Man shoots kills ax wielding man

[w30wcf]

http://www.king5.com/story/homepage/201 ... /81728302/

[Blaine]

Right up the road from me. Here on the Loony Left Coast, you'd be surprised how many Loons carry. Unfortunately, not nearly enough. In a few years, I expect all the Kali gun laws, and then some, will be up here. Already, you can't sell your buddy a rifle without going thru an FFL.

[AJMD429]

Already, you can't sell your buddy a rifle without going thru an FFL.

I've known several FFL's who have lobbied FOR that kind of law, just to get all the 'transfer fees'...

[Blaine]

Already, you can't sell your buddy a rifle without going thru an FFL.

I've known several FFL's who have lobbied FOR that kind of law, just to get all the 'transfer fees'...

My fav local gun show provides that service for free once you've paid your 6 bucks to enter the show...That does NOT change my ire at private citizens not being able transact with each other.

[Model 52B]

I can see both sides.

Sure, I know my buddies well enough to know they are not prohibited persons, but I won't consider selling face to face to someone I don't know, unless they have an in state concealed carry permit, and matching ID.

The problem is that not everyone doing private sales is that diligent, and while the number and percentage of guns obtained by criminals that way isn't huge, it's not insignificant either.

The only way reliable for any community to avoid increasing federal over sight and regulation of the long term is to ensure that community diligently self polices itself to prevent problems from happening, and unfortunately, that means we're only as diligent as the most careless, lazy and, or greedy among us. And we have to be honest here, that there are too many lawful gun owners who are not as picky as they should be about who they'll sell to, and the rest of us will eventually pay for it through further restriction of our rights.

----

On the other hand, I get annoyed at local FFLs who want outrageous transfer fees on the order of $50. I can understand it in the case of a customer ordering a gun on-line when the LGS has the same gun in stock, but one unique items they don;t stock, collectible arms, etc, $50 is just price gouging.

For private sales, I'd like to see the transfer offered by the local sheriffs office at a nominal $5 cost, where a NICS check could be run, or alternatively opening the system up a bit so that a private seller could call in the information and get a proceed or deny on the proposed seller. That would also address the issue of "private" sellers who are buying and selling in amounts and for profits that should push them into FFL status, and it would help reduce straw purchases.

[Blaine]

I can see both sides.

Sorry, but pick a side. Gun violence has been declining over the last couple decades....Why would you want to support liberals who would enact anything that might possibly lead to outright confiscation?

[Model 52B]

I've picked a side, and I'm not in favor of more regulation.

Unfortunately the only thing that will prevent that is a whole lot more personal responsibility in the gun community. Sadly, too many shooters are focused on expressing their "rights", while forgetting that that with rights come responsibility in equal measure, and that their rights stop when someone else's rights are infringed.

What that means is that when we have a mass shooting and the shooter is a prohibited person who obtained the gun via a private sale, we all run the risk of greater federal over sight.

It isn't about "picking sides", it's about picking your side and then actually making it happen and defending it. That means self policing our own community and each and every one of us slapping someone up side the head as necessary when they come across someone tempted to sell a firearm without making a due diligence effort to ensure the buyer can legally own a firearm.

Will that happen? Probably not, as way too many shooters are afraid of offending another shooter, and/or because it's just easier to bitch about politicians and liberals and anyone else but ourselves, while making it a political issue and claiming that firearms are an in-alienable God given right, rather than one written into a Constitution drafted by men, and subject to change by men.

That's far easier than expecting and demanding responsible behavior in our own community and sending a message that irresponsible behavior won't be tolerated. Failing that, we will inevitably have more mass shootings by prohibited individuals and we'll be feeding the anti-gun crowd all the ammo they need to get the votes needed to enact more gun control.

[Blaine]

I've picked a side, and I'm not in favor of more regulation.

Unfortunately the only thing that will prevent that is a whole lot more personal responsibility in the gun community. Sadly, too many shooters are focused on expressing their "rights", while forgetting that that with rights come responsibility in equal measure, and that their rights stop when someone else's rights are infringed.

What that means is that when we have a mass shooting and the shooter is a prohibited person who obtained the gun via a private sale, we all run the risk of greater federal over sight.

