OT: Reno Wants Proof Buyers Can Use Guns

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

She would like to license gun owners.


"We have freedom of speech...but not freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater falsley, and I think that we have got to look at each of our Constitutional rights and make sure that they are balanced."

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 15, 1999


I'll bet a coconut that the new "guidelines" that she'd want would require that I take additional firearms training. This in spite of the fact that I had NRA hunter safety training in 1958, was a federal law enforcement officer (in the mid-60's), and also had firearms training as part of my sheriff's auxiliary deputy course in the early 1970s.

While I am not opposed to training (I'd opt to freely take a good course in a minute!), I am opposed to the notion that the required course contents (and mandatory test???) could be made unnecessarily difficult. What standard will be imposed? (Please write out all federal and state gun laws...from memory. Now go to the range and shoot a perfect score on five consecutive targets.) A 250 hour course, with 100 mandatory hours per year refresher training? A stiff instructor requirement that discourages anyone from becoming an instuctor? If I wanted to ban guns (which I don't!), this would be one relatively easy way to do it!

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), August 15, 1999.

Wonder what 'her' version of balanced Constitutional rights would be?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 15, 1999.

I want proof Reno can use her brain.

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), August 15, 1999.

I read the article:

Its none of her (or governments) business if I know how to use a firearm. This is again an issue of CONTROL. And a short step indeed to confiscation/outlawing.

Reno is as big a traitor as her boss, and has the sense of a spent shell.

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), August 15, 1999.

This last week there was an article about how Hitler had Parkinsons Disease and it negatively affected his ability to make decisions. Reno has Parkinsons. The article said, generally about 10 years into the disease it affects the brain with inflexibility.

-- scientific (reason@back.off), August 15, 1999.

less...at least the shell falls to the ground when it's empty.

-- sarah (qubr@aol.com), August 15, 1999.

We need a psychological test to determine if someone should be allowed to own a gun. Too many psychos can buy a gun today just because the "gubmint says I can do so in da bill o' rights. ". Psychos cause the news you read about and most are legal gun owners. Impose a mental test and this problem will be reduced.

-- no guns here (nogunshere@dontshoot.com), August 15, 1999.

Q: Why do you want a gun?
A: To defend myself against Y2K looters.

Examiner to aide: (whisper) I'll humor him with a conversation while you call the men with white coats. "Paranoid delusional psycho Y2K whacko" goes permanently on his record.

Brilliant idea, no guns no brains no history no clue.

-- h (h@h.h), August 15, 1999.

So , H, I guess we should just let everyone own a gun. Ok. Next time a basket case blows away someone else because he was having a bad day YOU can stand up and defend his civil rights. Gun laws are needed as well as background checks. Gun nuts just dont see the logic in keeping "matches" out of "childrens" hands.

-- no guns here (nogunshere@dontshoot.com), August 15, 1999.

All of my friends who have guns do not plan to buy anymore, nor do they plan to purchase anymore ammo in the near future. However, they probably will purchase extra hammers and knives just in case they have to be psychologically tested before purchasing one. I can see it coming now...BTW, they ought to outlaw snow skis and bicycles, they kill people.

-- cynic one (cynicone@cynicone.com), August 15, 1999.

I have to agree with no guns on this. too many messed up people can get a gun legally and EVERY SINGLE gun massacre we hear about is caused by mentally deranged people. You cant use the stupid hammers or knives argument. Some people shouldnt be allowed to even look at any kind of firearm.

-- email (emailaddress@mymail.com), August 15, 1999.

hahaha, the LA kid shooter will be the poster boy for psycho exams. They kicked him out of the psycho ward because he was too violent. His parole officer wasn't keeping track of him. The system works so well! More rules, regulations, gatekeepers, and barriers added to the system. And make sure you enter all that into the computer. BBWWAAHAHAHAHA

-- psycho man (pass@exam.go), August 15, 1999.

Cynic one, you think thats a good comeback?. Well lets look at the f-ck ups who killed all the people in the last few years. So many of them were legal gun owners but they were mentally screwed up.

Bring on the gun control. Bring on the mental tests. Bring on the limits to number of guns owned. Bring on ID cards. Guns are terribly dangerous and can kill dozens of people in a heart beat. You want to own a gun, well thats you right. But I dont think the freaks out there should be allowed to pack a gun.

