Mock

You lost me at "outdated excuses gun nuts make to defend their rights to carry automatic weapons and magazines, bullets, etc to kill every one in their hometown

This shows the way you think.

(01-04-2016, 04:24 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone with common sense, knows our gun culture is out of control and even the state of Texas writes "we haven't had open carry since 1871," or words to that effect.....well we should get rid of those dangerous vehicles, too and revert to tying our ponies in front of the friendly neighborhood salon......No more drunk driving fatalities, only deaths by gunfire.....See, we are making progress....

To own and drive a vehicle in the U.S., you must first register it, then to drive it, you have to take a test......if you violate any of the "rules," you sometimes have to give up that right to drive that vehicle, and finally, you have to maintain insurance on that vehicle just in case it kills, maims, a person or property.....Well maybe those of you who compare guns to vehicles as a weapon are on to something.. I concur that a gun should be registered and to use it, I should have to pass a shooting test, and if I use that gun in an irresponsible way, that gun will taken from me, and if my gun maims or kills someone, I pay all damages through my gun insurance......all I am asking is for a more in depth background check for those gun owners to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't own guns. I shouldn't have to list those types here, cuz you are all very smart here on Mock.....We have more requirements to obtain pain medications for bona fide pain than we do to purchase a gun....I have to hand carry my prescription to Pharmacy but no problem getting a gun, just a local call.....or a drive to my local gun dealer.....

Guns have one purpose, i.e, to kill......and although vehicles do kill, that is not the main function of said machines. They were designed to get us from point A to point B....but continue to compare them as I know you will......till the cows come home...

I think common sense has left this country and those of you who fear the Government will confiscate your precious guns, seriously need to be taking meds for paranoia.

Most responsible gun owners (in my family) support tighter gun controls and to hear the tired old arguments of "it won't stop mass killings, the bad guys will still get their weapons, etc. (the list goes on) is a cop out...

If tighter legislation and better enforcement saves one child, then it is worth it. Enough of comparing vehicles to guns, and all of the other useless, outdated excuses gun nuts make to defend their rights to carry automatic weapons and magazines, bullets, etc to kill every one in their hometown....Do some research and find out just how many lives are saved in a given year because someone in the crowd had a weapon......this is rare.....but does happen occasionally. There are more innocents killed in a given year because of irresponsible gun owners, mentally ill people, bad guys, burglars/robbers, etc.....Sure, some of them will find a gun, but we need to make it tougher to get that gun....Why allow them to push the "easy" button.

I also disagree with you who say this will never change. The power of grass roots groups, paper wars and voting out the old coots and replacing with people who still retain some common sense, will go a long way in improving our "violent" culture. Keep signing those petitions for a more sensible legislative body and get out and vote....in Nov....

For the rest of you, run, hide, "they" are coming for your guns.....

That's a BIG if BBH. There currently is no documentation to support that legislation will have any affect on public safety whatsoever.

(01-04-2016, 04:24 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone with common sense, knows our gun culture is out of control and even the state of Texas writes "we haven't had open carry since 1871," or words to that effect.....well we should get rid of those dangerous vehicles, too and revert to tying our ponies in front of the friendly neighborhood salon......No more drunk driving fatalities, only deaths by gunfire.....See, we are making progress....

To own and drive a vehicle in the U.S., you must first register it, then to drive it, you have to take a test......if you violate any of the "rules," you sometimes have to give up that right to drive that vehicle, and finally, you have to maintain insurance on that vehicle just in case it kills, maims, a person or property.....Well maybe those of you who compare guns to vehicles as a weapon are on to something.. I concur that a gun should be registered and to use it, I should have to pass a shooting test, and if I use that gun in an irresponsible way, that gun will taken from me, and if my gun maims or kills someone, I pay all damages through my gun insurance......all I am asking is for a more in depth background check for those gun owners to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't own guns. I shouldn't have to list those types here, cuz you are all very smart here on Mock.....We have more requirements to obtain pain medications for bona fide pain than we do to purchase a gun....I have to hand carry my prescription to Pharmacy but no problem getting a gun, just a local call.....or a drive to my local gun dealer.....

