(06-12-2013, 09:44 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]I at least keep a open mind on a subject.
Bwahahahaha!
Brilliant! You should be on stage.
Taking your stance of “you are only getting my assault weapons over my fucking dead body” is the complete opposite of open mindedness. You wouldn't even make the tiny compromise of switching from 30 round mags to 10 round mags when given the chance.
There is only one person with their head in the sand around here and he is dressed like one of the Village People.
Online petitions are for wimps that wouldn't say "boo" in an elevator full of comedians. They mean nothing.
I am sick of egotistical eggheads chipping away at my freedom because of a few idiots. Just the other day in the city 2 punks kicked in the door of a hardware shop owner and rushed the guy, he heard the noise and had a shotgun waiting for them and killed one of them. In the paper on the front page the next day it said he shot a "visitor" The next day it was an "intruder" but 5 pages in, an example of how the liberal media handles guns.
(06-12-2013, 07:46 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2013, 07:45 PM)Carsman Wrote: [ -> ]Thorough Background checks are a must, no short cuts, deviations of laws, no politics, no exceptions. However, background checks are only the beginning. Types of weapons is paramount. IMHO.
IMHO. Military mass assault type weapons are used in Military "warfare", so as to make one solider be able to kill as many of the enemy as possible. Logical rational.
The second amendment allows "civilians" to own weapons, if they were: six shot handgun, bolt action rifle, shotgun, no problem. The problem comes when "civilians" want and get mass assault weapons.
Many won't like this, but even a 9 mm with a15 up to 30 shot magazine could be considered a mass assault weapon.
Because there never is a time that comes when the killing of as many civilians is required, is there?
When a nut job gets/has a mass assault weapon, the consequence turns into a Batman movie massacre & or Newtown massacre. (Recient) (Unfortunately, there are many nut jobs out there, so don't make assult weapons easily available)
And there [bold underlined portion of your post] is the biggest problem cars. Gun owners know that once we give in there is no telling what will be next. Its the old give them a inch and they will take a mile. So because of that gun enthusiasts resist every law change, gun ban, background check that is proposed.
You have a thousand assault weapons in your home FU, I really don't see how the current gun laws have affected you any. Would it really kill you if obtaining a gun required a thorough process with strict back ground checks? Maybe making it a little more difficult for some nut to purchase four assault weapons on a whim and shoot up a movie theater for example?
(06-12-2013, 09:04 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
Why would anyone think that just because some weapons/magazines are banned that those who wish to do harm won't have them?
Banning them would only remove them from the law abiding people Duch. Criminals dont care about laws and would just build them if they could not buy them.
Here is a good video about building firearms from nothing, with basic tool and a LOT of time. Then selling them in the black market. Yes it is in Pakistan but if they can do it here what do you think Americans could do with our resources?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGVianQJsmQ
(06-12-2013, 10:12 AM)sally Wrote: [ -> ] (06-12-2013, 07:46 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2013, 07:45 PM)Carsman Wrote: [ -> ]Thorough Background checks are a must, no short cuts, deviations of laws, no politics, no exceptions. However, background checks are only the beginning. Types of weapons is paramount. IMHO.
IMHO. Military mass assault type weapons are used in Military "warfare", so as to make one solider be able to kill as many of the enemy as possible. Logical rational.
The second amendment allows "civilians" to own weapons, if they were: six shot handgun, bolt action rifle, shotgun, no problem. The problem comes when "civilians" want and get mass assault weapons.
Many won't like this, but even a 9 mm with a15 up to 30 shot magazine could be considered a mass assault weapon.
Because there never is a time that comes when the killing of as many civilians is required, is there?
When a nut job gets/has a mass assault weapon, the consequence turns into a Batman movie massacre & or Newtown massacre. (Recient) (Unfortunately, there are many nut jobs out there, so don't make assult weapons easily available)
And there [bold underlined portion of your post] is the biggest problem cars. Gun owners know that once we give in there is no telling what will be next. Its the old give them a inch and they will take a mile. So because of that gun enthusiasts resist every law change, gun ban, background check that is proposed.
You have a thousand assault weapons in your home FU, I really don't see how the current gun laws have affected you any. Would it really kill you if obtaining a gun required a thorough process with strict back ground checks? Maybe making it a little more difficult for some nut to purchase four assault weapons on a whim and shoot up a movie theater for example?
When we talk about background checks Sally I have mixed emotions. Yes my first response is to quote the, shall not be infringed, portion of our constitution. However I also feel that background checks, if they actually worked and people were prosecuted when they broke that law is a good thing. Then throw in the fact that I hold a FFL and deal guns and I am required by the feds to do these background checks.
In theory they would sound like a good thing. However since this is a government program it is like most all things the gov does, fucked up.
(06-12-2013, 07:46 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ] (06-11-2013, 07:45 PM)Carsman Wrote: [ -> ]Thorough Background checks are a must, no short cuts, deviations of laws, no politics, no exceptions. However, background checks are only the beginning. Types of weapons is paramount. IMHO.
