Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Sailor Steve]

HOW ABOUT WE QUIT FIGHTING!

This has to stop. NOW. :hmmm: :dead:
Not really. Differences unresolved are differences escalated. Better to work it out if possible than let it fester.

Also screaming at the top of your lungs doesn't really help.

[Sailor Steve]

Right because trying to derail threads isn't being rude, but whatever Mr. Moderator.
You really don't have to make personal digs like that. I wasn't trying to derail the thread, just respond to Oberon's joke. It wasn't your correction that bugged me, but the snarky way in which you said it. If you had just asked if we could keep in on topic I would have said I was sorry and it wouldn't happen again, and none of this would have happened.

If I remain here then in the future I would appreciate it if you refrain from any non official contact with me. I can't put you on ignore like I can with Tribesman so as long as you wear that moderator badge I am not going to try and discern when you are joking and when you are being serious.
I think in that case it was painfully obvious I wasn't being serious. But yes, if you want to hold onto your anger and hold grudges then I can accept that. But know that I don't think that way. My criticisms are honest if misguided, and I also give praise where I think it's due. I don't hate anyone, ever, and my dislikes change with the person involved. What you take as an attack I usually mean as an observation. While you're refusing to talk to me you might think about that. I suspect that you will instead be comfortable in your righteous anger and knowledge of your correctness in all things. That's fine, I'll honor your request.

And by the way if you have really gone back and checked the exchange then you know that the communism post was in referral to Oberon and not you. That's twice now you have decided to get upset over something said to someone else.
I did go back and check. You posted right after me. You didn't mention anyone by name. Therefore, it's not obvious at all. I thought you meant both of us. On the other hand I guess I should be relieved that you were being rude and condescending to Oberon and not me. That makes a huge difference.

[Cybermat47]

Not really. Differences unresolved are differences escalated.

And by 'escalated' you mean 'someone's going to invade Poland over this'.

[Oberon]

And by 'escalated' you mean 'someone's going to invade Poland over this'.

"Whatever you do, don't mention the war, I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it."

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2013/1/23/1358932681059/Fawlty-Towers-008.jpg

[Ducimus]

Oh, here's a new one:
Why I Hate Guns! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rla-l16a4U)
:shifty: :har:

[CaptainMattJ.]

That's the whole point of the Bill Of Rights. You don't have to justify owning anything. The government has to justify taking it away from you. The British governor of Massachussetts didn't see any justification in common citizens owning cannons either, so he sent troops to confiscate them. That's what Lexington and Concorde were about.
The quote standing alone is a different thought altogether than my overall post. I said that I personally have yet to hear a reasonable argument for the owning of an assault rifle, considering the only practical application it has, the potential for so much damage. I also went on to say that this bill is absurd and the assault rifle is, through current regulations, adequately difficult to own already, thereby putting it still legal and available, though regulated. To summarize the point i was trying to get at, there may be no reason to have such a potentially dangerous weapon, but it is a non-issue considering how many hoops you have to go through to get it and therefore it is not a reasonable public safety threat and should not be banned. If any legislation is truly necessary, it should be background checks that include closer evaluation of any documented cases of mental instability, such as being on anti psychotic drugs, stays at mental institutions, diagnosis of mental disorders, ect.
Psychiatric evaluation to exercise a constitutional right? Lovely.
You're Right, lets give back all the mentally unstable lunatics their right to own a firearm. I'm not saying that everyone should go to a shrink (god knows how that would turn out), i meant that the background checks for previous documented cases of mental instability should be evaluated more closely and thoroughly before giving a go-ahead for the purchase of firearms.

[Stealhead]

Oh, here's a new one:
Why I Hate Guns! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rla-l16a4U)
:shifty: :har:


I think that guys sarcasm might go over a few heads.Funny though if you get it.

@CaptainMattJ what is a "no go" mental disorder and what is a "go" then? What if you have depression?

[CaptainMattJ.]

I think that guys sarcasm might go over a few heads.Funny though if you get it.

@CaptainMattJ what is a "no go" mental disorder and what is a "go" then? What if you have depression?
Well antisocial disorders shoudl be a no go (aspergers, for example), those with schizophrenia, moderate to severe autism, i am unsure about depression though. Would you prefer allowing paranoid schizophrenics to own a firearm, what about those with aspergers, such as a newtown shooter. Personally i do not think that someone in such an unstable condition should be allowed to carry, but the debate must be expanded upon further.

[Aramike]

You're Right, lets give back all the mentally unstable lunatics their right to own a firearm. I'm not saying that everyone should go to a shrink (god knows how that would turn out), i meant that the background checks for previous documented cases of mental instability should be evaluated more closely and thoroughly before giving a go-ahead for the purchase of firearms. There's a huge problem in your logic that you're missing: the idea of banning any individual from anything due to a "disorder" is that it is highly contingent upon who is DEFINING "disorder" but what criteria.

You're right - I don't want any nutjob neighbor to own a gun anymore than the next guy. But such is the risk of a free society. Do we stop them from owning cars they could drive into a parade as well? Are strong opinions outside of the mainstream a "disorder" or simply an exercise of free speech/thought?

I don't have answers to these questions, sorry. But I can tell you this: we are well past the point of this discussion mattering all that much. We are a gun-prevailant society - the weapons are to be had should someone want them. And should someone "unstable" want them in order to commit some atrocity ... well ... there is little stopping them (even laws, which they are intending to break anyway).

So let's stop trying to enact rules for those of us who follow the rules to acede to, and accept that bad people easily find easy ways to do bad things. Furthermore, let's stop trying to find some arbitrary line for law-abiding citizens to toe even though they aren't the problem in the first place.

Any good discussion on gun control involves a simple quesition we don't ever want to address: we already have laws that control behaviors around weapons use ... if they aren't already working, why do we believe that MORE laws would make a difference?

[Cybermat47]

Well antisocial disorders shoudl be a no go (aspergers, for example)

So if I ever became an American citizen and wanted to arm myself I couldn't? LAME.

[Spoon 11th]

Here's another humorous Piers Morgan related video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=M-6-qQjCUh4#t=63s

[Ducimus]

Second Amendment Scholar says Assault Weapons Ban 'won't pass constitutional muster' . (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyXcY7NJHFg)

[Ducimus]

So, I have for you, a video, by a fellow in Australia. He's a singer, and gun enthusiast. You'll see him shooting a whole lot of stuff you can't get in the US or Australia. I dug around his channel once and apparently he took a tourism trip to Thailand or somewhere thereabouts where they have bunch of stuff you can rent, which he obviously did.

