The vast majority of National Guard armories are not manned 24/7/365, in fact none of the ones I'm familiar with are, usually more around 10/5/238, and I'm familiar with over 50 of them. Weapons are locked into racks, racks are chained together, all behind a vault door, they all have intrusion alarms though.
We're not going to stop crime and we're not going to stop gun violence, but it's idiotic to think that we can pass new legislation that will only affect law abiding citizens and make any kind of difference.
Such laws would not have made much of a difference in the Connecticut shooting for a couple of reasons. 1. - The "assault rifle" wasn't used, he had it, but he didn't use it. 2 - The guns were obtained illegally in that he killed someone in order to to get them. 3 - Connecticut already had a strict ban in place, yet the guns were there.
About the only common denominator in these shootings were the mental health issues of the shooters so why not strengthen/implement/enforce laws regarding mental health issue reporting systems? In this computer driven age, I doubt it would be hard at all to do, it's just that it isn't and can't be done because of liberal laws prohibiting it. (HIPAA.). Just link the mental health records into the NICS database.
Would that solve all the incidents, no, because a true criminal or someone with enough mental issues that they don't worry about laws will still get done what they want to get done.
Would even destroying all 20 or 30 round magazines prevent it, even if ALL of them were destroyed? No, 10 round or even 5 round magazines would still be used in those instances. A criminal (or mentally challenged) will always use what's available, the legality of the tool has no bearing or issue with them.
The comment that we allow our freedom of speech to be limited on this forum is true because of the usage agreement when signing up, but we agree to that limitation, but only on this forum, we agree to it on other forums we belong to, but that agreement to restriction ends when we log off, it's not applied to all of us all the time by the government, it only applies to one small area, while in use and we're free at any time to opt out. Not so when government gets involved.
Dianne Feinstein has a concealed weapons permit, the reporter that did the article giving all the address of permit holders also has a concealed weapons permit, but because they are them, guns are good and because we are us (as in not them) guns are bad. Too many of these politicians, actors, reporters, etc have the "OK for me, but not for Thee" attitude.
We're not going to stop crime and we're not going to stop gun violence, but it's idiotic to think that we can pass new legislation that will only affect law abiding citizens and make any kind of difference.
Such laws would not have made much of a difference in the Connecticut shooting for a couple of reasons. 1. - The "assault rifle" wasn't used, he had it, but he didn't use it. 2 - The guns were obtained illegally in that he killed someone in order to to get them. 3 - Connecticut already had a strict ban in place, yet the guns were there.
About the only common denominator in these shootings were the mental health issues of the shooters so why not strengthen/implement/enforce laws regarding mental health issue reporting systems? In this computer driven age, I doubt it would be hard at all to do, it's just that it isn't and can't be done because of liberal laws prohibiting it. (HIPAA.). Just link the mental health records into the NICS database.
Would that solve all the incidents, no, because a true criminal or someone with enough mental issues that they don't worry about laws will still get done what they want to get done.
Would even destroying all 20 or 30 round magazines prevent it, even if ALL of them were destroyed? No, 10 round or even 5 round magazines would still be used in those instances. A criminal (or mentally challenged) will always use what's available, the legality of the tool has no bearing or issue with them.
The comment that we allow our freedom of speech to be limited on this forum is true because of the usage agreement when signing up, but we agree to that limitation, but only on this forum, we agree to it on other forums we belong to, but that agreement to restriction ends when we log off, it's not applied to all of us all the time by the government, it only applies to one small area, while in use and we're free at any time to opt out. Not so when government gets involved.
Dianne Feinstein has a concealed weapons permit, the reporter that did the article giving all the address of permit holders also has a concealed weapons permit, but because they are them, guns are good and because we are us (as in not them) guns are bad. Too many of these politicians, actors, reporters, etc have the "OK for me, but not for Thee" attitude.
