Skip to main content

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
 

Then why did you and so many others blame the "Gun free zone" when Newtown happened. I remember reading post after post saying that if only people could carry guns on school grounds this wouldn't happen. 

 

Were you wrong then?

 

I watched the news last night and they had a principal from a Huntsville school on there saying it was against federal law to carry a gun on school campus. A friend that did go to the meeting told me that it was made very clear, at the meeting in Elgin, that you can't carry a gun on school campus. Are they all lying?

We blame the gun free zone because it creates an environment where criminals feel empowered the commit crimes under the impression that there would be little resistance.  At the same time, it create s a feeling among those that would carry (or those that might consider carrying) that it is against the law to do so (when it clearly is not based on, one, the wording of the law and, two, the example in Huntsville where the school board WANTED the person prosecuted yet NO ONE COULD PROSECUTE HIM).

Schools are stating what they need to state to give the appearance that it is illegal - BUT, if you look at the recent article in the Timesdaily, UNA admints that they CANNOT ban employees from having guns on campus (in their cars) and that all they can do, if a NON STUDENT has one on campus is ask them to leave (they are arrested for TRESPASSING if they refuse) or ask them to 'check' their weapon with the campus police.

 

So, for all the headlines and discussions about NO GUNS ALLOWED AT UNA, turns out, that headline isn't exactly true.  Same with some of these statements you are hearing floated around from many of the school systems.  NO GUNS ALLOWED - yet they cant legally ban employees from having them. 

 

It all goes back to what I said earlier about the 'gun free zones' - give the appearance that it is illegal and 90% wont question whether it really is or not.....

I am not going to waste my day arguing.  I know that everyone has an opinion on this, and no, I see no need to guns in schools with the exception of a police resource officer.  This is an elementary school and guns just aren't needed there.  it can be spun all different ways, but I don't want them around my family.  I realize others feel differently, but that doesn't mean that anyone has to call names or be rude.  The school posted no weapons and that should be respected.  I don't want to see people with guns in the hallways or wonder if that guy or this woman has one hidden.  I am not the only person who feels this way, and it doesn't make me anything less than anyone who feels differently.  

Originally Posted by frog:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

Like a wise man once said Captain; when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.


The resource officer is down the hall with his gun and his training.   He has a radio, too.  Or should there be armed guards at the door of each classroom to make sure all are safe?  Really?  

Do you really believe armed parents are going to hang around their kids school all day?  You do realize it's you who is the gun nut if you really believe there are deranged people with CCP's prowling the halls of our schools.

Jank - you can post all the 'opinion' pieces (ie opinions given in the papers) you like.  Truth of the matter is, when the rubber HIT the road in 2012, and they had a loaded gun found on a high school campus, the police ADMITTED they could not charge him because it was not illegal AND that the federal law REQUIRED that the person had to have the intent to do bodily harm.  All the school district could do was ban the guy from school property, which they did.

 

As for the Decatur article and employees - UNA has already admitted that they cannot ban employees from having guns on campus even with the Federal law in place.

 

All you are posting is people giving their opinions based on what they want to see in the law.  Ive show an actual example of what happens when someone carries a gun on an Alabama campus.

Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by frog:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by frog:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by frog:

This is an elementary school.  The rule is no weapons.  Why break that unless a person is looking for trouble?

 

 

Why would you feel a person carrying is "looking for trouble".  Is it because you would not be able to control yourself if you carried a gun.  If so, you need to seek professional help now.


Insulting me isn't helping anything.  What I said wasn't that AL law said one thing or another.  What I said was it is posted, clearly stated that no weapons are allowed on campus.  Were you planning to pet a kitty with a gun?  Seriously, they are made to shoot people with.  Isn't that bodily harm?  You aren't needed to protect campus since that is already done, so what exactly besides inflicting bodily harm do you need one for?  And why on an elementary school campus?  I don't assume most people can't control themselves, but I know that some do have issues with that.  


Why would you think I would want to pet a kitty with a gun?  Is that what you would do if you had a gun?  The comments you make are based on feelings you have.  If you believe it is dangerous to carry a weapon in a concealed manner, it's really because you don't think you can trust yourself.  What you are doing is projecting your issues on others.  I don't have those issues, so stop.  I find it insulting that the reason you feel people CCW is to start "trouble".


No, it isn't about trusting myself, but nice try at reflecting.  I trust myself and my kids fine.  I have no idea who is nuts and who isn't, and that could be a guy with a gun or one without one.  No offense, but I don't know you at all, and saying you don't mean any harm doesn't impress me a lot.  I made the start trouble comment only because the school I am referring to does have a resource officer, has security precautions in effect, and a clear rule that no weapons are allowed.  The parents send their kids to that school with that understanding and the students are generally under the impression that there aren't people wandering around carrying guns, and if I see you wandering campus with your gun (and just because one is concealed doesn't mean no one sees it), then I am not going to assume you are a great guy and not going to harm anyone.  It is a campus and there is no reason for anyone besides the resource officer to carry a gun there...it is posted not to. If you do carry one after seeing that sign you are deliberately breaking the school's rules on having weapons, and why would you do that?  You aren't needed to protect anyone, and so what would be the reason?

It's actually DEFLECTING.  Mine was an observation of your expressed thoughts.  I actually am needed to protect someone, ME and of course my family.  Don't worry, if some crazy liberal is stabbing, running over, and/or shooting you, I'll gladly keep my weapon holstered. 

I really hate to break it to you, but the school's rules have no backing of the law.


No, it was reflecting, but it doesn't matter if you understood my comment or not.  Crazy liberal?  Okay.  There is no chance of a crazy non-liberal with a gun...you know, the legally carrying or the one who feels the need to carry on elementary campuses.  Right.  K.  As I said, I'm not arguing about it...it is what it is.

Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by frog:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

Like a wise man once said Captain; when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.


The resource officer is down the hall with his gun and his training.   He has a radio, too.  Or should there be armed guards at the door of each classroom to make sure all are safe?  Really?  

Do you really believe armed parents are going to hang around their kids school all day?  You do realize it's you who is the gun nut if you really believe there are deranged people with CCP's prowling the halls of our schools.


Why do you add an insult every time you post to me?  I didn't say anything of the sort.  My point was that I don't think that.  And I would like to keep it that way.  

