Burn-E Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Pras, you're buying into the security theater. An intelligent terrorist could get what he wanted on a plane. The whole inconvenience to you in the line simply makes passengers feel safer in spite of its ineffectiveness. There are huge vulnerabilities and we're focusing on airplanes because that threat has been a favorite a few times for terrorists. In my mind this security effort has become an industry of its own just like the prison industrial complex of the US. So there are lobbyists who perpetuate what can only be considered the equivalent of the French Maginot line. We're planning and protecting against the "last generation war." Giving up your rights to perpetuate ineffective security while fostering a police state is simply a demonstration of complacency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 should a person be allowed to have a gun in the house if there is a mental defect in a child/spouse? should there be a law that guns need to be in a safe, or safety is fingerprinted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted December 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 should a person be allowed to have a gun in the house if there is a mental defect in a child/spouse? should there be a law that guns need to be in a safe, or safety is fingerprinted Hell no. Anyone with a retarded child and a gun will soon only have a gun. Kidding aside, sure. You can have firearms in the house of you have kids. Common sense and consequences need to be in place though. And Burn-e, cannot talk about it, but a lot more goes on with TSA then is known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prasamin Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 For me personally that will never happen so irrelevant. And Alden I let them take it as I had shit to do. Also AS is retarded. You are messed up and defined as violent by DSM. I'm not saying that you would be the threat. I'm saying that fishing can sometimes find a threat, when you're not really looking for one. But then again, who knows, maybe you're in sleeper mode right now, but you'll snap one day and kill 50 people. You certainly have the option to do so with the many guns you own. The people who don't have guns, or don't have access to them don't have the option to kill 50 people. That's the issue here, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Chuck, I would sure hope so. Mike, if the gun owner does what any responsible owner should do, then yes. There should be trigger locks and they should be locked away in a gun safe. Properly secured guns do not cause accidents nor do they get into the hands of children. That includes keeping the combination secret and or keeping the keys inaccessible. BTW, none of this may matter by Friday. 10% of us already believe the Mayan doomsday calendar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted December 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Both of you missed what I was getting at. And Pras, my neighbor could snap and kill me then take my firearms. Ban all civilian firearms and people could snap and take an assault rifle out of the back of a cop car. How do you proclaim we deal with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 I understood your point Chuck. I would expect there is much more going on in the background with the TSA for what we're spending on it. That doesn't mean that boarding line security is anything more than theater. My point was, why bother with airplanes when you can just set down a bunch of bomb suitcases in a very busy security line. Or take out an entire train. Or get creative and blow the hell out of a nuclear cooling station. Or simply shut down the electric grid. Oh, great, the morons are multiplying around this issue. First Feinstein, now Obama taps Biden? Not sure how it could get any worse. Maybe he'll invite Palin to represent gun owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted December 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 DoE facilities are not soft targets. They all have a lot of guys with a lot of guns. As for gun control, Obama said it would be a month or so before he makes a gun law suggestions. GOod for him for stepping back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 My brother in law consults with the DoE on many different projects including the issues of Yucca Mountain - we've had this discussion to the extent that he could talk about it. I know they are hardened targets but my point was there are many targets that with the right thinking could fail / fall without requiring a tactical team to take them out. Moving the second part over to the CT thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaskMule Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 What you are is naive about how our legislators will tackle this issue, especially given the ignorance of the Senator who has decided to spearhead this new bill. She's going to produce an equally compromised bill with so many convoluted proscriptions that it won't achieve anything. Diane Feinstein is a moron and she's going to fail at this effort. Beauty. I guess the thing to do then is, maintain the status quo. Just keep doing what y'all are doing, since you feel your system is working SO well. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
550 Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Beauty. I guess the thing to do then is, maintain the status quo. Just keep doing what y'all are doing, since you feel your system is working SO well. Good luck. Did you have problems with reading comprehension in school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che'_Moderator Posted December 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Keep it civil. FTR I am fine with status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
550 Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 (edited) LOL, I put that pretty nicely haha. My initial thoughts were not. My point being, no one is saying DO NOTHING. What we ARE saying, is that what they WANT to do (and most likely will do) WON'T change anything. To be honest, I'm also ok with the status quo, for right now. As I feel like anything they do, right now, will in essence makes things much worst. Edited December 19, 2012 by 550 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 Beauty. I guess the thing to do then is, maintain the status quo. Just keep doing what y'all are doing, since you feel your system is working SO well. Good luck. No one said it was working well. There are obvious flaws and I've said I don't believe the average civilian needs to own a semiautomatic rifle. You can page back to the early discussion to see how that all sorted out. But the problem is that the legislators who claim to believe they're making a difference are allowing so many loopholes into the definition of a ban (Feinstein has already indicated she would allow some 900 different weapon types to be excluded) that it's not going to do anything. Either do it right, or don't do it at all. That's what I am saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 We want the status quo until we hear a good idea proposed. One that we think will not strongly inhibit our current rights, and will actually be effective. But I think many of us haven't heard one that works, and fundamentally don't believe a solution exists (yet).And I say 'yet' (I don't remember if I posted it here already) : I think in time, a technical solution could be developed. New technology may open up ideas/tools we don't have right now. The best one I can dream up so far is a system that magically detects the presence of weapons and sets off a fire-alarm like sound. Everyone would know how to react similar to a fire, earth quake, nuclear bomb drills of the cold war era. Is it fool proof? Surely not. And I think it could only be effective in areas we deem "gun free" zones like maybe a school.Without new options, status quo seems like the best option. Oh, and dare I say there's not enough voices in here. It's really the same 5-ish posters with already well known and outspoken beliefs. Jump in people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts