Countdown to a new lockdown?

dirtfan21 · December 25, 2012

I would also like to comment that many people that see the need to have more restrictions on guns most likely live in an area where the police could be at your home 5-10 minutes after being called. Where I live it may be 30 minutes or even up to an hour. My only way to protect myself, my home, and my loved ones is though being armed in that 30-60 minute time frame.

My parents and my neighbor down the road were both robbed last year. I'll fight forever to keep myself and my family armed.

8.1HD/ALLISON · December 25, 2012

For all you anti-gun advocates out there, here is a good article about Chicago. Untill 2010 they couldn't defend their lives, in their own houses, with a gun. And yet 440 children have been shot there this year. Its proof that gun bans do NOT work.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/24/Chicago-Is-Gun-Control-Capital-Of-U-S-Yet-Over-440-School-Age-Children-Shot-There-in-2012

KMGZ400 · December 25, 2012

I would also like to comment that many people that see the need to have more restrictions on guns most likely live in an area where the police could be at your home 5-10 minutes after being called. Where I live it may be 30 minutes or even up to an hour. My only way to protect myself, my home, and my loved ones is though being armed in that 30-60 minute time frame.

My parents and my neighbor down the road were both robbed last year. I'll fight forever to keep myself and my family armed.

agreed. nearest police are about 45 mins from me. and they are state police.

kstruckcountry · December 25, 2012

Local sheriff dept here was recently investigated for selling confiscated drugs. I'll keep my guns, thanks.

brantjs · December 25, 2012

If police aren't actively present, it doesn't matter if you are 5 minutes or an hour from the nearest officer. Most encounters that necessitate the use of a firearm take place from start to finish in under a minute. My job keeps me from being able to carry or keep a firearm in my vehicle, and there are places that I will not stop on the way home. I know most of you aren't from Virginia, but if you are I strongly encourage membership in VCDL. Their website is www.vcdl.org. The NRA is a powerful organization that primarily fights national issues. They sometimes get involved in local issues if they think they can change national policy, but your local/state organizations like VCDL are the primary advocates for your rights within the state.

wurgs · December 25, 2012

I would also like to comment that many people that see the need to have more restrictions on guns most likely live in an area where the police could be at your home 5-10 minutes after being called. Where I live it may be 30 minutes or even up to an hour. My only way to protect myself, my home, and my loved ones is though being armed in that 30-60 minute time frame.

My parents and my neighbor down the road were both robbed last year. I'll fight forever to keep myself and my family armed.

The only problem is the police will be 3-8 minutes too late to do anything. Police only get called in when an altercation has taken place, not before. I will still need my guns for protection until they arrive.

BlackZ71Silverado · December 26, 2012

Trust me, as much as we(all LEO's) would like to be able to, there is no way to show up on time to a shots fired call or an armed robbery. Law obiding citizens with guns actually prevent crimes everyday, to bad the media does not report that.

No matter what the media or politicians say, croojs will ALWAYS have illegal axcess to weapons. There is no law to stop a criminal from getting anything.

Sent from my iPhone4S

using Tapatalk

tanked_darren · December 26, 2012

You won't see this on CNN

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2012/12/24/gun-rights-cnn-piers-morgan.html

Sent from my Nokia 5190 using Tapatalk 2

Doug_Scott · December 26, 2012

You won't see this on CNN

http://www.cbc.ca/m/...ers-morgan.html

Sent from my Nokia 5190 using Tapatalk 2

Saw it on CNN earlier today. Funny how the petition actually violates the same constitution they claim to be protecting. Wonder how long before people realize that online petitions don't work.

MikeNH · December 26, 2012

Saw it on CNN earlier today. Funny how the petition actually violates the same constitution they claim to be protecting. Wonder how long before people realize that online petitions don't work.

I read something about foreign journalists being booted as something that wouldn't be protected by the first amendment. I've been on my iPad since Wednesday so finding this stuff a second time is a pain but it made me laugh. But I agree the online petition thing is a feel good joke, nothing more.

kstruckcountry · December 26, 2012

There was a petition going around the Internet yesterday for people who wanted to be compensated by GoPro because their cameras didn't support the app out of the box. Idiots. Internet petitions are pointless.