I am just trying to find out the truth Captain. You know that I am a gun owner and I support the 2nd amendment. I also support laws and regulations surrounding the ownership and carrying of a gun. So to make sure that I am not breaking any laws or risk losing my right to carry I need to be clear. 

 

 

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/alabama.pdf

 

Places Off-Limits Even With A Permit/License

Section 6. (a) In addition to any other place limited or prohibited by state or federal law, a person, including
a person with a permit issued under Section 13A-11-75(a)(1) or recognized under Section 13A-11-85, Code
of Alabama 1975, may not knowingly possess or carry a firearm in any of the following places without the
express permission of a person or entity with authority over the premises:
(1) Inside the building of a police, sheriff, or highway patrol station.
(2) Inside or on the premises of a prison, jail, halfway house, community corrections facility, or other
detention facility for those who have been charged with or convicted of a criminal or juvenile offense.
(3) Inside or on the premises of a facility which provides inpatient or custodial care of those with psychiatric,
mental, or emotional disorders.
(4) Inside a courthouse, courthouse annex, a building in which a District Attorney's office is located, or a
building in which a county commission or city council is currently having a regularly scheduled or specially
called meeting.
(5) Inside any facility hosting an athletic event not related to or involving firearms which is sponsored by a
private or public elementary or secondary school or any private or public institution of postsecondary
education, unless the person has a permit issued under Section
13A-11-75(a)(1) or recognized under Section 13A-11-85.
(6) Inside any facility hosting a professional athletic event not related to or involving firearms, unless the
person has a permit issued under Section 13A-11-75(a)(1) or recognized under Section
13A-11-85.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person, including a person with a permit issued under
Section 13A-11-75(a)(1) or recognized under Section 13A-11-85, Code of Alabama 1975, may not, without
the express permission of a person or entity with authority over the premises, knowingly possess or carry a
firearm inside any building or facility to which access of unauthorized persons and prohibited articles is
limited during normal hours of operation by the continuous posting of guards and the use of other security
features, including, but not limited to, magnetometers, key cards, biometric screening devices, or turnstiles or
other physical barriers.
(c) The person or entity with authority over the premises set forth in subsections (a)(1)-(6) and subsection (b)
shall place a notice at the public entrances of such premises or buildings alerting those entering that firearms
are prohibited. (d) Except as provided in subsections (a)(5) and (a)(6), any firearm on the premises of any
facility set forth in subsection (a)(1), or subsections (a)(4)-(6), or subsection (b) must be kept from ordinary
observation and locked within a compartment or in the interior of the person's motor vehicle or in a
compartment or container securely affixed to the motor vehicle.
Section 13A-11-72
Premises of a public school. The term "public school" as used in this section applies only to a school
composed of grades K-12 and shall include a school bus used for grades K-12
(c) Subject to the exceptions provided by Section 13A-11-74, no person shall knowingly with intent to do
bodily harm carry or possess a deadly weapon on the premises of a public school.
(d) Possession of a deadly weapon with the intent to do bodily harm on the premises of a public school in
violation of subsection (c) of this section is a Class C felony.
(e) Law enforcement officers are exempt from this section, and persons with pistol permits issued pursuant to
Section 13A-11-75, are exempt from the provisions of subsection (c) of this section.
Section 13A-11-5

 

Seems that if a school post a sign saying "No guns" then regardless of whether you have a permit or not, you will be breaking the law. 

 

That is also what I have been told by those that attended the meeting last night. 

Originally Posted by frog:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
Originally Posted by frog:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

Like a wise man once said Captain; when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.


The resource officer is down the hall with his gun and his training.   He has a radio, too.  Or should there be armed guards at the door of each classroom to make sure all are safe?  Really?  

Do you really believe armed parents are going to hang around their kids school all day?  You do realize it's you who is the gun nut if you really believe there are deranged people with CCP's prowling the halls of our schools.


Why do you add an insult every time you post to me?  I didn't say anything of the sort.  My point was that I don't think that.  And I would like to keep it that way.  


If you can't handle constructive response to your posts, then maybe you shouldn't come here.  I'll post a sign that you're not allowed;  that should do it.

Originally Posted by seeweed:

As long as there seem to be a group  of people dead set on making gun purchases easy for crazy people and felons to obtain, we will continue to have senseless killings. Our two senators or part of that problem.

 

Ahhhh...but you seem to be forgetting that gun crime has actually decreased quite a bit since the hounds were released.  Odd huh?

There is a difference between 'inside' a building and on campus.  On campus includes any property owned by the school - inside refers to the buildings themselves.  I could have misread the discussion, but I believe we have been referring to 'on campus' - which would include parking lots, sidewalks, etc.  According to the information you posted, it is not illegal to carry a concealed firearm on campus, providing you are doing so legally -

 

 A person......may not knowingly possess or carry a firearm in any of the following places without the express permission of a person or entity with authority over the premises:

 

(5) Inside any facility hosting an athletic event not related to or involving firearms which is sponsored by a private or public elementary or secondary school or any private or public institution of postsecondary education, unless the person has a permit issued under Section
13A-11-75(a)(1) or recognized under Section 13A-11-85.
(6) Inside any facility hosting a professional athletic event not related to or involving firearms, unless the person has a permit issued under Section 13A-11-75(a)(1) or recognized under Section 13A-11-85.

 

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person, including a person with a permit issued under Section 13A-11-75(a)(1) or recognized under Section 13A-11-85, Code of Alabama 1975, may not, without the express permission of a person or entity with authority over the premises, knowingly possess or carry a firearm inside any building or facility to which access of unauthorized persons and prohibited articles is limited during normal hours of operation by the continuous posting of guards and the use of other security features, including, but not limited to, magnetometers, key cards, biometric screening devices, or turnstiles or other physical barriers.

 

In other words, if the school limits access, then you cannot carry your weapon INSIDE the buildings or facility.

One other item to notice:

 

Section 13A-11-72 Premises of a public school.

 

The term "public school" as used in this section applies only to a school composed of grades K-12 and shall include a school bus used for grades K-12

 

(c) Subject to the exceptions provided by Section 13A-11-74, no person shall knowingly with intent to do bodily harm carry or possess a deadly weapon on the premises of a public school.

