View Full Version : Obama wants gun control talks to resume.
hogdogs
March 13, 2011, 09:50 PM
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-says-there-is-more-we-can-do-to-stop-gun-violence/1
In this article, he states that he does favor new legislation of some sort but doesn't get into detail.
If this is already being discussed, I apologize but didn't see it in a quick scan of the front page here.
I sure hope the pro gun side of the coin is ready to handle this and nip it in the bud!
Brent
BGutzman
March 13, 2011, 10:22 PM
Only goes to show how out of touch he is with the general sentiment of most states. I could be wrong but I dont see this going anywhere, theres bigger fish to fry so to speak.
jimpeel
March 14, 2011, 12:15 AM
Still one more effort to bring an ever increasing number of people into the system. How would one think that an overarching pseudo dictator would do that? You simply hold everything they have ever done, and everything they will ever do, against them and use that as a disqualifier.
Just how deep that will go is up to those who (will) make the rules. It is not outside of reality to believe that those who wish to change the status of those they wish to control is without measure. If they had their way, anyone who has ever had an unpaid parking ticket -- or who has ever been issued one -- would be denied the right to firearms.
They tell us that this is for our own good, the good of society, and to quell firearms violence. However, those who hold absolute control over firearms will also hold absolute control over firearms violence. The haves over the have-nots as it were.
Ayn Rand was not far off when she wrote:
"... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
IE: Put everyone in the system as having done something wrong and you can exclude everyone from any function you desire. It's a simple equation.
jmortimer
March 14, 2011, 01:11 AM
Nothing will make it out of the House but the POTUS loves to regulate what he dislikes out of existance.
kozak6
March 14, 2011, 03:22 AM
Here is a better link:
http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html
It's the entirety of what he said.
This seems rather strange. Until right now, Obama has been suspiciously quiet about 2nd Amendment matters, almost like he's gone out of his way to keep his mouth shut. The other part is that it seems like he waited until too long after the Tuscon shooting to say something about it.
Here's my favorite part:
Clearly, there's more we can do to prevent gun violence. But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people.
I know some aren't interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.
I guess he knows us pretty well :p.
Kreyzhorse
March 14, 2011, 07:27 AM
I know some aren't interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.
He got that right, however, the pro-gun side isn't the only one scream about wild eyed schemes. Any attempt to regulate firearms is too much from the pro-gun side and not enough from the Brady side.
thallub
March 14, 2011, 07:48 AM
Its about gun control by increments.
If you allow the antis to pass their "common sense" gun control legislation that "will not effect your Second Amendment rights": Next year they will pass another "common sense" gun control scheme that "will not effect your Second Amendment rights". Pretty soon your Second Amendment rights will all be gone.
Does anyone remember Chuckie Schumer gloating after the AWB was passed: "Just wait until you see the rest of the camel."
Bartholomew Roberts
March 14, 2011, 09:00 AM
Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns.
Becuase nobody wants to take away your guns (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnobody.html), right? 1994 wasn't that long ago... "If I could get 51 votes in the Senate, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,” - Sen. Diane Feinstein. I wonder if he has considered that the reason people have that fear is because of the many well-documented attempts to do just that via incremental legislation?
This seems rather strange. Until right now, Obama has been suspiciously quiet about 2nd Amendment matters, almost like he's gone out of his way to keep his mouth shut.
Just good old fashioned politics... when he actually had the power to pass such legislation, he kept his mouth shut and said nothing. Now that he knows such legislation will never pass the House, he can do the old song and dance and collect money from his base while at the same time testing what kind of "gun control" (if any) sells to the public at large.
I think it is still questionable as a strategy though - for most people, gun control isn't even on the priority list. Those people will be annoyed you are off chasing non-issues while major issues are ignored. The number of people who will be excited about it are too small to swing even the local dogcatcher election and at the same time, it will drag you down with many voters who do like guns. That's just my take on it though.
Musketeer
March 14, 2011, 09:14 AM
It's a political move to reassure the far left he is one of them. They are pretty unhappy with him recently and he needs to be wary of a challenger, damaging primary and/or people not turning up at the polls. The "change" thing doesn't work any more and the resumption of military tribunals at Guantanamo has the far left frothing. Without the big promises being kept he needs to keep his core motivated and spewing anti-gun stuff does that while using "reasonable" terms keeps him palatable to the Fudds who are supposedly pro 2A but are actually one of our biggest weaknesses due to the aid and support they give the enemy.
Glenn E. Meyer
March 14, 2011, 10:04 AM
Just a warning folks - go off into general politics, rants, etc. and you will be gone with no appeal.
If you read the piece and react to the specifics with logic and rationality, you can play.
If you decide to play, there are legitimate L and CR issues.
1. It is pretty clear that at VT, the state system failed in identifying Cho and having him in the NICS system. Lochner was similarly troublesome. His school acted against him quite appropriately.
So what is the line for a NICS report?
Will such reports blocking FFLs sales deter the deranged? We don't really know as it is a negative. One can get around NICS with strawman sales. One could institute NICS tables at gun shows for private sales.
2. If we have tougher reporting, what is the level of false positives that we will accept - with appropriate appeal mechanisms?
3. Is a tougher systems really a slippery slope so that the camel can slide into the tent? Certainly, gun rights are on the ascension.
Etc.
So keep it rational and on the issues. Or else. I see some political references above - let's tone it down now.
Bartholomew Roberts
March 14, 2011, 10:42 AM
1. It is pretty clear that at VT, the state system failed in identifying Cho and having him in the NICS system. Lochner was similarly troublesome. His school acted against him quite appropriately.
So what is the line for a NICS report?
I think one important issue raised by Virginia Tech shooting addresses the current split in law among the circuit courts. As it stands now, the 5th and 8th Circuit take the view that unless the state involuntarily committed you to a mental hospital under a hearing with due process you do not lose your 2nd Amendment rights.
The First Circuit takes the view that "adjudicated mentally ill" indicates Congress intended to cover a broader range of people than just those involuntarily committed and even a temporary detention for observation (similar to Florida's Baker Act) can permanently deprive you of your Second Amendment rights, even if the state law you were detained under specifically does not intend to remove your firearms rights.
The Cho case falls right into that gap. Cho did have an adversarial hearing where he was found to be a danger to himself or others. He was temporarily detained and then ordered into outpatient treatment. Under Virginia law, Cho would not have lost his firearms rights. Under federal law, he might have, depending on what circuit court heard the case.
I think the case shows a real problem - in that I don't really have a problem with people with a long history of mental illness who are found to be a danger to themselves or others in an adversarial court hearing being denied the right to bear arms. However, I do have a real problem with non-judicial, non-adversarial hearings resulting in only temporary detentions being used to have the same effect.
2. If we have tougher reporting, what is the level of false positives that we will accept - with appropriate appeal mechanisms?
A big issue now is that there is no appeal from being a prohibited person. Once you are on that list, you are there practically forever as Congress has not chosen to fund the appeals process.
The NICS Improvement Act created an appeals process for mental illness prohibitions that would be administered by the states; but so far the states have declined to set up that process. Since they also don't get any additional federal funds to improve their NICS records if they don't do this, it is pretty much the same situation that existed before the Act.
3. Is a tougher systems really a slippery slope so that the camel can slide into the tent? Certainly, gun rights are on the ascension.
It hasn't been that long ago that was not the case though. One of the great things about TFL is you can read some of the debates from the Columbine-era where it looked like we were going to get yet another piece of bad legislation on top of the Brady Act, Lautenberg Amendment and AWB. I'm a lot more politically savvy than I was then; but I think the concern over slippery slopes is a very realistic one - especially given some of the past statements by people on the other side of this debate.
USAFNoDak
March 14, 2011, 10:45 AM
But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.
I'm not sure if it's most gun control advocates who believe that. I would guess that some do. However, some that do are likely also not to care that we gun owners are responsible citizens. What they don't like is the access to guns by so many, period. That is why they always compare the US to other "gun restricted" or so-called "gun free" nations. It matters not to them that most gun owners are responsible. In their minds, the presence of guns means the availability of guns for criminals and the deranged. Only severe restriction of guns will have any positive effect, in their opinion. That is precisely the path the British went down. Guns are only allowed at govt. approved gun/shooting clubs.
It is my opinion that many of the gun control advocates believe that the USSC erred in their findings on whether the 2nd A. indeed protects an individual right. Obama says he believes the 2A does protect an individual right. However, I believe he's on record favoring and voting for bans of certain types of firearms when he was a state senator in Illinois. I'm guessing he favors a renewed assault weapons ban, but understands that isn't possible at this moment in time.
Gun show promoters may be forced to have their licensed sellers run background checks for the unlicensed sellers if they are going to continue to allow unlicensed sellers to sell firearms at their shows. I can see that one coming at some point in time as part of "closing the gun show loophole". Most people don't understand that term and believe that any criminal can go to a gun show and buy any gun he wants because there is a lack of background checks. We know that isn't true. However, people who want to "close the gun show loophole" will always be able to say that guns CAN be sold at a gun show without a background check. That isn't untrue, even if it's not telling the whole story.
powerstrk
March 14, 2011, 11:29 AM
You may want to read the artical I found on The Daily Beast about thoughts about the gun debates in Washington right now.
http://http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-13/a-court-ruling-and-cheney-could-sway-gun-control-laws?cid=hp:mainpromo6
If the link does not work go to The Dailybeast.com Title: 2045 shot dead since tucson
NJgunowner
March 14, 2011, 11:35 AM
I'm of two minds about the whole gun show thing. Unfortunately it will always attract negative press by the anti gun crowd. It is very easy for ANYONE to walk into a gun show, and as long you aren't a raving loon buy from an unlicensed seller. You will also always have sellers who only care about getting the cash and very little else. It may only be a small minority, but it exists.
I really don't have a problem with requiring background checks in accordance to state law for ALL sellers at a gun show and require the organizers to provide NICS checks (for a fee) as a service to sellers.
Then again I live in NJ so it would be nice to even HAVE a gun show, but might as well wish for it to rain rum :rolleyes:
hogdogs
March 14, 2011, 11:55 AM
The whole problem with requiring "private sellers" to do a back ground check at a gun show is that the wording will likely make ALL private sales require this.
I feel for those in places that already have this legislation.
Brent
Glenn E. Meyer
March 14, 2011, 12:10 PM
That would be a reasonable prediction of an expansion for all private transfers by antigunners. They almost were joyful that Loughner gave them the chance to pontificate again.
The dividing line would be if shows are a specific concentrated venue that eases sales to bad guys that are economically motivated or gang related vs. the disturbed like Cho or Loughner.
Then can anti-Cho/Loughner measures be used for general gun control purposes? The Obama op-ed is oriented towards those but the anti-gun forces would try for the broader applications.
NJgunowner
March 14, 2011, 12:16 PM
I believe most gun owners would support REAL common sense approaches to keeping guns away from criminals or the mentally ill, but the anti gun crowd would never let it stand at that. They just can't help themselves. Since we can't trust them to do it right, we can't let them do it at all.
Glenn E. Meyer
March 14, 2011, 12:24 PM
A reasonable alternative is to allow campus and work carry. Unfortunately, antigunners oppose as do business interests (who buy out 'conservative' politicians or use the private property arugment in a totally hypocritical and disengenous manner).
Evan Thomas
March 14, 2011, 01:23 PM
A reasonable alternative is to allow campus and work carry.
Depends whether your focus is on stopping crimes in progress -- which would be a good in itself -- or on preventing them. I'm aware of the argument that campus/work carry would be a deterrent, but I don't find it convincing, given that a number of rampage shootings do occur in places where carry is permitted; the Tucson shootings are a case in point.
The three concrete proposals made by the President are actually quite modest, and have to do entirely with enforcing existing laws, making the current system more effective by improving state/federal communication, and making it easier for sellers to carry out background checks if they want to "do the right thing." If you read attentively, he's being very careful not to propose making background checks mandatory for private sales.