It isn't about "picking sides", it's about picking your side and then actually making it happen and defending it. That means self policing our own community and each and every one of us slapping someone up side the head as necessary when they come across someone tempted to sell a firearm without making a due diligence effort to ensure the buyer can legally own a firearm.

Will that happen? Probably not, as way too many shooters are afraid of offending another shooter, and/or because it's just easier to bitch about politicians and liberals and anyone else but ourselves, while making it a political issue and claiming that firearms are an in-alienable God given right, rather than one written into a Constitution drafted by men, and subject to change by men.

That's far easier than expecting and demanding responsible behavior in our own community and sending a message that irresponsible behavior won't be tolerated. Failing that, we will inevitably have more mass shootings by prohibited individuals and we'll be feeding the anti-gun crowd all the ammo they need to get the votes needed to enact more gun control.

Over that? We are in complete disagreement. We ARE born with rights that do not come from a government, and our constitution does not grant these rights, but WE the sovereign demand that the DotGov not pass laws that would in any way interfere with them.
So, to clarify, you would pass laws that supercede the Bill of Rights, and feel the ancient old document is a dynamic piece of paper that can be changed willy nilly? Hillary is looking for a good vice president candidate.

[Model 52B]

Over that? We are in complete disagreement. We ARE born with rights that do not come from a government, and our constitution does not grant these rights, but WE the sovereign demand that the DotGov not pass laws that would in any way interfere with them.
So, to clarify, you would pass laws that supercede the Bill of Rights, and feel the ancient old document is a dynamic piece of paper that can be changed willy nilly? Hillary is looking for a good vice president candidate.

Apparently you had trouble understanding it before - or you're just looking for an argument. Either way, I'll try to say it again more clearly:

I would not choose to pass more gun control laws, but we live in a democracy and like it or not, gun owners are increasingly becoming a minority as the population becomes increasingly urban and as hunting becomes a much less common past time. That means that if we as a community of gun owners don't get our heads out of our collective BUTTS and start ensuring the dumbest among us start acting more responsibly, by personally confronting other shooter's stupidity and unsound behavior and practices that feed the anti-gun cause, the majority of people will impose further gun control laws on us - whether we like it or not.

-----

Otherwise yes, we are in complete disagreement. I choose to live in the real world, and I choose to cling to my rancher roots where what mattered most was personal responsibility and self reliance, not clinging to some vain hope and fantasy that a magical document will remain unchanged from the time of great, great grand father to the time of my great, great grand children. It doesn't work that way, particularly if we don't continue to work hard to EARN those rights and exercise them RESPONIBLY.

Most people seem to be ignorant of the fact, but the Constitution wasn't about individual freedom and liberty - that was actually the Articles of Confederation, the document we operated under from 1777, until we ratified the Constitution in 1789.

The thing is that with the focus on individual freedom and liberty, the Articles of Confederation wasn't very friendly toward business or interstate commerce, so the folks who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation were for the most part not invited to draft the Constitution. The near total lack of protections for individual freedom and liberty in the Constitution caused some problems getting the Constitution ratified, given that the people who fought for freedom and liberty felt it should extend beyond the freedom and liberty for businesses to make money. Consequently, the Bill of Rights (i.e the first 10 amendments) was drafted to put some of those individual freedoms and liberties back into the Constitution as a means of getting the support needed for ratification.

Now, if you care to study up on the subject you'll note that amendments can be both added and repealed from the Constitution and both have happened in the past. Despite all the rhetoric about "God given blah, blah, blah" there's nothing about the Second Amendment that makes it immune from being repealed, and quite frankly the odds of that go way up if we as a community of gun owners decide that our "God given rights" allow us to be irresponsible in exercising those rights, or feel that OUR rights give us a right to trample on the rights and considerations of others.

In other words it's about not coming off as a bunch of ignorant red necks and instead respecting others who might feel differently than us while sending the message that our right to bear arms is exercised responsibly and doesn't infringe on or conflict with their rights.

We're also incomplete disagreement that this is about politics. It isn't. Personal responsibility is what made this country great and it's badly lacking in both parties at the moment. In case you haven't noticed both parties suck and our government has become the private preserve of people and businesses who can afford to buy their own congressman.