 

(d) Possession of a deadly weapon with the intent to do bodily harm on the premises of a public school in violation of subsection (c) of this section is a Class C felony.

 

(e) Law enforcement officers are exempt from this section, and persons with pistol permits issued pursuant to Section 13A-11-75, are exempt from the provisions of subsection (c) of this section. Section 13A-11-5

 

Jank,

 

I understand that you are a 2nd amendment supporter, and a gun owner, and I respect the fact that you want to know what the real regulations are.  It just burns me to see all these 'articles' posted by the 'unbiased' news outlets in this area with headlines like 'NO GUNS ON UNA CAMPUS' - which is, at best, misinformation and, at worst, an outright lie.  The article itself says they cant ban employees from having them.  Just like your article, people read what they want to read in the law, until it comes time to arrest someone, then the truth of the law comes out.

 

Just like all the police departments in the state that said open carry was illegal, then, when challenged on it, they started charging folks with 'disorderly conduct' just for having a gun on their hip.  So now we have a law the specifically bans that from happening - would not have been necessary had people just obeyed the law as it was written and not tried to come up with clever ways around it in an effort to step on others constitutional rights.

Sincere question to Captain James--How do you interpret "facility" in the new gun law, as in:

 

<<<inside any building or facility to which access of unauthorized persons and prohibited articles is limited during normal hours of operation by the continuous posting of guards and the use of other security features, including, but not limited to, magnetometers, key cards, biometric screening devices, or turnstiles or other physical barriers.>>>

 

Are tennis courts, for example, a "facility" under this new law? How about UNA's outdoor amphitheater? parking deck?

 

I just whonder whether the legislature has been specific enough on this point to adequately inform the regulated public.

I think that the definition of 'facility' will depend on the specific location. 

 

A tennis court on campus, that is completely fenced in, IMO, would be a facility.  Same thing with an outdoor swimming pool that has controlled access. 

 

The outdoor amphitheater does not have any security features whatsoever and is open to the public, so I would consider it to be part of the campus, but not a facility. 

 

The parking deck is a tough call, because although it has gates, when I was on campus, the gate system was never used because they had so many problems with it, so it was not secure. 

 

Personally, I would not risk it if it is questionable (like the parking deck).

 

Fence in the entire property, post security devices at the entrances and limit access, then the 'campus' would become a 'facility.' 

 

Just my opinion, however.... 

The fact that the verbiage uses an "and" statement and the backside of that statement includes devices normally used in a door or thru-way, I don't see how a parking deck would be enforced as a gun free zone.  I haven't been to UNA parking deck but most decks have multiple entrances and I don't see UNA spending the money to comply with both sides of the "and".

Originally Posted by seeweed:

As long as there seem to be a group  of people dead set on making gun purchases easy for crazy people and felons to obtain, we will continue to have senseless killings. Our two senators or part of that problem.

 

+++

 

Weed,

 

Please go to

 

www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473

-1.pdf

 

If the link fails, google BATF 4473 and get a pdf download.   This is the form we fill out when we purchase a gun.

 

I can’t copy the questions but here is a summation

 

11a.  Are you the actual buyer

 

11b.  Are you under indictment for a felony

 

11c.  Have you been convicted of a felony

 

11d.  Are you a fugitive

 

11e.  Are you an unlawful user of marijuana...or other controlled substances.  [Check 6, some people ]

 

11f.  Are you mentally deficient

 

The questions go on about CDV and illegals.  I really should have summed up CDV.  That ranks at the top.

 

The NRA supports all these intrusions into our personal history.  Personally, I also support complete background checks though I know some who oppose the Patriot Act would probably object.  Hell, they can have my hard drive so long as I can get some .22 ammo.

 

For references to 11f, Weed, meet Alice Boland.  The poster child of crazy.  And apparently a liberal darling.

 

This is the case of who a person who made threats against the POTUS.  Who was charged but not convicted by reason of mental defect.  She has a pedigree in being batspit crazy.  And it's on file....somewhere. 

 

Later, she goes to buy a gun from a FFL dealer.  She fills out all the required paperwork.  She lies on question 11f.  The dealer, with her present, calls in for the required background check to the Feds.  It is approved.  Except for the lie which she told which the background check did not catch...a routine purchase.

 

She takes the gun and tries to shoot a high school teacher.  On a field trip.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02...al-illness.html?_r=0

 

If the link fails, just google Alice Boland.  You’ll figure which one she is.  The one who threatened the POTUS.

 

Now tell me what group you think is was that blocked the mental defect information on her background check?  NRA?  Bad guess.

 

She broke the law when she lied on the 4473 and was not prosecuted by the Feds.  Who do you think blocked the prosecution of her?  NRA.  Bad guess again.

 

So who was the group, Weed?  The ASPCA?

Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

As long as there seem to be a group  of people dead set on making gun purchases easy for crazy people and felons to obtain, we will continue to have senseless killings. Our two senators or part of that problem.

 

+++

 

Weed,

 

Please go to

 

www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473

-1.pdf

 

If the link fails, google BATF 4473 and get a pdf download.   This is the form we fill out when we purchase a gun.

 

I can’t copy the questions but here is a summation

 

11a.  Are you the actual buyer

 

11b.  Are you under indictment for a felony

 

11c.  Have you been convicted of a felony

 

11d.  Are you a fugitive

 

11e.  Are you an unlawful user of marijuana...or other controlled substances.  [Check 6, some people ]

 

11f.  Are you mentally deficient

 

The questions go on about CDV and illegals.  I really should have summed up CDV.  That ranks at the top.

 

The NRA supports all these intrusions into our personal history.  Personally, I also support complete background checks though I know some who oppose the Patriot Act would probably object.  Hell, they can have my hard drive so long as I can get some .22 ammo.

 

For references to 11f, Weed, meet Alice Boland.  The poster child of crazy.  And apparently a liberal darling.

 

This is the case of who a person who made threats against the POTUS.  Who was charged but not convicted by reason of mental defect.  She has a pedigree in being batspit crazy.  And it's on file....somewhere. 