I think the case shows a real problem - in that I don't really have a problem with people with a long history of mental illness who are found to be a danger to themselves or others in an adversarial court hearing being denied the right to bear arms. However, I do have a real problem with non-judicial, non-adversarial hearings resulting in only temporary detentions being used to have the same effect.
This is exactly right. Depriving someone of rights as a result of a judicial hearing -- some form of due process -- is one thing, but doing so on any other basis, such as medical records alone, should be out of the question.
pgdion
March 14, 2011, 01:35 PM
I don't see where he can afford the time or the approval points to take on such a battle. Seems he has so many bigger things to worry about and his ratings aren't all that strong. Unless he really wants to divert some attention from his other actions/results???
"In this article, he states that he does favor new legislation of some sort but doesn't get into detail."
Is kind of becoming his defacto ... :rolleyes:
Glenn E. Meyer
March 14, 2011, 01:36 PM
I don't think that carry is deterrent in nature for the Cho's or Loughner's. Given their suicidial ideation, death is part of the package for rampage shooters, in general.
However, I want to have the ability to mitigate the incident if I can (not as a commando charging). We have some incidents where it has worked well. The Denver Church and Pearl, Mississippi.
Everything is a filter to prevent casualities. Better mental health reporting and carry are solutions.
Tom Servo
March 14, 2011, 01:54 PM
The three concrete proposals made by the President are actually quite modest, and have to do entirely with enforcing existing laws (...) If you read attentively, he's being very careful not to propose making background checks mandatory for private sales.
I noticed that as well. As someone else mentioned, he's playing to the crowd that elected him, while trying his best not to alienate the center. Hence his veiled claim that national park carry was something he supported, rather than something he was forced to swallow.
I just don't see the current administration getting gun control passed in the current situation.
It would take nothing short of a miracle (or a crisis he can handle) to get the current President elected for a second term. He's deep in lame duck territory at the moment, which leaves him as more of a functionary than a leader. In this position, he can conceivably push some of his pet causes under the logic that he's got nothing to lose.
We can compare him (loosely) with LBJ in 1968. The big difference is that there was widespread support for gun control then, while there is very little now. Dianne Feinstein made a call for stricter controls immediately following the Tuscon shooting, and the Speaker of the House shut that idea down almost instantly.
So, let the guy write his op-eds. I'm keeping my eyes peeled, but I don't see any reason to worry right now.
markj
March 14, 2011, 04:06 PM
All responsible gun owners need to write their state law makers and let them know how they feel on this subject.
I read an article yesturday written by a VT survivor, even after he was shot 4 times, he still belives we need less guns and is for laws to take guns away as if the less than law abiding will turn theirs in.
These folks live in a dream world where they IMAGINE everyone lives in harmony and peace. HA, as if that will ever happen. So since them folks have had the ears of congress for so many years, we all need to step up and let them know we will vote em out if they enact laws that may harm our freedom and safety.
Speak up to the right people.
Glenn E. Meyer
March 14, 2011, 04:44 PM
There seems to be two responses to rampages. In TX, after Luby's in Kileen - Dr. Gratia-Hupp felt a reasonable measure was concealed carry.
After the LIRR shooting and Harvey Milk, Rep. McCarthy and Feinstein respectively, thought that bans would prevent massacres.
Interesting to know what channels folks to each solution (without surface psychobabble). Obvious to me that I want the option not to be a simple target.
But not to some, they think it can be prevented. The issue is whether tightening of mental health regs and reports for some who seem obvious - like Cho and Loughner - would be helpful and practical.
Those who think total bans and confiscation would work don't know the evidence. Most predictors of violence are unsuccessful or prone to false positives at an unacceptable level. Cho and Loughner probably should have reached the current limits for report but the systems failed.
PawPaw
March 14, 2011, 05:19 PM
Loughner lied on his 4473. He was a well known user of marijuana and he lied when he checked block 11e. If he would have told the truth, the sale would have been immediately stopped.
SO, the question becomes: Has the DOJ initiated prosecution for Loughner lying on the 4473? Crickets, people. It ain't happening.
This isn't about licensed dealers and the NICS. That part is a smoke-screen. If you read some left-leaning media, you start to see the whole picture. From the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/obama-gun-policy-meetings_n_835453.html): The principal debate, then, will likely center around the application of background-check standards to private dealers. Private dealer? Who are they? They're you and I, guys. Our President wants all transfers to go through the NICS. Close the gun show loophole. If you want to give a gun to your son, go through NICS. If you want to will a gun to your grandson, go through NICS.
That's what it's about guys. Another layer of government intrusion.
For myself, I'll be writing letters to my Congress-critters immediately. No more compromise. When they prosecute the GunWalker agents (http://www.lauraingraham.com/b/A-comprehensive-account-of-the-Project-Gunwalker-scandal/-428744749805837952.html), I'll start believing that they want to do the right thing. Until then, it's all smoke and mirrors.
Falcon642
March 14, 2011, 05:21 PM
The issue is whether tightening of mental health regs and reports for some who seem obvious - like Cho and Loughner - would be helpful and practical.
I agree, however our current society will probably prevent this. Look at the backlash over the terror watch list, now imagine the backlash of an official crazy person list.
Think of the liability, someone gets placed on a crazy person list, go for a gun check and the guy working the counter denies them the gun, but tells everyone at the bar tonight "Hey did you know so and so has been deemed too crazy to own a gun?" Now that word gets around to the persons employer and boy do we have a crap storm on our hands.
Maybe I am off base here, but I can see lawyers rubbing their hands at all the lawsuit potential of such a list.
Evan Thomas
March 14, 2011, 05:58 PM
<snip>
The issue is whether tightening of mental health regs and reports for some who seem obvious - like Cho and Loughner - would be helpful and practical.
Those who think total bans and confiscation would work don't know the evidence. Most predictors of violence are unsuccessful or prone to false positives at an unacceptable level. Cho and Loughner probably should have reached the current limits for report but the systems failed.
And proposing that tightening, of course, is the third of the two responses you mention. ;)
It's a nice idea in principle, but in practice, it runs up against:
The already-stated issue of depriving people of rights without some form of due process.
