ProChat - All Things ProVape and Beyond

[rbrylawski]

Given that we have a lot on our plates with the move right now and I'm certainly not feeling very social these days, I'm taking some time off the forum.

I do want to say that I applaud everyone's right to their individual views, even if I don't personally agree with them.

I'll see you'z guy'z in a couple weeks.

Rod signing off for a while.........

 

[DPLongo22]

Given that we have a lot on our plates with the move right now and I'm certainly not feeling very social these days, I'm taking some time off the forum.

I do want to say that I applaud everyone's right to their individual views, even if I don't personally agree with them.

I'll see you'z guy'z in a couple weeks.

Rod signing off for a while.........

Rod - please don't take this personal towards you. You KNOW how I feel about YOU. This is MUCH bigger, and MUCH broader.

EVERYONE should follow the lead that some of us have set here, regardless of our backgrounds, lifestyles, religions, etc.. The issue came up, and it's been a hot button for me. I do NOT wish for you to leave, and that was NOT my intent.

And I'd welcome a personal conversation, at ANY time.

 

[LoriP1702]

I do believe that we are headed for another civil war, because our leaders are PUSHING us towards one, and we're blindly following. WE are supposed to lead THEM, but we're too busy. So we follow instead.

And with that, I shut-up.

I do too.

 

[LoriP1702]

Given that we have a lot on our plates with the move right now and I'm certainly not feeling very social these days, I'm taking some time off the forum.

I do want to say that I applaud everyone's right to their individual views, even if I don't personally agree with them.

I'll see you'z guy'z in a couple weeks.

Rod signing off for a while.........

And I wholeheartedly applaud views that don't agree with mine.
I learn through respectful, intelligent dialogue.
Opinions are formed and shaped through life experiences.
(((HUGS))) I will keep you in my thoughts and prayers.

 

[Arnold Ziffle]

when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

 

[Pinggolfer]

I'm sorry Rod that you need time off. You are not being made a target here with gun control. Fighting against the gun lobby is not going to solve your problems. The problem is in the middle east and us allowing them free use of the internet to recruit terrorist here and to allow them to come into our country. I remember the iPhone controversy we had after the San Bernardino shootings and how the government had no right to make Apple open the phone. What if information about the Orlando massacre was on that iPhone? War has been declared on America and we need to declare war on Isis, unfortunately we have a president who is clueless and more interested in protecting the rights of our enemy. I'm voting for the person who is going to make sure we keep our right to own guns and you will actually destroy Isis. There is no LGBT community is Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc as their solution is death.

 

[Arnold Ziffle]

pink pistols. a fine national organization of lgbt gun owners who are very active in most major cities. quite active on facebook. really good training new shooters and advocacy.

I've shot with them a few times. fun group.

 

[Robino1]

My town has been in the news. Yes, the Orlando shooter lived in the town that I live. I drive by the Mosque that he belonged to whenever we go to my MIL's house.

I am saddened and horrified by the tragedy. I used to think that if we removed guns the problem would go away. I've since revised my thinking. Law abiding citizens will follow the rules and the laws. They will submit to the background checks. They will go through the waiting period.

Criminals are just that....criminals. They care not for laws. They do Not play by the rules. They Will get guns illegally. There are sick people out there.

Consider this: If criminals know that citizens are armed, might they then think twice about carrying out an attack?

Citizens that are armed have gone through the courses. They Know how to shoot. They Know about precautions and responsibility. They also know how to defend.

Almost every situation where an attack has been made, has been a "safe" zone. It doesn't mean a thing. There is no true safe zone. It just means that it is safe for an evil person to carry out his attack.

My feelings have done a complete 180*. I personally do not have guns, nor does my husband. I know myself, I would freeze. Trust me, I do KNOW myself. I would hope that should I be in a place that an attacker showed up, someone would be a legal carry and could do damage to the attacker BEFORE he got to me.

That is all I am going to say and I now bow out of this conversation. Just thought that maybe my thoughts could help. Or not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Now on to good news. A democrat has jumped in to help with HR2058. Now that one has, hopefully more will be willing to cross their party line and also lend their support.