Anyone who loves to stereotype gun owners will have a field day with this one. Otherwise, its good for a laugh.
I Like Guns - Steve Lee (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TC2xTCb_GU)

[tater]

^^^

Yep.

At the time the 2d was written, the US government would happily (in time of war) have written a letter of marque for a privateer that was a 1st Rate line of battle ship had anyone offered up such a vessel. No one would have so much as batted an eye. That's a privately owned aircraft carrier or battleship in modern terms (or boomer, for that matter). The Founders had no sense of limitation at all to what weapons a private citizen could own (and naval artillery was far larger and more powerful than what could be drawn by horses for use vs infantry).

There is a mechanism to correct this, should anyone think that people should not be allowed to own warships, or even artillery. Amend the Constitution, because the 2d protects even that level of armament. It's not about hunting, it's the last of a series of checks and balances put forth by men who believed even having a standing army was tyranny---I can imagine it as a counter to Federalist desires for such a standing army.

[Stealhead]

Well antisocial disorders shoudl be a no go (aspergers, for example), those with schizophrenia, moderate to severe autism, i am unsure about depression though. Would you prefer allowing paranoid schizophrenics to own a firearm, what about those with aspergers, such as a newtown shooter. Personally i do not think that someone in such an unstable condition should be allowed to carry, but the debate must be expanded upon further.


So Jamie Hyneman the guy from Mythbusters that has clearly handled firearms many times and never shot anyone according to you cant own a firearm? Neither can Keith Olbermann or Bob Dylan or Bill Gates or Al Gore or Robin Williams.They all have Aspergers Syndrome. It is believed that Abraham Lincoln also had Aspergers so he cant own one either.

People with Aspergers have difficulty with social inaction they however are not anti social.

You seem to be thinking of a person with an Antisocial Personality Disorder this type of of person truly lacks a moral compass and would have no issue murdering someone or many people.

I agree that people with certain issues should not have access to any form of weapon just not what you suggested.But it is a touchy issue because what is or is not "dangerous" not so easy to say.And still a person must have acted in an alarming manner and have been diagnosed.People can hide how they truly feel and not get on a list for a metal illness the they commit their act and you did not know anything was very wrong until it happened.Or people close to that person never notice or don't feel that the person in question is becoming a danger.

The Sandy Hook kid something else was going on with him that did not get noticed or maybe he was just a POS. People like to say when something happens X person was "nuts" maybe just maybe that person was just a jerk at the maximum level and they knew what they where doing and knew it was wrong.

[tater]

"... shall not be infringed." (my emphasis).

Infringed is a pretty GD low bar. Not so much as a speed bump, and that applied to warships and artillery as written, when written.

[Ducimus]

Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Don't Exist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix_ed4YxUT8)
(He makes a good illustration about how silly the Assault weapon criteria are, though I would maintain "Assault Rifle" is a classification as defined by the US armed forces - A selective fire rifle using an intermediate cartridge, feed from a box magazine. Of which a rifle derived from the civilian model AR-15 platform is not)

[Stealhead]

In my opinion the only "assault weapon" ever named as such is the STG.44 named the "Sturmgewehr"(Assault rifle) by Hitler (or Joseph Goebbels some say) it was given this name purely for political reasons. The weapon had another name and was changed to Sturmgewehr.


In western military vernacular you will not find any weapon being called an assault rifle you will hear the term rifle and in it description it will say
"Selective fire" if that weapon has such a feature.Selective fire means more than one mode of operation when the trigger is pressed "safe" is not a mode of operation.
I never once heard the term assault rifle used in the military I don't know anyone else that served use the term in relation any military weapon either.

Description page from the M16 manual;http://archive.org/stream/OperatorsManualForM16M16a1#page/n27/mode/2up

I would rather point out that the term is not even used by the military this better points out it origins and current use (by some).

AK47 (the evil gun) its name is Avtomat Kalashnikova Kalashnikov Automatic Rifle.

Assault Rifle (Weapon) started as a purely political term and will remain so in my eyes though interestingly enough the term was originally coined by fascists.

[Ducimus]

In my opinion the only "assault weapon" ever named as such is the STG.44

Well, i definitely agree that the term "assault weapon" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPZfNOlAvXg) is a media and politician coined term. Ever notice how the label is constantly changing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2riOiBaZrg)? And why am i still posting about this subject? Because it is nowhere near dead. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXWBGL_Soj4)

[geetrue]

All the gov has to do is put the VA in charge of who can own an assault weapon and who can not own one.

At the present time the VA has a backlog of 900,00 claims that can take up to a year to settle:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/03/21/battles-erupt-amid-calls-for-va-resignations.html?comp=7000024213943&rank=3

Currently, the average wait times for new veteran claimants to see a VA doctor can be up to 600 days, and more in some parts of the country.



Joe Klein blasted VA Secretary Eric Shinseki over the backlog, which now stands at about 900,000, and said he should quit.

[Stealhead]

All the gov has to do is put the VA in charge of who can own an assault weapon and who can not own one.

At the present time the VA has a backlog of 900,00 claims that can take up to a year to settle:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/03/21/battles-erupt-amid-calls-for-va-resignations.html?comp=7000024213943&rank=3


They go out of their way to help those that fought for their country don't they? Sadly it is known that some vets actually committed suicide in frustration.
I heard on NPR a while back they spoke with an Iraq/Afghanistan vet this guy cant work and had been waiting for 2 years at the time they spoke with him and his wife on his complete claim.
He was waiting just for them to get to him and start working on his case mind you.

I would not worry about it because many Sheriffs say that they will not enforce gun bans anyway and not just the right wing ones like Arpiao.

[Tribesman]

"... shall not be infringed." (my emphasis).

So you cannot have any restrictions on owning firearms.
That obviously includes for convicted felons too.


So to elaborate on your next point, a convicted terrorist has the undeniable right to own a nuclear armed submarine.

Its just so easy to show how that "not be infringed" line of arguement is absolute nonsense isn't it.:yep:

[tater]

So you cannot have any restrictions on owning firearms.
That obviously includes for convicted felons too.


So to elaborate on your next point, a convicted terrorist has the undeniable right to own a nuclear armed submarine.

Its just so easy to show how that "not be infringed" line of arguement is absolute nonsense isn't it.:yep:

That's what it says, and there were no such restrictions on felons at the time. I'm fine with that. I'd rather have no restrictions (which was the intent) than unconstitutional ones. Disallowing some felons was part of the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, before that there were no restrictions at all on weapon sales or ownership in the US (except the other FDR crap in 1934 that taxed some guns rather a lot to avoid the 2d).