The problem of false positives, which is also one of what criteria, exactly, should be used to decide that someone is "too crazy" (technical term :cool:) to own a gun. "Has been treated for mental illness" would be far too broad; imagine the fuss if everyone who'd ever had a prescription for psychoactive drugs were placed on such a list.
And the (lack of) availability of mental health services: Loughner's college has been criticized for not reporting him to outside authorities, or otherwise seeing that he received a mental health evaluation and treatment -- but, realistically, the resources for this type of intervention have been drastically curtailed in recent years. And that's largely why "the systems failed" in the cases of Cho and Loughner.
People say that they want a system that protects them from the Loughners of the world, but no one wants to pay for it.
USAFNoDak
March 14, 2011, 06:03 PM
PawPaw:Private dealer? Who are they? They're you and I, guys. Our President wants all transfers to go through the NICS. Close the gun show loophole. If you want to give a gun to your son, go through NICS. If you want to will a gun to your grandson, go through NICS.
That's what it's about guys. Another layer of government intrusion.
I agree. They want all gun sales to go through the NICS. The gun show loophole is one "convenient" argument for them to use in an effort to get to their end game. Once they get all sales going through the NICS and criminals still have guns to commit crimes with, the next logical step will be to "register" all gun sales. The 4473 sort of registers the sale now, but they could kick it up another notch to have a working data base of gun sales by serial number and who has them, or is supposed to have them. That's where they want to go. Where they'd go after they accomplish that is anyones guess, but we can make accurate guesses.
hogdogs
March 14, 2011, 07:17 PM
One issue I have with the mental health issue is if the person is dangerous enuff to lose rights, they need to be controlled far tighter than just 2A rights loss. And if they ain't dangerous enuff to be locked up... I take issue with their medical information privacy being invaded by "THE MAN"...
Brent
jimpeel
March 14, 2011, 08:08 PM
Perhaps the answer to Mr. Obama's aspirations is to implement a law that requires everyone to tell the truth on a 4473. Simple.
liberty -r- death
March 14, 2011, 08:29 PM
He's from Chicago and the general sentiment for politicians there is gun control solves crime problems. They never seem to understand it's not law abiding citizens that commit the crimes with legally obtained fire arms. I worked in the Illinois Senate on staff as a photographer for a few years before I couldn't take it anymore. I spent alot of time in Chicago, and got to hear alot of things behind closed doors. I worked with Obama back then when he was just getting into politics, and he and other liberals feel the streets would be safer if their is more gun control. You can't blame the criminals for what they do or enforce the current laws. They don't fit into the social justice and change he's promised us.
He is has also made statements to the effect that more gun control efforts will be difficult because the 2nd amendment is so entrenched in American culture. (doesn't mean he won't try)
After the way health care went down I doubt he'll care enough to listen to anyone that doesn't want what he does.
Current legislation in Illinois is looking to ban assault rifles, limit gun purchases to one in a 30 day period, require private sales to be done through an FFL. (Thank you Chicago)
In addition they are also looking at passing some sort concealed carry for fee revenues to help the bankrupt state kinda balance a budget.
thallub
March 15, 2011, 08:02 AM
When is the last time you heard of a felon being prosecuted for attempting to buy a gun? That seldom happens. The US Justice Dep't has a very poor record when it comes to prosecuting felons who attempt to buy guns.
In 2008 there were 78,906 NICS denials: There were 39,526 NICS denials for felons attempting to buy guns. In 2008 a whopping 147 cases were referred for prosecution.
The anti gunners in congress and the administration want it both ways. They want to impede or prevent law abiding citizens from buying guns while at the same time refusing to prosecute those felons who attempt to buy guns.
It does not matter which party owns the white house, prosecuting felons who attempt to buy guns is not a priority.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/231052.pdf) (published June 2010
PawPaw
March 15, 2011, 08:36 AM
Perhaps the answer to Mr. Obama's aspirations is to implement a law that requires everyone to tell the truth on a 4473. Simple.
It's already a felony to misrepresent the truth on a 4473. From the form (http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473.pdf): I also understand that making any false oral or written statement or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law. SO, the law is already in place. Our President can start enforcing it whenever he likes.
When Mr. Obama directs AG Holder to prosecute the federal agents who directed participation in the GunWalker scandal, I"ll believe that he is serious about enforcing the law. Until then, I'll only believe that he's spouting platitudes for his like-minded brethren. At this point, I'm writing letters to my Congress-critters.
Bartholomew Roberts
March 15, 2011, 08:54 AM
The NRA issued a response to this op-ed:
http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/obamaletter314.pdf
They make several valid points that I thought were relevant to this thread, particularly where they identify lax enforcement of existing gun laws as an issue (and mention Gunwalker) as well as pointing out that Loughner isn't a gun problem; but rather a mental health problem and that looking at it that way is going to be a more productive way to solve the problem.
Musketeer
March 15, 2011, 10:33 AM
I'm aware of the argument that campus/work carry would be a deterrent, but I don't find it convincing, given that a number of rampage shootings do occur in places where carry is permitted; the Tucson shootings are a case in point.
Campus and work carry are not deterrents to crime, they are mitigators of the damage the criminal act may accomplish. Plenty of shootings also happen at places where concealed firearms are banned. Columbine, VT, Ft Hood, the list goes on and on.
Those looking to ban public carry use the rational that those authorized to carry can "snap" at any moment and with a gun accessible do immediate harm. The numbers just don't support the position and while I may have greatly desired a truck to flatten my CEO as he exits the building on many occasions I never was anywhere near pulling out a gun and killing him. That is the case with the vast majority of packers but the anti's just get it.
The anti's will acknowldge that a determined rampage shooter will not care about a law banning carry. The solution they see is to ban all arms or at least those making them most effective (in there opinion). They do not understand or care this is both inneffective and also violates the rights of the vast majority in order to curb a minuscule minority.
Glenn E. Meyer
March 15, 2011, 10:38 AM
Was flipping channels last night and came across Tribe on MSNBC talking to McCarthy.
