6 shot 1 dead in Muskogee shopping mall gun battle.

[sharesunited]

http://www.kjrh.com/content/news/breaking/story/One-killed-during-Muskogee-mall-shooting/yS-kFJ4330aXk88lW11zzw.cspx

The natural and expected consequence of guns in the hands of the general public.

[bluestateguy]

1. Ambulance chaser

Demagogue.

[cowman]

2. Meanwhile back

on the ranch where Molly was doing Danny

[DURHAM D]

3. Oh dear - several family members live in Muskogee.

Got to make some phone calls. Thanks for posting.

[sandnsea]

4. It says it's a gang hit

Just for the record here. That would be guns in the hands of criminals.

[cowman]

5. Yeah

but Sharesunited would have you believe that a lawful citizen just pulled his/her gun and started shooting. The tragedy is innocent bystanders got hit. I hope they catch those POS's and mete out the justice they so richly deserve

[sandnsea]

12. Yeah, but that will happen with guns all over

Imagine if 3 or 4 citizens had started shooting too. I get the OP's point, just wasn't the most honest way to make it.

[jazzhound]

17. The fact of the matter is that "*3 or 4*" CC citizens would likely NOT have

started recklessly firing -- because they're much more responsible than the anti-gunners would like you to believe. If say......*1* CC holder had a clean shot, though, and taken out one of these punks who were putting the lives of countless innocents at risk -- would you have a problem with that?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jazzhound]

22. The anti-gunner remark was honestly not intended in a pejorative manner.

Let me know what works for you.

You don't have to tell me that it's not easy to hit a moving target -- as a shooter I'm well aware of that fact. I was simply objecting to the false characterization of CC holders being "quick on the trigger". Sure seemed to me that you were implying that.

[sandnsea]

29. gun regulators is fine

And it seems to me that you were pretty quick on the trigger to falsely characterize my comment about 3 or 4 people shooting.

[jazzhound]

31. My apologies if I misconstrued your remark........

......but hopefully you can appreciate the fact that RKBA folks have become sensitized to the "guns blazing" characterization so dishonestly leveled at us with such frequency!

[sandnsea]

39. 3 or 4 shooters, IS guns blazing

Because, as you admit, it's hard to hit a moving target.

[jazzhound]

44. Perhaps we're not understanding each other.......

Are you making the suggesting that if there were 3 or 4 CC holders in the area of the criminal shooters that they would have automatically felt compelled to start shooting? I'm *honestly* not following your point.

And yes, of course 3 or 4 shooters could be described as "blazing guns"........but it's been my experience that this type of language doesn't serve to enhance dialogue -- as it's cliche nature tends to put others on the defensive.

[sandnsea]

52. If everyone is armed

Then can you honestly say that it would be odd for 3 or 4 people, out of 100 or more, to shoot?

I didn't use the term "blazing guns", you did.

[jazzhound]

61. You are creating a false scenario (strawman)

In states which allow for CC, not *everyone* chooses to get licenses. I don't know what the actual numbers are, but it's really not that many. Of those that do, history has proven that they are not irresponsible with their firearms. There are two questions pending.
1) If a CC holder in the situation in question had an *absolutely safe shot*, and could have taken out the criminal as he was recklessly shooting (and therefore endangering many) would you have a problem with that CC holder trying to stop the criminal?
2) If, as you claim, the gun experiment "hasn't worked" why are shall-issue states on the increase, and why hasn't *one* repealed this legislation?

[sandnsea]

66. I didn't say anything about permits either

I said it would not be good if 3 or 4 more people added to the shooting. That's it. I didn't make any qualifiers about state laws or who has a license or who doesn't. I made a simple comment that reflects a "guns for everybody" attitude that I read whenever there is a shooting.

[cowman]

68. Fair enough

How do you feel about a law abiding citizen that goes through all the steps to obtain a CHL?

[sandnsea]

70. I think they're on a gun list n/t

[cowman]

72. I don't know what you mean by that post.

Please explain

[sandnsea]

73. I think CCW lists are gunowner lists

I think it's comical that gunowners like them so much when the main thing they oppose is a registry of gunowners. That's what CCW is and if the "libs" wanted to "grab guns", that's where they'd go first.

