Man caught trying to enter Magic Kingdom with gun

[Matthew]

100% serious. I am not sure what your background is, but I have taught history at very high levels...there is a history in this country that is disconcerting. There is also a reason it was placed where it was in the founding documents. IMO

Fair enough... Each to their own I guess but it was an amendment made over 200 years ago... The worlds a different place... You are not going to have a tyrannical government imposing their will on people... You don't live in North Korea or Central Africa.

 

[Vaughn4380]

Thank you for answering a fair point with a fair point. Allow me to continue the trend:

First, we have to acknowledge the greater level of familiarity with suicide bombers in Israel. The general public, and especially people like law enforcement, bus drivers, etc. will be the ones to notice patterns like this.

When I was in my early 20's and a manager at Service Merchandise, I experienced first hand so many customers trying to use stolen credit cards that I could almost tell when they walked in the front door.

If you're not familiar with the store, it was a catalog showroom, which meant you wrote down the items you wanted, went to the counter, and then you would meet your merchandise at a "pick-up" area. This provided the ideal scenario to have the would-be thieves wait for their package while the police showed up instead.

On my first day, I wouldn't have known right off the bat. I might have been excited to make a big sale. But when I learned the average behavior for a person buying an expensive TV or camera (ask a million questions, shop for best price, etc.) that made it easier to spot someone more likely to be a thief (they came in overdressed for a retail store, didn't ask ANY questions about how the items worked, what features they had, etc. and picked the more expensive items without flinching.)

So through experience and familiarity, I became something of an expert in that unique setting of picking out who was a thief before they even opened their mouths. I got many people arrested while they waited for their packages.

I would expect people living in an area where suicide bomber attempts are much more common than they are here are going to be better able to notice patterns of behavior.

However, nowhere in your article (at least the parts you posted) was it suggested the bus driver shoot the person, or that they did shoot the person successfully. I suspect even police would be cautious about shooting a person strapped with a bomb, because if you shoot just right (incorrectly) then you carry out the suicide bomber's wishes for him/her.

So I think you made my point that having civilians with unknown levels of training shooting because they didn't think it through and think they are Rambo is NOT preferable to screening and other methods (vs. shooting) of subduing or foiling the potential perpetrator.

I don't think the bomb squad would go in guns blazing.

Like I said yesterday, we are going to have to disagree and go our separate ways on this one. There really is no point in continuing. I still insist that I would rather take my chances with off-duty police (first choice) and CCW holders (second choice) shooting a bomber if at all possible. You won't convince me otherwise. No matter how small the chance is they are successful, it is still greater than letting the guy set the bomb off. You disagree, I get it. I disagree with you. So what, who cares?

Sorry you felt the need to type all of that up. This thread has run its course and is just repeating the same tired talking points that come form both sides. I am off to read other threads about Disney.

 

[Vaughn4380]

Better still explain what is wrong about this one
View attachment 156219

Perhaps the Kinder Company should develop a lobbying organization as strong as the NRA? Then the eggs might be available in this Country.

 

[G00fyDad]

The girl on the far right has her index finger dangerously close to the trigger. That's what you were referring to right?

No. The smallest person doesn't have the biggest gun.

 

[jakeman]

Better still explain what is wrong about this one
View attachment 156219

Her finger is on the trigger and the rifle is not pointed down range?

 

[Goofyernmost]

let me address a few things...
1. I would never support "gun for gun" nor have I stated support here. I do not believe that there is a need for assault weapons, however, there is a right to bear arms.
2. A government to protect us? Curious how you see that in 2016. The overreaching of the last several administrations (dem and repub alike) would tell an entirely different story.
3. I never stated support for your candy bar analogy.

No offense, but you seem to write in extremes. What you wrote does not apply to anything I have stated.

Well, that makes two of us. I have stated over that I believe that the right to bear arms is essential to our continued freedoms. I don't care what the political parties spout, especially in an election year. It is all BS anyway, but, without a government control we would all be running in opposite directions, not unlike the current congress. A lot of talk and absolutely nothing accomplished. I stated the candy bar analogy for the purpose if explaining how I felt is was. It had nothing directly to do with anything you said. However, if the government doesn't concern itself in anyway about our well being, who the hell will? It is their job to provide us with a military presence. We are not supposed to be a vigilantly, lawless society. The population is to large and diverse for that now. There are many things that the government should keep their paws off, something as important as regulating the standards for a civilized nation to the extent of a safe distribution of firearms is indeed one that they should take seriously and in a way that will protect all citizens.