 

[choochoogranny]

when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

In my personal experience 20 min. after called about someone trying to break in my apt. door. When the police finally came, I told him that had that person gotten through he would have been shot from about 15 feet away.......The policeman said to be sure to drag the body all the way in.

This was 45 yrs. ago in GA, and I had to wait 3 days to take possession of my firearm while a background check was performed.

 

[Dr. Tranny]

Law abiding citizens will follow the rules and the laws. They will submit to the background checks. They will go through the waiting period.

The problem here is, in this case, the criminal followed the rules and the laws and obtained the weapons he used to murder and injured dozens of people legally.

Let me repeat that. Mateen bought those guns legally, new, from a local gun shop. He submitted to and was cleared through a federal background check, even though he was repeatedly interviewed as a person of interest by the FBI and was on multiple terrorist watchlists.

The problem is not that he went outside the law. The problem is that the law is so lax as to allow a suspected terrorist to legally acquire weapons of mass murder.

Nobody here is advocating outlawing personal firearms ownership, including me. I own firearms and also possess a license to concealed carry. What people are clamoring for is tightening up the procedures one has to follow in obtaining a firearm in the first place.

Currently, a federal firearms background check looks for three things: felony convictions, outstanding arrest warrants, and involuntary commitment to a mental health facility. That's it. There is no cross-referencing of FBI watch lists, no evaluation of a person's mental stability, no training prerequisites. That is what needs to change. There are bills currently in both the House and Senate to add cross-referencing of FBI watch lists to the background check requirements, but the GOP majority refuses to bring them up for debate.

Let me repeat that. The GOP majority in both houses of Congress refuses to even debate bills to keep guns out of the hands of potential terrorists.

This is not disarming the public. This is common sense legislation that should be supported and applauded by all responsible gun owners, and the lawmakers who refuse to consider it need to be held accountable for their action--or in this case, inaction.

There. I said it. I feel better.

 

[Pinggolfer]

Let me repeat that. The GOP majority in both houses of Congress refuses to even debate bills to keep guns out of the hands of potential terrorists.

The Democrats were in control of the house and Senate along with a democratic president for 4 years and nothing was accomplished. The person in question was an American citizen and god forbid whether he's a radical it's politically incorrect to violate his right to hate. I blame the liberal left.

 

[rbrylawski]

The problem here is, in this case, the criminal followed the rules and the laws and obtained the weapons he used to murder and injured dozens of people legally.

Let me repeat that. Mateen bought those guns legally, new, from a local gun shop. He submitted to and was cleared through a federal background check, even though he was repeatedly interviewed as a person of interest by the FBI and was on multiple terrorist watchlists.

The problem is not that he went outside the law. The problem is that the law is so lax as to allow a suspected terrorist to legally acquire weapons of mass murder.

Nobody here is advocating outlawing personal firearms ownership, including me. I own firearms and also possess a license to concealed carry. What people are clamoring for is tightening up the procedures one has to follow in obtaining a firearm in the first place.

Currently, a federal firearms background check looks for three things: felony convictions, outstanding arrest warrants, and involuntary commitment to a mental health facility. That's it. There is no cross-referencing of FBI watch lists, no evaluation of a person's mental stability, no training prerequisites. That is what needs to change. There are bills currently in both the House and Senate to add cross-referencing of FBI watch lists to the background check requirements, but the GOP majority refuses to bring them up for debate.

Let me repeat that. The GOP majority in both houses of Congress refuses to even debate bills to keep guns out of the hands of potential terrorists.

This is not disarming the public. This is common sense legislation that should be supported and applauded by all responsible gun owners, and the lawmakers who refuse to consider it need to be held accountable for their action--or in this case, inaction.

There. I said it. I feel better.

This post is worthy of me popping in for just a moment. You said what I was trying to say (not successfully at all) so much better. I could hug you. Yes I could!

 

[MsLoud]

Let me put this in my perspective. My 26 year old son was able, legally, to purchase a hand gun. He has NEVER fired a gun. Ever...