[cowman]

75. I think that the myth of Libs wanting

to grab guns is just that, a myth, but would you have any problem with a law abiding citizen carrying concealed if they went thru the permit process?

[sandnsea]

76. I think there should be a very real need

I don't think just anybody should wander around carrying concealed weapons. More guns is not the answer.

[cowman]

81. And I respect your opinion

on that, however you are responsible for your own safety and I myself do have a CHL because i refuse to become a victim of crime even though the chances of it are low, but I would also try to get out of a bad situation if at all possible without gunfire, but I won't hesitate to defend myself or others if some asshole of a criminal left me absolutely no choice at all, owning or carrying a gun is not for just anyone and I strongly advise anyone who wants to go buy a gun for the first time to go to a range that rents guns and see if it is for them.

But hey we all have our opinion and your and mine are different but we can respectfully disagree


Well I have to get some sleep before the next alarm.
Have a good night
Peace Out:fistbump:

[Callisto32]

130. How would you define need?

Who gets to be the final arbiter of what a need is? You? Me? Bob down the street? Some judge? A politician that talks about "shoulder things that go up?"

I'm not trying to be flip. I see this as a very real problem with any would-be legal standard that purports to determine "need."

My standard reply to the need argument is all that I need is air, water, heat, and food.

[jazzhound]

83. You "think" CCW lists are "gunowner lists"?

No wonder you're not responding to my fair and respectfully tendered questions. You don't even comprehend what you're being asked. Now I get it.

Obviously, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's equally obvious that an educated opinion trumps an uneducated opinion every time. I suggest you get a remedial education on what we're talking about here.

You've told us what you think is comical. What I think is comical is that you seem to believe that you don't need to know anything about the subject we're discussing!

[sandnsea]

85. I know what a CCW is

I was asked an opinion and I gave it. I think CCWs are comical and ironical. In many states they require lessons and background checks and all the things gun advocates oppose, and create a list of the most zealous gunowners in the area, which gun advocates also oppose. I understand that isn't the legal intent, but it is the unintended consequence.

[gorfle]

89. This gunowner DOESN'T like them.

I think it's comical that gunowners like them so much when the main thing they oppose is a registry of gunowners. That's what CCW is and if the "libs" wanted to "grab guns", that's where they'd go first.

One of the primary reasons I don't have a CCW permit that I do not like the idea of registering with the government to exercise my second amendment rights.

I would greatly prefer a system like they have in Vermont where you can carry firearms with no permit.

[Euromutt]

91. Registries of gun owners are not the same as registries of guns

Being in a database of CCW permit holders means that you very probably (but by no means certainly) own a gun, specifically a handgun, but that's all it does. It doesn't constitute an itemized list of your entire collection--handguns and long guns alike--right down to the serial numbers.

[Callisto32]

131. What Euromutt said.

I'm glad this articulate fellow is on the RKBA side.

[AtheistCrusader]

116. Federal Registry is illegal.

State CPL's aren't a federal registry.

Semantics, I know, but there is a difference.

[PavePusher]

80. Your insinuations were quite evident. n/t

[tburnsten]

90. All of us here support gun regulations

The only thing is, many of us who are very familiar with the laws due to shooting recreationally and/or for food or defense feel that the number and style of laws we already have are more than sufficient, and the new laws that many who are not interested in guns propose generally would have either zero impact on crime or safety or once in a great while a negative impact on safety.

The U.S. has about 20,000 gun laws on the books already. I think we need to trim some back and simplify them. Even a tax attorney would lose it's mind trying to deal with the ATF if they set their minds to some irrational decision.

Like a shoelace being a machine gun all by itself.

[X_Digger]

20. But that doesn't happen..

We've had 47 years of CHL (starting with Washington state) and 23 years of the 'modern' era 'shall-issue' licensing (starting with Florida).

You'd think with that amount of history, if it were likely to happen, it would have.

