Why make Kids 'TUCK" in their shirt

kanyonkitty · 02-15-2008, 07:16 PM

I sure hope this link will work:

http://tuck_in_s...wmv (1242.0 KB) <... <br /> Kitty

kanyonkitty · 02-15-2008, 07:23 PM

Darn Darn Darn, guess I need to e-mail it to someone that will know HOW to get it to post here. Amazing how 11 hand guns and a shotgun can be concieled.

So, if some one will PM me their e-mail addy, maybe you can get the video posted for others to view

Kitty

**Sunline Fan** · 02-15-2008, 07:56 PM

Here you go Kitty. It is a pretty amazing video. I'd like to see him sit down with all that!

NOTE: CLICK ON PICTURE TO START VIDEO (and turn up volume)

Jon

kanyonkitty · 02-15-2008, 08:46 PM

Thank You, Thank You Jon,

I was hoping you'd be able to get it posted. I was shocked when I saw what all he was packing. Really makes you wonder.

Kitty

**JohnB** · 02-15-2008, 08:46 PM

Oh my goodness………………….

Ok the shot gun was a bit over the top.

After the last college shooting I’m sure this will get a lot of discussion. What a shame and will say a prayer for the innocent young people involved.

Life does not always add up sometimes.

Mooney · 02-17-2008, 01:16 PM

I find it most amazing that nobody has reported that almost all these crimes were in "gun free zones". Calling for more control and bans has not helped.

If I were among the college going public, I would be pretty active (and amazed that more folks aren't) in the attempt to allow personal firearm carry on campus.

The criminals aren't going to change their ways because more laws are passed- it's why they're criminals in the first place.

As the US Supreme Court stated in South v. Maryland (1856), and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005); along with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Bowers v. DeVito (1982)- the police and government have no affirmative duty to protect people.

In Bowers, the decision includes one memorable quote that: ""...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

That's why the Second Amendment is important (or at least one of the reasons...)

It's also important to note that there is NO WAY that someone of the age pictured has lawful access to those firearms (if it was not a staged event, which it was)...someone, somewhere either did not adequately store them out of the access to unauthorized persons, or someone took extraordinary measures to obtain them through unlawful means.

Can you tell that this topic is pretty near and dear to me? As a resident of MA, we deal with some of the most asinine and restrictive laws in the country (many of which make me embarrassed to stay in this state...).

I (Life Member NRA and USPSA), along with many others I know, actually want to see some regulation- at the FEDERAL level- A nationally recognized License for Concealed Carry. This would incorporate portions of many existing laws, and be issued such as a driver's license. The biggest problem is that there is such a knee-jerk reaction that polarizes people when crises occur- there are so many laws (many contradictory) that the legislatures just keep banning and banning and banning....

A National License to Carry would be so much easier to maintain and organize- if it can be done for DLs, then why not LTCs? ONE set of standards, including class in a classroom, and then a range/ use environment. Learn what they are, then how to use them. Approval through the existing NICS (instant background check) already says Yes/ No/ Delay for lawful sales.

That, and actual REAL penalties for crimes commited while unlawfully possessing firearms. Rob a store with an unlawfully possessed gun? See ya- 15 years minimum. Assault w/ intent while unlawfully possessing? You're done. Life in prison.

No second chances for felons. No slaps on the wrist. SEE YA. It's amazing that you can assault with intent to murder and walk out of prison in 3-5 years. PLEASE.

OK, I gotta stop before I get stressed out.....

Only a little while before Daytona kicks off!

**Tweety** · 02-17-2008, 02:13 PM

What I don't understand is why people with a history of mental illness are allowed to buy guns.

Mooney · 02-17-2008, 09:12 PM

People with a history of mental illness are ALREADY not allowed to buy guns without an exemption. The issue is that they lie on the form, and there is no easy way to catch them. The media makes a big deal out of the fact that they are allowed to make purchases, but the same groups that they call "heroic" and "for civil rights", etc. They don't seemingly don't care that 99% or more of violent gun crimes are perpetrated by unlawful or criminal owners. For instance, in Mass., I believe that out of the last 5 years or so, only a handful of the crimes were ever tied to lawful owners, and 3 of them were by police officers off duty (one officer was found guilty of holding up pharmacies twice, and the other was at a nightclub- found guilty of shooting someone in a racial dispute as retaliation for a gang-killing of one of his friends). All the others have been unlawfully owned.

Unfortunately, the ACLU and others do not allow the mental health records to be released to anyone, including the BFI, BATFE, and NICS.

One of the questions on the FFL (Federal Firearms License) holder's transfer form asks if you have been sent for or mandated to attend mental or substance abuse counseling.

It's a criminal offense to lie on this form, but....you know the deal. Laws aren't going stop the bad guys...just like restraining orders don't stop anyone....
(in MA, a RO is issued immediately if one of a couple files for divorce- regardless of amicability or fault or anything- and once a restraining order is issued, all firearms are supposed to be turned in to the police until the RO is rescinded or released. You don't have to turn in your car, your kitchen knives, baseball bats, crowbars, or any of thousands of other potential weapons found in any home- but you have to turn in the guns!)
One of the areas that I agree with the gun-control crowd on is that mental illness record should be released into the NICS system- therefore barring some from the purchases.

Unfortunately, since there is no easy way to appeal your name on a "barred" list like this, many of our national heroes would be unable to purchase or lawfully possess firearms- as many are remanded to get help for post-traumatic stress issues and such. Answering "YES" to that question doesn't necessarily bar you from making a purchase, but it certainly makes it far more difficult. There should be common sense laws, but this is Congress we're talking about....

I still maintain that lawyers should only be allowed in the Judicial branch- as "regular" folk to the Legislative, and Business folk to the Executive.

I don't want to get too political though- this is a POSITIVE forum....politics get too many people worked up- I just like being able to spread truth from the "other side" of the issues...

GhettoMedic · 02-18-2008, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mooney

For instance, in Mass., I believe that out of the last 5 years or so, only a handful of the crimes were ever tied to lawful owners, and 3 of them were by police officers off duty (one officer was found guilty of holding up pharmacies twice, and the other was at a nightclub- found guilty of shooting someone in a racial dispute as retaliation for a gang-killing of one of his friends). All the others have been unlawfully owned.
.

5 crimes by lawfull owners, 3 of those by officers

Hematite · 02-18-2008, 09:06 PM

Mooney:
Your comments are right on the mark! I find it troubling that the ACLU will defend the privacy of the mentally disabled, and by doing this they are jeopardizing society at large. The ACLU, of course, has no interest in defending Second Amendment rights. They are quite selective in their "ethics". They, basically, serve their own interests which are not necessarily those of the American people, in general.

I am an Endowment/ Life member of the NRA and a life member of the NYSRPA. As such, I thank you for bringing the facts to the fore!