When he wanted to start driving - there was a training process. When he went to work to operate large equipment - there was a training process.

I'm not going to go in to a long explanation because I'm sure you all get my point.

 

[Dr. Tranny]

This post is worthy of me popping in for just a moment. You said what I was trying to say (not successfully at all) so much better. I could hug you. Yes I could!

HUG away. Hugs are free, and good for you.

 

[Dr. Tranny]

Here, I think we could all use some happy news.

Doctors Slam Study Linking E-Cigarettes To Teen Smoking

 

[Pinggolfer]

Last post I hope. If he couldn't buy a gun he could have bought a pressure cooker and took down the entire building. Now it seems owners of gay bars in Vegas are taking hand gun lessons which will be necessary with a Clinton in the white house.

 

[rbrylawski]

Last post I hope. If he couldn't buy a gun he could have bought a pressure cooker and took down the entire building. Now it seems owners of gay bars in Vegas are taking hand gun lessons which will be necessary with a Clinton in the white house.

Maybe better than the radiation suits we'll all need if there's the 'other' candidate in the White House.

 

[LoriP1702]

The problem here is, in this case, the criminal followed the rules and the laws and obtained the weapons he used to murder and injured dozens of people legally.

Let me repeat that. Mateen bought those guns legally, new, from a local gun shop. He submitted to and was cleared through a federal background check, even though he was repeatedly interviewed as a person of interest by the FBI and was on multiple terrorist watchlists.

The problem is not that he went outside the law. The problem is that the law is so lax as to allow a suspected terrorist to legally acquire weapons of mass murder.

Nobody here is advocating outlawing personal firearms ownership, including me. I own firearms and also possess a license to concealed carry. What people are clamoring for is tightening up the procedures one has to follow in obtaining a firearm in the first place.

Currently, a federal firearms background check looks for three things: felony convictions, outstanding arrest warrants, and involuntary commitment to a mental health facility. That's it. There is no cross-referencing of FBI watch lists, no evaluation of a person's mental stability, no training prerequisites. That is what needs to change. There are bills currently in both the House and Senate to add cross-referencing of FBI watch lists to the background check requirements, but the GOP majority refuses to bring them up for debate.

Let me repeat that. The GOP majority in both houses of Congress refuses to even debate bills to keep guns out of the hands of potential terrorists.

This is not disarming the public. This is common sense legislation that should be supported and applauded by all responsible gun owners, and the lawmakers who refuse to consider it need to be held accountable for their action--or in this case, inaction.

There. I said it. I feel better.

See, and that really hacks me off. I don't care what side you vote, if you're on a terrorist watch list you should not be able to get a gun legally, and I also agree, basic gun classes should be mandatory.
I did hear a debate regarding the mental stability issue, and I could kind of see both sides, the way the version I'd heard discussed was written, it was pretty broad as far as the meds it was trying to include, and if the person had "ever" in their "entire" life been on certain, specific meds, it nullified their right to own a gun ever...I can't remember all the particulars, but at the time, I remember thinking that as was written, it was a bit of a slippery slope.
However, there would be plenty of instances where those who are on many of the meds have absolutely no business with a firearm.
Sandy Hook comes to mind.

Our legislators on both sides should be absolutely ashamed that they aren't working together on cross referencing people on terror lists, and the basic things you pointed out in your post. That's sad.

...seriously, just my 2 cents, worth exactly what you paid for them.

Here, I think we could all use some happy news.

Doctors Slam Study Linking E-Cigarettes To Teen Smoking

That's a great article!!

 

[classwife]

the hate just needs to stop.
ALL hate.

 

[coldgin96]

Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but our founding fathers felt it extremely important for citizens to be able to arm themselves to the same extent as what the government could.
Of course there are some exceptions, most average citizens didn't have cannons, and of course the modern version of that is that we won't have nuclear weapons or tanks, but the gist was that the government couln't be armed in ways that the citizens couldn't fight to protect themselves in case the government turned on the people.
Sorry for my poor explaination of that. But I hope you get where I'm going with it.

You actually explained that perfectly. Very well done. May I copy that quote and tuck it away for future reference?