[sandnsea]

26. It's been culturally unacceptable

and for the most part, illegal, for at least 100 years. Recent changes in the law and culture will lead to more of those incidents. It's inevitable. That's why the law and culture changed in the first place.

[cowman]

42. I know

I wouldn't take the shot unless I was absolutely sure that my shot would not endanger innocent bystanders, but I would have my gun out ready to go in case the opportunity presented itself. Unlike the popular myth, gun owners are not just itching to get into gunfights

[X_Digger]

45. "More" indicates that it's happened at least once..

Are you aware of an incident like this at some other time? *scratches head*

[sandnsea]

69. People don't do this anymore

That's the point. If they did, there would be many more innocents unintentionally shot in crossfire. Why do you think there is increased training, safety measures, rules of engagement, for cops?

How can you sit there and pretend innocent people don't get shot from crossfire?

[X_Digger]

95. When has a CHL'er / open carrier been involved, though?

Since that's who we're talking about.

[tburnsten]

129. Ummm

Because a concealed carry license doesn't make you a cop?

[Callisto32]

132. I think you would find that most CCW holders would be more worried about getting out.

A rational person does not seek a fight, especially an armed one.

[jazzhound]

77. "That's why the law and culture changed in the first place"

Well, this much you got right. The law and culture are changing in favor of gun rights because the shoot-outs that are always predicted as states allow their citizens to carry never materialize.

[krispos42]

84. It's unlikely, actually.

95% of all murdered people are killed in single-victim murder incidents. It's been fairly steady for decades.




And the murder rate is down 40% from 1990.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. CCW holders are much better shots than gangbangers.

Gang members don't aim their shots. They just point in the general direction and shoot. With rare exception, they are lousy shots. That's why they hit so many bystanders.

Because it was in a crowded mall, a CCWer would likely have chosen to not make the shot, unless the area behind the gangster was clear.

[sandnsea]

40. Says you

I suspect there are some who would be responsible, and some that wouldn't. But we already had the armed society experiment, back in the 1800s, and decided it didn't work.

[cowman]

43. No.

Politicians decided it didn't work and it sure didn't stop criminals from arming themselves and leaving the general public at their mercy

[jazzhound]

47. A DIRECT question........

.........if the CC experiment "hasn't worked" why are shall-issue states on the increase rather than the decrease, and why hasn't a SINGLE state with shall-issue laws repealed said laws?

[sandnsea]

54. No no, the everybody armed experiment

That's the one I'm talking about.

[GreenStormCloud]

50. Actually, it worked quite well.

The Old West had very little common street crime. Homicide rate was much lower than modern times too. The Wild West was a myth created by dime novels and later by movies.

Early gun control laws were enacted to keep Blacks, Indians, and Immigrants from being armed.

Of the 40 states that have shall-issue laws, none have reported any problems with it.

[sandnsea]

55. Yes and the civil war was not about slavery

There isn't any way to talk about anything with someone who revises history.

I've done enormous research on the Old West, particularly Butte MT. It was no myth.

[PavePusher]

138. Provide some supporting evidence, please? n/t

[S_B_Jackson]

94. One could say the same to you....

I suspect there are some who would be responsible, and some that wouldn't. But we already had the armed society experiment, back in the 1800s, and decided it didn't work.

Tell that to the James-Younger Gang. Ask them how things turned out in Northfield, MN?

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

126. Yeah your

right, we would have hit and stopped the bad guy.

[Travis Coates]

112. You really need to do some research

there has been a trend over the last few years for certain gang bangers to join the military, do a tour in Iraq/ Afghanistan, come back and teach the small unit tactics they learned to there buddies.

[GreenStormCloud]

120. I am aware that it sometimes happens, but it rarely works.

But the typical gang-banger is still a lousy shot. Developing accuracy with a handgun takes lots of practice. Gangbangers rarely have access to firing ranges to develop the skills.

The gangbangers don't have access to all the materials that the military has to train recruits.

BTW - Pet peeve of mine. You used "to there buddies. " That is wrong. It is "their buddies".

[Travis Coates]

141. You're right sorry about the mispelling NNTO

[X_Digger]

6. yup..

