Gun control debate (merged)

#501
#501
Lucky it didn't go off!! :banghead2:

Toy gun made of paper gets kid tossed from school

Toy gun made of paper gets kid tossed from school


Meet 8-year-old Asher Palmer, who was tossed out of his special-needs Manhattan school for threatening other kids with a toy “gun’’ — which he made out of rolled-up paper.

“Asher is exactly the type of student Lang [School] is supposed to be serving. Why they did this doesn’t make sense,’’ his outraged mom, Melina Spadone, told The Post.

She was incensed that Principal Micaela Bracamonte told other staffers in an email that Asher “had a model for physically aggressive behavior in his immediate family.’’

Spadone thinks Bracamonte was referring to her husband because he served in the military during the Kuwait war. If that was the reason for the comment, she said, “I find it offensive and inappropriate.’’

As far as the toy gun is concerned, she said Asher, a first-year student, made it out of a piece of paper after discussing military weapons with his dad. His teachers told him not to point it at anyone, and he obeyed for a while.

The school claimed Asher also said he’d “kill’’ a girl in a separate incident — a typical argument between youngsters. While her son may have made the threat, Spadone said, people use the word “kill’’ all the time, and it shouldn’t be taken literally.

Spadone, who lives in Hell’s Kitchen, said the private school in lower Manhattan is supposed to help with social-behavioral issues of kids like Asher, who has been diagnosed with ADHD and problems communicating.

She blamed Asher’s expulsion on irrational fear following the Newtown, Conn., school massacre carried out by 20-year-old Adam Lanza, who had psychological problems, including Asper*ger’s.

Asher’s mom and dad, Mark Palmer, who are finalizing their divorce, paid $119,500 in tuition and other costs — including the price of a one-on-one teacher — for five months before they learned of the school’s decision.

Palmer works for a private equity firm.

Spadone emailed the principal, “I am stunned … We did not invest $120,000 toward Asher’s success for a five-month period. It was understood, and, in fact, contractually agreed, that Asher would be returning next year.’’

In her June 12 email to the boy’s teachers and psychologist, obtained by The Post, Bracamonte said, “I don’t see it tenable at this stage that Asher receive a warning for the specific behavior we’ve agreed on targeting — i.e. use of pretend guns on fellow students and mention of killing.’’

She added that the boy “had a concrete plan for killing [a female student] that he would not retract after discussion with our psych staff … that he was physically and verbally aggressive at a whole new level only last week … He might well present a risk to the emotional and possibly (though remotely so) physical safety and well-being of his classmates.’’

She recommended that Asher be home-schooled next year and expressed the hope that in the future, “he can return to school … I heartily hope that Lang will be one of the schools you consider at that point.”

Spadone said her son enjoyed school, and Asher himself told The Post, “I like being with my friends.”

A parent with a son in the same class said the two kids get along “just fine,” adding, “They take the subway together. They play games together. I don’t feel my son is threatened by him.’’

Bracamonte declined to comment.
Click to expand...
 
#503
#503
Pepe_Silvia said:
BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds "Straw Purchaser" Law Provisions | The Truth About Guns
Click to expand...

Interesting, and Scalia is right, it's the language of the law that makes it muddled. On one hand the obvious question is if the end purchaser is legal to own the firearm in question why didn't they make the purchase themselves? OTOH the idea that selling a gun legally that ends up in the hands of another legal gun owner isn't something the law should be making a criminal act. How much leeway is law enforcement going to have in interpreting the when's and why's of how a private transaction took place? For instance, you run across a screaming deal on a firearm that you know you can flip for a nice profit. (Maybe a pawn shop has something priced way low as it looks like they don't know what they have) Does that qualify as a purchase with intent to sell to another? (Straw purchase?) Arguably yes...so doing so would make you a criminal? It says a lot that there were a number of State AD's that sided against interpretation of the law.

Obviously it's early but I wonder if this might even turn into one of those things where at least some of the States consider telling Washington to suck it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#505
#505
Sandvol said:
This ruling doesn't mean a whole lot. Kennedy never ceases to amaze though.
Click to expand...

Both sides have a valid point. I think it should be illegal for someone to do a straw purchase for someone that can't buy one for themselves. And the 4473 form does specifically state "Are you the actual purchaser" in the first question.

On the other hand Scalia does have a point that the idea of straw purchase is moot when the other person can or could buy for themselves. Especially when it's a family member.

It could have gone either way and both sides could have been correct in the matter. Unfortunately the votes were mainly split along the lines of "I hate guns" and "I like the Constitution" with Kennedy swinging in the balance this time.
 
#507
#507
And this quote from the article:

"This is a very big and very positive decision that will save lives by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Click to expand...

This guy is fooling himself if he really believes this ruling will do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
 
#508
#508
Pepe_Silvia said:
And this quote from the article:



This guy is fooling himself if he really believes this ruling will do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Click to expand...

Of course it will! Don't you understand?! The unicorns whispered in my ear that this would happen!

I bet you're one of those global warming deniers as well!
 
#511
#511
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf

ABRAMSKI v. UNITED STATES paves the judicial path for full firearms registration by setting the precedent that specific owner identification is critically material to firearms ownership.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf

Those cheering this case for upholding the "straw purchaser" conviction of an honest and law-abiding citizen who legally purchased a gun from a licensed dealer, and then sold it to another good citizen through another licensed dealer, as a victory for common sense crime control are, in my best legal analysis, ******* retarded. — via TherealTrippleB


This ruling means that I can no longer buy a weapon for my son,daughter, or wife as a gift. After I'm dead all my weapons will be confiscated and not passed down to the generations of my family to come.