Of course they were rather more lose about capital punishment back then, and "terrorists" of the exact same persuasion were actually a problem in even the first US administration (the so-called "barbary pirates" were in fact operating under the rules of jihad such as they are out here in dar al harb (slaves may be taken, etc)). Such terrorists would face summary execution for their crimes (like any other pirates), so they'd not likely have a chance at firearms possession in the US. If they managed to get here, then you are right, they'd be no different than anyone else purchasing arms.

The argument is not "nonsense," the language of the 2d is clear, as is the meaning from contemporary writings by its authors.

There is a mechanism to change this for changing times, it's called amending the Constitution. I'm happy to try and come up with a redone 2d that will satisfy 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of the State legislatures. You could insert "small" before "arms," for example. They could append "Area-effect weapons, being of indiscriminate effect, may be controlled as deemed necessary by Congress." This would open the door to entirely arbitrary legislation regarding HE, WMD, and even machine guns (which were designed to lay down a "beaten area" not aimed fire for each round).

[Ducimus]

I think the source of this video might be "conspiracy theory central", but... this video makes a good case for what the second amendment is really about.

The REAL Purpose of the 2nd Amendment - The Ultimate Critique of Gun Control (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYFN6seSBSo)

[Tribesman]

The argument is not "nonsense," the language of the 2d is clear, as is the meaning from contemporary writings by its authors.

Unless you can show that there have been no restrictions on firearms from the time the authors first put ink in a quill you are obviously incorrect.

The restrictions they have a plain enough, it goes with the thinking at the time.

I see you walked right in to the shipping one:03:

I do like your honest approach though, you think criminals and the insane should be allowed guns. After all if they were not allowed guns then the 2nd cannot mean what you want it to mean.



I think the source of this video might be "conspiracy theory central"
What gave it away? the video on FEMA death camps?

[yubba]

oooooooooo I see some ones is off his meds, maybe this will help. Maybe you ought to show us where in the constitution it says government can ,, I really get a kick out of folk that can't understand {not to be infringed.} and to maintain a well armed miltia to secure a free state,, it is every americans duty to be a rifleman and that means that we have the same arms the government has, I guess if you had enough money you could have a tank, which people do, now I can't place it my memory is getting bad, some where I saw someone had a PT boat damn now where did I see that, well any how the Tico Airshow is on and even people own fighter air craft ooooh mmyyyyyy.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/php/galleries/image.php/856/61/61.jpg

[Platapus]

"... shall not be infringed." (my emphasis).

Infringed is a pretty GD low bar. Not so much as a speed bump, and that applied to warships and artillery as written, when written.

You are correct, the words "shall not be infringed" is included in the Second Amendment, when it was written. But it is also necessary to recognize that the scope of the Second Amendment (and the Bill of Rights as a whole) has changed.

When the founding dudes wrote it, the Second Amendment (actually all of the Bill of Rights) only applied to the Federal Government. The states were still sovereign and were not bound by the Bill of Rights in any way.

So a state could establish an official religion, could ban free speech and could certainly restrict weapons according to the state's constitution and the state's legislation. The federal government could not.

Even the 14th amendment (1868) still recognized that the bill of rights applied to the Federal Government only. As late as 1883 (Barron v Balitmore 32 US (7pet) 243) the SCOTUS ruled that the bill of rights only applied to the Federal Government.

Then in the 1900's things started to change. Slow at first but soon we had what is called the "Incorporation Doctrine". There were a series of court cases and appeals that slowly changed how the courts interpreted the Constitution. It was not a sudden single decision but a series of decisions over about 20 years.

What that meant is that the courts up to and including the Supreme Court, made the decision that the restrictions on the Federal Government that were in the Bill of Rights and other amendments also restrict the State Government.

That's a pretty big deal.

Whether the Incorporation doctrine is good or bad, can and is debatable, in addition to the question whether the Incorporation doctrine is even constitutional in itself is debatable. But the fact is that it is with us.

This means that it is difficult to go back to the original (federal only interpretation) constitution and make the claim "well those dudes wrote this back then and therefore it must apply to current (federal and state interpretations of the constitution) issues.

The founding dudes may have intended that all infringement of arms would fall to the state. The only thing they made clear (back then) was that the Federal Government could not infringe. Remember, they also wrote the 9th and 10th Amendment also so they recognized a difference between what the Federal government could or could not do and what State governments could and could not do. Basically, what the states could not do was left up to the state to decide through their laws and courts.

This is one of the many problems with the Incorporation Doctrine. We were just a bit over 100 years old as a country, when we started moving away from being the United States of America to become the United Federation of America.

Either being a confederation of sovereign states or a federation of incorporated states has its advantages and disadvantages. But the move from a confederation of sovereign states to a federation of incorporated states needs to be made deliberately and with the consent of the people.

I do not believe this has been done.

So we find our country somewhere between a confederation of sovereign states and a federation of incorporated states with, to quote Archie Bunker, "a little too much of both and not enough of neither".

This is a bad thing. We need to be one or the other with clear delimitation of authority.

And this makes interpreting the constitution not only necessary but also difficult.

My opinion? It is necessary to interpret the constitution as environments change (That's why the Founding Dudes made a SCOTUS)

BUT

Such interpretations need to be taken with care and with due diligence as to unintended, unexpected, undesired, consequences that may come from the interpretation in the future. I lean more to following the restrictions of the constitution, but recognize that a bunch of guys in the early 1800s can not be expected to have thought about issues in the 2000's.

Of course, if I had the answer, I sure would not be writing bombastic posts on a video game fan forum. :D

[Ducimus]

Then in the 1900's things started to change. Slow at first but soon we had what is called the "Incorporation Doctrine". There were a series of court cases and appeals that slowly changed how the courts interpreted the Constitution. It was not a sudden single decision but a series of decisions over about 20 years.

What that meant is that the courts up to and including the Supreme Court, made the decision that the restrictions on the Federal Government that were in the Bill of Rights and other amendments also restrict the State Government.

That's a pretty big deal.

Whether the Incorporation doctrine is good or bad, can and is debatable, in addition to the question whether the Incorporation doctrine is even constitutional in itself is debatable. But the fact is that it is with us.

This means that it is difficult to go back to the original (federal only interpretation) constitution and make the claim "well those dudes wrote this back then and therefore it must apply to current (federal and state interpretations of the constitution) issues.

The founding dudes may have intended that all infringement of arms would fall to the state. The only thing they made clear (back then) was that the Federal Government could not infringe. Remember, they also wrote the 9th and 10th Amendment also so they recognized a difference between what the Federal government could or could not do and what State governments could and could not do. Basically, what the states could not do was left up to the state to decide through their laws and courts.

This is one of the many problems with the Incorporation Doctrine. We were just a bit over 100 years old as a country, when we started moving away from being the United States of America to become the United Federation of America.