-- no guns here (nogunshere@dontshoot.com), August 15, 1999.

Unfortunately, the accidental deaths of children or random acts of violence in which guns are a factor are part of the price we pay as citizens to insure our freedom. I hate hearing about kids shooting their friends, accidentally or intentionally, but it is better than the alternative.

-- jason (got@mmo.www), August 15, 1999.

If you take alook at the pattern of "mental gun shooters" you will find that there is a lot they have in common. First they have been involved in some kind of mental program.And that program includes some kind of drugs. this is the classic setup for MK-ultra mind control program that the nazi's started in the 30's and our gov. brought over here throught Operation Paperclip.It would serve the NWO crowd well to us this method,just like in England,and Australia when those shooters caused the gov. to ban and restrict peoples access to guns

-- dave stonewall (stonewall@upacreek.com), August 15, 1999.

no guns is just trying to yank chains

-- padlock (links@tree.stump), August 15, 1999.

Dave, so I am acting like Hitler in WWII. Funny stuff. Anything that they tell you from the NRA is gospel. But remember all the dead this country has seen in the last few years and ask yourself if there shouldnt be more control. If not, then what will stop these demons from doing their horror. Maybe I should saddle up along side you. Give them their guns and lets just hope for the best.

-- no guns here (nogunshere@dontshoot.com), August 15, 1999.

I don't know what the national statistics are, but I know personally families who have lost children from accidental drownings in swimming pools and horseback riding than accidental shootings. As a matter of fact, I don't know anyone who has lost a child from an accidental gunshot. Therefore, we need to get rid of swimming pools and horses. My reasoning is just as valid as the one's you are putting forth. The government needs to step in an protect us from ourselves, and when they do that, what will protect you from your government? Hmmmmmmmm?

-- cynic one (cyniconee@cynicconee.com), August 15, 1999.

Ok, this will be my last post to this thread because common sense doesnt apply to the gun nuts. Cynic says that more people die from (fill in the blank) than guns and asks if we should eliminate (fill in the blank). Hey more people die from : falling off a ladder, running on a wet floor, shoveling snow, etc.. but we arent talking about the fact people die from these things we are talking about controlling idiots from causing harm to others. Three weeks ago a legally owned gun was used to "end" an argument between two families here. The wife of the gun nut said her husband would never had done it if he didnt have a gun because the gun is something which doesnt seem real until you fire it. People cleanly kill from far distances with a gun. We should make a law. If someone you love is killed by a nut with a gun and YOU are a NRA member you cannot complain. YOU dont want controls, YOU dont want laws, YOU dont want waiting periods, YOU dont want checks at gun shows, YOU dont want limits to ownership, YOU dont want magazine limits or automatic limits, etc...

-- no guns here (nogunshere@dontshoot.com), August 15, 1999.

I only wish that I could give no guns here exactly what s/he is asking for: a true gunless society, where the most brute and savage rule, with rights determined only by mob rule, and individual rights non-existant. Only 2 problems: 1) Governments and criminals will always have guns, you cannot "dis-invent" them; 2) I would not live in such a society.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), August 15, 1999.

Original language:

"We need a psychological test to determine if someone should be allowed to own a gun. Too many psychos can buy a gun today just because the 'gubmint says I can do so in da bill o' rights. '. Psychos cause the news you read about and most are legal gun owners. Impose a mental test and this problem will be reduced."

Translated to English:

"We need a psychological test to determine if someone should be allowed to own a printer. Too many psychos can buy a printer today just because the 'gubmint says I can do so in da bill o' rights. '. Psychos cause the news you read about and most are legal printer owners. Impose a mental test and this problem will be reduced."

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), August 15, 1999.

Ron: I think No Guns is showing his frustration at headlines and hasn't the maturity to balance it with reality. The reality is there are 270,000,000 Americans more or less and Reno wants to test them all? If the federal laws were inforced properly by Reno there would be a lot less, not all, incidents occuring. I believe our Aussie friend cited some important stats about confiscation of guns in Australia. Our stats show where guns are permitted, violent crimes decrease. The tests that Reno asks for should also be ran on all high government officials since they have their hands near the nuclear trigger etc. I winder if Slick Willy and Reno would pass????

-- Neil G.Lewis (pnglewis1@yahoo.com), August 15, 1999.

