(07-06-2015, 08:55 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote:

(07-05-2015, 08:09 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: All I see is an image that could serve as an advert for the hard core gun control advocates who insist that all gun enthusiasts are nutty, cartoonish, extremists.

It's too bad that responsible and more rational gun enthusiasts often get a bad rap by association.

Why thank you HotD. Once again your comments make me start my day with a laugh.
nutty, cartoonish, extremists

If you can look at that image and it reflects something different to you, especially considering the context in which you posted it, you're not seeing things clearly.

I tried to find this pic fast enough to edit my above post, but failed. Soooo

Actually HotD I gave the gun grabbers a much better pic than that one to freak out about. The same day, I took this one and captioned it, My family is prepared to mourn, Is yours? SO see I really don't care if the anti gunners like me/it or not. I really don't care. Is it counter productive for the pro gun side? Yes, I know it is, but its still fun to ruffle their feathers. Sometimes I say and do stuff just to do just that, ruffle feathers.

(07-06-2015, 09:26 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(07-06-2015, 08:55 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote:

(07-05-2015, 08:09 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: All I see is an image that could serve as an advert for the hard core gun control advocates who insist that all gun enthusiasts are nutty, cartoonish, extremists.

It's too bad that responsible and more rational gun enthusiasts often get a bad rap by association.

Why thank you HotD. Once again your comments make me start my day with a laugh.
nutty, cartoonish, extremists

If you can look at that image and it reflects something different to you, especially considering the context in which you posted it, you're not seeing things clearly.

That pic was intended as a funny [the last one I posted was not. That one was taken just to get under some skin] I mean look at the smiley face I drew. If you cant see that then you are taking life way to serious.

(07-06-2015, 08:49 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: No HotD the anti gunners don't want to compromise. They want to take take take and if that taking requires them to do it in baby steps instead of strides that is what they will do. I don't consider it compromising when all they did was say , we wont go after magazine capacity's or types of firearms . . . this time. If they really want to compromise make it a give and take. Give us something like, lets say, dropping the BS AOW or NFA paperwork and fee requirements. I mean after all everyone will be checked out now so the type of firearm shouldn't matter anymore. Or give us a nationwide stand your ground law. Or a nation wide constitutional carry law. Give us something. Its only a compromise when both sides get something in return.

You keep talking about what more gun owners should be given, for less work/cost.

You go so far as to deny that children were ever unintentionally killed with guns when you were a kid because it doesn't fit your agenda, even though that defies all common sense, logic, and the claims of the NRA.

You've already admitted upthread when I asked you point blank that you see anyone who isn't "with you" when it comes to your views on guns as "against you", and that's that.

You automatically deflect the sound rationale of those who want to make society safer, without infringing on your right to bear arms, on the basis of fear that someday some way somebody might try to take away some of your arsenal. Etc...

Clearly, you don't understand what "give and take", compromise or negotiation means F.U. At least, not when it comes to guns.

You already have the right to bear arms, and not in a "well-regulated" manner.

(07-06-2015, 09:29 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: That pic was intended as a funny [the last one I posted was not. That one was taken just to get under some skin] I mean look at the smiley face I drew. If you cant see that then you are taking life way to serious.

Trust me, I thought it was funny. Just not in the way that you intended.

Irony often tickles my funny bone.

Anyway, I don't take life way too seriously, F.U. If I did, I wouldn't be laughing nearly as much.

I had a gun conversation last night. It began with me saying "were you aware that guns don't have to be registered". He looked at me like I had snakes coming out of my head.

If guns change hands legally then there is a record of it. I do understand now that to register them would be redundant given all the necessary info has already been obtained BUT guns changing hands often isn't done legally particularly when they are sold to friends, family, etc. Money is exchanged and that's about it.

(07-06-2015, 09:26 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: I tried to find this pic fast enough to edit my above post, but failed. Soooo

Actually HotD I gave the gun grabbers a much better pic than that one to freak out about. The same day, I took this one and captioned it, My family is prepared to mourn, Is yours? SO see I really don't care if the anti gunners like me/it or not. I really don't care. Is it counter productive for the pro gun side? Yes, I know it is, but its still fun to ruffle their feathers. Sometimes I say and do stuff just to do just that, ruffle feathers.

F.U. Take a deep breath and clear your head.

Now........show me where I or anyone here "freaked out" over the image you posted, this latest one or any others.