Either being a confederation of sovereign states or a federation of incorporated states has its advantages and disadvantages. But the move from a confederation of sovereign states to a federation of incorporated states needs to be made deliberately and with the consent of the people.

I do not believe this has been done.

So we find our country somewhere between a confederation of sovereign states and a federation of incorporated states with, to quote Archie Bunker, "a little too much of both and not enough of neither".

This is a bad thing. We need to be one or the other with clear delimitation of authority.


My thoguht has always been that issues like Gun control, should be left to the state, NOT the federal government. Why?

Each state is different. Has its own demographic, their own cultural values, their own prominent religious or political beleifs, it's own economy, etc etc, the list goes on.

What's good for California, is not good for Utah, and vice versa. The problem with Federal laws that are on the scope of gun control, or abortion, or whatever, is it's trying to make a square fit into a round hole.

The fact that a Senator like Fienstien (who would never have been elected to office in Utah in the first place) can instigate legislation that is counter to what the people and culture of what Utah want, is angering to say the least.

[Sailor Steve]

Even the 14th amendment (1868) still recognized that the bill of rights applied to the Federal Government only. As late as 1883 (Barron v Balitmore 32 US (7pet) 243) the SCOTUS ruled that the bill of rights only applied to the Federal Government.
Good post, but I would disagree slightly with this one point. Both the 13th and 15th amendments created new limitations that were specifically designed to make the States follow Federal guidelines, concerning slavery and voting rights respectively.

[Platapus]

My thought has always been that issues like Gun control, should be left to the state, NOT the federal government. Why?

Each state is different. Has its own demographic, their own cultural values, their own prominent religious or political beliefs, it's own economy, etc etc, the list goes on.

What's good for California, is not good for Utah, and vice versa. The problem with Federal laws that are on the scope of gun control, or abortion, or whatever, is it's trying to make a square fit into a round hole.

A good argument for state's rights. We are not all the same in the USA. Under the constitution and its amendments, federal laws must be equally applied across all the states and apply equally to all the citizens.

But the states are not all the same, nor are the citizens.

Is the world as dichotomous as that? Of course not.

Slavery should be illegal in all states and frankly I don't care if a state wishes to bring it back. Slavery is wrong.

But where do you draw the line. And when it comes to legislative authority a line must be drawn.

At what point does federal legislative authority end and state legislative authority take over.?

Finding the extremes are easy

Outlawing slavery? - Federal authority is appropriate, really can't be left up to the states

Establishing speed limits in residential areas? Federal authority is not appropriate. It can and should be left up to the states.

But what about everything in the middle?

Where is the legislative authority line drawn and who gets to draw it?

The answer, in the past, has been "who has the money". States have voluntarily given up a lot of their sovereignty because the federal government has given the states money and the states have grown to rely on this money.

The polite word is extortion.

Until the environment changes where the individual states can operate mostly independent of the federal government, nothing will change.

It should not come as a surprise that the federal government is not exactly encouraging states to become too independent of the federal government.

Which is why I favor a schema where personal federal tax is abolished and the individual states collect and deliver taxes to the federal government. That will give the state, as a whole, a lot more leverage then just little me.

The US I would like to see is one where

The states have a great deal of freedom in setting their laws as their constitution and legislation see fit (with some restrictions)
Where the citizens have the opportunity of "voting with their feet" and move to a state that has a set of laws that agrees with their opinion.

States with unpopular laws may find themselves lacking in tax revenue when many people move out.
States with popular laws may find themselves with increased revenues when people move in.

Of course that can create a whole bunch of other problems which is why it is a good idea I ain't in charge. :D:D

[Sailor Steve]

Good points. I remember when we had the 55 mph freeway speed limit. Not that Federal speed limits shouldn't exist on Federal highways, but the Fed threatened to withold Federal assistance to the states if they didn't comply. Yes, it's a form of extortion that the central government should have that kind of power, especially since the money they threatened to withold came from the states in the first place.

I've always like Thomas Jefferson's take on the subject:

"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations."
-Thomas Jefferson; letter to Gideon Granger, August 13, 1800

[Stealhead]

They did the same thing when they changed the federal drinking age to 21.Some states refused to change theirs so the Fed said no federal highway money if you do not change the drinking age.

Louisiana still refused for several years but as their roads began to fall apart they had no choice but to accept.:nope:

It should be states rights within reason so long as a state law is not violating civil rights they should be allowed to do what they want.
Personally I think the drinking age being 21 is a bad idea it makes drinking intriguing to kids and more likely to abuse.In Germany they allowed you to drink at 18 on base I was past the legal age by the time I was posted there but I can say that there seemed to be less alcohol related problems in Germany than at stateside bases I had been.

[Sailor Steve]

It should be states rights within reason so long as a state law is not violating civil rights they should be allowed to do what they want.
Thank you. I've been looking for the proper line between what States should be free to do and what the Feds should be able to enforce for a long time, and that's the phrase I've been looking for.

[Platapus]

It should be states rights within reason so long as a state law is not violating civil rights they should be allowed to do what they want.

I like it. That sounds reasonable...... But who gets to decide what is and what is not a civil right? And especially what takes precedence a federal opinion on what is a civil right or a state's opinion on what is a civil right?

Civil rights are a lot like art, we know it when we see it and we can recognize when it is absent, but trying to define it is a little more tricky. We all know what civil rights are... but we may not be in agreement. :D

In my current chapter of my dissertation (which I should be writing instead of posting here) I am addressing the difficulties in defining and measuring political freedom (only one subset of civil rights). Pretty easy at the conceptual level, mighty difficult at the measurand level. :yep:

[August]

I like it. That sounds reasonable...... But who gets to decide what is and what is not a civil right? And especially what takes precedence a federal opinion on what is a civil right or a state's opinion on what is a civil right?

I'd say the Bill of Rights would be a pretty good standard.

[yubba]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/392877_455443101204593_410670486_n.jpg (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=455443101204593&set=a.362561847159386.84375.361783440570560&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf)
Maybe we should ban democrats.... if we could save one life...
have no link as of yet word is that we will not enter in that treaty, another blow to the new world order,, say helloooow toooo my little freind. Looks like Aunt Janet is on her own.,, with her billions rounds and her little tanks,,,now my be we can get down to business and fix our economy instead of disarming us.. all eyes on Cyprus this ain't over yet..

[Oberon]

Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people.

[Buddahaid]

You're right! FDR was a democrat and look how many people he killed. :har:

[Oberon]

You're right! FDR was a democrat and look how many people he killed. :har:

And Woodrow Wilson! And JFK and Lydon Johnson!