Neil, are you retarded?. Even though "no guns" hates guns, at least he can read. Commandant Reno wants to test people if they want to get a gun. She doesnt want to test everyone.

Its like getting a boating license in many states, you want a boat you gotta get a license which shows you know what you are doing. Not everyone in your state has to get tested unless they want to apply for a boat license.

-- binky (binky@boinky.org), August 15, 1999.

You want to own a gun, well thats you right. But I dont think the freaks out there should be allowed to pack a gun.

-- no guns here

I don't think the temperature on the gulf coast of Texas should be more than 75 degrees in the summer either. Our opinions affect both of these realities equally.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), August 15, 1999.

I think people with a history of commiting violent crimes should be euthanized, eliminating the possiblity of them ever hurting anyone again. Likewise the "criminally insane". Sad to say, sorry to say.

All the legislation in the world can't prevent the wackos in this world from acting out their aggressions against the innocent. A gun ban would only keep me from protecting myself from them.

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), August 15, 1999.

Perhaps this is a clue...the only Reno that can be found in the yearbook of "her" secondary school is a "John Reno"

-- Rangerdick (meadowmuffinman@yoohoo.com), August 15, 1999.

Ron, I wonder, have you ever seen what a gun has done to a person? I'm talkin up close and personal! 'cuz I have. I don't like guns. I have had to clean up other peoples messes that they have caused with guns. Namely human beings crying out in unbelievable pain, or not crying out at all. And unless you have been shot, you can not understand the pain. But I believe that this country would not have the freedoms it does without guns. I do agree that we should license gun owners the same way that we do car drivers. If you agree that you are responsible enough to own and use a gun, PROVE IT. Sign your name to a license

-- LurkeRN (Brewster@SpiritOne.com), August 15, 1999.

Suggestion: What about a different level of licensing to carry a weapon off your own property? Just like driving the car out your driveway.

And, no, I probably won't come back here to read responses. Just avoiding getting down to some nasty paperwork due tomorrow...

-- moi (notanut@not.yet.anyway), August 16, 1999.

To Will Continue and others:

Janet Reno offered this gem of an idea during the CNN interview:

"I'd have them (potential gun buyers) take a written and manual test demonstrating that they know how to safely and...to lawfully use it under state law." She added, "And I would have a background check that would make sure they had evidenced the willingness and capacity to do so."

The NRA is presently engaged in a massive media campaign to raise awarness and funds through increased membership to combat what they see as a growing threat on the firearms industry through state and city lawsuits against the industry, via the tatics applied to the tobacco industry. It is the intent of these cities to hold firearm manufacturers liable through civil suits and hopefully bankrupt them in the process.

The NRA essentially calls this an end-run on our rights under the Second Admendment. I tend to agree with this viewpoint. Certainly gun control entities see the liability tatic, holding the gun industry responsible for "making the weapons" used in offenses, as a means of reducing firearms availablity by bankrupting companies.

But enter Janet Reno with what might be an unintended loophole through her concept of "testing." The concept as she portrays it is ludicrous at best. But if buyers, through the already established procedures set in existing background checks, were to sign off that the buyer was ultimately responsible for the safe use of the gun and the buyer had the capacity and willingness to abide by the laws of the state, that could quite possibly take the heat off firearm manufacturers and make these lawsuits moot.


-- Ponder (this@night.com), August 16, 1999.

The National Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) could argue that it is a violation of their right of free association for them not to be allowed to have sex with children. If it's a cost of a free society to have children killed, then what's the big deal if we allow them to be screwed by predators?

The point is, we draw the line somewhere. I am nothing if not rabid, on my ideas about free speech, but even I think there's limits, where there's a clear threat to public safety ("Fire", in a crowded theater).

Another point, guns, unlike hammers, can kill from long distances. I jolly well do consider it my business that someone who lives within shooting range of me, knows how to tell safety-on from safety-off. It's one thing to argue against a law, when there's contradictory evidence about whether it will serve the public good, such as gun bans, but argueing against gun safety laws? Hello! Mother Earth calling! Time to stop inhaling.

I was wrong, you guys aren't right wingers - you're freaking anarchists.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 16, 1999.

Criminals don't get licenses. They don't need no stinkin' license. The criminally insane don't know what a license is. Forcing licensing on sane, law-abiding citizens will have a zero effect on crime and a large negative effect on self-defense.