Guns have one purpose, i.e, to kill......and although vehicles do kill, that is not the main function of said machines. They were designed to get us from point A to point B....but continue to compare them as I know you will......till the cows come home...

I think common sense has left this country and those of you who fear the Government will confiscate your precious guns, seriously need to be taking meds for paranoia.

Most responsible gun owners (in my family) support tighter gun controls and to hear the tired old arguments of "it won't stop mass killings, the bad guys will still get their weapons, etc. (the list goes on) is a cop out...

If tighter legislation and better enforcement saves one child, then it is worth it. Enough of comparing vehicles to guns, and all of the other useless, outdated excuses gun nuts make to defend their rights to carry automatic weapons and magazines, bullets, etc to kill every one in their hometown....Do some research and find out just how many lives are saved in a given year because someone in the crowd had a weapon......this is rare.....but does happen occasionally. There are more innocents killed in a given year because of irresponsible gun owners, mentally ill people, bad guys, burglars/robbers, etc.....Sure, some of them will find a gun, but we need to make it tougher to get that gun....Why allow them to push the "easy" button.

I also disagree with you who say this will never change. The power of grass roots groups, paper wars and voting out the old coots and replacing with people who still retain some common sense, will go a long way in improving our "violent" culture. Keep signing those petitions for a more sensible legislative body and get out and vote....in Nov....

For the rest of you, run, hide, "they" are coming for your guns.....

If smiff, no its not worth it.
And as far as run and hide, let em come I don't hide I stand and fight.

(01-04-2016, 04:56 PM)BigMark Wrote: [ -> ]You lost me at "outdated excuses gun nuts make to defend their rights to carry automatic weapons and magazines, bullets, etc to kill every one in their hometown

This shows the way you think.

Congratulations on knowing the way I think......you can write my comments from now on cuz I can't get on here much anymore.....

I knew long time ago how you think.....

You had a such a great argument until that fuck ton of stupid shit.

(01-04-2016, 04:24 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone with common sense, knows

Why is it the most inane, ultimatum opinions are always preceded by attempts at conformity. As if anyone who disagrees with you has no common sense.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Obummer and his big ideas on gun control really have gun owners shaking in their boots. Hahahahaha.
Here is a good read about how effective his bright ideas are.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429...rs-mistake

(01-04-2016, 11:59 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Obummer and his big ideas on gun control really have gun owners shaking in their boots. Hahahahaha.
Here is a good read about how effective his bright ideas are.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429...rs-mistake

I get it. It may be a somewhat worthless endeavor or not come NEAR touching what those of us who advocate for much stricter gun control want but he's going to take a bad rap (again) for using executive privilege to push through what little he can without congressional approval. I'm beginning to think we'll never see the day for the type of reform that some of us would support so, out of frustration, I don't blame him for at least poking the nest and taking the inevitable heat that will follow.

After every mass shooting the last couple of years, he's promised to do what HE could do to effect gun change. This is probably about all he can do (and I don't know if even it will survive challenges). At least he's [i]trying[/i] to tackle an issue that he committed to address several times over.

I'm taking my son to a firearm safety course next week. I've taught him the basics but I feel that coming from another adult would be enlightening and more beneficial. They have them once a month depending on how many sign up and there's 15 in right now. Its free. I just got the e-mail.

I've sent my kids and god son through a Hunters safety course. All had ben shooting for years before hand. I laughed when my son, 12 at the time, out shot his instructors using the instructors guns. I guess I did my job while teaching him too.

1) In order to make his actions appear meaningful, Obama is going to have to pretend that they represent serious change. If he does that, though, he'll permit his opponents to say, "look, we just did big gun control by executive order, we have other things to do, and we're not doing it again." That matters. The Left makes great hay out of the "we never do anything" line, and its more effective advocates use our present inertia to justify the need for experimentation. Insofar as there is any, Obama has slowed the momentum for further gun-control. This is not how you win the argument.

