Senate passes measure to allow gun transport on Amtrak

JoeRx
Thanks for a thoughtful post.
All points well taken.
One question.
You said 'Criminals and current mental health patients are already screened pretty good and most of the guns they d acquire are typically stolen.'
Though anything I see on TV 'news' these days is mostly crap, I have seen some various coverage about US gun shows in certain states where you don't have to do much more than prove you are from this planet to leave with a gun as long you can pay for it.
I could't tell you which states. Is that so?
As for 'robbing the train', I don't think that is on peoples minds today as much as deranged persons lighting up a train full of passengers. Not that this presents such a security risk necessarily.
My issue with the story when I posted the article is as you suggested, the NRA's constantly driving the thin edge of the lobby wedge under Congress to further the interests of gun proliferation, as though 350,000,000 or so in circulation weren't 'enough' already.

I seriously can not understand what you are evn trying to say here. You may want to take a moment to collect your thoughts before furthur commenting.

Jammer
Are you juiced? None of my business, of course.

Re-read your post and see if you can make heads or tails of it. Holy sanskrit, lad.

I'm not rewording it.

I said it just as I wanted to. Don't understand it...conversation over then.

............same as the notion "The defender ALWAYS starts the war" Counter intuitive, but true. The "defender" actually could "surrender,capitulate,yield, walk into the gas chamber, carry the rocks for Pharaoh, clean that toilet for whitey,..." The defense/resistance ACTUALLY does start the war. Abject capitulation is ALWAYS an option.

(A demand doesn't lead to/cause conflict, resistance to the demand does.) Law doesn't cause "crime", ( or "cause" law),..........resistance to it does. The tension and binary nature of the beast define it and make it what it is.

As much as I adore Penn and Teller, the point about gun shows is that loaded weapons are not allowed in the show or in a gun store. Yes, a maniac can buy a gun at a gun show, load it and go crazy. The problem is that maniacs are usually buying the gun at the gunshow to use on someone else that pissed them off and know better than to start taking people out in a place where everyone else is armed. The maniac will never get a chance at his/her intended target that way.

Wow, these people are out of touch with reality. Do they realize how many undercover officers are at gun shows, both on and off duty?

shouldn't happen. again read before commenting. no offense. if they want to stop firearms in trains, just a few hundred thousand dollars worth of metal detector wands are necessary. that easy. better than before this when i could have got an rpg-7 on a train.

I understand your point. I was only halfway joking.

exactly. whenever you have a sufficiently motivated group of fanatics, stopping them is impossible.

'if someone wants to go out blazing they will...not much more people can do about it...what's to stop a person from carrying on a firearm onto amtrak now?'

I can't dispute that point.
But it's the thin edge of the wedge theory. One law at a time.
Perhaps one day it may be legal to brandish weapons in daycare centers, given how compliant both parties are in the presence of the omnipotent NRA's demands.

that's because trains do not decompress at 30,000 feet when a gun is fired in the cabin. oh and i beleive you just broke the first rule of current.com, jammer. did you NOT read the article? it speaks of checked , unloaded firearms in locked cases.

you're getting sloppy, superboy.

I read the article.

Are you stating that locksmiths and people who know how to load guns don't travel on trains?

Sometimes such people can be one and the same.

Sometimes they read things like this and it's a challenge and they'll take it upon themselves to show that no one is safe.

That's what a hacker would do.

a hacker? LOL have you ever traveled by train? checked baggage is stored on the underside of passenger cars, where you would literally have to be some kind of superhero to get at the storage area. like superboy maybe. barring cutting through steel with some kind of industrial tool, you could NOT get at a checked bag during a rail trip. can i please get an amen so jr. here wil shut up? oh and what was the feeling that serial killers get when killing with a knife?

Do you have something to add or are you just replying to me to attack me.

Oh...yes, you're replying to me just to attack me.