McCarthy was trying to be respectful to the President (her leader) but wanting to push her hi-cap clip (sic) ban as a solution that would have helped in Tucson. However, Tribe was all upset that Obama didn't push for gun control and ammunition control (whatever that is). So, it was funny. The left antigun guy wanted a rave against gun even if would go nowhere as he preferred the noble defeat rant (kind of like the folks who denounced the TX CHL bill and wanted it defeated as the 2nd Amend. should prevail and we needed NO permits - so it was better to have no CHL law for purity). McCarthy had to accept her President and then propose something with minimal effect and that she wouldn't give up. Sadly, for her, a ban of hi-cap 'clips' wouldn't have saved her husband. Not to many nuts have surfaced with the 31 round 'clip' Glocks.
The idea of making Loughner and Cho failures of having sufficient mental health resources is the way to go as it is really the case. But funding isn't there. I'll forgo my analysis of funding as off topic.
Glenn E. Meyer
March 15, 2011, 10:45 AM
Muskteer is right on with the mitigation argument. It's the one to make.
The counter argument that legally armed folks will snap is also not shown in the data. Hasn't happened that I know. The rampagers have been folks who planned the rampage rather than just snapped.
They were not casual carriers but thought it out and brought the weapon for that purpose. They had histories for the attack.
Recall, that institutions only care about liability, so all other arguments are specious. They predict their costs are less if a rampage occurs as compared to someone with a license and their permission doing a boo-boo.
Thus, legislation should shield them from suits flowing from the action of a licensed indivdual, even if a student or employee.
Double J
March 15, 2011, 11:16 AM
They call it "Common Sense". Looking back when Obama was in Illinois and he was hard core anti-gun and he didn't have any more "common sense" than he does now. He may listen, but doesn't hear. Watch him. He's always on a mission of his own.
hogdogs
March 15, 2011, 11:32 AM
He may listen, but doesn't hear.
Personally, I think he HEARS just fine... It is LISTENING to the people that he has a hard time with.
Brent
Glenn E. Meyer
March 15, 2011, 11:53 AM
Unlike the rest of us! :D:D
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Let's not veer to much into Obama and stay with the issue. I think his statement was carefully nuanced - that it annoyed left and right is an empirical test of such.
It was like Bush supporting the AWB. Yes, I support it (wink, wink - it won't get to me). All politicians are like that on controversial issues. They can talk the popular cant and then avoid doing something about it.
But we have to stay away from pure politics. I predict nothing will come of all this.
It's like energy - oh, dear - Libya is nuts - we better develop more fuel sources. Are we - NO!
I see that Obama wants both sides of the issues to meet:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/politics/15guns.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
LaPierre isn't interested. Personally, I would go and fight the fight rather than give the antis ammo (so to speak) that we are not rational. Yes, I see the point that they might be trying to co-opt etc. but I'd go for it and whup them.
Tom Servo
March 15, 2011, 12:52 PM
The anti gunners in congress and the administration want it both ways. They want to impede or prevent law abiding citizens from buying guns while at the same time refusing to prosecute those felons who attempt to buy guns.
You're missing the main idea. It's very important among many politicians to be seen as doing something. Whether or not it's practical, whether or not it's legal, whether or not it has any chance of working...those things don't matter. What matters is that a politician's peers see him as doing something.
It's gotta play well on the 6:00 news.
Most gun control laws aren't about fixing problems. They're about the person proposing and pushing them getting his 15 minutes on the news for doing something. Once that 15 minutes is up, they could care less, until next election, when they can use it as a resume builder.
Loughner isn't a gun problem; but rather a mental health problem
When I heard about the Tuscon shooting, my knee-jerk response was, "oh ____, here it comes." Instead, I was pleasantly surprised to see 99% of the media agree with you. The Loughner conversation wasn't about gun control, it was about our society's failure to identify and treat mental illness. Apparently, the President missed that whole thing.
That's what it comes down to now. Americans, for the most part, don't want a conversation about gun control. I don't think we're in a position to lose anything by not bothering to participate in this particular "conversation."
Heck, I don't think the President wants a "conversation." He just wants to be seen as doing something.
Gary L. Griffiths
March 15, 2011, 01:01 PM
LaPierre isn't interested. Personally, I would go and fight the fight rather than give the antis ammo (so to speak) that we are not rational.
And then listen to all the Internet warriors scream about the NRA "selling out" by talking with the antis. :rolleyes::barf:
Spats McGee
March 15, 2011, 01:01 PM
. . . .LaPierre isn't interested. Personally, I would go and fight the fight rather than give the antis ammo (so to speak) that we are not rational. Yes, I see the point that they might be trying to co-opt etc. but I'd go for it and whup them.
I agree. Even if the NRA doesn't plan to give an inch, I think we (gun owners) need someone at the table, if only to hear the discussion & take notes.
Glenn E. Meyer
March 15, 2011, 01:05 PM
Not listening to Internet rants is a sign of integrity. :D
Tom Servo
March 15, 2011, 01:14 PM
Personally, I would go and fight the fight rather than give the antis ammo (so to speak) that we are not rational.
The whole point is that we don't have to participate in this "conversation." We've got nothing to lose. No "common sense" measure proposed will stand a chance in the House.
thallub
March 15, 2011, 01:49 PM
The whole point is that we don't have to participate in this "conversation." We've got nothing to lose. No "common sense" measure proposed will stand a chance in the House.
+1
Pro gun organizations have nothing to gain by attending a conference with the antis. The antis want another chance to accuse the NRA of stonewalling on "common sense" gun control measures like a ban on high capacity magazines, an "assault weapons" ban, and closure of the non-existent "gunshow loophole".
Guys, it's going our way and the antis can't stand it. Let them stew in their own sweat.
Tom Servo
March 15, 2011, 02:51 PM
Guys, it's going our way and the antis can't stand it. Let them stew in their own sweat.
The greatest insult an enemy can suffer is to be ignored.
Glenn E. Meyer
March 15, 2011, 04:18 PM
They won't see it that way. I think that one should always take the opportunity to make your case in a rational manner on the public record.