Democrats are deadly weapons! :dead:

[yubba]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/14885-senate-votes-to-keep-us-out-of-un-arms-trade-treaty 54-46 looks like someone lost a percent,,another happy dance for me,, well back to work cleaning ammo brass, nice to know I got job security and the bennies are pretty good free ammo. Just to think some democrat probably has a alter made up with all those pictures with candles and insents burning. ooooooooommmmm bannnnnn the Big Gulp,,,oooooooooommmm bannn personal freeeedom. oooooooooomm ban freeeeeee willlll. have a beautiful sunday and thank Jesus for his blessings,, because we are in a fight against evil in mans heart. It is better that we are armed and not have the need to use them, than not have them and need them, God gave us the right to self preservation not government.

[Buddahaid]

And Woodrow Wilson! And JFK and Lydon Johnson!

Democrats are deadly weapons! :dead:

OMG! I just realized I'm a registered Democrat AND I own a gun. How do I protect myself from myself?

[Sailor Steve]

How do I protect myself from myself?
You don't. I'm afraid you're doomed.

[Buddahaid]

OK. I'll just turn myself in before I turn on myself.
http://rexcurry.net/police-state-sheriff-blazing-saddles.jpg

[August]

And Woodrow Wilson! And JFK and Lydon Johnson!

Democrats are deadly weapons! :dead:

Don't forget the biggest Democrat killer of all, Harry "Nuke 'em till they glow" Truman.

[August]

OMG! I just realized I'm a registered Democrat AND I own a gun. How do I protect myself from myself?

Your own party hates you.

[yubba]

Democratic Party Hipocracy, at it's best, if it wasn't for you guys I wouldn't have the job at the gun shop speaking of I got tumblers to turn off.

[yubba]

sorry hit wrong button nothin to see here move along

[yubba]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/559213_456041267811443_1981337856_n.jpg (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=456041267811443&set=a.362561847159386.84375.361783440570560&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf)

[Hottentot]

Lenin called. He wants their agitprop back.

[Buddahaid]

Read the UN paperwork Yubba, it's clearly states it has no effect on internal gun control laws of sovereign states. It would only limit what arms can be imported.

[Armistead]

Sick of politicians and elitist, like much of Hollywood that would ban guns, yet hire armed bodyguards. No different than Portman of GOP against gay marriage until his son came out gay, now he's for gay marriage.

[Jimbuna]

Sounds like UK politicians.

[Ducimus]

Sick of politicians and elitist, like much of Hollywood that would ban guns, yet hire armed bodyguards. No different than Portman of GOP against gay marriage until his son came out gay, now he's for gay marriage.


You'll probably enjoy this, I know I did. They're all hypocrites that lack the courage of their convictions.

Journalists, Politicians Refuse to Post Lawn Sign saying "HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt1Zy_ASNyA)


EDIT:

Damn....
Hitler Survivor Condemns Gun Control 'KEEP YOUR GUNS, BUY MORE GUNS' - Katie Worthman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvLdRz5pF7s)

[yubba]

Read the UN paperwork Yubba, it's clearly states it has no effect on internal gun control laws of sovereign states. It would only limit what arms can be imported.
I read it and there's to many may bes and might affect american ownership for my likings, if it was a harmless treaty, why did they vote on it in the dead of night this last weekend I didn't know it was up for a vote..I got a test for you all, get 2 sheets of paper on one write, Jesus and then Obama on the other, then put them on the floor, and tell me which one you would rather stump on,,A teacher in a school would like you to stump on the Jesus one and he didn't give a choice like I did,,, remeber god given rights.

[Tchocky]

http://i.imgur.com/BwFAae6.png

[Buddahaid]

What? I'd rather not waste two good sheets of paper so you forgot another choice. You must have some strange schools out your way....... :hmmm:

[razark]

http://i.imgur.com/BwFAae6.png
HTTP Error 400 Bad Request:
The request cannot be fulfilled due to bad syntax.

[yubba]

http://i.imgur.com/BwFAae6.png
I know what the trouble is, it's simple, you can't understand freedom, or is more sinister, you don't want your neighbor to have free will while you reap the beniefits of his labor,, so are you on the ban free will band wagon.??? So did you do a mexican hat dance on that sheet of paper that had Jesus written on it ?????? So how much money was taken from those folks in Cyprus ??? I hear the EU is looking toward Spain and Italy for more ..Can you say bank run if you ain't got your crap together it's too late have a nice day..

[Tribesman]

I know what the trouble is
Pure yubberish.

[yubba]

Pure yubberish.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/484022_639333149415386_1053388634_n.jpgYubbaerish enough for ya

[Sailor Steve]

Yubba miss point entirely.

[August]

Yubba only pawn in game of life
http://dubsism.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/mongo.gif

[Tchocky]

RIP Mongo :(

[yubba]

Well I guess I win, all you got is name calling, and ridicual,., may be you tell yubba, when we get to this utopia, and what it will be like, so yubba don't just drives by it.. yubba may just be simple pawn in great scheme of the life but at least yubba knows how to open a can of food with out electricity. Have a nice time in the FEMA camps, you know what's funny about that statement, it's not if I believe in it, it's that, millions that are more screwed up in the head than I, do , now that's funny.

[Oberon]

Where would we be without Yubbas philisophical insights on the state of modern America? When he's put in the FEMA death camp, his intellect shall be lost to these pages. A sad day that shall be.

[Sailor Steve]

Well I guess I win, all you got is name calling, and ridicual,.,
You don't win, because you don't get it any more than Bubblehead does. You ridicule everyone who doesn't think like you in every post you make.

I'll try to explain it. People don't make fun of you for what you say, but for how you say it. If you believe these things, then fine. Talk about them. Discuss them; but don't just spout them as if you're some kind of prophet. You're not. People give you grief because you don't discuss these things. You preach them, and you don't do it particularly well.

I'm seriously trying to help. As long as you continue to play the clown people will continue to treat you that way.

[Oberon]

You don't win, because you don't get it any more than Bubblehead does. You ridicule everyone who doesn't think like you in every post you make.

I'll try to explain it. People don't make fun of you for what you say, but for how you say it. If you believe these things, then fine. Talk about them. Discuss them; but don't just spout them as if you're some kind of prophet. You're not. People give you grief because you don't discuss these things. You preach them, and you don't do it particularly well.

I'm seriously trying to help. As long as you continue to play the clown people will continue to treat you that way.