"Detectives are investigating what they believe was a targeted killing and an incident of gang-related violence."

Another casualty of the War-on-'Some'-Drugs most likely.

[ManiacJoe]

7. Criminals doing bad things. No surprise here.

Looks like the original article title was updated to be more accurate (battle vs shooting).

Shares, you seem to be using a non-standard definition of "general public". Care to define your version? Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be defining "general public" as "gang members".

[cowman]

9. given his

past bias, I think we all know what he was trying to convey.

Once again shares
0 points awarded

[ManiacJoe]

10. Very true.

But I am willing to give him the opportunity to redeem himself (or dig the hole deeper). :evilgrin:

[cowman]

15. Well

he just dug his hole deeper now if only he would throw himself in it

[sharesunited]

11. A society in which guns are abundant gives criminals easy access.

Yes, gang members are members of the general public unless they are currently incarcerated.

And no differentiation is relevant when the trigger is pulled and the bullets fly.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

21. Easy access to what? nt

[GreenStormCloud]

46. Criminals get access to guns anyway.

In Germany guns, especially full-auto, are super tightly regulated. Yet the Red Army Faction of terrorists always had no problems having submachinguns.

Guns are very tightly regulated in Mexico, yet the cartels have lots of them. They have full-auto and RPGs and they aren't getting those from the U.S. either.

Guns are banned in Japan, yet the Japanese Red Army had plenty of them, full-auto too.

[Merchant Marine]

122. Izhhevsk, Norinco and the Khyber Pass

War on Drugs becomes the War on Drugs n' Guns.

Same outcome, 'cept nobody's ever trained a gun sniffing dog.

[Callisto32]

133. I don't think you know how "general public" works. At least not the way social science uses it.

Well, political science anyway.

"General Public/Population" is by definition, everyone. It includes those currently in prison.

You use general population as a comparison population only in very limited circumstances, since it often provides little data. It is most useful when saying "compared to the general population, X population is Y." You would compare a select population to the general population to show for how much of a certain phenomena an identifiable group is responsible.

Bullets don't fly, they fall. Some resist falling better than others, but they all do it.

[jazzhound]

14. Just needed to note that i *really* respect your restraint, given the

consistently disingenuous nature of the author's argumentation.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cliffordu]

16. How many motherfuckers killed with cars, today?

what's the difference?


Intent???

So fucking what?

The dead don't care.

[sharesunited]

19. Do you think you have a Constitutional right to own a car?

Do you assume the risk of car accidents by riding in cars?

Do you think merely being present at the mall is assumption of the risk of getting shot? (Apparently you do!)

[cliffordu]

23. I think living leads to death.

the manner means little.

[cowman]

27. You are right

we are all dying the minute we are conceived

[cowman]

25. No you don't have a constitutional

right to own a car but you do have a constitutional right to own a firearm,

[sharesunited]

28. Only by deliberately misinterpreting the 2A.

[cowman]

32. I think the

SCOTUS would and has disagreed with you and don't give me the crap about the conservative bend of the court, during arguments Heller v DC, all 9 justices agreed that the 2nd Amend conveyed an individual right to RKBA not a collective right

[sharesunited]

41. Justices once agreed that blacks had no rights which whites were bound to respect.

Time changes opinions.

And bullet wounds will too.

Especially now that health care is a right.

[jazzhound]

48. You're absolutely correct -- time does change opinions

Which is why support for gun control is eroding and more states are opting to allow mentally stable law abiding citizens to carry.

Read 'em and weap.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

57. Yep, sooner or later

your kind seem to always resort to derogatory terms

[sharesunited]

59. Worship is derogatory? Depends what you are worshiping I guess.

[jazzhound]

62. Do you really think folks reading this thread don't see through your

brazen dishonesty?