We all pretty much agree that a baby should never be handling a loaded weapon, yet, for some reason, that I surely cannot understand, we think that it is a good idea to give unlimited access to an adult whose brain is firing on less then the required neurons to be able to easily acquire assault weapons. The amendment was to support a state by state militia back in the beginnings of the country and to make sure that no one from a foreign country could just walk in an force us, at gunpoint, to do whatever they demanded. Germany is a good example of what can happen when a group of people cannot fight back, however, we pay mega-taxes to finance a military to take on that task. Our right to bear arms is a carry over from the past, but, it is a good one that is always possible could happen if one of our leaders decided that he didn't want to go home after 8 years. It's like an insurance policy to keep everyone honest. It should always remain and I have never owned any firearm all my life and the only time I ever used one was when I was in the service in a war zone. That doesn't mean I don't think that it is vital that we have the right to own one. You have said that you agree with that so I am not sure what points you are trying to make. Some one needs to put some type of controls on that stuff to some degree, not as a right, but as a sensible, safe way to do things. That can be done without taking away our right to own deadly weapons. Some of those weapons, however, are design only to kill human beings. Even the non-military ones can do that. It is not necessary that we all own something that can blow a hole in the side of Fort Knox. That is what needs to be controlled along with a common sense approach to who is capable of owning one safely.

 

[Kman]

Comparing us to other countries is ridiculous unless every aspect of our cultures is the same.

Agree to a point but this is where I think the other big issue might be. The more I see what is happening in the United States the one thing that separates your country from mine (Canada and the only one I can speak to) is the culture of fear. I am not suggesting for a moment that Canada and the US are in the same boat- we're not. The States is a super power and has a much bigger target on their back however I do believe that between the media on one hand and the right wing extremists that have hijacked the GOP that the level of fear is unwarranted.

We had a national election last summer where the incumbent Conservative Party of Canada was facing off with a very formidable Liberal party push. The Conservatives attempted to run our simple 11 week election process (that's about 4 weeks longer than normal) by stressing fear of the "unknown" (Muslims) and by fear mongering. I am a conservative voter by nature however I know myself and many others like me voted against this. The Liberal party promoted a strong sense of security but tied it to inclusiveness and acceptance of all people. I like to think we are very good at this in Canada. I think that might be a primary difference.

If you listen to Trump or any of the GOP leaders today they are constantly pushing an agenda of fear. Yes we need to vigilant- every country can be susceptible to tyranny but is that a real fear? Is that something that will happen over night? especially in a great country like America that has an incredible history of democracy? I don't believe so. I think this attitude and thought process has permeated down to the "every man" and continues to stir up the racial and social problems that haven't been completely solved and this leads to criminal behaviour which in the States means someone starts shooting. For the life of me I don't understand why there are 88 guns/hundred people in the States (per the latest information) and I don't understand why people feel the need to be armed everywhere they go. The only explanation I can come up with is fear.

I suspect it is very hard for us to understand each other coming from very different cultures. Not trying to argue- just saying it doesn't make sense to me or the vast majority of Canadians for example.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Just as a final note. You constantly either misread what I have been trying to say or intentionally are not getting it at all. I certainly want things to be stopped before anything happens, be that bombing or shooting people. This topic is about a regular guest carrying in a weapon.

I have not been talking about a trained professional that is there exclusively to prevent that from happening. They know what to look for. Joe Blow, the guy that bought his gun from Walmart, does not have that skill taught to them. They have had no training but feel that having a gun will not only protect himself but others is the danger. However, you cannot let anyone in with a weapon unless they are on verifiable duty because unless you can read minds there is no real way to determine their motivation. Even if you could you can't determine the degree of expertise that they have with that gun. I don't want them in there with delusions of grandeur thinking that they are going to save lives like it was a movie. They cannot and they, in fact, stand a good chance of making it worse.

That is what this has been about. If you want weapons to protect your home or your property fine, that's what the 2nd amendment is about. To unnecessarily carry one into a crowded area with no other reasoning then "something might happen and I want to be ready" is just asking for a bad end result. And my life may be as much in danger from their uneducated reaction as from a real terrorist. Acting nervous is an indication of many things and it isn't exclusive to "I'm going to blow the place up". They might have brought in a bottle of beer and are concerned that they might get caught. Or should we shoot them and then find out why they look upset?

Bingo.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

So stricter laws will change this? How? Laws are for those that follow them. Just curious how many criminals follow the law?

Many who were not criminals until they shot someone.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

He shows that, and yet no one mentions munichs gun laws and their mass shootings. Just a recent shooting and far stricter laws. Hmmm.....

Problem is ..there is no evidence that "strict" laws have an impact. Criminals will get guns regardless. Arguments like this are short sighted.

So only zero shootings = success to you?

 

[Kman]

So only zero shootings = success to you?

Nobody said you would stop everything but what if you reduced gun deaths in the US from 30K down to 20K a year. Is that not a huge improvement?