The thing is, Steve, I suspect that he's so entrenched in his beliefs, so blinkered and full of hatred towards the current American government, that he truly believes everything he says, and nothing we say or do will sway him from that. Even more, he can dismiss us all as 'stamping on Jesus' or 'liberals' when we try to prove that what he's saying is actually mostly either political spin, scaremongering or just outright lies. For some people, even though they are alone in their beliefs, or near enough so, they still cannot accept the possibility that they may be wrong, it's a sort of martyrdom-esque stance. They believe that they are the only one who can see the 'coming storm' and it's their duty, perhaps their god-given duty, to 'sound the alarm' and try to warn people before it's too late.
You can swap out Obama and put in any number of doomsday prophecies, and it's the same sort of stubborn self-delusion that people like Harold Camping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping) have, that lead them to announce to all and sundry that the end of the world will happen on X date. They honestly believe in it, and they believe that what they are doing is right and just.
At least with people that call the end of the world though they usually start to change their tune when the world doesn't end. The trouble with the FEMA death camp lot is that they'll keep believing it so long as it doesn't happen.

In short, as much as you want to help him, he is quite beyond help and will in fact likely view your attempts to reason with him as some sort of attack.

[Simmy]

I live in America. I didn't fight the British for my freedom, someone else did that. I have to believe that the founding fathers, the richest men in America, decided that they needed to be free so that they could make the laws and collect the taxes and basically do all the things that they were apposed to the English doing.
I believe they made guns a big deal in the 2nd amendant because:
1) they themselves just turned on their master and wanted to be sure everyone was armed in case they needed to fight again. But try saying that the government as it stands today is corrupted and needs to be overturned. They will consider that as High Treason.
2) people in that time lived in the wide open spaces and guns were needed to defend ones family and land from criminals and animals that roamed around that are not that much of a problem today.

Back then a soldier or an experienced hunter could load and aim about 3 shots per minute. Now any crazy person without much experience can fire 30 round from a AR15 or AK47 as fast as they can pull the trigger, and reload another 30 round clip faster than the guys who made this law could switch weapons. Does anyone really think that if Washington or Jefferson were alive today that they would argue that the common person would need such a weapon?
They saw that the only truely free people were people that were armed. To totally take away weapons is to create a police state, a bad idea that is evident in many places of the world. But something must be done to stop unbalanced people from being able to kill 20/30 children just because they can.

[Buddahaid]

Yubba, you're the only person I ever put on my ignore list, but I took you off after a week because you're just Yubba, and harmless. I'm not convinced you are for real and are just role playing, but you don't get mad and indignant. You sprout anew with the same songs. :shucks:

[Hottentot]

Are we there yet?

[Buddahaid]

Gettin' there!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am04NZL8pA4&feature=player_embedded

[Tribesman]

Well I guess I win, all you got is name calling, and ridicual
Your posts lack any substance for any other type of reply.

For example
yubba may just be simple pawn in great scheme of the life but at least yubba knows how to open a can of food with out electricity
wow give yourself a gold star, you can be top pupil at infant school today:woot:

[Feuer Frei!]

Btw Tribesman, could you, when quoting people actually include their names please? Makes for much easier reading. Thanks in advance.

[Ducimus]

Assault Weapons Ban 2013 is BACK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzNkcopPptM)

Even if your not a gun owner, you should be concerned about what the government is trying to do with your rights in general.

[Oberon]

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f132/jmc247/Misc/tumblr_m7nwgjShHW1ry96k9o6_250.gif

[Hottentot]

[Picture]

See, not quite there yet. :D

[Ducimus]

[picture]


Your Location: Suffolk, UK

I fail to see how this concerns you, nor how a smart assed face palm was warranted. You should be thankful that i've been making an effort to keep my posts on the subject within as few threads as freaking possible.

I'm past the point of joking around on this issue, and this issue past the point of making jokes. If you have a problem with me, you can kindly kiss my ass.

[Oberon]

Fair enough, I retract my previous statement, at least it's in the same thread. I just fail to see how this is much more than scaremongering designed to incense anyone vaguely right of centre when it's fairly obvious that with the amount of publicity in right wing media at the moment that no anti-gun bill is going to gain much traction with any republican senators. Thus, such bills are doomed to fail from the start, no matter how many times that democrat senators try to push it through.

[Jimbuna]

This is obviously a topic of concern to some more than others but it is being aired publicly in the GT thread and as such is open to varying levels of consideration and response.

I hope we can carry on the debate without resorting to insults between members.

[August]

Fair enough, I retract my previous statement, at least it's in the same thread. I just fail to see how this is much more than scaremongering designed to incense anyone vaguely right of centre when it's fairly obvious that with the amount of publicity in right wing media at the moment that no anti-gun bill is going to gain much traction with any republican senators. Thus, such bills are doomed to fail from the start, no matter how many times that democrat senators try to push it through.

I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats and Republicans who would love to make this a party partisan issue but it's not. There are plenty of Democrat 2nd Amendment supporters and plenty of Republican anti-gunners.

[Oberon]

I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats and Republicans who would love to make this a party partisan issue but it's not. There are plenty of Democrat 2nd Amendment supporters and plenty of Republican anti-gunners.

Oh, I fully agree, I just used Reps and Dems as a place-holder name more than anything, it all boils down to individual senator opinion and/or the wave of emotion of the state they represent.
Certainly there's a big swell of anti-gun sentiment following Sandy Hook and I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that those in the anti-gun lobby have fully exploited the revulsion and horror at what took place that day for their political movement. Just as I am sure that those in the other camp would exploit a situation where an individual could have been saved by the use of a firearm.
What should concern any supporter of the second amendment though is the 'Chicken Little' effect, or the 'Boy who cried wolf' effect. Right now there are so many people reposting various scare stories about how the second amendment is going to be shredded by a government that is keen to strip away the rights of its citizens to exploit them that after you've read or watched one, you've pretty much watched or read all of them, it's a message that's being repeated over and over and over again and only the people who are shouting that message are actually listening to it.
In short, they're preaching to the choir, because all the moderates who these people are trying to rally have begun to dismiss these people as 'gun-nuts' and have stopped listening. Then, when the time comes, when that moderate support is needed, people will just stay at home and ignore the panicked cries of the pro-gun lobby. I'm not saying that it'll happen tomorrow, or even in the next decade, but if this level of emotion continues, then it will only serve to disinterest the moderates who are, at the end of the day, the key ground to any victory in a war when both sides have equal numbers.

[Tribesman]

I'm past the point of joking around on this issue, and this issue past the point of making jokes.
I disagree, the issue has become a joke and the arguements repeated ad nauseum by the two extremes are simply laughable at this point.

[Ducimus]

Fair enough, I retract my previous statement, at least it's in the same thread. I just fail to see how this is much more than scaremongering....


If I thought that all was going on was scaremongering, I would not be nearly as serious about this issue.