[cowman]

63. Nope, the term gun love

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cowman]

49. If that were true than

why is support for gun control at a all time low and more and more states are loosening their gun laws? Not even the SCOTUS agrees with you. Just admit it, your side has lost and don't expect to see any tightening of gun laws in your lifetime

[sharesunited]

56. Alas, with more incidents just like Muskogee to result as the natural and expected consequence.

[cowman]

60. I bet you've

been saying that for years and everytime another state loosens its gun laws you must feel the despair of knowing that you are loosing the gun control debate

[sharesunited]

65. The moment of despair is when another mass shooting occurs. Ceaseless. Inevitable.

[cowman]

67. You do know

that crime, including murder, is down? What do you have against law abiding citizens owning and possessing guns?

[Callisto32]

135. Some decisions of the court are, indeed, bad.

The Slaughterhouse Cases immediately come to mind.

Bullet wounds certainly inflame the passions.

Health care is not a right. It cannot be. To make health care a right, you have to force someone else to provide it. If you force someone to provide a service, you are enslaving that person. Nothing that requires slavery can be a right, because it requires the abrogation of the rights of another.

[Xenotime]

102. Thank you for standing up for true progressive thought.

[cowman]

105. I thought that progressive

thought meant standing up for all rights? How would you feel if I said you dont have the right to free speech because what you say about the 2nd Amend offends me? You would scream bloody murder about me trying to suppress your rights so go and learn about the BoR and then get back to us after you learn something

[Xenotime]

123. Here is what progressive means...

"Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform. Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies." - Wikipedia. If you want to stand with the freepers that is your choice.

There is no right to free speech. Only speech that the general populous agrees with is really allowed. Even that changes over time as in some old movies where their speech was very racist but is not allowed today.

Same as with the 2nd Amendment. The SCOTUS has voted for it because there has been a popular opinion that everybody should be allowed to pack heat. Hopefully with Obama's new appointee we can change that.

[cowman]

127. Stand with the freepers?

Most of the posters here are progressives and your interpertation is a hell of alot different than ours. What are you, a troll?
If you think the SCOTUS is going to change the meaning of the 2nd Amend with a new appointee, your delusional, Obama is replacing one Liberal with another Liberal, how does that change anything?
The gun control crowd has lost just about every issue since 1994 and the trend is for less gun control which is supported overwhelmingly by the american people. And what do you mean racist speech is not allowed? Do people get arrested for SAYING SOMETHING RACIST? No they get arrested for racist acts committed on another person.
You really should learn about the BoR.

[Callisto32]

136. I advocate CHANGING the restrictions on gun ownership.

So I guess that is a progressive viewpoint.

If you already have a good system, seeking to change it is counter-productive. In that case, "progressive" ideas become a hindrance to society.

Your definition is lacking, politically, because it relies on change, without taking into account the viability of the change sought.

[PavePusher]

139. No Right to Free Speech?!

What is wrong with you?

There certainly is such a Right, and we've been steadily working on expanding it and getting away from your stated limitations. Quite succesfully too, I would say.

Although there are still people in all parts of politics who would stiffle others if they could.

[SteveM]

106. Yeah, rank prohibitionism seems "progressive." Like the W.O.D. nt

[Katya Mullethov]

110. As long as it's framed

as a war on "them" it's a lot more palatable to a lotta folks .

[krispos42]

86. Yup, I have the right to own a car.

I have the right to own anything not on a specific prohibited list. A car is not a controlled substance, for example. I can buy a car for cash from anybody that has one to sell.

Can I drive it on public roads? Well, that depends on a multitude of factors. But I can own it no problem.

[Callisto32]

137. Krispos,

I wish you would not define your rights as "what the politicians tell me they are." You do this, implicitly, when you say "anything not on a specific prohibited list." Is it not just as possible, that those lists of prohibitions infringe on your right to own what you wish, and have the resources to acquire, so long as you don't do harm in the process?

[Callisto32]

134. Going into public absolutely assumes the risk of being victimized in that public.

All actions carry risk.

[aikoaiko]

24. Why not wait until more facts come out about who was shooting and who was shot?

:shrug:

[sharesunited]

30. That's really beside the point, isn't it? Guns were available and rounds were shot.

That's because this is America.

[jazzhound]

34. It's only "beside the point" in your narrow view of the subject. n/t

[aikoaiko]

37. I guess not given your extreme position on civilian gun ownership.

But for me it matters whether or not these shots were fired from a legal gun owner or not.