One should not leave the field to your opponent under such circumstances.
Dr. Gratia-Hupp looked Schumer in the eye and her presentation is a classic. Did it convince that 'bad word insert here' - no. But it shows his gas bagginess (if that is the word).
LaPierre isn't the nimblest speaker but he can be effective. He just looks petulant IMHO.
I would be there, if I had the opportunity, to put on the record arguments against their positions.
One could make McCarthy look incorrect in her analysis given facts, logic with a sympathic presentation that points out that she is misguided.
I regard this as an opportunity missed, an implied agreement that your position is weak and not worthy. Sorry, Wayne.
Evan Thomas
March 15, 2011, 04:37 PM
They won't see it that way. I think that one should always take the opportunity to make your case in a rational manner on the public record.
<snip>
One could make McCarthy look incorrect in her analysis given facts, logic with a sympathic presentation that points out that she is misguided.
This.
I cringe a bit when people start talking as if everyone who isn't outspoken in support of the Second Amendment is an "enemy."
The reality is that, yes, there are plenty of anti-gun folks out there, but there are also a lot of people who've, oh, sort of inherited the position as part of an overall political stance but haven't thought about it much... or who are more non-gun than anti-gun, and just don't see a reason to care.
We do "need someone at the table" who can make that sympathetic presentation... it's too good an opportunity to reach non-gun, as opposed to anti-gun, people, and make our case to them.
I hate to see a chance like this wasted.
Buzzcook
March 15, 2011, 05:07 PM
Heck, I don't think the President wants a "conversation." He just wants to be seen as doing something.
That about says it all. Obama is throwing a bone to some of his supporters. He's missing the mark there.
What may surprise most posters here is that it is a minority of liberals that include gun control in the top ten or even 20 concerns they want government to address.
Since I first heard Obama, I've said that his real intended audience is not the people and certainly not liberals. His target audience has always been the political media.
The inside the beltway media has pretty much stopped being journalists. They are all to a greater or lesser degree "outrage merchants"
Gun crimes are something they can wag their collective fingers at. Gun control is a bandage solution that doesn't require them to work to hard. So calls for gun control are soothing to their ears and egos, as long as they don't have to worry about specifics.
Once specific legislation is offered, the media gets bored and looks for the next shark attack story. The legislation stops being about policy and simply becomes another football in the kabuki theater of politics.
This is pretty much true of any issue not just gun control.
So the media will pat Obama on the back for being brave and addressing gun control. Liberals will mostly ignore this or be upset that he's not addressing more important issues, and conservatives will run up the red flag and get more support because of the "proof" that Obama is a gun grabber.
Bartholomew Roberts
March 15, 2011, 05:26 PM
One could make McCarthy look incorrect in her analysis given facts, logic with a sympathic presentation that points out that she is misguided.
Would playing this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U) in a continuous loop during the debate make the point adequately or too subtle? ;)
It's always heartening to see a politician say we need to ban something when they don't even understand what it is they are banning.
Spats McGee
March 15, 2011, 07:01 PM
BR, that's PRICELESS!
hogdogs
March 15, 2011, 07:36 PM
Got it...
Brent
USAFNoDak
March 15, 2011, 08:06 PM
liberty -r deathHe is has also made statements to the effect that more gun control efforts will be difficult because the 2nd amendment is so entrenched in American culture. (doesn't mean he won't try)
Not to mention it's entrenched in the United States Constitution as the 2nd Amendment (not the 9th or 10) in our Bill of Rights.
USAFNoDak
March 15, 2011, 08:19 PM
thallubIn 2008 there were 78,906 NICS denials: There were 39,526 NICS denials for felons attempting to buy guns. In 2008 a whopping 147 cases were referred for prosecution.
The anti gunners in congress and the administration want it both ways. They want to impede or prevent law abiding citizens from buying guns while at the same time refusing to prosecute those felons who attempt to buy guns.
It does not matter which party owns the white house, prosecuting felons who attempt to buy guns is not a priority.
The first year after they passed the "Brady Bill", Clinton and Reno were out bragging about how many felons they had stopped from purchasing firearms. I don't recall the number, but it was at least in the 10's of thousands. How many did they prosecute? Less than a dozen. The song remains the same.
I have a theory. For people who are into gun control laws, if the law looks like it did what it was designed to do, that's good enough for them. If a background check stops a felon from buying a gun from a licensed dealer, then the Brady Bill did its job in their minds. They stop thinking about it at that point. Never mind that the guy probably lied on his 4473 which is another felony. Never mind that when he walks out of the gun dealers shop, he can go get a gun from one of his criminal buddies out there. Never mind that he can steal a gun. Never mind that he can still kill or severely wound with some other weapon which he is not forbidden to purchase. That's the problem with liberals dusting off their hands and remarking how successful their gun control is when it "initially" stops a criminal from purchasing a gun ONLY via the legal channels.
thallub
March 15, 2011, 09:10 PM
The first year after they passed the "Brady Bill", Clinton and Reno were out bragging about how many felons they had stopped from purchasing firearms. I don't recall the number, but it was at least in the 10's of thousands. How many did they prosecute? Less than a dozen. The song remains the same.
i remember that very well.
Prior to the passage of the so called "AWB" and Brady a police courier in DC peddled several hundred guns that were seized from crime scenes, criminals, suspects, etc. He sold those guns on the streets to support his dope habit. Prosecutors were forced to drop scores of criminal cases.
Reno refused to prosecute the gun peddler because "he is a victim of drugs".
Briarhop1
March 16, 2011, 12:42 PM
I just heard on the tv news that Wayne LaPierre has
also stated that he will NOT be meeting at the WH
with the Brady Bunch for a pow-wow on firearms
legislation. (Havent seen this in print yet but I'm
sure it will be out there shortly)
Wildalaska
March 16, 2011, 01:21 PM
Much ado about nothing and this whole issue is a waste of our intellectual energy. The reason is political so I shall go no further.
WildheywaitwhydidiwasteenergyAlaska ™©2002-2011
thallub
March 16, 2011, 02:25 PM
A meeting on gun control at the white house; with the Brady bunch no less. How quaint. Its like having fruitful discussion on missing livestock in the wolfs den with a pack of coyotes present.