Oberon, let me give you a hint as to how serious I think current events are. I'm 38 going on 39. In my lifetime I have only two recollections of voting or doing anything political. The first was while i was in freaking High School; and I graduated in 1992. The second was for George W bush's first election and that's only because my Mother made me go. Hell, she filled out everything, all I did was go down to the booth and punch the ticket how she wanted. I didn't read it any of it, and I didn't care to. She got two votes that year.

Now, in the last 4 months, on my own: I have contacted and wrote letters to both my senators and my representatives three times each, I joined a lobby group, donated money to said lobby group (and i'm a penny pincher from hell), attended a political rally, and re-registered to vote as an independent. Now, i'm sitting here chomping at the bit to get to a voting booth.

If I didn't think things were very serious, I wouldn't have gotten off my lazy ass.

[Oberon]

If I didn't think things were very serious, I wouldn't have gotten off my lazy ass.

Alright, but why? Why do you think that this bill, in a nation that so fiercely clings to its right to bear arms, has a hope in hell of actually passing anytime this year?
I'm sure that if this issue goes on longer, which it will, then the chance of it passing will increase with each school massacre that takes place over the coming years. It's a quick and easy 'solution' to the problem and it's good for political points.
However, the more vocal the pro-gun crowd seem to get, the more they are dismissed as 'gun-nuts', a claim which is not helped by some of the rather misguided statements the NRA releases.

Personally I think you are fighting a losing battle which is dealt a serious blow every time some kid decides to run amok with a gun. However, it is your right, as given by the first amendment, to make that battle and that fight, and I support your right to do so. What I don't agree with though is the conspiracy theory that is put around by some of the more...entertaining...of the pro-gun lobby that this is just the first step towards a dictatorship that Obama is working on creating, and that he's going to appoint himself President for life, or some such nonsense.
Perhaps it is a first step on a road towards a more invasive government, but equally perhaps it is not, despite the claims that no guns = no freedom, I am quite free to do what I wish to do in this nation with its gun control laws. Admittedly if someone does pull a gun on me then I am stuck, but the likelihood of that happening only increases if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is more likely that you would be stabbed anyway, but I digress.

In short, it is not easy for anyone who is not American to fully understand the argument in favour of guns from a nation that suffers from such terrible school massacres on a semi-frequent basis, it baffles us, but then we are not Americans and we do not have quite the same patriotic fervour that many Americans seem to, not since the 1800s anyway. So when an American makes the claim that his country, which enjoys freedoms and luxuries far greater than even some European nations, is turning into a dictatorship because of a gun control law, it confuses people who live in democratic countries with gun control laws and have relatively equal freedoms of expression.

I overreacted a little, perhaps, in posting that facepalm gif, although I've been dying to use that one ever since I discovered it on an obscure board, perhaps I should have waited until Yubba created another thread. I am certainly grateful of your consideration in keeping this within the same thread instead of pulling a Yubba and starting a whole new thread for it.
The thing is though, who was the video directed at, on this forum? As far as I can make out, those who are pro-gun would already be following the story, those who are anti-gun would automatically dismiss it as nonsense, and those who are neither would probably not even look at the thread, or dismiss both sides as lunatics. :hmmm:

Not a personal attack or anything, I'm just curious because of what I call the 'Chicken Little' effect, in that the longer a dire warning is stated and issued, the less effective it becomes, until eventually it actually starts having the opposite effect to that of which it was originally intended.

[Ducimus]

Alright, but why?


It's not just about guns. As I have explained before, what gets me fired up, is the larger picture.

First, there's the Patriot act. Controversial in it's own right, but by itself, not enough to get my "knickers in a twist". I certainly didn't give a crap when it went into law.

Second, there is the National Defense Authorization Act. Certain provisions (or lack thereof) within it are also controversial if not distressing. By itself, singly, not enough to get my "undies in a bunch", however, when looked at together with the Patriot act, is cause for concern. This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV44uHlXnx8) that i've posted before, does a pretty good job of explaining it, also citing official sources.

Third, the latest Gun control attempts. Looked at by itself, is cause for some concern, but not enough to get me jumping up and down. However, when looked at in context of the overall picture, put next to the patriot act and the NDAA, is cause for great concern.

The whole of the sum, is the politics of fear ever since 911. Our government has declared war against "terror", which is in effect a war without end. And in the process of fighting that war, our civil liberties have either been reinterpreted, or infringed upon in order to make us safer; and in so doing, our government gets bigger and more invasive as time goes on. It's like a domino effect, and it has to stop.


As an aside, It's my conjecture that unreasonable search's and seizures (see 4th amendment) is not far off if the current administration is successful with it's reinterpretation of the second amendment. News events within the last few weeks lend credence to that thought.

[Webster]

Alright, but why? Why do you think that this bill, in a nation that so fiercely clings to its right to bear arms, has a hope in hell of actually passing anytime this year?


Oberon I know you just like pushing buttons to have fun here but what you fail to take into account is this country is now being run by socialists who care nothing about our rights or the constitution of this country. they so outnumber those who still believe in our rights and the constitution that they can do whatever they want to do.

the voters of this country are bought and paid for with free phones, welfare, never ending unemployment checks, and lots of other government freebees so the votes to keep the democrats in office forever is bought and paid for. who would ever vote against someone who gives them free money?

if every single republican voted no every single time they could the socialist democrats could still pass any and everything they wanted to pass. our system of government ONLY works if there is equal representation on both sides so there are the checks and balances you spoke of to prevent one side from acting like dictators, sadly that no longer exists in this country so yes this can and very likely WILL be passed and one of the most important core fundamental rights we have as americans will be stripped from us.

[Tchocky]

Reality check, Webster.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/113USHouseStructure.svg/500px-113USHouseStructure.svg.png

[Oberon]

Oberon I know you just like pushing buttons to have fun here but what you fail to take into account is this country is now being run by socialists who care nothing about our rights or the constitution of this country. they so outnumber those who still believe in our rights and the constitution that they can do whatever they want to do.

And equally, those socialists would say that the country is being run by fascist Republicans who haven't moved out of the 18th century and who are blocking any attempt by the US government to deal with its problems.

Which is it?

Depends on who you ask.

[August]

Reality check, Webster.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/113USHouseStructure.svg/500px-113USHouseStructure.svg.png

Half of one third of government. You're not making much of a point here.

[Tchocky]

I'm not responding to much of a point either, August. And it's closer to 1/12th :P

if every single republican voted no every single time they could the socialist democrats could still pass any and everything they wanted to pass. our system of government ONLY works if there is equal representation on both sides so there are the checks and balances you spoke of to prevent one side from acting like dictators, sadly that no longer exists in this country so yes this can and very likely WILL be passed and one of the most important core fundamental rights we have as americans will be stripped from us.This doesn't make any real sense. The last Congress was one of the least productive in American history, and the basic makeup has not changed. House still Republican-controlled, executive and Senate still Democratic. Does anyone expect the current Congress to be outrageously productive?