 

Later, she goes to buy a gun from a FFL dealer.  She fills out all the required paperwork.  She lies on question 11f.  The dealer, with her present, calls in for the required background check to the Feds.  It is approved.  Except for the lie which she told which the background check did not catch...a routine purchase.

 

She takes the gun and tries to shoot a high school teacher.  On a field trip.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02...al-illness.html?_r=0

 

If the link fails, just google Alice Boland.  You’ll figure which one she is.  The one who threatened the POTUS.

 

Now tell me what group you think is was that blocked the mental defect information on her background check?  NRA?  Bad guess.

 

She broke the law when she lied on the 4473 and was not prosecuted by the Feds.  Who do you think blocked the prosecution of her?  NRA.  Bad guess again.

 

So who was the group, Weed?  The ASPCA?

=================

Well, here is my personal experience.

When I bought my 44MAG in Memphis, there was a 3 day waiting period so they could check to see if you were a bad guy. (no computers in those days)

The last 2 guns I bought took all of about 5 minutes between the form, and a quick call with either my DL or SS number (can't remember which)

I did not view that as an undue intrusion into my personal liberty, nor my 2nd Amendment rights. Hell, it took more time and effort to get the utilities turned on in one of my apartments last year.

I don't think it is too much to ask, that for mentally unstable people, and felons to have to submit to the same standards , even if they go to a gun show out here at the Fairgrounds, 

I can't understand why that is such a problem for so many., unless it is they who are either a law breaking felon, crazy, or all the above.

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:

I don't think it is too much to ask, that for mentally unstable people, and felons to have to submit to the same standards , even if they go to a gun show out here at the Fairgrounds, 

I can't understand why that is such a problem for so many., unless it is they who are either a law breaking felon, crazy, or all the above.

 

They do have to go through that process if they are buying the gun from the gun show at the fairgrounds from a licensed dealer.  This 'gun show loophole' that everyone talks about relates to private sellers at gun shows - which is no different that private sellers at yard sales, in the newspaper, etc etc.

 

Now, that being said, you will find many pro gun, pro 2nd amendment rights folks that would concede on the fact that we need to find a way to extend the system to things like all sellers at sanctioned gun shows.  But some folks in DC cant seem to pass a law the does that and just that.   They start adding all these stipulations to it that eventually make it difficult for dad to give his son a gun as a gift, then they have to write a bunch of exceptions to address those issues in an attempt to get the bill to pass, all the while losing the few pro gun folks they had onboard because we have lost all faith and trust in them.

 

See, its not the pro guns folks that defeats these advances in common sense, its the anti gun folks that don't know when to stop......

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

As long as there seem to be a group  of people dead set on making gun purchases easy for crazy people and felons to obtain, we will continue to have senseless killings. Our two senators or part of that problem.

 

+++

 

Weed,

 

Please go to

 

www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473

-1.pdf

 

If the link fails, google BATF 4473 and get a pdf download.   This is the form we fill out when we purchase a gun.

 

I can’t copy the questions but here is a summation

 

11a.  Are you the actual buyer

 

11b.  Are you under indictment for a felony

 

11c.  Have you been convicted of a felony

 

11d.  Are you a fugitive

 

11e.  Are you an unlawful user of marijuana...or other controlled substances.  [Check 6, some people ]

 

11f.  Are you mentally deficient

 

The questions go on about CDV and illegals.  I really should have summed up CDV.  That ranks at the top.

 

The NRA supports all these intrusions into our personal history.  Personally, I also support complete background checks though I know some who oppose the Patriot Act would probably object.  Hell, they can have my hard drive so long as I can get some .22 ammo.

 

For references to 11f, Weed, meet Alice Boland.  The poster child of crazy.  And apparently a liberal darling.

 

This is the case of who a person who made threats against the POTUS.  Who was charged but not convicted by reason of mental defect.  She has a pedigree in being batspit crazy.  And it's on file....somewhere. 

 

Later, she goes to buy a gun from a FFL dealer.  She fills out all the required paperwork.  She lies on question 11f.  The dealer, with her present, calls in for the required background check to the Feds.  It is approved.  Except for the lie which she told which the background check did not catch...a routine purchase.

 

She takes the gun and tries to shoot a high school teacher.  On a field trip.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02...al-illness.html?_r=0

 

If the link fails, just google Alice Boland.  You’ll figure which one she is.  The one who threatened the POTUS.

 

Now tell me what group you think is was that blocked the mental defect information on her background check?  NRA?  Bad guess.

 

She broke the law when she lied on the 4473 and was not prosecuted by the Feds.  Who do you think blocked the prosecution of her?  NRA.  Bad guess again.

 

So who was the group, Weed?  The ASPCA?

=================

Well, here is my personal experience.

When I bought my 44MAG in Memphis, there was a 3 day waiting period so they could check to see if you were a bad guy. (no computers in those days)

The last 2 guns I bought took all of about 5 minutes between the form, and a quick call with either my DL or SS number (can't remember which)

I did not view that as an undue intrusion into my personal liberty, nor my 2nd Amendment rights. Hell, it took more time and effort to get the utilities turned on in one of my apartments last year.

I don't think it is too much to ask, that for mentally unstable people, and felons to have to submit to the same standards , even if they go to a gun show out here at the Fairgrounds, 

I can't understand why that is such a problem for so many., unless it is they who are either a law breaking felon, crazy, or all the above.

 

+++

 

Dammit man, you have had you share of experiences.  I feel your pain.

 

At first, they called it a cooling off period.  It was pushed by the CDV folks thinking a 10 day waiting period was needed.  Problem was, they didn’t factor in the potential victim’s immediate needs.

 

So then there was the thing about the computers.  But we were all in the same boat together.

 

Now we have instant back ground checks. Oh boy!  But the problem is as I tried to point out in the Boland case is people can lie on the forms and it is bureaucracy standing in the way of getting the right information out there for adequate background checks to be made.

 

In this case, Boland, I can only surmise the reason why her background check regarding being mentally deficient is because that sort of information may be withheld because of doctor-patient privilege.  But good grief man, it’s not like this girl is just a little bit off, she’s a danger to herself and others.  Why would that be withheld?  It dammed near resulted in a murder.  As a gun owning conservative I find that inexcusable.  As a gun owning liberal, what’s your take on it?

 

When folks get wind of stuff like that, who do they point their fingers at?  The good old NRA.