And believe it or not gun ownership and interest in shooting sports transcends today's overly narrow definition of "liberal" and "conservative". We gain absolutely nothing by making gun rights and shooting sports about "liberals" or "conservatives" or by offending or scaring off potential shooters and pro-gun votes by suggesting that social or fiscal liberals are not welcome in the shooting community.

[Blaine]

Now, if you care to study up on the subject you'll note that amendments can be both added and repealed from the Constitution and both have happened in the past. Despite all the rhetoric about "God given blah, blah, blah" there's nothing about the Second Amendment that makes it immune from being repealed, and quite frankly the odds of that go way up if we as a community of gun owners decide that our "God given rights" allow us to be irresponsible in exercising those rights, or feel that OUR rights give us a right to trample on the rights and considerations of others.

You're right. When I hear bullox like this, I tend to argue. The mere fact of owning guns, and/or self defense is offensive to the anti-gun crowd. There is not one thing the gun community can do to placate them.
Perhaps my irritation is caused by a cavalier attitude that the constitution is irrelevant, and by necessity, dynamic.
Proper conduct is a given, and I would invite you to give examples of non-criminal activity that "trample the rights" of anti-gun crowd. I'm not talking about hurting their feelings, or offending them, but the true rights enumerated in the constitution.
The rest of your screed had nothing to do with our original conversation. Please feel free to engage in self defense however you wish, but don't look down on the rest of us, either.

[JohndeFresno]

Get rid or vastly limit the ability of prosecutors to use the plea bargain, and limit judges' sentencing discretion accordingly.

I totally understand the rationale behind both - reduced pleas to produce evidence and conviction, reduced sentences for those whose circumstances and background merit some leniency.

However, I have worked with and known many judges, DA's, and prosecuting attorneys for more than 38 years in a professional sense. Several have been my friends who have shared personal and very private views of the system, events, anecdotes, and information about their peers.

I have observed that many if not most judges tend to cave in from doing what is right when election time is a factor - prominent citizen, timing before elections, public pressure of a popular but clearly criminal defendant.

And I have seen, time and time again, DA's and prosecutors who were just lazy and wanted a quick conviction. Or, in the actual words of a prosecutor who lectured me and my comrades at the Basic Police Academy in Fresno many years ago, "It's all about batting averages" - and something like "we need to keep our average high" basically to stay in office. To blazes with all of that. Cherry pick the easy cases and let a violent felon get off easy so he can prey again, next time with more stealth and violence?

Forget about all that gun control nonsense. Instead, enforce the laws that allow, as in California for instance, extremely strict sentences for crimes where a firearm are involved. These riders to the laws are rarely enforced here, unless the thug has seen the can many times or unless somebody dies.

We have some attorneys who read and even post here upon occasion. I challenge anyone in that profession to tell me that I do not speak the truth - at the very least in my state. And if time permits, I will research their area to prove them wrong with clippings or other information. There are good cops, lazy cops, bad cops. The same applies with our legal system, but unfortunately there are far fewer checks and balances when a prosecutor or judge betrays their oaths than when a cop fails. Far too much discretionary power is given to those folks who work in the courtrooms - even to the point that I was always forced to call (for instance) a man "Your Honor" who I knew was snorting cocaine regularly. Couldn't prove it with witnesses who would dare to come forward in court, of course.

This isn't about bashing the legal profession, because there are many well meaning proponents of that profession as I said - several have been or are my friends. But still, it is time to take away the power from the lawyers and empower the average citizen so that he/she can defend his/her family and property. Our justice system has been broken for decades. I am definitely and passionately against any more gun control.

[Griff]

I think the point is, we NEED better hatchet control.

[Blaine]

I think the point is, we NEED better hatchet control.

Nobody axed you that.....

[Griff]

What's got you on edge? Sharpen up, don't go flying off at the handle.

[Blaine]

What's got you on edge? Sharpen up, don't go flying off at the handle.

Some music might help your bad mood....Try Chopin.....

[Batman1939]

Membership should be "polled" on the axe question!!

[JohndeFresno]

Plea bargains and soft sentencing adze to society's victimization!