Security always a concern at a Central Florida theme parks

I agree 100%.

But the argument that people need guns is a very real (and ridiculous) one.

The point is, it's a complex issue. No one needs guns - that's hilariously absurd. The idea that further regulation or banning somehow makes all the bad go away - that's pathetically naive.

There's so much more to it.

Vater said:
Wow, you guys both buy into the complete BS the left-leaning media spoon feeds you, eh?

Replace left with right and you have people making the same non-argument. You know, sometimes people have opinions just because they do, not because they're TV watching sheeple.

And sometimes people have opinions because they are TV watching sheeple. I took a gamble...and so far haven't been told I'm wrong. :)

TV news, by and large, is useless, with legions of "experts", breathless live reports, a great deal of style (in the "wow look at our amazing graphics package" sense) and little substance.

I can't even bring myself to watch the Sunday morning chat shows, which are, by and large, not explorations of issues but exchanges of talking points. (To be fair, I did stumble on George Stephanopolous's Sunday shindig a month or so ago as he interviewed Ben Carson, and George came remarkably close to committing journalism a couple of times.)

I form my flaming liberal opinions the old-fashioned way: reading and research.

My calling Wayne LaPierre a terrorist is just me calling Wayne LaPierre a terrorist. He strives to ensure people who really shouldn't have guns can have guns. Everybody in this country has the right to own a gun; not everybody in this country should be able to own a gun.

I don't hate guns; that would be hard to do growing up in my family. If I'm going to hate something in regards to guns, I'm going to hate that a person with a history of domestic abuse or a history of mental instability or what have you can all too often get a gun no questions asked. I'm not even saying they shouldn't be able to buy a gun, you'll notice. Just that I'd like a few questions asked,

You are correct: Oregon, not California. My apologies. That's what I get for trying to post and listen to Barefoot Contessa at the same time.

Background checks are done every time anyone legally purchases a gun. The "gun show loophole" that everyone talks about is essentially bogus, and the percentage of firearms used in crimes that were purchased at gun shows is minuscule. I purchased a handgun at a gun show in Virginia and was subject to a background check.

Since you mentioned Chicago earlier, in a report by Chicago's mayor, he readily admits that most guns used as murder weapons in the city were obtained illegally, originating from gun stores outside the state. Those guns were purchased in a legal manner, however. In many cases it's suspected that the criminals paid someone who was able to legally purchase a gun and then transferred it to the criminal, which is a felony. So if someone is willing to break laws to enable someone else who is willing to break laws, how will further gun control help? Short of a complete ban and confiscation of all guns in the country, which is an impossibility.

My calling Wayne LaPierre a terrorist is just me calling Wayne LaPierre a terrorist. He strives to ensure people who really shouldn't have guns can have guns.

He strives to ensure we as citizens continue to have our right to bear as protected by the second amendment of our constitution. I'm not sure how that translates to ensuing people who shouldn't have guns have guns. I agree that not everyone should own guns, but who's call is that to make? That starts the slippery slope conversation about mental health, and on who's authority do we decide who is and who isn't mentally capable of owning a firearm...

Well, I'm never going to convince you Mr LaPierre is anything but a vile person delivering guns into the hands of criminals and you're never going to convince me he's a noble man fighting a noble battle, so probably best to move on from Mr LaPierre.

And I'm not saying that all guns need to be confiscated; that's absurd and unconstitutional.

I apologize if I'm misunderstanding your point: what I'm getting is that because any limits on guns infringe on the Second Amendment -- "...but who's call is that to make? That starts the slippery slope..." we shouldn't have any limits. But to function as a society, our constitutional rights still carry limits. We have a First Amendment right to freedom of speech, but I can't pop into a movie theater and scream "fire". When it comes to buying guns, personally I'd like to see a more thorough background check and a three day waiting period, among other things, applied consistently across the country.

I don't even have cable.

I don't know Mr. LaPierre personally, and my defending him is only because I haven't seen evidence that he's Satan incarnate as most anti-NRA people tout.

I would argue that "more thorough" background checks, and certainly waiting periods, won't fix a damn thing. We've seen that most of the recent mass murderers purchased guns perfectly legally, and passed a background check because they had no prior criminal record. I would argue instead that if places like Chicago eliminated their strict gun laws (they've lifted some of the more restrictive handgun bans and enacted concealed carry laws in recent years) to allow law abiding citizens to arm themselves if they choose, we would see a decline in gun crimes within a few years.

As a Chicago resident, do you agree with bans on certain types of guns like the ones overturned recently? That's as unconstitutional as confiscation, as far as I'm concerned.

Vater said:

He strives to ensure we as citizens continue to have our right to bear as protected by the second amendment of our constitution.

See, this is where the nuance that Gonch was talking about comes in. I get the 2nd Amendment, and while I theorized that a civilized society at some point may potentially evolve to see weapons unnecessary, certainly we aren't there. That said, there are flag wavers who think the 2nd means unrestricted, gear up for the apocalypse, and no rational person could interpret the amendment that way. There is a place for restriction and limitation, and at the end of the day, that's the conversation that one side wants to have, while the other does not.

Jeff said:

There is a place for restriction and limitation, and at the end of the day, that's the conversation that one side wants to have, while the other does not.

In fairness, it's a conversation those at both extreme ends don't want to have.

Well, I guess by your implications I'm at one of the extreme ends, and we've been having this same tired conversation over and over and over for years, and it keeps resurfacing every time someone takes a bullet. But with the clowns in office, the fix is always more regulation. I believe if there are any restrictions to the 2nd amendment, they should apply to government and military as well. Crazy? Not when you consider the primary purpose (really, the only purpose) of the amendment. WE are the government (or at least we were at one time, before the statists took over), so WE (are supposed to) all have the same rights as the elitists in office--possibly even more so, if we look at government officials as servants of the People (that's difficult to say with a straight face anymore).