 

Far as felons buying guns at gun shows, no offense buddy, but that’s getting old.  See I went to the last gun show at the Fair Grounds and bought me a nice .22 revolver for plinking.  And I filled out all requisite paperwork.  Sat right there while it was phoned in.  How come felons get a break and I don’t?

 

So help me here.  Give me a single incidence where a felon bought a gun at a Shoals gun show from a FFL dealer and didn’t fill out paperwork.  I know this is a rhetorical question, doesn’t require an answer.

 

We know felons, pot smokers   , and crazies lie like a damm rug so we can’t hold the seller responsible for that can we if the background check clears the liar as it did me.  Especially when some of the question regarding mental health are totally unenforceable as it presently stands.

We have a problem between sales of private individuals when a seller, say, advertises a gun and winds up selling it to someone he doesn’t know.  I’ve sold a few guns but only once to a guy I didn’t know.  A USAF colonel.  I got every piece of identification I could from him.  I still have it.

 

When a gun is used in a crime, it’s going to be traced back to it’s original, and it’s up to every other owner to really  "Watch his 6."  [I swear I’m going to use that more often]  recording who he sold it to.  I’ve sold guns to friends but I had no way of knowing if they would later sell it to someone they didn’t know.

 

So CYA.

 

You reloading yet?  That .44 can be harder on your wallet than on your hand.

 

And oh yeah, the  junk.  I'm just trolling. 

 

 

Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

As long as there seem to be a group  of people dead set on making gun purchases easy for crazy people and felons to obtain, we will continue to have senseless killings. Our two senators or part of that problem.

 

+++

 

Weed,

 

Please go to

 

www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473

-1.pdf

 

If the link fails, google BATF 4473 and get a pdf download.   This is the form we fill out when we purchase a gun.

 

I can’t copy the questions but here is a summation

 

11a.  Are you the actual buyer

 

11b.  Are you under indictment for a felony

 

11c.  Have you been convicted of a felony

 

11d.  Are you a fugitive

 

11e.  Are you an unlawful user of marijuana...or other controlled substances.  [Check 6, some people ]

 

11f.  Are you mentally deficient

 

The questions go on about CDV and illegals.  I really should have summed up CDV.  That ranks at the top.

 

The NRA supports all these intrusions into our personal history.  Personally, I also support complete background checks though I know some who oppose the Patriot Act would probably object.  Hell, they can have my hard drive so long as I can get some .22 ammo.

 

For references to 11f, Weed, meet Alice Boland.  The poster child of crazy.  And apparently a liberal darling.

 

This is the case of who a person who made threats against the POTUS.  Who was charged but not convicted by reason of mental defect.  She has a pedigree in being batspit crazy.  And it's on file....somewhere. 

 

Later, she goes to buy a gun from a FFL dealer.  She fills out all the required paperwork.  She lies on question 11f.  The dealer, with her present, calls in for the required background check to the Feds.  It is approved.  Except for the lie which she told which the background check did not catch...a routine purchase.

 

She takes the gun and tries to shoot a high school teacher.  On a field trip.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02...al-illness.html?_r=0

 

If the link fails, just google Alice Boland.  You’ll figure which one she is.  The one who threatened the POTUS.

 

Now tell me what group you think is was that blocked the mental defect information on her background check?  NRA?  Bad guess.

 

She broke the law when she lied on the 4473 and was not prosecuted by the Feds.  Who do you think blocked the prosecution of her?  NRA.  Bad guess again.

 

So who was the group, Weed?  The ASPCA?

=================

Well, here is my personal experience.

When I bought my 44MAG in Memphis, there was a 3 day waiting period so they could check to see if you were a bad guy. (no computers in those days)

The last 2 guns I bought took all of about 5 minutes between the form, and a quick call with either my DL or SS number (can't remember which)

I did not view that as an undue intrusion into my personal liberty, nor my 2nd Amendment rights. Hell, it took more time and effort to get the utilities turned on in one of my apartments last year.

I don't think it is too much to ask, that for mentally unstable people, and felons to have to submit to the same standards , even if they go to a gun show out here at the Fairgrounds, 

I can't understand why that is such a problem for so many., unless it is they who are either a law breaking felon, crazy, or all the above.

 

+++

 

Dammit man, you have had you share of experiences.  I feel your pain.

 

At first, they called it a cooling off period.  It was pushed by the CDV folks thinking a 10 day waiting period was needed.  Problem was, they didn’t factor in the potential victim’s immediate needs.

 

So then there was the thing about the computers.  But we were all in the same boat together.

 

Now we have instant back ground checks. Oh boy!  But the problem is as I tried to point out in the Boland case is people can lie on the forms and it is bureaucracy standing in the way of getting the right information out there for adequate background checks to be made.

 

In this case, Boland, I can only surmise the reason why her background check regarding being mentally deficient is because that sort of information may be withheld because of doctor-patient privilege.  But good grief man, it’s not like this girl is just a little bit off, she’s a danger to herself and others.  Why would that be withheld?  It dammed near resulted in a murder.  As a gun owning conservative I find that inexcusable.  As a gun owning liberal, what’s your take on it?

 

When folks get wind of stuff like that, who do they point their fingers at?  The good old NRA.

 

Far as felons buying guns at gun shows, no offense buddy, but that’s getting old.  See I went to the last gun show at the Fair Grounds and bought me a nice .22 revolver for plinking.  And I filled out all requisite paperwork.  Sat right there while it was phoned in.  How come felons get a break and I don’t?

 

So help me here.  Give me a single incidence where a felon bought a gun at a Shoals gun show from a FFL dealer and didn’t fill out paperwork.  I know this is a rhetorical question, doesn’t require an answer.

 

We know felons, pot smokers   , and crazies lie like a damm rug so we can’t hold the seller responsible for that can we if the background check clears the liar as it did me.  Especially when some of the question regarding mental health are totally unenforceable as it presently stands.

We have a problem between sales of private individuals when a seller, say, advertises a gun and winds up selling it to someone he doesn’t know.  I’ve sold a few guns but only once to a guy I didn’t know.  A USAF colonel.  I got every piece of identification I could from him.  I still have it.