Nah. This administration isn't after our weapons.
 
#512
#512
Obsessed said:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf

ABRAMSKI v. UNITED STATES paves the judicial path for full firearms registration by setting the precedent that specific owner identification is critically material to firearms ownership.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1493_k5g1.pdf

Those cheering this case for upholding the "straw purchaser" conviction of an honest and law-abiding citizen who legally purchased a gun from a licensed dealer, and then sold it to another good citizen through another licensed dealer, as a victory for common sense crime control are, in my best legal analysis, ******* retarded. — via TherealTrippleB


This ruling means that I can no longer buy a weapon for my son,daughter, or wife as a gift. After I'm dead all my weapons will be confiscated and not passed down to the generations of my family to come.

Nah. This administration isn't after our weapons.
Click to expand...

Not specifically what the decision was.

The problem was the original purchaser was paid by his uncle, then went and bought the pistol knowing he lied on the form. It was a straw purchase by any definition of the term.

If the buyer had gifted it to his uncle, there wouldn't have been an issue. Or not written "Glock 19" in the memo line on the checkbook.
 
#513
#513
Grand Vol said:
Not specifically what the decision was.

The problem was the original purchaser was paid by his uncle, then went and bought the pistol knowing he lied on the form. It was a straw purchase by any definition of the term.

If the buyer had gifted it to his uncle, there wouldn't have been an issue. Or not written "Glock 19" in the memo line on the checkbook.
Click to expand...

Granted, but do you not see a door opening because of this? I see it as a means to the end that they are after.
 
#514
#514
Obsessed said:
Granted, but do you not see a door opening because of this? I see it as a means to the end that they are after.
Click to expand...

As bad as I hate to agree with it, the ruling was correct. I do fear as you pointed out, the left will use it as a mean to further control and restrict firearms.

What is funny, the law worked as it should and someone is being held accountable, the left should be happy with that in of itself.
 
#515
#515
Obsessed said:
Granted, but do you not see a door opening because of this? I see it as a means to the end that they are after.
Click to expand...

No, not necessarily. It doesn't affect private sales between buyers which is what liberals really want to go after. The so called "gun show loophole" they always scream about.

I can buy a gun, pay for it and figure out a week later I really don't like it and sell it to a private party. On the other hand, someone can't pay me money and say "go buy me a gun."
 
#516
#516
hog88 said:
As bad as I hate to agree with it, the ruling was correct. I do fear as you pointed out, the left will use it as a mean to further control and restrict firearms.

What is funny, the law worked as it should and someone is being held accountable, the left should be happy with that in of itself.
Click to expand...

And I agree as well. I'm happy the law worked. But the precedent that was set, is scary.
 
#517
#517
Because we don't have enough humor in these threads other than LG

9n70g.jpg


(and before anyone dings the validity if the number, I made it up)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#518
#518
Grand Vol said:
Because we don't have enough humor in these threads other than LG

9n70g.jpg


(and before anyone dings the validity if the number, I made it up)
Click to expand...

In all seriousness I do think I read somewhere NICS checks had gone up nearly 70% since he came into office.
 
#519
#519
Grand Vol said:
WWI production Mauser in .30-06?

Sounds like a sportarized version that was modified after the war. Mauser didn't make that caliber during the war that I know of.
Click to expand...

Same in a .284 Remington. I actually don't want it anymore. Bought it for the scope.
 
#521
#521
If B, the purchaser of a gun from dealer A, has to pass a background check, then why shouldn't C have pass a background check to buy that very same gun from B days later? Or months later, or even years. It makes no sense.

The purpose of the background check is to ensure that the purchaser meets some minimal criteria. Therefore, all purchasers of all firearms, regardless of who they are buying from, should undergo a background check.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#522
#522
lawgator1 said:
If B, the purchaser of a gun from dealer A, has to pass a background check, then why shouldn't C have pass a background check to buy that very same gun from B days later? Or months later, or even years. It makes no sense.

The purpose of the background check is to ensure that the purchaser meets some minimal criteria. Therefore, all purchasers of all firearms, regardless of who they are buying from, should undergo a background check.
Click to expand...

And how would G (government) know B sold a gun to C without G knowing who and where all guns are?
 
#523
#523
lawgator1 said:
If B, the purchaser of a gun from dealer A, has to pass a background check, then why shouldn't C have pass a background check to buy that very same gun from B days later? Or months later, or even years. It makes no sense.

The purpose of the background check is to ensure that the purchaser meets some minimal criteria. Therefore, all purchasers of all firearms, regardless of who they are buying from, should undergo a background check.
Click to expand...

Hey, I already told you I'd give you the mandatory background checks if you give us the complete dismissal of the NFA34, GCA68 and deletion of the Hughes Amendment.
 
#524
#524
Here a legitimate question LG. I know you pop in here from time to time and probably start muttering in tongues. But let's have a rational question answered from the anti-gun left.

So the National Firearms Act of 1934 (which I know you have no idea what it is, just trust me) made suppressors (silencers) a restricted item as well as putting a $200 federal tax application with an intense background check on same. Now this isn't a firearm, but rather a related item that actually made firearms safer by reducing the noise level from said firearms. However, it's lumped in as a controlled item in this Act.

What justification can anti-gunners continue to use to maintain this item on the NFA 1934 seeing that it actually makes the legal use of firearms safer for all involved by lowering the noise levels? Wouldn't it make more sense to have these items unrestricted, even highly encouraged because of the reduction in noise pollution and safety aspects?

Your answer, please.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top