isolation" but I'm not sure if that's even true. I think there are a lot of people who have no interest in person gun use and ownership and thus ultimately want guns fully removed from society save for the military and some civilian agencies. In general, the arguments I see here and elsewhere is that both sides of any gun issue are unwilling to try to understand the argument of the other side because they don't want to, and that situation has mostly favored gun manufacturers and their political allies. I think it's time for the left in particular to strategize how to approach this issue differently because there is a lot of work to be done and at this rate none of it ever will. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24754 Posts
The instructor explained if you are at home and someone is breaking into your home, even if you are armed, the first thing you should do is retreat. If someone wants your TV, let them have it. Report it to the police and to your insurance company. Suppose you barricade yourself into your bedroom and the intruder(s) is/are actively breaking into your bedroom to come after you. In that case the instructor recommended being prepared to defend yourself with a personal firearm. This kind of goes against the stereotype and, frankly, what I was expecting. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 18 2017 09:05 micronesia wrote: Another item on the topic for any who might be interested. Yesterday I attended a handgun safety course at NRA HQ. The topic of self defense of course came up, even though that wasn't the purpose of the course, and I was curious to see what the instructor would say on the topic. This is an NRA endorsed course. The instructor explained if you are at home and someone is breaking into your home, even if you are armed, the first thing you should do is retreat. If someone wants your TV, let them have it. Report it to the police and to your insurance company. Suppose you barricade yourself into your bedroom and the intruder(s) is/are actively breaking into your bedroom to come after you. In that case the instructor recommended being prepared to defend yourself with a personal firearm. This kind of goes against the stereotype and, frankly, what I was expecting. The NRA is not what it's made out to be in popular media. I hope this experience helps you question other assumptions you hold about politics (political truths/truisms) in the future  | ||
|
micronesia
United States24754 Posts
On December 18 2017 11:11 Danglars wrote: The NRA is not what it's made out to be in popular media. Actually, the NRA does often takes nuts positions. This was a counterexample but not proof that the NRA is actually reasonable. It was just 'score one point for the NRA.' In actuality, my understanding is the NRA was pretty reasonable back in like, the early 90s. Their current reputation, while at least partly earned, is based on more recent activity. I hope this experience helps you question other assumptions you hold about politics (political truths/truisms) in the future Is your blatant condescension intentional or are you oblivious? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23662 Posts
On December 18 2017 11:29 micronesia wrote: Actually, the NRA does often takes nuts positions. This was a counterexample but not proof that the NRA is actually reasonable. It was just 'score one point for the NRA.' In actuality, my understanding is the NRA was pretty reasonable back in like, the early 90s. Their current reputation, while at least partly earned, is based on more recent activity. Is your blatant condescension intentional or are you oblivious? Both. The NRA acts sort of like the Democrats for the people they represent. They are pretty shitty politically, but the alternative is worse. As such, NRA members run the gamut. As to what they taught you, that's sort of a class, and state specific thing. I'd wager you didn't get taught that in Texas. | ||
|
doomdonker
90 Posts
The problem stems from the leadership, which is rotten to the core and is only there to push whatever agenda the gun industry wants. In most cases, its to sell guns, ammo and accessories which is not a surprise since they're pure for profit businesses. Its no surprise that ammo and gun sales always soar whenever the Democratic Party is in power. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On December 18 2017 13:29 doomdonker wrote: My impression of the NRA is that the members in general are more or less OK. A lot of gun owners are pretty reasonable and independent polling seems to suggest that most members aren't the "buy buy buy government is coming" types who oppose common sense gun control regulations. The problem stems from the leadership, which is rotten to the core and is only there to push whatever agenda the gun industry wants. In most cases, its to sell guns, ammo and accessories which is not a surprise since they're pure for profit businesses. Its no surprise that ammo and gun sales always soar whenever the Democratic Party is in power. Id personally wager 99% of gun owners in the US are decent people who genuinely only have the weapons for hunting/sport shooting/home defense etc. its the 1% that gives us a bad name imo. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 18 2017 11:29 micronesia wrote: Actually, the NRA does often takes nuts positions. This was a counterexample but not proof that the NRA is actually reasonable. It was just 'score one point for the NRA.' In actuality, my understanding is the NRA was pretty reasonable back in like, the early 90s. Their current reputation, while at least partly earned, is based on more recent activity. It does sound like you need some more human interaction with NRA mid-level officials or the kinds of instructors that have been members for years to push you over. I think you'll find yourself mellowing out on your previous opinions on their positions. No joke. Is your blatant condescension intentional or are you oblivious? I've had very few liberal friends (or leans-left, or votes Democrat, or could never consider voting Republican, or calls himself/herself centrist or moderate) change sides. Almost to the individual, every one harkened back to meeting real people that contrasted against stereotypes. I've seen enough of the rank bullshit about NRA domestic terrorism or blood-on-their-hands-after-shooting or gun nuts itching for a fight to know that composite stereotype is widespread. Yes, I was very smug, perhaps over-smug, and that's my smug smiley terminating the sentence. I have high long-term hopes for anyone willing to let harsh facts challenge their stereotypes or expectations. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1951 Posts
| ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
On December 18 2017 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote: Both. The NRA acts sort of like the Democrats for the people they represent. They are pretty shitty politically, but the alternative is worse. As such, NRA members run the gamut. As to what they taught you, that's sort of a class, and state specific thing. I'd wager you didn't get taught that in Texas. It was probably taught by someone with a clear understanding of when it is actually appropriate to use a handgun to defend yourself. Whats your point here? | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On December 19 2017 01:22 Aveng3r wrote: It was probably taught by someone with a clear understanding of when it is actually appropriate to use a handgun to defend yourself. Whats your point here? His point is that different states have different laws. Castle doctrine varies heavily from state to state and in some states you are expected to retreat if threatened whereas other states you can use deadly force on any intruder. You'll note that GH mentions Texas specifically which has shooter does not need to retreat literally written into their penal code. | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
On December 19 2017 02:01 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: His point is that different states have different laws. Castle doctrine varies heavily from state to state and in some states you are expected to retreat if threatened whereas other states you can use deadly force on any intruder. You'll note that GH mentions Texas specifically which has shooter does not need to retreat literally written into their penal code. Ahhh I see, thanks. I did not realize that these laws varied by state. My thoughts would be that this is a serious enough issue that we should maybe try to get on the same page here | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On December 18 2017 11:11 Danglars wrote: The NRA is not what it's made out to be in popular media. I hope this experience helps you question other assumptions you hold about politics (political truths/truisms) in the future funny thing is that I remember arguing basicly exactly what the NRA guy in this example did on here, even with the exact same example: If you have a TV and someone wants to get that, let them have it, report that to your insurance and don't try to be a cowboy by taking a 50/50 coinflip on who comes out alive, if just for your families sake over some shitty TV. And I got insulted by people who were leaning towards the right for being a coward, for not being a man and that I should defend my TV with my life if I happen to be next to a gun. Can't seem to find it anymore, was a couple years ago. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 19 2017 02:16 Toadesstern wrote: funny thing is that I remember arguing basicly exactly what the NRA guy in this example did on here, even with the exact same example: If you have a TV and someone wants to get that, let them have it, report that to your insurance and don't try to be a cowboy by taking a 50/50 coinflip on who comes out alive, if just for your families sake over some shitty TV. And I got insulted by people who were leaning towards the right for being a coward, for not being a man and that I should defend my TV with my life if I happen to be next to a gun. Can't seem to find it anymore, was a couple years ago. I hope you’re not conflating your legally protected right to defend your home with what’s advisable for yourself, your property, or your family. Just finding more than two people who lean right in this forum rofl. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10852 Posts
No, the average NRA member isn't horrible but the way they use the power/money is and small members don't care because they eat their shit.... So why give an inch if you don't have to? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
On December 19 2017 04:15 Velr wrote: John Oliver did a brilliant piece about the NRA. No, the average NRA member isn't horrible but the way they use the power/money is and small members don't care because they eat their shit.... So why give an inch if you don't have to? Its the problem of being really good at what they do. A combination of having a GotV campaign in the states with swing votes plus the always available money from a broad industry looking to pad its margins. At some point you become too good at what you're doing and you never ask if you're doing too good because you keep getting paid more and more for the success you keep building. | ||
|
brian
United States9638 Posts
On December 19 2017 03:32 Danglars wrote: I hope you’re not conflating your legally protected right to defend your home with what’s advisable for yourself, your property, or your family. Just finding more than two people who lean right in this forum rofl. On July 25 2012 02:15 Toadesstern wrote: I've got pride myself and I'm pretty sure I'd be raging inside if I ever got into a situation like that. Truth is I'd rather try and keep myself calm so noone gets hurt for my familys sake. Fine I lose a thousand bucks because of a stolen TV or whatever else or should I go rambo on someone carrying a knife just for the sake of defending my "stuff" endangering myself, my family and everyone else just because of a TV? If we're talking about a situation where people are in danger, sure I'd do everything I can to protect those but running into someone who gets into your house for the sake of killing someone and not for the sake of stealing something / getting money is like reversed kind of thing of winning the jackpot in the lottery, at least where I'm from. I'm sure your wife / mom / daughter is happy if you end up dead because you wanted to protect the TV you paid yourself so badly and I'm sure they will understand that your pride is so much more important than making sure your daughter grows up with a Dad. though i’m not so sure you want to equate them with ‘the right’, or even responsible gun owners, or really anything. all that aside, are you clarifying that we have a right, one worth defending, to put our own lives and family’s lives in jeopardy whether it’s advisable or not? or have i misunderstood? | ||
| ||