 

When a gun is used in a crime, it’s going to be traced back to it’s original, and it’s up to every other owner to really  "Watch his 6."  [I swear I’m going to use that more often]  recording who he sold it to.  I’ve sold guns to friends but I had no way of knowing if they would later sell it to someone they didn’t know.

 

So CYA.

 

You reloading yet?  That .44 can be harder on your wallet than on your hand.

 

And oh yeah, the  junk.  I'm just trolling. 

 

 

==

Damm, I'm beginning to sound like my parents!  "back when I was your age ...."

I guess when you get old, you just have had a lot of experiences, but more of the exciting ones happened before I turned 30.
At any rate, Cap JT mentioned that at a gun show, there are people there buying and selling and don't do BG checks. (yea, one of those happened to me too back when I was looking for a S&W 38), and collecting the data base of crazies and felons is not going to be quick or easy, but "the journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step" , and IMHO , we should get started. We should close whatever loopholes that do allow people at gun shows to sell without a check. Probably will never get 100% , and I'm ok with individuals selling to another individual, but another part of that law would have made it a crime to buy a bunch of guns here, and take them back up NOrth and re sell them there where they are illegal.

When I can be convinced that all reasonable effort has been made to keep guns out of the hands of crazies and felons, I'm pretty much OK with every thing else. 
Only because these types of laws had not been passed , were the people who shot up Gabby Giffords, the movie studio, and most of the school shootings, and a host of other mass murders, were "legal lawabiding gunowners" . To you maybe, to me they were crazies who should never have been able to obtain a gun of any kind . Sorry , I can't think those people are "legal , law abiding gun owners" .

 

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

As long as there seem to be a group  of people dead set on making gun purchases easy for crazy people and felons to obtain, we will continue to have senseless killings. Our two senators or part of that problem.

 

+++

 

Weed,

 

Please go to

 

www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473

-1.pdf

 

If the link fails, google BATF 4473 and get a pdf download.   This is the form we fill out when we purchase a gun.

 

I can’t copy the questions but here is a summation

 

11a.  Are you the actual buyer

 

11b.  Are you under indictment for a felony

 

11c.  Have you been convicted of a felony

 

11d.  Are you a fugitive

 

11e.  Are you an unlawful user of marijuana...or other controlled substances.  [Check 6, some people ]

 

11f.  Are you mentally deficient

 

The questions go on about CDV and illegals.  I really should have summed up CDV.  That ranks at the top.

 

The NRA supports all these intrusions into our personal history.  Personally, I also support complete background checks though I know some who oppose the Patriot Act would probably object.  Hell, they can have my hard drive so long as I can get some .22 ammo.

 

For references to 11f, Weed, meet Alice Boland.  The poster child of crazy.  And apparently a liberal darling.

 

This is the case of who a person who made threats against the POTUS.  Who was charged but not convicted by reason of mental defect.  She has a pedigree in being batspit crazy.  And it's on file....somewhere. 

 

Later, she goes to buy a gun from a FFL dealer.  She fills out all the required paperwork.  She lies on question 11f.  The dealer, with her present, calls in for the required background check to the Feds.  It is approved.  Except for the lie which she told which the background check did not catch...a routine purchase.

 

She takes the gun and tries to shoot a high school teacher.  On a field trip.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02...al-illness.html?_r=0

 

If the link fails, just google Alice Boland.  You’ll figure which one she is.  The one who threatened the POTUS.

 

Now tell me what group you think is was that blocked the mental defect information on her background check?  NRA?  Bad guess.

 

She broke the law when she lied on the 4473 and was not prosecuted by the Feds.  Who do you think blocked the prosecution of her?  NRA.  Bad guess again.

 

So who was the group, Weed?  The ASPCA?

=================

Well, here is my personal experience.

When I bought my 44MAG in Memphis, there was a 3 day waiting period so they could check to see if you were a bad guy. (no computers in those days)

The last 2 guns I bought took all of about 5 minutes between the form, and a quick call with either my DL or SS number (can't remember which)

I did not view that as an undue intrusion into my personal liberty, nor my 2nd Amendment rights. Hell, it took more time and effort to get the utilities turned on in one of my apartments last year.

I don't think it is too much to ask, that for mentally unstable people, and felons to have to submit to the same standards , even if they go to a gun show out here at the Fairgrounds, 

I can't understand why that is such a problem for so many., unless it is they who are either a law breaking felon, crazy, or all the above.

 

+++

 

Dammit man, you have had you share of experiences.  I feel your pain.

 

At first, they called it a cooling off period.  It was pushed by the CDV folks thinking a 10 day waiting period was needed.  Problem was, they didn’t factor in the potential victim’s immediate needs.

 

So then there was the thing about the computers.  But we were all in the same boat together.

 

Now we have instant back ground checks. Oh boy!  But the problem is as I tried to point out in the Boland case is people can lie on the forms and it is bureaucracy standing in the way of getting the right information out there for adequate background checks to be made.

 

In this case, Boland, I can only surmise the reason why her background check regarding being mentally deficient is because that sort of information may be withheld because of doctor-patient privilege.  But good grief man, it’s not like this girl is just a little bit off, she’s a danger to herself and others.  Why would that be withheld?  It dammed near resulted in a murder.  As a gun owning conservative I find that inexcusable.  As a gun owning liberal, what’s your take on it?

 

When folks get wind of stuff like that, who do they point their fingers at?  The good old NRA.

 

Far as felons buying guns at gun shows, no offense buddy, but that’s getting old.  See I went to the last gun show at the Fair Grounds and bought me a nice .22 revolver for plinking.  And I filled out all requisite paperwork.  Sat right there while it was phoned in.  How come felons get a break and I don’t?

 

So help me here.  Give me a single incidence where a felon bought a gun at a Shoals gun show from a FFL dealer and didn’t fill out paperwork.  I know this is a rhetorical question, doesn’t require an answer.

 

We know felons, pot smokers   , and crazies lie like a damm rug so we can’t hold the seller responsible for that can we if the background check clears the liar as it did me.  Especially when some of the question regarding mental health are totally unenforceable as it presently stands.

We have a problem between sales of private individuals when a seller, say, advertises a gun and winds up selling it to someone he doesn’t know.  I’ve sold a few guns but only once to a guy I didn’t know.  A USAF colonel.  I got every piece of identification I could from him.  I still have it.