The Brady bunch used to tell their debaters to call the pro-gunner a racist if they were losing the debate.
Spats McGee
March 16, 2011, 03:05 PM
I think that the NRA should at least come to the table. As has been pointed out, it's a chance to make the pro-rights argument in public and on the record.
Several items in the article bother me, and here are two in particular.
First,
. . . .Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns. . . . .
I don't care for the nuance here. This may seem very picky, but I think it's important to look at the way he has framed the issue. He says that antigunners will object on the basis that some "capitulation" is going on. Pro-rights groups, on the other hand, "will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns." Seems to me that this makes the antigunners more reasonable than the pro-gun groups. Objecting to capitulation, as opposed to believing in wild-eyed schemes.
Second,
. . . we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data . . . .
Reward states that provide the best data? Data about what? Are we talking registration here?
thallub
March 16, 2011, 03:28 PM
Come to the table for what? It's all going our way and we should not give one inch. What is there to discuss? The Obama administration, the Brady bunch and the anti-gun media could care less about your "persuasive" pro-gun arguments that will never make the news.
Spats McGee
March 16, 2011, 03:35 PM
I didn't say we should give an inch. But if you don't put the pro-rights arguments out there in the public eye, they certainly won't make the news. If you let the Brady Bunch and Obama get together and have a conference without us, theirs are the only voices that will be heard.
I am very leery of taking the position that things are going so well on the 2A front that X, Y, or Z [insert particular gun-control legislation here] "will never happen." Those sound like Famous Last Words to me.
Mutatio Nomenis
March 16, 2011, 04:36 PM
Common-Sense gun laws:
Grabbers
_____
* Only Police and Military can have guns.
* No pistols.
* Background check and waiting period.
* Must show sporting need; self-defense doesn't count.
* Any gun which is scary is called an assault weapon, so it is magically deadlier.
Holders
_____
* No guns to felons or nutcases
* Carry permits
* No guns to the undocumented.
* Mandated training classes.
* You know what you're after.
P.S.: Do tone down the 'Liberals all want us to be defenseless rhetoric'; I'm a strong Liberal who believes that the right to guns is absolutely essential for a people who can hope to be free and secure.
alloy
March 16, 2011, 06:20 PM
I hate to quote this particular website, but maybe the NRA feels that they aren't dealing with any type of reality based opposition, so why play at all.
Sounds like an administration with it's mind made up, similar to the drilling moratorium....but still asking so that in the future they can state...."we asked politely".
WASHINGTON -- Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions of Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action, administration officials say.
The Department of Justice held the first in what is expected to be a series of meetings on Tuesday afternoon with a group of stakeholders in the ongoing gun-policy debates. Before the meeting, officials said part of the discussion was expected to center around the White House's options for shaping policy on its own or through its adjoining agencies and departments -- on issues ranging from beefing up background checks to encouraging better data-sharing.
Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. “The purpose of these discussions is to be a productive exchange of good ideas from folks across the spectrum,” one official said. “We think that’s a good place to start.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/obama-gun-laws-congress_n_836138.html
markj
March 17, 2011, 04:00 PM
Then you have people that belive this stuff cause it was on TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHsX7STHqNg&feature=related
You can be shot by an empty unloaded gun.......
Bamashooter
March 17, 2011, 06:35 PM
Those pesky and dangerous barrel shrouds. I hate it when they go on the shoulder and flip up. If we dont ban anything, we must ban those shrouds. :D
Don P
March 17, 2011, 06:48 PM
Yes the NRA has sent emails stating that Hillary is looking to get on the band wagon with the U.N. for a small arms treaty and where do think that will lead to. More gun control. Wish I would have saved the email to post it.
jimpeel
March 17, 2011, 06:50 PM
The most common way to be shot with an "unloaded" firearm:
Jack the slide.
Drop the magazine.
The firearms is unloaded, right? Wrong. You chambered a round when you jacked the slide.
In handling automatic firearms there is an order to the universe. That order is:
Drop the magazine.
Jack the slide several times and inspect the chamber.
Doing otherwise can get someone shot with the "unloaded" firearm.
jimpeel
March 17, 2011, 06:53 PM
Isn't there a drive by shrouding reported almost daily somewhere in America?
And if you think those are bad, how about those funereal shrouds. There is always a death whenever one of those is involved.
raimius
March 17, 2011, 09:44 PM
When someone who stated they thought DC should win the Heller case says they want to talk about reasonable laws on guns, I don't believe "reasonable" means the same to them as it does to me...
When someone who said more concealed carry would be a bad thing takes credit for CCW in national parks, I become VERY suspicious of what they are trying to sell.
Call me paranoid that I get suspicious when someone who has a strong voting and speech record against 2nd Amendment rights says they are not after more restrictive guns control, but wants to talk about gun laws. Look at the record for yourself. http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
markj
March 18, 2011, 04:41 PM
Yes the NRA has sent emails stating that Hillary is looking to get on the band wagon with the U.N. for a small arms treaty and where do think that will lead to.
She said yesturday she wasnt running again and was giving up politics?
HuntAndFish
March 19, 2011, 12:36 AM
Reward states that provide the best data? Data about what? Are we talking registration here?
The data they are seeking from the States are medical histories that would show people have been adjudicated to a mental hospital. Many States are not sending in that data for various reasons (money, privacy, etc). This is information they want to include in the NICS check.
I think Wayne said it all in his statement. He gave his reasons for not talking to them. I think he is correct on all counts.
EDIT: The law that asks the States to send in that information has already been passed. However, it's a unfunded mandate on the States to send it.
Tom Servo
March 19, 2011, 09:19 PM
Call me paranoid that I get suspicious when someone who has a strong voting and speech record against 2nd Amendment rights says they are not after more restrictive guns control, but wants to talk about gun laws.
That's not paranoid at all.
However, I'm not worried at this juncture. The other side can talk all they want--nothing will come of it. So let them reminisce for the good old days of the 1990's and lament their current situation.