There's a group that is just for that exact same thing. Anti-fan group or whatever you want to call it.

It just goes to show you I'm far better at insulting than most people if I have an anti-fan group willing to find something of mine to reply to just to insult instead of have a valid opinion outside of anger.

So far you're not impressive, but I'll still reply to you. It's the least I can do.

again, because you say so? please. you wish you had some kind of fan boy following? here's a tip, write a story instead of critiquing it. and do your research before shooting off at the mouth.

I write more than most people and I have more stories than most people.

Do you have any more advice that I didn't ask for?

but you do not do your research. or even read the article apparently.

Apparently how?

because you do not know how checked baggage is handled on a train, jr.

checked baggage is not handled by passengers. it is not accessible during a train ride, and most of all, the contents are declared, inspected by x-ray, and if the contents are illegal, police are waiting at the destination for the culprit. i've used trains quite a few times in my life, (i hate flying) and i know how they handle baggage. true, amtrak did not inspect baggage before, but now they do. we have nothing to fear from train robbing banditos.

....and neither was the cockpit of the plane.

so what do you know about firearms? i know that you have to be able to load them, and access them, in order to use them. this is I M P O S S I B L E if the gun is checked, unless you are willing to hang by your feet from the window of a train, open the locks, and find your bag on a moving train. or to bring a tool capable of sawing through the steel between you and the baggage on a moving train. you can have the last word, junior, but it dosen't mean that you are right. besides, i thought that conservatives were all gung ho pro gun ooh -rah about this sort of thing. what kind of rethug are you that's afraid of guns? or maybe you can just use your laser vision to get at your guns superboi?

Adorable are the childrens of the world that substitute a y of any word with an i.

Nephwrack for the obvious scathing win!

If it's so obvious why do you have to state it?

AMEN to Nephrwrack and I think it was impressive.

Is this conversation about guns on trains or a user on current.com?

It was under the guise of gun use on trains. When that failed...it turned to the user and then he sent messages out to have them come and find it impressive.

Yawn.

The wild west? Kind of a stretch, but I agree this certainly increases the possibilities for criminal plans. I don't know about likelihood, but by simply allowing for firearms to pass onto trains - wherever they're kept - truly only increases the chances for disaster.

I think its funny because its so obvious but yet you refuse to be defeated, as usual.

And it's a rip off - $75 bucks round trip from Seattle to Portland? If i wasn't planning on drinking my ass off, I would just drive.

So do drug lords and serial killers. Though serial killers love the knife....and they torture their victims. Sometimes sexually and all the time it's gets them off---the actual killing. Orgasmic feel.

anything you wanna tell us? o.0

Check under your bed.

is that a threat? you're about to take things to an unwanted level of conflict. i thought superboy had a moral code?

Was your first question a serious one or a more along the lines of an ignorant want going for a fishing expedition?

You should stop before you hurt yourself.

And by hurt I don't mean that you'll bleed but your pride may get bruised.

You all realize that BOTH J_Jammer AND
Nephwrack ARE IMMUNE to petty earthly firearms, have no need of "Amtrak" (-heh, scoff-)and are both technically illegal immigrants from Krypton!
F.Y.I.

My opinion,...if we carry guns, which according to the constitution we can,...a rational uniform ubiquitous rules set is required their transportation; Simple efficiency/congruence/systemic sanity/equity. Quit arguing with the specific implementation of related factors,....and change the constitution. Until then GIVE IT A REST. SOUR GRAPES! BITCH BITCH BITCH.

Yeah, cops do kill.

This is exactly right. The same policy should be applied to drugs too. Neither guns nor drugs should be illegal per se. But committing a crime while using drugs or a gun should have greatly inflated consequences.

The one exception, IMO, should be assault weapons. Perhaps people can own them in their homes in case WW3 breaks out in America, but anyone carrying an assault weapon in public should be shot on sight. The potential carnage is simply too great.

agreed! however even that should have provisional laws so that ak owners could practice at the range... like hard side cases with locks and such. again, the psych test for guns, but harder for assault weapons, or at least more specific.