I've gone back and forth over the years as to where I think the line should be drawn as far as what types of weaponry average citizens are "allowed" to own (fully automatic rifles? explosives? tanks? rocket launchers?), and the question that keeps me coming back to where a lot of you will likely think I'm bats**t nuts is "what would the citizenry need to defeat a tyrannical government who can utilize the military to fight back an uprising?"

Call me an extremist, but I think it makes perfectly logical sense.

Jeff Putz for President!

[

Wow, you guys both buy into the complete BS the left-leaning media spoon feeds you, eh? If you were to actually look at the statistics, nearly all the mass murders in the last 50+ years have occurred in places where it's illegal to carry a gun (i.e. the ironically named "gun-free zones"). I prefer to be in places that allow guns, that way if someone with bad intentions is stupid enough to start opening fire, there's a better chance someone might be able to reduce the body count.

Gun ownership is a protected right in this country for a reason. And I'm far more inclined to trust your average gun toting citizen than our "leaders" in government whose only interest is to stay in power.

It's funny...when anyone suggests we should maybe temporarily stop the influx of refugees because the FBI has told us it's impossible to vet them all, and that ISIS has actually said they've used the refugee program to infiltrate the US...they're accused of being racists, uncompassionate, and fear mongering. Yet those same people think guns and the climate are the biggest threats to humanity.

There is always a happy medium, but unfortunately the NRA wants it completed open and unlimited.

The fact that automatic and semi-automatic weapons can be purchased by the general public makes these mass murders easily possible in any zone. There is no reason for anyone to be able to purchase an automatic weapon in the general. They are for warfare. The NRA wants absolutely NO restrictions on weapons so the companies that make money selling these weapons can do so freely. Its all about $$$$$ for them. Yes they are partly responsible for allowing these things to happen in this country with the resistance they provide on ANY regulation.

I am stil questioning why people aren't running as scared of AMERICAN terrorists shooting our own citizens as they are of foreign terrorists. That is a much bigger threat in this country right now!

Concealed weapons should definitely not be permitted at any theme park. Rides jostle the rides. A gun could go off. Guns are for security personnel in these places.

super7* said:

There is always a happy medium, but unfortunately the NRA wants it completed open and unlimited.

In the same sense as my earlier reply to Jeff, I don't think this is entirely fair.

There's plenty of people at the extreme other end that also have no interest in landing somewhere in the middle.

It's easy to snicker at "gun nuts", but it should be just as easy to do the same to "anti-gun nuts" I think.

And anyone that doesn't is usually revealing exactly where they stand.

super7* said:

The fact that automatic and semi-automatic weapons can be purchased by the general public makes these mass murders easily possible in any zone. There is no reason for anyone to be able to purchase an automatic weapon in the general.

Not entirely correct. There are some states where automatic weapons are entirely illegal, and the ones where it is legal require lots of paperwork, taxes, approval at both a local and federal level before you can even purchase the weapon, and typically a several month waiting period after purchase before you can take possession. Far different process than purchasing a semi-automatic firearm.

They are for warfare.

What were muskets for? I ask because that's the typical argument the anti-gun folks go to when they accuse me of glossing past the "militia" part of the 2nd amendment. Muskets were the most common firearm of the era, were used in warfare, and were owned by the citizenry regardless. Again, look at the reason for the 2nd amendment. It was not for hunting, sport, target practice, or even defending oneself against criminals. It was so the People were armed to protect their freedom in case the government became tyrannical. Period.

I am stil questioning why people aren't running as scared of AMERICAN terrorists shooting our own citizens as they are of foreign terrorists. That is a much bigger threat in this country right now!

My opinion on whether or not we should be "running scared of" anyone (foreign or domestic) aside (we shouldn't)...all the more reason to allow citizens to carry firearms. Gun-free zones are essentially invitations for would-be mass murderers to target practice. In almost all the recent shootings, the victims were sitting ducks.

Concealed weapons should definitely not be permitted at any theme park. Rides jostle the rides. A gun could go off.

A properly holstered firearm does not "go off." But regardless, it should be (and is) up to the park whether they want to allow firearms or not, as they are private property.

I'm a fan of firearms, but even I think I would be uneasy bringing one with me on something like Magnum or Voyage. :)

As would I. And to clarify, I was not necessarily saying it's the best idea to carry in a theme park, nor would I do so. But I'm not going to vilify anyone who would, provided they didn't have bad intentions.

There's too much misinformation about firearms continually propagated by people who don't know enough (or anything) about them. But that's politics, I guess.

There are always folks at the extremes unwilling to move off their "turf". (There's a group here in Chicago who will not rest until Lake Shore Drive is torn up and made into parkland. It is a lovely thought -- and it will never happen.)

The extremes may not be willing to talk, but it doesn't mean conversations between everyone else shouldn't happen.

Problem solving and politician should never be used in the same sentence unless not is included.

I don't think an increase of firearms prevalence will lead to more safety. The odds of being anywhere near a mass murder or using a gun to stop someone trying to kill a bunch of people are still infinitesimal in spite of the fact that these incidents are more common than they were even 5 years ago. The damage done through accidents and crimes of passion, not to mention encouraging people to open fire on a in a chaotic situation, will FAR outweigh the potential lives saved by stopping a shooter in action. To me the idea that we're safer from each other if we have more guns is lunacy.

However, I have a very good friend who grew up in Cuba in which that only people who were allowed to have guns were the oppressive govt. Even though she agrees with my previous paragraph, she is staunchly against any gun regulation because she has seen what happens when the people don't have the means to fight back against the government. While I don't think we're at that point, I think it's an important consideration, though a completely separate one from "more guns makes us safer from each other."