It does amuse me that you give those who'd like to see the right to bear arms done away with great ammunition by feeding into the irrational extremist stereotype.

And, were I a gun enthusiast/collector who was serious about protecting that right, I might consider you a liability because of it.

None of which ruffles my feathers or makes me not like you, whether you care or not.

(07-06-2015, 10:04 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: It does amuse me that you give those who'd like to see the right to bear arms done away with great ammunition by feeding into the irrational extremist stereotype.

Idunno, maybe with the ammo. But the weapons he has on the wall aren't extremist. If anti-gunners wanted a better stereotype, they'd be better off with this fellow:

The cartoon face (and the attached little parting caption) on F.U.'s original image is what depicts the "cartoonish/clownish gun-nut" stereotype that I've read many smart, responsible gun owners and second amendment defenders complain about being associated with, Cutz. The smart, responsible pro-gun advocates who are serious about their cause, anyway.

But, we're just here at Mock and I understand that F.U. is fine with not being taken seriously.

(07-06-2015, 10:01 AM)Duchess Wrote: I had a gun conversation last night. It began with me saying "were you aware that guns don't have to be registered". He looked at me like I had snakes coming out of my head.

If guns change hands legally then there is a record of it. I do understand now that to register them would be redundant given all the necessary info has already been obtained BUT guns changing hands often isn't done legally particularly when they are sold to friends, family, etc. Money is exchanged and that's about it.

A national gun registry is not something that's being pursued, though apparently much of the population believes that one should or already exists.

The government has gone so far as to make it clear that it's not looking to establish a federal gun registry by enacting a law, back in the 1980s, expressly prohibiting one (The Firearms Owners Protection Act).

The only reason a federal registry comes up so often in gun control discussions and debates is because some gun enthusiasts claim that any proposed legislation to better regulate guns in this country is a "slippery slope" that puts the government one step closer to achieving its secret goal of establishing a federal gun registry for the purpose of disarming them. Fear.

(07-06-2015, 11:18 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(07-06-2015, 10:01 AM)Duchess Wrote: I had a gun conversation last night. It began with me saying "were you aware that guns don't have to be registered". He looked at me like I had snakes coming out of my head.

If guns change hands legally then there is a record of it. I do understand now that to register them would be redundant given all the necessary info has already been obtained BUT guns changing hands often isn't done legally particularly when they are sold to friends, family, etc. Money is exchanged and that's about it.

The only reason a federal registry comes up so often in gun control discussions and debates is because some gun enthusiasts claim that any proposed legislation to better regulate guns in this country is a "slippery slop" that puts the government one step closer to achieving its secret goal of establishing a federal gun registry for the purpose of disarming them. Fear.

Just spent the day with my little brother yesterday.

He's super paranoid too. He's a gun enthusiast with a carry/conceal permit.

We talked at length about a variety of topics yesterday, and everything came back to: "the government is trying to take our individual freedoms, little by little, but make no mistake, they ARE trying to do it."

It really is remarkable how these people feel like this.

Bottom line: rational thinkers like us are either incredibly naive, or gun enthusiasts are super paranoid.

(07-06-2015, 11:28 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Bottom line: rational thinkers like us are either incredibly naive, or gun enthusiasts are super paranoid.

That good ol MS condescending logic. There's gun enthusiasts and rational thinkers... can't be the same.

Its not so far fetched, in the 1980's gay marriage was considered immoral by politicians and the majority alike. Its not the constitution that changes its morality and the line between good, evil and social acceptability.

(07-06-2015, 12:07 PM)Cutz Wrote:

(07-06-2015, 11:28 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Bottom line: rational thinkers like us are either incredibly naive, or gun enthusiasts are super paranoid.

That good ol MS condescending logic. There's gun enthusiasts and rational thinkers... can't be the same.

Yep.

I'd simply like to find a couple of those.

They're harder to find than a three-headed moose at Mille Lacs Lake.

The courts have held that states can basically do what they want when it comes to guns, as long as it does not violate the 2^nd amendment of the Constitution. The challenges happen as they should, and get decided along the way.

California has strict gun control laws and has had them for a long time. Handgun or long gun, I believe you have to register both, and also need a permit to purchase them. There is a 10 day waiting period for purchases. Magazines can not hold more than 10 round of ammunition. On top of these restrictions, places like LA and SF are even tougher places to own a gun - basically not issuing permits to most citizens.