IMHO. Military mass assault type weapons are used in Military "warfare", so as to make one solider be able to kill as many of the enemy as possible. Logical rational.
The second amendment allows "civilians" to own weapons, if they were: six shot handgun, bolt action rifle, shotgun, no problem. The problem comes when "civilians" want and get mass assault weapons.
Many won't like this, but even a 9 mm with a15 up to 30 shot magazine could be considered a mass assault weapon.
Because there never is a time that comes when the killing of as many civilians is required, is there?
When a nut job gets/has a mass assault weapon, the consequence turns into a Batman movie massacre & or Newtown massacre. (Recient) (Unfortunately, there are many nut jobs out there, so don't make assult weapons easily available)
And there [bold underlined portion of your post] is the biggest problem cars. Gun owners know that once we give in there is no telling what will be next. Its the old give them a inch and they will take a mile. So because of that gun enthusiasts resist every law change, gun ban, background check that is proposed.
Look at it from our eyes. In the 30's we gave up full auto firearms like the tommy gun. Then in the late 60's guns we required to have a serial number and dealers are required to keep paperwork on every firearm sold.. Then in the late 80's the Brady bunch rammed the N.I.C.S system down our throat. Theeeen in the early 90's we choked on the "assault" weapons ban. It was just on big game of give and take. We gave and the gun grabbers took. None of the new rules did any good, but it did make the gun grabbers feel good. There are still full auto firearms on the market [Now full auto can be owned but only if the government gets their cash kickback, I mean tax stamp money. ] You can bypass the serial number law by simply building your own firearm and it is perfectly legal. The feds don't bother prosecuting those who violate the background check laws. And that "assault" weapons ban, well that did nothing to curb the number of semi auto rifles or their hi capacity magazines, in fact it was proven to be so useless that it was not reinstated and has ben shot down whenever it gets brought up.
I feel EVERY firearm law currently on the books should be stricken from the records and then and only then could we sit down and come up with a set of rules that might just work.
As far as the modern sporting rifles that every gun grabber loves to refer to as a "assault" weapon goes. As a competition shooter I do have a use for firearms that hold 15-30 rounds of ammo. As in many things in life, bigger is better and more is faster.
Lets look at this subject as if it was a auto discussion. Just because the speed limits are 65-70 mph and when those limits are exceeded there is a higher chance of fatality if a accident happens [plus many innocent people are at greater risk] should we ban or restrict all the cars that can exceed 70 mph? I don't think so myself. Just because the car has a larger engine and can do 140 mph does not mean that the operator will do it. Yes there will always be those people that will break the law and endanger those around them, but that does not mean that everyone that drives should be punished. Some people just like those fast cars because of their looks and would never risk breaking the law. Others, well they would break the law and risk others lives if they owned a Yugo.
(Just got back from getting my haircut, wow it's short!
)
Yes F. U. Daa, you certainly do make many good valid points, and I agree with many of them. However, it seems like for every responsible gun enthusiast such as yourself, there are unfortunately many others who are not as responsible. I don't know how the problem can be solved, seems like there is no logical fix, that would appease all.
I agree with that cars. Hopefully one day this pissing match between the two sides will come to a end and we can all sit down and resolve this issue.
Being in the firearm trade you can only guess at the kinds of attitudes/people I see walk through the front door.
(06-12-2013, 10:12 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]Online petitions are for wimps that wouldn't say "boo" in an elevator full of comedians. They mean nothing.
Yeah petitions are for wimps real men buy guns.
The pen is mightier than the sword/gun.
I am just saying that online petitions have no legal implications. Many have been brought up to show support towards legislation pending and have been proven to be un-reliable. Keyboard comandos in G.I. Joe pajamas.
An online petition was a key factor in victims families of the Hillsborough disaster finally getting the justice and truth they deserved after over 20 years of police and government lies and conspiracy.
Sometimes they do make a difference.
(06-12-2013, 10:32 AM)Carsman Wrote: [ -> ](Just got back from getting my haircut, wow it's short!)
Yes F. U. Daa, you certainly do make many good valid points, and I agree with many of them. However, it seems like for every responsible gun enthusiast such as yourself, there are unfortunately many others who are not as responsible. I don't know how the problem can be solved, seems like there is no logical fix, that would appease all.
(Fantastic Sams?
)
As someone who supports strict gun control measures and enforcement that help to keep guns out of the hands of those known to be irresponsible/unqualified in the first place (and locks up those who break the laws) but does not support bans, it's sometimes frustrating to read/hear the lack of common sense by the most impassioned on both sides.
Regardless of their style in communicating points or the general intelligence of those engaged in the debate, the extremists on one side constantly accuse the extremists on the other side of being close minded. IMO, they're often both correct.