Reno: "We have freedom of speech...but not freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater falsley..."

Therefore, we have the right to bear arms, but not the right to conduct unprovoked murders. So where's the need for even more unconstitutional gun control, more licensing?

By Reno's crowded theater argument, all citizens must have their lungs and vocal chords trained, licensed, and controlled by the State, otherwise, they might shout 'fire' in a crowded theater. Weak. And this is our Attorney General, the legal mind at the top of the US government. So much for swearing to uphold the Constitution.

None of the gun grabber arguments ever make any sense. They don't make any sense because they're not logical. They're not logical because there is a long-term agenda that must be conducted at odds with rationality. That agenda is the total disarmament of the US, in complete violation of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

We have the right to defend ourselves without interference through the ownership of arms, whether any government "allows" it or not. We have always had this right and we always will have this right. Every person on this planet has this right. And this right both predates and supersedes any government decree.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), August 16, 1999.

Mental Fitness Test?

Okay, I'll go along with Ms Butch....er,um..Ms Reno, if everyone who wishes to use the First Admendment has to pass a written and verbal english test (boy, now that could cut down on the noise level).

Look, the Feds take on gun control is not about safety, mine or yours, it's about taking guns out of the hands of citzens. All citzens.They do not care if a person is mentally fit to own a gun or not. Some people talk about having to have a license for a car. If you use that arguement, then, because some drunks use cars to kill others, ALL cars should be banned. Don't you see? All the govt wants is for all citzens to be disarmed. Why? Why does the govt fear a firearm in the hands of it's responsible citzens?

I am a police officer, and I see nothing wrong(and everything right) with a citzen owning a firearm. I spent to many years in the military fighting for that, among other, rights. Everyone has the right to protect the life of themselves and their loved ones. If you chose not to own a gun...ok, but keep your nose out of my chosing to use my rights.

-- sigmund (aroundthe@bend.com), August 16, 1999.

I'm too tired to look the official statistics up, but in a nutshell, Australia bans guns... Surprise surprise...Crime soars! Dagnabbit, those bad guys didn't turn their guns in, and they didn't license their guns either. Somebody should give them a time-out and some self-esteem rehabilitation. On the other hand, potentially dangerous Joe Schmoe on Elm St. who registered his weapons made it quite easy to have those guns confiscated. There is a reason to bring Hitler into the discussion on gun control. Don't they teach history anymore?!

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 16, 1999.

ponder....good point!

they might "shoot themselves in the foot" so to speak


sigmund....good point, also.......dem tests would sure take the steam out of some windbags.....think we could apply political science tests before voter registration?


as to people who shout "Fire" in a crowded theater......they should be taken out and set fire to.....now, that's simple enough

just as those who use guns for the purposes for which they are not intended should be held accountable in an equal fashion


rangerdick....hate to point out where you're wrong.....but janet reno couldn't POSSIBLY be "John Reno"......i have it on good authority that Janet Reno is Froggy from Our Gang all growed up


last, but not least.....

"guns don't kill people.........it's those little lead things"---Jack Handy

-- andrea (mebsmebs@hotmail.com), August 16, 1999.

One thing that the "no guns" types fail to mention when they complain about the mass shooting incidents, is that they always seem to occur where people are not allowed to carry a weapon and defend themselves.

That moron out in CA who shot the Jewish teachers and children in daycare, in Israel, would have been shot DEAD by one of the teachers, or a guard. There, the teachers carry weapons, and the classroom is pretty safe (as much as possible, anyways). In CA, it's near impossible for ordinary citizens to carry guns, so they are easy meat for a psycho.

Look at the Luby's Cafeteria slaughter. You'd think that even 1 or 2 of 100+ people there might have defied the law and carried a gun, because they percieve that the benefit of having it outweighed the risk of not having it. Look at the consequences of NO-ONE having the means to defend themselves. That SOB should have been shot dead right after he left the truck, and before he killed anyone.

I have mixed thoughts on the issue of everyone over 18 carrying a gun - I've worked at public pistol ranges, and sheeze, some of these morons are REALLY undeserving of the right to even possess a gun. But, I had to let them stay on the range, as long as they weren't acting dangerously. And YES, I had a vest on. :)

If we didn't have such a screwed up society, with so many psychos running around, I'd say, YES, arm everyone who wants a gun. If people had more respect for life, and didn't see the kind of mind- numbing crap that Hollywood puts out, it might work.