Doug_Scott · December 26, 2012

Trust me, as much as we(all LEO's) would like to be able to, there is no way to show up on time to a shots fired call or an armed robbery. Law obiding citizens with guns actually prevent crimes everyday, to bad the media does not report that.

No matter what the media or politicians say, croojs will ALWAYS have illegal axcess to weapons. There is no law to stop a criminal from getting anything.

No change will ever completely solve an issue. If making a change stops one instance from occurring, is that not a good thing? A simple example, does locking the doors on your truck completely stop everyone from entering your vehicle? All it really does is stop the honest person from trying to break in. I think you will find that most everyone will agree that we cannot completely stop people from using guns to commit a crime. But, if making it more difficult to legally possess a weapon that can be made into an automatic weapon easily, and making it unlawful to possess, buy, or sell large capacity magazines, then the latest incident would not have had 27 deaths. It may still have happened, but, I seriously doubt it would have been 100% efficient, and have the same number of deaths. I saw one of the coroners speak on CNN either Friday night or Saturday sometime say that he worked on 6 of the kids. They had between 3 to 11 bullets, each. 11 shots into one small body. If the change they want in the law saves one kid, how can that be wrong? The cost to citizens? They will have to change magazines more often. They won't be allowed to posses weapons that were designed to shoot humans at longer distances than a hand gun is designed for. Most that demand the 2nd amendment right claiming they need to be able to defend themselves from being robbed or hurt, isn't a hand gun more appropriate? When would a AR15 be the right choice to defend yourself?

kstruckcountry · December 26, 2012

They won't be allowed to posses weapons that were designed to shoot humans at longer distances than a hand gun is designed for.

So you want to ban deer rifles?

I'm sorry, but even if the guy had to change mags every 10 shots, he was still in a school going after completely defenseless targets. No law change would affect him in that regard. He could have gone in with a .22 and done as much damage.

MikeNH · December 26, 2012

The second amendment is not just about self defense from criminals, it is about allowing for the citizens to stand against a tyrannical government as our founding fathers did against the British. If we're all limited even more than we currently are about what can be owned, the govt will have total rule against us as they do in Europe and other countries. What needs to be fixed is the mental health reporting system. It may not have stopped this shooting but it likely could have stopped VA Tech and the theater shooting as in both cases it was proven that the shooter indicated violent tendencies but the therapist did nothing, citing privacy laws. That needs to stop now. I am an absolute defender of the right to own firearms but if something happens to me that causes me to be a danger to society, then they absolutely need to know.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

8.1HD/ALLISON · December 26, 2012

No change will ever completely solve an issue. If making a change stops one instance from occurring, is that not a good thing? A simple example, does locking the doors on your truck completely stop everyone from entering your vehicle? All it really does is stop the honest person from trying to break in. I think you will find that most everyone will agree that we cannot completely stop people from using guns to commit a crime. But, if making it more difficult to legally possess a weapon that can be made into an automatic weapon easily, and making it unlawful to possess, buy, or sell large capacity magazines, then the latest incident would not have had 27 deaths. It may still have happened, but, I seriously doubt it would have been 100% efficient, and have the same number of deaths. I saw one of the coroners speak on CNN either Friday night or Saturday sometime say that he worked on 6 of the kids. They had between 3 to 11 bullets, each. 11 shots into one small body. If the change they want in the law saves one kid, how can that be wrong? The cost to citizens? They will have to change magazines more often. They won't be allowed to posses weapons that were designed to shoot humans at longer distances than a hand gun is designed for. Most that demand the 2nd amendment right claiming they need to be able to defend themselves from being robbed or hurt, isn't a hand gun more appropriate? When would a AR15 be the right choice to defend yourself?

Criminals do NOT follow the law, therfore any restriction on guns will only limit the honest, law abiding civilians. Yeah sure, right now they want to take away hi capacity magazines. Whats next? They won't stop till everything is outlawed. Then what? Criminals still have guns, and the honest people have, .. nothing. What good will that do? We have made drugs illegal. We have made drinking and driving illegal. Guess what? It still happens everyday. Read the paper. Criminals don't care. Guns are NOT the issue. Mental Health is. I have to agree with Mike. They should take that HIPPA law and stick it up their a$$.