 

[aw14]

Well, that makes two of us. I have stated over that I believe that the right to bear arms is essential to our continued freedoms. I don't care what the political parties spout, especially in an election year. It is all BS anyway, but, without a government control we would all be running in opposite directions, not unlike the current congress. A lot of talk and absolutely nothing accomplished. I stated the candy bar analogy for the purpose if explaining how I felt is was. It had nothing directly to do with anything you said. However, if the government doesn't concern itself in anyway about our well being, who the hell will? It is their job to provide us with a military presence. We are not supposed to be a vigilantly, lawless society. The population is to large and diverse for that now. There are many things that the government should keep their paws off, something as important as regulating the standards for a civilized nation to the extent of a safe distribution of firearms is indeed one that they should take seriously and in a way that will protect all citizens.

We all pretty much agree that a baby should never be handling a loaded weapon, yet, for some reason, that I surely cannot understand, we think that it is a good idea to give unlimited access to an adult whose brain is firing on less then the required neurons to be able to easily acquire assault weapons. The amendment was to support a state by state militia back in the beginnings of the country and to make sure that no one from a foreign country could just walk in an force us, at gunpoint, to do whatever they demanded. Germany is a good example of what can happen when a group of people cannot fight back, however, we pay mega-taxes to finance a military to take on that task. Our right to bear arms is a carry over from the past, but, it is a good one that is always possible could happen if one of our leaders decided that he didn't want to go home after 8 years. It's like an insurance policy to keep everyone honest. It should always remain and I have never owned any firearm all my life and the only time I ever used one was when I was in the service in a war zone. That doesn't mean I don't think that it is vital that we have the right to own one. You have said that you agree with that so I am not sure what points you are trying to make. Some one needs to put some type of controls on that stuff to some degree, not as a right, but as a sensible, safe way to do things. That can be done without taking away our right to own deadly weapons. Some of those weapons, however, are design only to kill human beings. Even the non-military ones can do that. It is not necessary that we all own something that can blow a hole in the side of Fort Knox. That is what needs to be controlled along with a common sense approach to who is capable of owning one safely.

I think you and I are closer on this then we realized. My concern was that it "seemed" many posters were looking for such stringent restrictive laws that ownership would take a nose dive. Which I cannot support. I firmly support background checks, and if there is something that come up on it, no way!

However, as I have said numerous times on here, I do not support civilian ownership of something that can blow a hole in fort knox. I just support the right for able body and able minded citizens to bear arms. Again, not something I would ever do, but that right is guaranteed.

I never understood the "constitution is an old document" argument. Many of the people espousing that are also religious folks who follow an "old document". Seems hypocritical imo

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Stricter laws are designed to prevent the proliferation of weapons on the streets and an attempt to keep them out of the hands of those that should not own one. Does this work well? No. Does that mean that we should do nothing and just let people have any kind of weapon they want and carry that weapon anywhere they want? No. The government HAS to do something. Supporters of the Second Amendment are actually in two groups. Group 1- (a group I fall into) Understands the Second Amendment and feels that people have a right to own a firearm if they choose. However, that firearm should not be a belt-fed M-60. The regular civilian does not need that. We don't care what your reason. We are not fighting a war on US soil. You don't need it. Group 2 - These Second Amendment supporters twist the truth, stretch the definition of the Second Amendment and interpret it to mean what they want it to mean in order to justify their stance on the subject. These people are usually swayed by the NRA that does not care what the government says about weapons. They want what they want and how they want it and they want it now. This group feels that they ought to be able to carry around a couple of fully automatic machine guns, 3 or 4 pistols, and a shotgun and the government just needs to shut-up about it. Check out the pictures below and tell me if you feel safer with these idiots carrying these around? (and be honest) That's right, you wouldn't. People who feel the need to do this are just looking for attention and trying to be the biggest bad*** on the block. They are also the loudest when it comes to "Obamma's commin to take my guns away from me!".

Gun laws are needed simply because society is changing. We no longer carry musket loaders. Have legislation that restricts that sale of weapons to those that should not have it is very welcome by most people. The other side of that problem is getting the guns off the streets so criminals have a smaller (albeit not much more difficult) chance of getting a gun to use illegally. The NRA would like you to think that the government is trying to take your Second Amendment rights away. Trump even said those exact words. That is false. The last peice of legislation I remember reading about placed restrictions on gun sales at conventions and gun meets. Not exactly rolling down the street in tanks coming for your guns.

View attachment 156168 View attachment 156169 View attachment 156170 View attachment 156171 View attachment 156173 View attachment 156172

bingo, bingo, bingo. And I think every person in those pictures needs a therapist.

