Musician shot and killed by bar owner... bar featured the next night on Bar Rescue.

[tlbonehead]

 

---

StratGuy22 wrote:

 

America loves their guns. Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. Right or wrong, that's the price of having guns unfortunately.

---

 

guns don't kill. Bullets do.

[tlbonehead]

Silly Guido

 

[tlbonehead]

Yeah that seems odd. Waiting for the facts to trickle in seems like the best idea.

[Vito Corleone]

As one who considers himself to be a responsible gun owner, I'd like to see more be done to keep idiots from having them. A lot of people may say they don't defend idiots having guns, but I don't see them doing a lot to prevent it, either.

[Vito Corleone]

"Illegal voters tend to lean left"??? Where do you come up with this stuff???

 

Yes. I know you outline your feelings. That's all you have. You don't support them with anything. It's all just about feel good legislation for you. Voter ID laws won't accomplish anything except to make certain rightees feel better. Useless an pointless

 

Meanwhile the only gun law the NRA hasn't fought is the ban on plastic guns. Why not? Don't people who want to build their own gun in their garage have a right to keep and bear arms? What if they can't afford to buy an expensive gun? Don't they have a right to have one?

 

Or is it because the gun manufacturers don't make and sell those kinds of guns that the NRA is fine with that law? Follow the money.

 

But yeah. Typical Tim. The logic starts to be too much for you to deal with so you exit the argument and toss a few rhetorical bombs on your way out the door.

 

See ya.

[Potts]

My God I can't handle it anymore.

[Potts]

Over the past decade Texas has convicted 51 people of voter fraud, according the state's Attorney General Greg Abbott. Only four of those cases were for voter impersonation, the only type of voter fraud that voter ID laws prevent.

Nationwide that rate of voter impersonation is even lower.

Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.

But the push for voter ID laws is not all about preventing fraud, said Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, who sponsored his state's voter ID law.

"The driving factor is common sense," Metcalfe told ABC News. "It only makes sense that when you show up to vote, to exercise that very important right and responsibility, that you prove you are who you claim."

Metcalfe said the number of voter fraud cases that are prosecuted are only a sliver of the fraud taking place because there is no system in place to detect fraud. His voter ID law aims to do just that.

But opponents of the law claim that it is trying to solve a nonexistent problem.

"The point here is that people just don't do that," Lorraine Minnite, an associate professor of public policy at Rutgers University-Camden, said of committing voter fraud. "It just doesn't make sense."

Minnite said there is little to no motivation for voters to attempt to impersonate someone else at the polls or for non-citizens to try and cast a ballot, a right reserved only for citizens. The price for that one vote is up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 for citizens and could mean deportation for immigrants.

That's exactly what happened to Usman Ali, a Pakistani immigrant who had lived in the United States as a permanent resident for 20 years. Ali checked the "yes" box to register to vote while applying for a driver's license in Florida.

Although he never tried to vote, Ali was deported back to Pakistan for allegedly committing voter fraud.

"What are the costs for non-citizens to cast ballots and what are the benefits? It doesn't add up," said Minnite, who testified against Pennsylvania's voter ID law. "The costs are very high and the benefits are practically non-existent."

Tracy Campbell, a history professor at the University of Kentucky who studies voter fraud in past elections, said contemporary voter ID laws are trying to solve a problem that hasn't existed in over a century.

 

 

[SLScott86]

A well regulated militia has no regulations.

[SeniorBlues]

What's at the heart of this issue is the attempt by the right to put obstacles in the way of some voters who MIGHT vote left.  It has nothing to do with illegality.  That's just the ruse  . . . the fear tactic that attempts to drum up support.

Another example...  why isn't voting day a national holiday?  It is in many other countries.  We don't do it because we actually want to discourage people who find it difficult to get off work to vote.