One thing that I think could help is if those on the pro-gun side would consider things like advocating the merits of 5 year olds handling guns. A lot of us middle grounders simply tune them out at that point because it's just too insulting to ones intelligence. If guns are that big a part of your life and you wanna take the risk or honestly believe that there is no risk, fine. But, suggesting that's a reasonable view that should be respected by society in general (which is the point of most public discussion/debate about controls and laws) is plain ignorant. IMO.
Likewise, those who would like to see gun bans invoked often don't really listen to good points made by pro-gun advocates regarding their desire to use guns responsibly for protection, sport, hobby, etc... and that gun control should focus on the person handling the gun, not the gun itself. Punishing the responsible law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals is a hard pill to swallow for many. IMO, that's not an irrational stance.
Anyway, there should be way more common ground than conflict if the real agenda of those engaged in the discussion is truly considering what's best for society without infringing unnecessarily on individual rights/desires. Mostly what I see instead is "my side" agenda pushing and attempts to influence without genuine consideration of alternate view points. Rational compromise and negotiation isn't even on the menu.
That's why a lot of real discussion/debate on the subject, especially in the political arena, stalls quickly. IMO.
I totally understand those that suggest gun bans on certain weapons. We don't let people carry automatic weapons or RPG's so I "get" those that want to further that to semi auto weapons, high magazine capacities etc.
That said, I don't really have a problem with the weapons themselves until they fall into the hands of a nut job planning a massacre. If someone could figure out a way to prevent that from happening, great.
I really don't bother with this anymore.
I respect guys like F.U. who state their arguments with passion and respect.
It doesn't mean I agree with it however.
When our very lives are at the mercy of psychopaths, and we as a society decide to say, 'our personal liberties are more important than ensuring public safety', then I know it's just a numbers game as to who the next innocents mowed down will be.
Mind you, we've made sacrifices in our personal liberties when it comes to flying for instance.
If nothing changed after Newtown, it'll NEVER change.
(06-12-2013, 11:44 AM)username Wrote: [ -> ]I totally understand those that suggest gun bans on certain weapons. We don't let people carry automatic weapons or RPG's so I "get" those that want to further that to semi auto weapons, high magazine capacities etc.
That said, I don't really have a problem with the weapons themselves until they fall into the hands of a nut job planning a massacre. If someone could figure out a way to prevent that from happening, great.
I understand the positions of both sides too.
I just don't think the most vocal advocates on either side (in and out of the legislature) make a significant effort to understand the other's position and show any willingness to compromise for the good of the whole. There will never be a total eradication of gun violence (or any kind of violence) of course, but there can be improvements. I believe that.
People that throw their hands up in frustration and just proclaim that nothing is ever gonna change aren't really committed to change anyway. Defeatism never gets anyone anywhere they want to be.
You wanna affect change, stay engaged and make your voice heard. Whether it's frustrating or not. If you just leave it up to others to hopefully do and say what you believe on your behalf or focus on style rather than content, I don't think you have too much room to bitch.
(That "you" isn't you at all username, general "you").
(06-12-2013, 11:32 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]One thing that I think could help is if those on the pro-gun side would consider things like advocating the merits of 5 year olds handling guns. A lot of us middle grounders simply tune them out at that point because it's just too insulting to ones intelligence. If guns are that big a part of your life and you wanna take the risk or honestly believe that there is no risk, fine. But, suggesting that's a reasonable view that should be respected by society in general (which is the point of most public discussion/debate about controls and laws) is plain ignorant. IMO.
I'm also middle ground on the gun debate, but not when it comes to babies handling guns. Not only do they allow them to handle guns, both SF and FU have said that they have left their loaded weapons accessible to their children and grandchildren relying on the fact that they taught them gun safety therefore they'll never touch an unattended gun. That's completely absurd and irresponsible. And that's not an opinion, it's a fact.
All I ask of gun advocates is at what point do you say “regardless of personal freedoms and liberties have we reached a point where enough is enough? Is my right to own assault weapons more important than the safety of the general public? Is it right that a nihilistic sociopath can walk into a gun show anywhere up and down the country and buy enough firearms to start a one man war against humanity? At what point do we have to admit that things have just got to change? Do I honestly think the founding fathers would advocate the freedom to own guns like the ones used at Newtown?”
(06-12-2013, 12:33 PM)sally Wrote: [ -> ]I'm also middle ground on the gun debate, but not when it comes to babies handling guns. Not only do they allow them to handle guns, both SF and FU have said that they have left their loaded weapons accessible to their children and grandchildren relying on the fact that they taught them gun safety therefore they'll never touch an unattended gun. That's completely absurd and irresponsible. And that's not an opinion, it's a fact.
I agree with you, the thought of a real loaded firearm in the hands of a little kid just sickens and disgusts me to the very pit of my stomach. Tragic accidents with children and firearms happen with such frequency in the US is should be a criminal offence to let little kids handle guns or to leave loaded guns lying around where they are accessible. You keep your medicines and tablets out of childrens reach guns should be treated the same.
Whenever I see a kid with a gun it reminds of those poor little child soldiers in Africa who are given no choice but to pick up a gun and fight.