On the other hand, I don't want to live in a society that only the govt has access to weapons, because history has proven beyond a doubt (except to the non-thinkers) that govts WILL abuse the people, given the chance. In my mind, registration and licensing is just one short step to confiscation by force (or threat of force). Slavery and abuse is right behind it.

Seems to me that the only workable way to do it would be to 1) allow anyone over 18 who wanted to buy a weapon, to do so, with the provision that the seller be penalized for selling to someone who was plainly unfit, 2) that they would be held to a higher standard of conduct just like carry permit holders are currently in many states, 3) that if they abused the right of carrying, they'd be subject to SEVERE penalties if they screwed up, 4) that like in many states, individual business owners would be able to stipulate no guns in their business (if you don't like it, work or shop elsewhere - it's probably safer in a gun environment anyways IF everyone is well trained), 5) have several levels of training available at a small cost, or free for new buyers and make it EASILY accessible. If you screw up in public, and haven't taken the training, you will be held liable for negligence, plus whatever penalties apply to harming other's person or property. Encourage more and more training, with public service ad campaigns, and social pressure. The better trained the gun carrier is, the better.

Initially, there would be probably be a period of increased incidents, as some nuts did stupid things, but it wouldn't last very long, as the other armed citizens either shot the nuts dead, or held them to be arrested. Criminals would diminish in number, either by fatality, or retiring from the biz, as it were. We'd see a large decrease in crime. We'd also probably see a small, but temporary increase in accidental shooting, etc, but as the new carriers became more experienced, that'd go down.

Seems to me that this scenario is preferable than the current situation in many states, where you are tasty prey for the predators, unable to fight back effectively. We need armed prey, and that'll result in a significant reduction in the number of predators (criminals).

-- Bill (billclo@msgbox.com), August 16, 1999.

A gun is a tool. There is much more destructive power in an automobile than in a gun. Each gun owner makes choices about how they will use the gun just as each driver about how they use a car.

One might argue that if car use requires a license therefore gun use should require a license. Consider that car licenses do nothing more than assure that a driver has basic knowledge of the State laws and can operate the car in a legal manner. There is NOTHING which examines the MOTIVES or EMOTIONAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL health of the prospective licensee (can we spell law suit???).

It is also NOT a license to own a certain car, but to operate a car on a public roadway. One does not need a license to operate a car on one's private property or the property of those who allow the use of that car on their property.

There are people who abuse their driving priveldges as there are those who abuse the use of a gun or riffle. The percentage of those who use a gun is really quite low compared to those who use an automobile. When everyone carries a gun with them in public at that time I would think it might be a good idea to establish some kind of a 'gun license' similar to a drivers license, with training and testing. Until then I think of it as a matter of private use on property like those who own unlicensed trucks or tractors on their own land.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), August 16, 1999.

Here's a question:

Suppose tommorow Ms. Reno announced that police officers will no longer be required to undergo rigorous weapons training, including knowledge of the relavent laws and shoot/no shoot drills?

How safe do you feel now?

I worked in a range for a while, and I was continually amazed at how many heavily armed, permit carrying bozos were walking around loose. Many shouldn't have been allowed to drive, never mind carry .45's to go grocery shopping.

I see no problem requiring that people who want to own and carry handguns must undergo the same training as law enforcement officers.

Why not? Too hard? Surprise, guys: carrying a gun is one of the largest responsibilities you'll ever accept.

Guns do not give you control over dangerous situations. They only give you the responsibility for how they turn out.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), August 16, 1999.


Everyone should go through weapons training whether they intend to purchase a firearm or not. Even the NRA backs such an idea. It should be part of school cirriculum. Do it early on. One of the problems we face with gun safety is too often the first exposure to firearms children get is from television violence. How does a child fully recognize the might of a firearm while watching a show.

Firearm safety early and often. That's how one develops an appreciation for a firearms' capacity. That is where responsiblity is instilled.

-- Ponder (this@night.com), August 16, 1999.

More children are killed by vehicular collissions than by guns every year. And you can be certain the drivers were licensed. If you really "cared" about something and didn't eat the spoon fed news the media gave you all the time you might actually be a good person. Right now, you begin to infringe on my rights.

Quit your B*tch*ng.


-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.tg@att.net), August 16, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