[Euromutt]

93. It is far from beside the point; criminals can acquire guns in any country

It doesn't matter how tight the local gun control laws are. Organized criminals in the UK, the Netherlands, Japan, even China can quite readily acquire firearms if they want them. And in China, the most powerful projectile weapon a private citizen can own is a .177-cal air rifle, and even that requires a permit. Rival gangsters whacking each other is something that happens all over the world, by no means only in the United States.

Even if you could completely criminalize private firearms ownership in the United States, this sort of thing would still happen, just as it does elsewhere.

[Tejas]

33. "The natural and expected consequence of..."

The natural and expected consequence of GUN-FREE ZONES. (<------- fixed it for you)

CHEER ALONG WITH ME SHARES, HOORAY FOR GUN-FREE ZONES!

[jazzhound]

36. Good job, Tejas! n/t

[sharesunited]

51. They can be improved though, by expanding them into a single seamless one.

From sea to shining sea.

[cowman]

58. Ha ha ha

you're a funny person, delusional, but funny

[ManiacJoe]

64. I'm willing to humor you.

Let's hear your proposal on how that might be done.

In fact, I will help you out. I am only really curious about half the plan, the half that disarms the Bad Guys. (I will let you explain how you propose to disarm the Good Guys later.)

[sharesunited]

71. Obvious first step is to shut down retail commerce in new guns and ammo.

Before we can turn this runaway train around, we first must slow it to a halt.

[cowman]

74. So lets just carry this to its next step

with a lathe and drill press I could manufacture a gun, so what's next, ban lathes and drill presses and what about guns being smuggled in? Do you honestly think that criminals won't get guns, now you've just put honest law abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals. Nice going there Shares

[sharesunited]

79. What progress we will have made when home workshops are the headwaters of the gun trade.

[Katya Mullethov]

96. I switched to propane last weekend

And increased production by 50 percent over mesquite . Cast 15 pounds of balls in 2.5 hours . No knock at the door yet though , keep on dreamin ' ya'll.

[ManiacJoe]

82. Wrong half of the plan.

If you could get the Constitution amended, and if you could then get such a ban passed, you might start to disarm the Good Guys.

The question still stands: What is your proposal for disarming the Bad Guys.

[Katya Mullethov]

97. It's gonna be a suprise

Well , for some it will be .
What a painfully clever question ! Well played Sir !
And we already know the answer dont we ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Geu0R4xGAi4

[slackmaster]

100. sharesunited obviously wants to raise prices so that only rich people have guns and ammo

sharesunited hates poor people.

[friendly_iconoclast]

111. And the second step would be border controls a la East Germany.

The fact there's quite the over-border trade in both undocumented people and pharmacuticals would make a Great Wall of America necessary for your dream to succeed- a subject you seem unwilling to address.

[slackmaster]

99. Gun-free, with the notable exception of guns in the hands of government employees

Whose job it is to make sure that only they have guns.

No, I don't want my country turned into a police state.

[Katya Mullethov]

108. To paraphrase NORML

You can either be free or gun free . Pick one .

[Tejas]

115. Touche, chilling when you think about it.

Then again, there's a few here that don't care to think about anything but deciding between Idol and that dance show thingy.

"You can either be free or gun free . Pick one . "


Gotta get that sticker!

[Travis Coates]

113. You mean

Something like the seamless , sea to shinging sea ban on cocaine? How's that working out for you?

[Tejas]

114. You are a genius, let's ban porn too!

Just think Shares, ban porn = no more rapes! No more rapes from sea to shining sea!


Ban porn for everybody (except Shares and me!)

[dashrif]

87. I

don't think that mall is gun free most malls in Oklahoma are not it has stopped people from being robbed in the parking lot around christmas

more info A.H. Jones, president of the Ministerial Union of Muskogee, said, “All witnesses gave the same statement of who the shooter was. It’s a turf war.”

Read more: http://newsok.com/1-dead-at-least-5-injured-in-muskogee-mall-shooting/article/3453049?custom_click=lead_story_photo#ixzz0kluldViw

[proteus_lives]

35. Ban malls.

"The natural and expected consequence of guns in the hands of the general public."