We are winning. We are winning better than Charlie Sheen. We are winning to such an extent that we don't have to negotiate anything with them.
Frankly, this is a last-ditch, half-hearted attempt by a lame-duck administration to appear relevant to its base. In the absence of any significant support from the legislature, it's all just hot air.
Webleymkv
March 20, 2011, 11:35 AM
Much ado about nothing and this whole issue is a waste of our intellectual energy. The reason is political so I shall go no further.
I think I can probably explain it without getting political enough to break the rules (just an objective analysis).
I think Obama is simply trying to appease the far left and garner some political support. Gun control hasn't been a winning issue for the Democratic Party for sixteen years and I think everyone including the President knows it. No new gun control legislation was passed, or even got out of comittee for the first two years of the administration even though the Democrats had the White House and both houses of Congress. The reason is that outside of a few far-left characters like Feinstein, Schumer, and McCarthy, no one really wants to do anything with gun control because they know it's political suicide. With two fairly recent pro-gun decisions from the Supreme Court as well as the loss of the House and a smaller majority in the Senate, I don't think we're going to see any new gun control legislation get any further than it did in the last two years.
The President's comments were, I believe, intentionally vauge so as to afford him plausible deniability on both sides. The President's popularity with the far-left has been waning as of late due to a feeling that he's not done enough to push a liberal agenda. 2012 isn't all that far away anymore and I think he's beginning to feel the heat of his falling popularity. I suspect that he's beginning to attempt to rally his base in preparation for the next election cycle. By making such vauge comments, I think he will try to avoid the more pointed accusations from the pro-RKBA crowd while at the same time telling the anti's that he tried to do something but was hamstrung by the Republicans and the "gun lobby". I don't think that Obama has much intention of really "doing" anything other than paying lip service to the Brady's and the like because he knows that is all he can really do at this point.
Edward429451
March 20, 2011, 01:25 PM
Seems to me that somewhere I heard that Obama will not seek a 2nd term. If that is the case he has little to lose by stabbing America in the back a couple times on his way out.
Webleymkv
March 20, 2011, 01:46 PM
Seems to me that somewhere I heard that Obama will not seek a 2nd term. If that is the case he has little to lose by stabbing America in the back a couple times on his way out.
I've heard some speculation that Obama might not try for a second term, but nothing substantial enough to make me think there's a good chance he won't. Regardless though, even if he did want to pass some sort of sweeping gun control legislation and didn't think he had anything to lose, I don't think he could get Congress or the Supreme Court to go along with it.
Glenn E. Meyer
March 20, 2011, 03:12 PM
Ok, if we start to discuss Obama's re-election strategy we are going political and that's no-no.
Can we stay on discussing the content and process of this meeting and stay away from Obama's motives? I know that is hard and I have to keep myself from being political.
We shall see. Give it a try.
Thanks
Webleymkv
March 20, 2011, 04:45 PM
Can we stay on discussing the content and process of this meeting and stay away from Obama's motives? I know that is hard and I have to keep myself from being political.
Sorry Glenn, I knew I was "riding the line" so to speak with my comments, but it's hard to express such an analysis without doing so.
As to the topic at hand, I have somewhat mixed feelings about the NRA or any other pro-RKBA organization attending a meeting about gun control laws with the administration. On the one hand, I have a sneaking feeling that such a meeting may be nothing more than a political trap to get the NRA into a "gotcha" moment or at best just a waste of time. On the other hand, however, if anyone's going, I'd rather it be the NRA because I think they're probably more adept at navigating such a political minefield than some of the other, shall we say more "agressive", pro-RKBA organizations.
As to what can be done to prevent another Virginia Tech or Tuscon incident, well I think that's a fine line to ride. As I remember the details (VT in particular is a bit rusty to me at the moment) there were a lot of failures to recognize some pretty glaring warning signs with both individuals at the local level. I oppose sweeping measures such as mandatory psychological evaluations in order to own a gun because, from what I remember from Psych 101, the field of psychology by its nature can be rather subjective depending on who is doing an evaluation and what school of thought they subscribe to (my impression was that the field of psychology was as broad as it is long). I don't, however, think it would necessarily be a bad idea to require that certain very specific incidents and circumstances be reported to to NICS. If memory serves, the Tuscon shooter had previously made death threats and the VT shooter had been stalking other students and had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution though for only a short time. Incidents such as those are clearly definable and would transcend most people's definition of "harmless eccentircity" or "kind of creepy".
At the end of the day, however, you simply cannot prevent every act of violence. People do occasionally just snap and even people who cannot legally obtain a firearm get them anyway fairly regularly. The goal of gun control legislation, in my opinion, should not be to prevent every act of violence (an impossible goal) but rather to prevent the people who are most likely to cause it such as violent felons and the dangerously mentally disturbed from easily obtaining a firearm (you simply can't prevent every badguy who wants a firearm from getting one no matter how restrictive your laws are).
Glenn E. Meyer
March 20, 2011, 05:03 PM
Good post. That's the problem, IMHO. At a hypothetical meeting:
1. Is it really just a ban the guns PR show? If so, should Wayne fight the good fight or look petulant. I'm all for the fight.
2. Will it really be about a scholarly and realistic attempt to see if Cho and Loughner types should have been reported given their behavior to NICS?
If that's the case, then the meeting shouldn't have Brady, McCarthy, Josh, Wayne, Pratt, etc. - it should be made up of legal and mental health professionals rather than bloviating lay people with PR antigun agendas vs. some progun folks.
3. As a psychologist, the violence prediction without critical incidents already - like Cho and Loughner committed, is impossible because of the false positives. So can we tighten up to catch folks like them - who threatened folks, been involved with the mental health system or college / or other law?
That would be the center of a serious conference. This probably won't be that.
Given the crap in the world now - I doubt - we will see any antigun legislation.
hogdogs
March 20, 2011, 05:05 PM
Man I am so proud of me!!! I woulda never thunk that lil' ol' me could start a thread and L&CR and it go so long remaining open! I thought it would be lucky to go 10-15 posts before it got locked up...
Brent
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.