[TIMKEYS]

If there is no voter fraud , then showing an ID should not be an issue should it?   You cant do anything else in this country without a valid ID.  How many people do you think we have running around without a valid ID that are legal citizens and not felons who have lost their right to vote?   vote fraud is rampent in this country , but like lots of other things the judicial dept  chooses what laws they want to enforce and what ones they want to let slide because of politics.   I am out ,, you boys have a good time>  All i did was report that the shooting is being looked at by a grand jury and here we are again.  

[Vito Corleone]

Well let's see... SOME people are killed in mass shootings. NO elections are affected by voter fraud. There'd be a difference between wanting to ban high cap mags because people have been killed by them and wanting to ban them because bullets from them are fired into the air that never hit anyone, don't you think?

 

 

[sventvkg]

I carry guns everyday, everywhere I can. I also carry knives and several non-lethal systems. I choose to live in a place where I can protect myself by law but if they passed a law stating I wasn't allowed to I would anyway because I know my Rights which the Constitution doesn't grant, it only outlines. The Reason the founders put them in there was to remind the Government and future Governments which all become tyrannical in every case in history, of them..Lest they try to weasel around them which they did and do to this day. I have a moral code and believe any "law" that violates my god given rights is null and void. I have lived in victim disarmament zones such as California and was born in New Jersey(which is Abhor and am forced to go to multiple times a year) Chicago is a cesspool of violence where the only people who aren't allowed to protect themselves are the sheeple law abiding victims and I for one feel sorry for them. I'll never patronize that city or any victim disarmament zone ever again. It's just a philosophical difference that I can't ignore and choose not to support anyone, anywhere or anything that subjugates my rights..To each his own and every man has his own line.....But like I said, outside of some East Nashville folk and minority dems around Memphis, most of us are strapped here in TN and we're also known to me mightly friendly to each other:)

[flemtone]

HEY!

 

Anyone remember why this thread is here?

 

Update:

http://www.savingcountrymusic.com/the-death-of-wayne-mills-10-days-after

 

Can't we all stop arguing for a minute?  Jeez...

[Potts]

 

---

flemtone wrote:

 

Can't we all stop arguing for a

minute?

  Jeez...

---

 

 

Why? This thread has seen more activity in a week than the entire forum has seen in a year.

[TIMKEYS]

 

---

guido61 wrote:

 

Well let's see... SOME people are killed in mass shootings. NO elections are affected by voter fraud. There'd be a difference between wanting to ban high cap mags because people have been killed by them and wanting to ban them because bullets from them are fired into the air that never hit anyone, don't you think?

 

 

 

---

 

Dave i think since vote fraud is typically done in the registration process its a unknown as to how it effects our elections on a local , state and federal level.    The studies done on voter fraud are based on the number of prosecutions.  Its hard to say how much goes on.  As for the numbers of people killed by high cap mags we know that number is zero.  It takes a shooter to opereate a firearm.   One could debate how the number of people killed with firearms would be effected if rounds were limited in mags, but even then the numbers are still very small when compared to our population.  I dont think a ban is the answer.  I do think that we do need to enforce existing gun laws.  We also have very high gun murder rates  in cities that have the most restriction on gun ownership and types of firearms.   I still think it boils down to a culture and morals issue.  dumb down traditioanl culture values and morals and we seem to have more violence and murder with and with out firearms.   As one poster has said ,, lets stick to the point.   The shooter has to go before a grand jury in this shooting , so it is going to get further review as to any charges being filed.  

[Vito Corleone]

 

---

sventvkg wrote:

 

 

. I have lived in victim disarmament zones such as California and was born in New Jersey(which is Abhor and am forced to go to multiple times a year) Chicago is a cesspool of violence where the only people who aren't allowed to protect themselves are the sheeple law abiding victims and I for one feel sorry for them.

---

 

I'm fine with you carrying whatever guns make you feel safer, but the truth is that the most important thing you've done to protect yourself and your family is move to a safer area.   You're no less likely to become a victim of a crime because you carry a gun than I am because I do not.   The guy across the street from you without a gun isn't any less safe than you.