Jammer

'Your care for open gun carrying seems to have only started for this President.
Why?'

Does it? And you arrived at that conclusion how?

"mandatory education in firearms ownership and safety"

I agree with this 100%. So many accidents happen because people don't treat guns with the respect that the deserve. I've known people who keep their guns loaded 24/7, don't really know how to clean or maintain them, and wave them around/play with them because all they've learned of guns they learned from TV and rap videos.

Mandatory gun safety training/education would be a good thing.

Your care for open gun carrying seems to have only started for this President.

Why?

Oh sorry... assault gun...it's not a right that just appeared with Obama, by the way.

Because it is the first time I have ever seen it, Jammer. I would have been equally appalled if it were any other President, even a bad one.

It's not the first time guns have appeared near a President and it's only funny that it's the first time people are upset. I think the reason it's even big deal is because someone who was there made it a big deal.

Nothing happened.

But if you scare people enough you can force fear to make something happen.

The last time I actually viewed a gun in the vicinity of a President was in 1981 and it was carried by John Hinkley and fired on Ronald Reagan. That could be why people get a little upset about it.

Did someone fire at Obama?

All he's gotten are threats like any other President before him. Should we coddle the President just because you love him?

8D

You won't be able to take any public transportation then. This is checked baggage remember, not concealed carry. Planes and such already do this. amtrak is the last holdout.

Progreshiv

"I'll probably slip in the bathtub and crack my skull, and some paramedic will say, "I wonder that the old geezer was doing with a revolver?"

...and why in tarnation was he bathing with it?

Progreshiv

"I'll probably slip in the bathtub and crack my skull, and some paramedic will say, "I wonder that the old geezer was doing with a revolver?"

...and why in tarnation was he bathing with it?

Sorry, that comment should have replied to Bombastinator

Not much for shades for gray then huh? I'm more or less OK with what we have atm personally.

I favor gun rights not because I have any interest in guns or or even like them or because I think it will make me safer but because I am pro choice, and I really liked Edwards' idea some years ago that from a political perspective gun control and abortion control were basically the same thing. Just because the man can't keep it in his pants doesn't mean his understanding of civics is flawed. I think we do not have enough abortion freedoms atm so if someone else also wants to loosen gun freedoms a bit I have little basis to complain.

I saw a man shoot another man to death with a shotgun when I was a young man. For years the sound of a firecracker terrified me, and I was a vocal opponent of gun ownership.

Today, 36 years later, I own a .22 revolver that rests in a kitchen cabinet, unloaded. I take it out every few months and shoot some cans with it.

It is odd that I have gone from complete revulsion to acceptance of a firearm in my home, but it helps me feel safer. I shudder to think about ever using it, because I like people and would not want to hurt anyone. I suspect it is little more than a psychological talisman to bolster my feeling of well-being. Kind of sad, but factual. I am less fit, slower, and less able to defend myself than before, so I think this is a way to even any potential odds. I'll probably slip in the bathtub and crack my skull, and some paramedic will say, "I wonder that the old geezer was doing with a revolver?"

No - I think you're onto something. Give every American a gun and $500 cash. I'm sure it will work out.

Guns & cash, did somebody say Russian Roulette tournament ? It's weird on most issues (abortion, gay rights, the economy, affirmitive action, the death penalty, universal healthcare) I'm basically a liberal bitch. In the case of guns, I've a tendency to go all reactionary. I think as long as there are adequate controls in place, people should be allowed to own guns for protect their homes & themselves. At this stage guns are such a ingrained in the American culture, getting rid of all the illegal ones does seem unlikely at this stage. Law abiding citizens should be able to hold guns for self defense. As far as I'm concerned someone shooting in self defense is a lot more justifiable than the state performing an execution after the fact.