Yet given all that, an illegal immigrant who's been deported x5, living in a sanctuary city (SF) that refuses to follow the law, still found a way to get a gun and kill someone. And in LA alone through June there were 194 people killed by guns - 88% of them young black or hispanic.

The largest driver of gun violence is a cultural and socioeconomic problem. While I'm for background checks for all purchases/transfers and don't mind waiting periods, and consider myself a pretty reasonable/rational gun owner, neither of these things will likely reduce or stem any of the statistically dominant causes of gun homicide and violence.

(07-06-2015, 10:01 AM)Duchess Wrote:


If guns change hands legally then there is a record of it.

Yes there is technically a record of it, but that record is stored in the gunshop where the transfer was made. The ATF never sees that record. The background check that is done through NICS is wiped clean at the end of every day. Or at least it is suppose to be. Plus all they do is check to see if that person can legally own a firearm, not what the firearm is.
So really no there is no real record of who owns what.

If I remember right Jimbone California only has a registration on handguns.

(07-06-2015, 10:33 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: The cartoon face (and the attached little parting caption) on F.U.'s original image is what depicts the "cartoonish/clownish gun-nut" stereotype that I've read many smart, responsible gun owners and second amendment defenders complain about being associated with, Cutz. The smart, responsible pro-gun advocates who are serious about their cause, anyway.

But, we're just here at Mock and I understand that F.U. is fine with not being taken seriously.

HotD, the buy it cheap and stack it deep is actually logical thinking when it comes to most things. Prices for goods are never going to be any lower than they are right now. They always go up. SO, a good rule of thumb when buying, since we are talking ammo here, ammo is to figure out how much ammo you use a year. Then take a reasonable guess on your life expectancy . Then multiply those numbers and double that total. And do that for every caliber firearm you own. That is a minimum on how much ammo you should have on hand, or stockpile. When I started stocking ammo 22lr was about 50 cents for 50 rounds. Now that same ammo is 5 bucks for that same 50 rounds.
during the great Obama ammo scare of 2008 22LR prices went through the roof. People were selling 22lr for 200 bucks for a 500 round box and you felt lucky to find it at all. Thank heavens that I had my stockpile and never had to buy any. A person is not crazy, scared, or any other term you want to use just because they have 10's of thousands of rounds of ammo stored away.

(07-06-2015, 12:59 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: A person is not crazy, scared, or any other term you want to use just because they have 10's of thousands of rounds of ammo stored away.

I would never tell a crazy person they are wrong. Not saying you're crazy, I don't actually think you are BUT...

Being in possession of tens of thousands of rounds of ammo isn't exactly sane either. Are you expecting armageddon?

(07-06-2015, 11:28 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote:

(07-06-2015, 11:18 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(07-06-2015, 10:01 AM)Duchess Wrote: I had a gun conversation last night. It began with me saying "were you aware that guns don't have to be registered". He looked at me like I had snakes coming out of my head.

If guns change hands legally then there is a record of it. I do understand now that to register them would be redundant given all the necessary info has already been obtained BUT guns changing hands often isn't done legally particularly when they are sold to friends, family, etc. Money is exchanged and that's about it.

The only reason a federal registry comes up so often in gun control discussions and debates is because some gun enthusiasts claim that any proposed legislation to better regulate guns in this country is a "slippery slop" that puts the government one step closer to achieving its secret goal of establishing a federal gun registry for the purpose of disarming them. Fear.

Just spent the day with my little brother yesterday.

He's super paranoid too. He's a gun enthusiast with a carry/conceal permit.

We talked at length about a variety of topics yesterday, and everything came back to: "the government is trying to take our individual freedoms, little by little, but make no mistake, they ARE trying to do it."

It really is remarkable how these people feel like this.

Bottom line: rational thinkers like us are either incredibly naive, or gun enthusiasts are super paranoid.

Not super paranoid at all MS. It is a fact that they are trying to chip away at our gun rights. They have already restricted fully auto, silencers, SBS and SBR's. They have voiced that they want to restrict our AR-15's and AK-47's and many other rifles like these. They want to restrict us by monitoring our purchases and wish they could set up a registration. They have already discussed developing serialized ammo and requiring us to sign on the dotted line when we purchase it. It is all being done at a slow pace and we gun owners have to fight it every step of the way.
Have you heard the story about how to catch a wild hog, well its the same thing. One slow step at a time.