 

When a gun is used in a crime, it’s going to be traced back to it’s original, and it’s up to every other owner to really  "Watch his 6."  [I swear I’m going to use that more often]  recording who he sold it to.  I’ve sold guns to friends but I had no way of knowing if they would later sell it to someone they didn’t know.

 

So CYA.

 

You reloading yet?  That .44 can be harder on your wallet than on your hand.

 

And oh yeah, the  junk.  I'm just trolling. 

 

 

==

Damm, I'm beginning to sound like my parents!  "back when I was your age ...."

I guess when you get old, you just have had a lot of experiences, but more of the exciting ones happened before I turned 30.

 

Yep.  Like Jim Croce sang, "I used to like to do it but I don't remember why."


At any rate, Cap JT mentioned that at a gun show, there are people there buying and selling and don't do BG checks. (yea, one of those happened to me too back when I was looking for a S&W 38), and collecting the data base of crazies and felons is not going to be quick or easy, but "the journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step" , and IMHO , we should get started.

 

Yep.  Back in the day.  But now our background check is in fact a criminal back ground check and even though they ask the question about mental defect the Feds are prohibited from collecting such data.  So the felons are on board.  The crazies in another world.  So lets get started including them in the data base.

 

We should close whatever loopholes that do allow people at gun shows to sell without a check. Probably will never get 100% , and I'm ok with individuals selling to another individual, but another part of that law would have made it a crime to buy a bunch of guns here, and take them back up NOrth and re sell them there where they are illegal.

 

Okay.

 

When I can be convinced that all reasonable effort has been made to keep guns out of the hands of crazies and felons, I'm pretty much OK with every thing else.

 

Me too.

 
Only because these types of laws had not been passed , were the people who shot up Gabby Giffords, the movie studio, and most of the school shootings, and a host of other mass murders, were "legal lawabiding gunowners" . To you maybe, to me they were crazies who should never have been able to obtain a gun of any kind . Sorry , I can't think those people are "legal , law abiding gun owners" .

 

Nor do I.  If fact I do believe every one you mentioned would have had to lie about his mental health in order to legally purchase a firearm from an FFL dealer.  So, no, none of them were legal law abiding gun owners.

 

And had some legal law abiding folks been there with CWP, the outcome may have been different.  Certainly couldn't have been any worse.

 

Don't want to hold you up.  I know you've got a show to watch.  Bon Appetite.  No too many brownies, okay? 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
 

Only because these types of laws had not been passed , were the people who shot up Gabby Giffords, the movie studio, and most of the school shootings, and a host of other mass murders, were "legal lawabiding gunowners" . To you maybe, to me they were crazies who should never have been able to obtain a gun of any kind . Sorry , I can't think those people are "legal , law abiding gun owners" .

 

 

Ok, serious question, how do we predict who is going to go on a shooting spree and keep that person (who has otherwise been a law abiding citizen) from purchasing a gun?  Most of the people that commit these crimes might have had someone say "he's not right" or "we knew something would happen", but how do you take that from speculation to actual reason to suspend someones rights?

 

That is the question at hand.  All these folks out there are saying the NRA doesn't care because they are against gun laws, but I have YET to see anyone answer this question and give us (and the NRA) a way to move forward and not trample peoples rights.  'Lets try something - anything' is not an answer.

Originally Posted by Capt James T:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
 

Only because these types of laws had not been passed , were the people who shot up Gabby Giffords, the movie studio, and most of the school shootings, and a host of other mass murders, were "legal lawabiding gunowners" . To you maybe, to me they were crazies who should never have been able to obtain a gun of any kind . Sorry , I can't think those people are "legal , law abiding gun owners" .

 

 

Ok, serious question, how do we predict who is going to go on a shooting spree and keep that person (who has otherwise been a law abiding citizen) from purchasing a gun?  Most of the people that commit these crimes might have had someone say "he's not right" or "we knew something would happen", but how do you take that from speculation to actual reason to suspend someones rights?

 

Capt, I suggest starting with what we have.  As I mentioned previously, we have the mental health records of Boland...I mean someone does...and I'm pretty dang sure about others Weed mentioned as well.

 

Unless the mental health professionals are totally incompetent they should be able to predict who is a loose cannon...a threat or danger.  And while I appreciate doctor-patient privilege, I think personal responsibility to the community outweighs any such privilege.  They tell us were pedophiles live.  

 

That is the question at hand.  All these folks out there are saying the NRA doesn't care because they are against gun laws, but I have YET to see anyone answer this question and give us (and the NRA) a way to move forward and not trample peoples rights.  'Lets try something - anything' is not an answer.

 

My answer...lets start working with what we've got.  Nothing worse than a law on the book that is totally unenforceable.

 

Originally Posted by budsfarm:
Originally Posted by Capt James T:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
 

Only because these types of laws had not been passed , were the people who shot up Gabby Giffords, the movie studio, and most of the school shootings, and a host of other mass murders, were "legal lawabiding gunowners" . To you maybe, to me they were crazies who should never have been able to obtain a gun of any kind . Sorry , I can't think those people are "legal , law abiding gun owners" .

 

 

Ok, serious question, how do we predict who is going to go on a shooting spree and keep that person (who has otherwise been a law abiding citizen) from purchasing a gun?  Most of the people that commit these crimes might have had someone say "he's not right" or "we knew something would happen", but how do you take that from speculation to actual reason to suspend someones rights?

 

Capt, I suggest starting with what we have.  As I mentioned previously, we have the mental health records of Boland...I mean someone does...and I'm pretty dang sure about others Weed mentioned as well.

 

Unless the mental health professionals are totally incompetent they should be able to predict who is a loose cannon...a threat or danger.  And while I appreciate doctor-patient privilege, I think personal responsibility to the community outweighs any such privilege.  They tell us were pedophiles live.  

 

That is the question at hand.  All these folks out there are saying the NRA doesn't care because they are against gun laws, but I have YET to see anyone answer this question and give us (and the NRA) a way to move forward and not trample peoples rights.  'Lets try something - anything' is not an answer.

 

My answer...lets start working with what we've got.  Nothing worse than a law on the book that is totally unenforceable.