2) By taking this route, Obama will help to entrench America's gun culture and for little in return. Ceteris paribus, the United States will play host to at least another 20 million guns by the end of December 2016 many of them so-called "assault weapons." In addition, the country will welcome another million or so concealed carriers, and another half-million or so NRA members. Every time the president talks about gun control, these numbers increase, and, in consequence, the president's opponents are strengthened. Not only will this maneuver make it more likely that a Republican presidential candidate will make inroads with pro-gun voters the ads write themselves: "you don't want another anti-gun would-be King, do you?" but it will likely damage the long-term prospects for change.

By his own account, Obama wants to reduce, not increase, the number of guns in circulation. If history is anything to go by, this action will do precisely the opposite. And for what? A minor change to the way in which firearms are sold on the private market? Obama has let his emotion get the better of him here. He and his fellow travelers will likely pay a price.

For HoTD: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/429...rs-mistake

An interesting take... Although I have to take it with a grain of salt.

(01-05-2016, 06:39 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I want people to have to jump through hoops in order to purchase a gun. Period. I want people punished to the max for dealing guns to their friends and family without the proper paperwork. I want people jailed for buying guns for others who won't pass any kind of checks. I want people to pay for their irresponsible behavior.

Yeah, I do too.

I agree with those who contend that authorities should more consistently and aggressively enforce the existing laws as well. That would, in my opinion, reduce gun violence by known criminals more than anything else.

But, the new gun controls being pushed by Obama and his team will help prevent some gun violence in the future, in my opinion. That's important to me.

^ The team working on the Executive Actions with Obama: Counsel to the President Neil Eggleston, acting ATF Director Thomas Brandon, Attorney General Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates

It's difficult for me to imagine a rational argument against these new measures, for example.

Snip:
The new guidance will impact sellers off and online. 'Now it's important to note that the hobbyist and collectors exception is still there and it will still be used as it was intended, ' (Attorney General) Lynch added. 'But people will no longer be able to hide behind that.'

White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett said that the ATF will make clear that 'facts and circumstances' determine whether an individual is 'engaged in the business of dealing in firearms.'

'Facts such as, whether you represent yourself as a dealer, such as making business cards or taking credit card payments, whether you sell firearms shortly after they're acquired and whether you buy or sell in the original packaging,' Jarrett said.

ATF will also issue a rule requiring background checks for individuals trying to buy 'some of the most dangerous weapons,' as the White House put it, through a trust, corporation or other legal entity.

The agency is working on an additional rule that would compel dealers to notify law enforcement if their guns are lost or stolen in transit.

For the background checks, the FBI is working to hire 230 more examiners and possibly schedule examiners to be working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to keep up with the increased demand.

As the law stands now, if a background check doesn't come back within three days, the gun sale goes through (HOTD: this is why Dylann Roof was able to acquire the gun he used to kill 9 churchgoers in South Carolina.)

President Obama is also asking for $500 million to be devoted to mental health and working towards enacting measures that would allow/prompt states to report the names of potentially dangerous mentally ill persons into the NICS background checking database. (HOTD: this one, in my opinion, is tricky and I do have privacy and discrimination concerns regarding non-violent mentally ill; it would need to be done with a lot of attention and detail.)

Ref: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...z3wOWIzqDJ

I would have to say that leaving it up to the ATF to determine if I am an "arms dealer" if I want to sell my grandfather's vintage Colt .45 to my father could have bigger implications down the road. Especially in terms of character. Am I a sleazy arms dealer putting weapons in the hands of terrorists, or am I just a guy that needed a little money and wanted to keep a family heirloom in the family? I don't know. I feel like we have checks and balances in place for a reason. Circumventing them may have a lasting impact because now we've set a precedent.

That's what Obama's new guidelines propose; leaving it up to the ATF to review the now-defined relevant facts to determine who qualifies as a 'dealer'.

(01-05-2016, 02:58 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]That's what Obama's new guidelines propose; leaving it up to the ATF to review the now-defined relevant facts to determine who qualifies as a 'dealer'.

Background checks are working so efficiently now, why should we question anything right?

Let's just trust our government to get this right.

"Just sign it, we'll figure out what it all means later" right Pelosi?