 

[aw14]

If you listen to Trump or any of the GOP leaders today they are constantly pushing an agenda of fear. Yes we need to vigilant- every country can be susceptible to tyranny but is that a real fear? Is that something that will happen over night? especially in a great country like America that has an incredible history of democracy? I don't believe so. I think this attitude and thought process has permeated down to the "every man" and continues to stir up the racial and social problems that haven't been completely solved and this leads to criminal behaviour which in the States means someone starts shooting. For the life of me I don't understand why there are 88 guns/hundred people in the States (per the latest information) and I don't understand why people feel the need to be armed everywhere they go. The only explanation I can come up with is fear.

.

Not a republican here and not voting for Trump, but if you think the agenda of fear is a republican issue you are sadly mistaken. Both are utilizing it on a daily basis.

The news media and the gems pushing the Trump is a fascist fear is silly and insulting. But people are somewhat sheepish at times, and are by and large gullible. So why let the facts get in the way.

 

[Kman]

Not a republican here and not voting for Trump, but if you think the agenda of fear is a republican issue you are sadly mistaken. Both are utilizing it on a daily basis.

The news media and the gems pushing the Trump is a fascist fear is silly and insulting. But people are somewhat sheepish at times, and are by and large gullible. So why let the facts get in the way.

agreed...it is on both sides. My observation is that the right tends to follow this dogma more than others however. I KNOW it is the case here in Canada. It made me sick last summer to listen to our politicians talk like that. Democrats in the States are guilty as well but I don't believe to the same extent as the GOP

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I'm talking about both.

How? Are they going to give him/her a psych eval? Maybe not allowing someone to own a gun if they are under investigation by Child Protective Services. But that would be a nightmare to police.

No. You're talking about parenting issues and trying to say it is a gun control issue. If I leave my sidearm on the couch and my 2 year old grandson gets it then I am a moron and a bad grandparent. It doesn't mean that there was ever a gun control issue raised. You will not be able to screen for idiots when screening for a gun permit.

You're both right. I think Aftershizzle is suggesting if part of gun control was to say that a gun in an automobile had to be locked in the glove box, then you would greatly reduce the circumstances whereby that parent (generally not considered "a criminal") leaves a loaded gun in such a way that her kid can pick it up and shoot her from the back seat.

I don't like seat belt laws and theoretically have no problem breaking that law, but I wear one just in case I get pulled over because I don't want to get hassled or get a ticket.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

No. The gun control is NOT an issue with that parent. She legally obtained the gun and permit. It was a sidearm and not an anti-aircraft weapon. No gun control issue. Is she an idiot for leaving the gun unattended? Yes. The fact that you are trying to twist that into a gun control issue is sad and just makes the case of those of us in favor of the Second Amendment AND gun control harder to make. We have gun freaks on one side screaming that the government is trying to get their guns and abolish the Second Amendment, and we have those like you who think that any issue that happens with a gun is a gun control issue and a reason to destroy ALL firearms.

Aren't so many laws made for the lowest common denominator, i.e. to protect us from idiots?

 

[Goofyernmost]

Not a republican here and not voting for Trump, but if you think the agenda of fear is a republican issue you are sadly mistaken. Both are utilizing it on a daily basis.

The news media and the gems pushing the Trump is a fascist fear is silly and insulting. But people are somewhat sheepish at times, and are by and large gullible. So why let the facts get in the way.

There are good reasons to point out the dangers of our world today no matter what affiliation they happen to have. It is the way that we are being told to deal with it. One side is saying that we need to be level headed and deal with things in a calm reasonable manner. the other side is saying that you deal with violence with more violence. I certainly hope that being violent is the first reaction never becomes the way that this nation thinks. I no longer want to be a part of that nation if that were to occur. It would be a very sad day for our democracy.

 

[Goofyernmost]

How? Are they going to give him/her a psych eval? Maybe not allowing someone to own a gun if they are under investigation by Child Protective Services. But that would be a nightmare to police.

Well if you listen to some of the tinfoil hat contingency on this board, the government already knows everything about everybody, so it should be a simple thing since they already know how often we go to the bathroom! It may take a little longer to acquire a weapon, but, what is the rush. Are we presently being invaded?

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Like I said yesterday, we are going to have to disagree and go our separate ways on this one. There really is no point in continuing. I still insist that I would rather take my chances with off-duty police (first choice) and CCW holders (second choice) shooting a bomber if at all possible. You won't convince me otherwise. No matter how small the chance is they are successful, it is still greater than letting the guy set the bomb off. You disagree, I get it. I disagree with you. So what, who cares?

Sorry you felt the need to type all of that up. This thread has run its course and is just repeating the same tired talking points that come form both sides. I am off to read other threads about Disney.

And now we know you are really Joy Behar! j/k.

What in the world makes you put your faith an any Joe Shmoe with a concealed carry permit? Think of the biggest dippy-do on these message boards. Now give them a concealed weapon. Still feel safer? I feel significantly less safe.