 

Bud, pretty much what I would have answered. 

The problem I have with the NRA and assorted gun nuts is they don't want ANY restrictions on who can go buy a gun. 
I have guns, and a carry permit. I carry in my car whenever I am on a trip, and although I don't think it is legal, have on occasion brought it into a bar when I was concerned there may be some trouble.
Having said that, I do not wish for our society to become a wild west sort of place. I don't want teachers and admin people in schools to have to carry guns (BTW, that is one of the crazy things I have heard - people who take that position, I can understand why they don't want crazy people to be denied guns)

I wish to live where I can go to a restaurant without carrying, concealed or otherwise, or go to church, or go to Walmart (saw an old man at WalMart in Muscle Shoals a couplel of days ago with a gun strapped on ) . I mean, do you really wish to live in that kind of society with the constant fear that someone is going to start a gunfight ? 

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

ok dog, bud or some LEO, what's the verdict. What are you going to enforce? Are we going to have to worry about guns in school carried by the likes of rolly?


Seeing as how the law allowed Conceal Carry before the change, nothing has changed.  Sorry, but you've been worrying all these years for nothing.  I'm still waiting for someone to give me an example of a CCP holder shooting up a school here in good ol' Bama.

 

 

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

are you a LEO hoob. I haven't worried  atall I have made it a point to not carry a weapon into a school.  What about the courthouse?


Courthouse has metal detectors and a posted guard.  I know because they were there last week when I renewed my CCP for 5 years.  No you can't carry there.  I don't carry at school either, even though the law allows me too.  I have no problem with a law abiding citizen CC'ing at my kids school, in fact I would feel better if they did.  I don't think people should open carry as CC is too easy to do and I think it actually makes you less of a target if the gun is hidden.  You'd never know I was carrying as I buy the best holsters on the market; so don't worry, you've probably been near me at one point in time at Wal-Mart and survived and I'm sure you'll survive again.  The boogey man does not CC.

It does not matter what the LEO opinion is.  His/her job is not to make the law but to enforce it.  The law is clear on the matter.

Originally Posted by dogsoldier0513:
Originally Posted by frog:

This is an elementary school.  The rule is no weapons.  Why break that unless a person is looking for trouble?

 

 


Too bad none of the administrators or teachers the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary School encountered were armed.


You make a great point there.  It would have been much better to have the guy burst into the school and shoot the first couple before they knew what hit them, and the when all the armed teachers ran into the hall to defend everyone the guy could have picked them off...or they could have shot each other in crossfire.  Since he was armored they could have shot him and he would probably stay standing, or maybe one appointed lucky teacher could have been bait while the rest ran with the kids, and then when the guy got tho them he could have shot the teacher in front of the kids, then gone and picked off the kids anyway...oh, the scenarios go on.

 

Or maybe you meant armed guards all over the school...sure...more crossfire and whee!  Wild West!  Or maybe they would be responsible and not start shooting all at once, so he picks them off anyway.  And the kids can go to school with guns all over in their faces, since that'll make them feel safer...umm no.  And then we have all these people with gun around the kids, so the chances of some "formerly law-abiding gun owner" freaking out go up, or a kid finds a gun someone set down and shoots someone....  I want the teachers focusing on the kids and not playing cop, and I want the officer to not be worried about who else in the building might be carrying if something does happen.  

 

Sure, the perfect scenario might have happened.  Someone would see him come in and get in a lucky shot.  But the percentage of schools that actually have had shooting incidents in the school are so small that insisting guns should be in every school carried by teachers or parents (both scary options) makes no sense at all.  As I said, my kids' elementary school has one point of entry where an armed police officer stays, the doors are locked, and no weapons are allowed on campus.  Sure, something could happen, but someone could drive up and blow up the school even with 100 armed guards in it.  

 

There was a man who did have a legal gun when Giffords was shot, and no, he didn't get to save the day by shooting the shooter.  In confusion you get people drawing guns and who knows who is truly trained and suited to carrying?  Who knows who the shooter even is when they wear armor?  Where does that stop?  

 

Is it too much to ask that little kids be allowed to go to school and not have guns all around them? That some ****ed teacher doesn't shoot them, that some kids doesn't find a gun and ruin lives?  That they can go to a basketball game in the gym after school without worrying about who has a weapon and might get angry and instead of punching the coach, shoot him?

 

Seriously, I am not saying don't have second amendment rights at all, but just keep the guns off school property.  Is that too much to ask?

Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

The no guns signs have zero backing of the law.  They have to notify you that you are tresspassing and if you don't leave, then they can  call the police and have you arrested for tresspassing.  You will not be charged with carrying a concealed weapon.

Not sure about the specifics of the AL law but in TN the signs do have the backing of law. Just Saying

Good post frog. I feel the same way. In a perfect world our schools would always be a safe place for our children. However, we know nothing is perfect. I am totally against teachers carrying guns into schools. I have known some pretty wacky teachers in my time. Coach Wilson comes to mind. 

 

I wonder how any of us are supposed to know who the good vs the bad guys are if we have the misfortune of being in a public place and bullets start flying. How will the police that respond know?

 

I am a gun owner and I carry concealed when I feel its necessary. I don't think I would ever pull it out and start shooting unless I had no doubt I could get a clear shot of a bad guy shooter. I practice with it, but I am not qualified or trained to handle that kind of situation.

 

I carry it mostly on road trips when I travel alone. If I have a car break down and I am stranded I will have some protection. Also when I am in a hotel room alone I feel safer with it. Otherwise I leave it at the house for my protection there.

 

Those civilians that think they are some kind of Rambo scare me just about as much as the bad guys with guns do. In the chaos and confusion I don't trust that the average joe can effectively take out JUST the bad guy. I fear we will have to have some innocent people die at the hands of one of these "heros" before some people wake up to that fact. 

 

I am a pretty good shot. I was taught to shoot by my father who is still one of the best shooters I have ever seen, even now, with one eye blinded by a piece of metal. Yet, if my hands were shaking and I couldn't control my breathing, and my heart was pumping so hard that each beat would pulse through my hands, there is no way I can be sure that I will not hit some innocent bystander. How could anyone live with themselves if they shot an innocent person? I know I couldn't.  

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×