Completely false. It's the consequence of criminal or emotional behavior.

Millions of Americans use and carry firearms without consequence. You'll ignore that fact but it's there.

[gorfle]

88. More like the natural and expected consequences of gang warfare.

From the article:

"Detectives are investigating what they believe was a targeted killing and an incident of gang-related violence."

These people operate outside the law. They don't respect any firearm laws currently. What firearm laws would you propose that would stop them?

[shadowrider]

92. Gang related. 'Nuff said.

[Xenotime]

103. You bring up an interesting point...

Perhaps there needs to be regulation regarding those who wish to 'gang' together like this. This could help put down the RW cells that organize to over throw the government.

[oneshooter]

104. Remember, that law can be used against the LW also.

Be careful of what you wish for. You may regret getting it.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

107. Um, I think regulating "those who wish to 'gang' together" is unconstitutional...

Certainly, if their activities were in furtherance of gang activities, then these could be additional charges. In the old Soviet Union (and quite possibly under the new regime), people were banned from gathering in groups of more than two or three. I don't want to see this kind of thing in the U.S.

I'm betting these punks have juvenile records, but are now seeking "juice" (demonstrations of strength and being "cold" by killing others) to better serve the in their new home; hopefully, they will not be enabled, romanced or provided political succor in order to move them from their new home for, say, 50-60 years or for the rest of their lives.

[cowman]

109. So we start down that slippery slope

where does it stop? And what about LW groups that advocated the killing of GW, should their gun rights be stripped? Just because RW and LW talk isn't a reason to restrict their rights, once again, how would you feel if I attempted to restrict your 1st Amend right because I dont like your stance on the 2nd Amend.? I suspect you wouldn't like it one bit so leave my 2nd Amend right alone and I'll leave your 1st Amend right alone

[Xenotime]

124. I just saying it should be regulated, licensed/permitted and made known to the state..

This can be something the local authorities can administer and collect money from to help meet their budgets. California would be in the black if they had this in place.

After that the group can do what they set out to do. That way, you don't have to catch a gang banger or RW terrorist cell with a gun(s) in hand, you just arrest them for not being registered.

[Euromutt]

125. Ever hear of "Haynes v. United States"?

Case from 1969; the SCOTUS ruled that a person legally prohibited from possessing a firearm cannot be prosecuted for failing to register it, as doing so would contravene his right against self-incrimination. The National Firearms Act had to be amended to get round that one (now, the person from whom the weapon is being transferred is responsible for registering the new owner, not the person receiving the weapon).

[cowman]

128. Jeeez

I can't even keep up with you dumba** logic

[PavePusher]

140. You really have no grasp on what you are suggesting, do you?

Uncle Joe would have loved you.

If such a policy were put into action, or proposed as law, you would have Civil War II started about 15 minute later. And I'd be helping to lead the charge.

[cowman]

142. And I would be right behind you

[slackmaster]

98. More like a natural and expected consequence of failing to incarcerate violent criminals

I don't even have to read the story to know that it has something to do with gang activity.

[Mother Smuckers]

101. This story can not be true, that mall is a gun-free zone.

Muskogee is my home town, I know Arrowhead very well, guns aren't permitted in there so obviously the story is simply impossible.

[shadowrider]

117. Of course it's impossible

We all know bad guys obey laws and never, ever, ever take weapons in where they aren't allowed.

Do I need a sarcasm tag?

[Mother Smuckers]

118. No, you don't need it for me. I can't speak for everyone, though.

I actually am from Muskogee...and my friends and I literally LOLd when Merl Haggard recorded that song. We used to light up a doob and play it on the stereo, giggling uncontrollably. Or flatulating, depending on our mood. :D

Oddly enough, we all had owned guns since we were pre-adolescent and none of us ever shot each other or anyone else.
Only varmints and the occasional critter for supper.

[Travis Coates]

119. Why

Clearly, you're stating what all the antis believe

[Tejas]

143. a belated welcome to the Gungeon - nt