Chicago has a high crime rate, but it did before any stricter gun laws.  The bad guys are going elsewhere to get guns but they aren't targetting people because they think they are unarmed.  Nevada has among the most liberal gun laws in the nation, but the crime in places like Las Vegas is what it is.  The bad guys don't go to California because they think people there are less likely to shoot back at them.  That isn't how it works.

And crazy people are crazy people.  We had an incident up here a couple of years ago you might have heard about where a crazy dude went in and shot up an iHop in Carson City and killed a bunch of people.   What you might not have heard about is that the guy actually lived in "victim disarmament zone" So. Lake Tahoe, California and drove 30 miles (past an iHop in California, BTW) to get to the iHop in Carson City where not only are CCW easy to get, but it's an open carry state.  I've eaten at that restaurant many times.  There's no signs there telling people not to bring in guns.    And a nearby storeowner actually drew a gun on the assailant, but he froze and dropped his weapon when the bad guy turned his on him.   Why?  Because people rarely act in high-tension/panic situations the way they think they are when they are at home shining up their weapons.

This guy had a history of mental health problems and bought the guns he used on Craigslist.  But...we don't really want to do anything to step up keeping guys like this from getting guns, do we?    We'll never know why he wanted to drive into Nevada instead of just shooting up people in California but obviously the different gun laws between the two states didn't figure into his planning.

As far as the story in the OP goes?   I guess we don't know all the details but I think one thing is pretty clear:  it didn't need to end with one guy being dead and the other potentially facing a long prison sentence for the killing and if there hadn't been a gun there,  neither man would be in the position they are today.   

That gun he carried for "protection", no doubt.

Beyond that, Memphis has a much higher crime rate than does Chicago, just in case you didn't already know that.

[Vito Corleone]

 

---

sventvkg wrote:

 

 

 but if they passed a law stating I wasn't allowed to I would anyway because I know my Rights which the Constitution doesn't grant, it only outlines. The Reason the founders put them in there was to remind the Government and future Governments which all become tyrannical in every case in history, of them..Lest they try to weasel around them which they did and do to this day. I have a moral code and believe any "law" that violates my god given rights is null and void.

---

 

No one is saying the Constitution grants any rights.   The truth is that you're born with the right to do pretty much anything.   Go live on a private island somewhere and you can do whatever you want.  No one is going to stop you or tell you you're wrong except your God(s) and that's between you and him/her or not if you don't have one, I suppose

But we live in a society and as such we become cities and states and a nation and we're a nation of laws.  That's the entire reason we have a nation and a government in the first place.   To make the whole thing run as smoothly as possible for the betterment of all rather than just being Somalia.

The Bill of Rights exists to restrict the government from infringing on certain rights more than others, but it in no way means such rights are absolute.   They all still must be balanced by the needs of collective whole of the nation.   The Bill of Rights protects against unreasonable search and seizure, but we have all sorts of laws allowing the government to search and seize because we've decided--via our representive government--that we're all better off in the long run with some degree of searching and seizing.   And we forever debate and go back and forth on where these lines are drawn.  That's the nature of self-governing society.

The right to keep and bear arms is no different.   You have a right to keep and bear arms because you have a right to protect yourself and do other stuff, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have a right to, say, a 100-round clip.   Nowhere does the constitution prevent the government from regulating the manufacture and sale of guns and ammo.   Only when the line is crossed that would prevent you from freely doing what you need to do to protect yourself or hunt game or skeet shoot or whatever else you like to do with your gun and it doesn't conflict with our collective freedom and safety (because THIS is the primary objective of having a government in the first place) do we consider such laws to violate the constitutional protection of this right.

So we debate where the line is drawn and the line is moveable as society changes and evolves.  That's simply common sense.   But the idea that there is no line AT ALL?   That's absurd.  And completely unsupported in our nation's history and judicial precedent.