Does anyone really expect a sudden outbreak of revolutionary communism and a unilateral power grab by the Democratic Party in order to ban a few types of guns and limit magazine sizes?

Saying that "the socialists" are going to suddenly become dictators is ludicrous.

[Tribesman]

Oberon I know you just like pushing buttons to have fun here but what you fail to take into account is this country is now being run by socialists who care nothing about our rights or the constitution of this country. they so outnumber those who still believe in our rights and the constitution that they can do whatever they want to do.

The topic never fails to deliver more comedy.

[August]

This article pretty much defines why 2A supporters are upset:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/27/us-agencies-join-war-against-gun-owners/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

[Tribesman]

This article pretty much defines why 2A supporters are upset:

So they are upset because stolen property is being siezed?:har:

[Ducimus]

I think the percentage of gun owners in the country has gone up drastically.

Miles Hall from Oklahoma's H&H Gun Range on the Nationwide Ammunition Shortage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDxX-V-A4B0) (NRA News)

The numbers this guy is listing is staggering.

[Webster]

And equally, those socialists would say that the country is being run by fascist Republicans who haven't moved out of the 18th century and who are blocking any attempt by the US government to deal with its problems.

Which is it?

Depends on who you ask.

yes, both sides have equally strong held beliefs but the point I was trying to point out is that now, (unlike any other time in history) the system of checks and balances that keeps one party from unilaterally pushing its agenda without restriction has broken down.

the socialist democrats were a lot smarter then the republicans and they won by brainwashing children from a young age to not think for themselves (which defeats the entire foundation of the republicans idea of letting people figure things out for themselves) they also taught them to think that everything that is great about this country is something to be ashamed of and changed and they were very smart to realize as long as they keep the majority of the country dependent on government handouts then they will have everlasting power. I applaud them for that, they played the game very well and won because of it.

the republicans were stupid enough to think that people would think for themselves and would look for and see the truth for what it was but the indoctrinated youth only believes what they are told and never look to find out the truth for themselves because they don't care to make an effort.

the republicans brought all this upon themselves by stupidly thinking they don't have to counter the democrats lies and misrepresentations of the facts.

the dems won and the repubs lost and that's life, we have to live with it.

that's just the back story to why the checks and balances system got broken and now its more of a dictatorship then a republic that we live in.

[Hottentot]

The topic never fails to deliver more comedy.

What better way to spend an evening than coming out of my pile of books concerning the Soviet education of the new man, the systematic indoctrination of the people with all the possible methods you can think of and the cold and calculated progress towards what they called socialism, and then finding out that the modern world...is exactly the same? :-?

[Oberon]

yes, both sides have equally strong held beliefs but the point I was trying to point out is that now, (unlike any other time in history) the system of checks and balances that keeps one party from unilaterally pushing its agenda without restriction has broken down.

the socialist democrats were a lot smarter then the republicans and they won by brainwashing children from a young age to not think for themselves (which defeats the entire foundation of the republicans idea of letting people figure things out for themselves) they also taught them to think that everything that is great about this country is something to be ashamed of and changed and they were very smart to realize as long as they keep the majority of the country dependent on government handouts then they will have everlasting power. I applaud them for that, they played the game very well and won because of it.

the republicans were stupid enough to think that people would think for themselves and would look for and see the truth for what it was but the indoctrinated youth only believes what they are told and never look to find out the truth for themselves because they don't care to make an effort.

the republicans brought all this upon themselves by stupidly thinking they don't have to counter the democrats lies and misrepresentations of the facts.

the dems won and the repubs lost and that's life, we have to live with it.

that's just the back story to why the checks and balances system got broken and now its more of a dictatorship then a republic that we live in.

I can see where you're coming from, but I think you might be looking a tad too deep into it. Certainly it is true that the general public in, not just America but Europe, and even Asia, is a lot more liberal than it used to be. Now I don't think that this is a consequence of the education system, but more likely a consequence of the 1960s which was a backlash against the sort of hawkish conservatism which had, was and occasionally still does, draw nations into costly bloody wars which the people oppose.
That is not to say that there are not still conservative elements within the populaces, particularly when it comes to immigration and the race tensions. In America you have the whole Mexico issue, in Europe there's the transition of migrants from Eastern Europe to Western Europe which has accompanied the fall of the Warsaw Pact and the opening up of the EU. This is not to give any sort of slur against the people of Eastern Europe, however when it comes to stirring up tension, the only other thing that stirs quite as good are Muslims, as I am sure it is also the case in America following 9/11.

Another item which may bring forward this appearance of 'brainwashing' is modern media. It is quite often that I will see that people are more concerned about what is happening on a certain television show than what is happening in North Korea or any other nation. Obviously this is not to say that this is a a hundred percent blanket across every nation, otherwise we would be having a disagreement over America/Britains Got Talent rather than the socio-political state of America. In that respect, I can understand why people will post or forward alarmist 'information' which is primarily spin because it relies on shock treatment to get its message across. The note of concern that I am raising though is the fact that if you shock a person enough times they become accustomed to the shock and no longer react in the manner that you originally intended. I suspect that this may also be part of the reason that some Republican support has declined over the past years, certainly with the candidate before last (McCain) being seen as an alarmist rather than a realist. Romney was careful to avoid falling into that trap but still lost, but only by half as many votes as his predecessor.
Does that mean that the Democrats are buying votes, well if they are then they're not buying enough to create a landslide victory. If they are buying votes with this 'free money' and 'Obamaphones' then obviously the demographic populace of America isn't as stupid as people may think because the Democrats won by a slimmer margin this time around than last time.
Now, when it comes down to the infringement of rights and the various amendments. Where exactly where the protests and howls of indignation when the PATRIOT act was signed? Why is it only now when it comes to guns that people are so up in arms (pardon the pun) when an act was signed twelve years ago which gave the government a carte blanche to poke into its citizens lives on the suspicion of terrorist activity.
THAT was when the ball which so many people are worrying about today started rolling, that was the first step on this path that you...no...we find ourselves walking. When CCTVs appeared on every street corner, when our emails are monitored, when anyone trying to enter America can be detained indefinitely for suspicion that they might be going to commit a terrorist act, that is when it began.
August once made a comment which I think is probably the most level headed comment on the situation made by someone opposed to gun regulation that I have heard so far. He opposed gun regulation not because he thought that the current government would use it tyrannically, but because it set in place the framework for potential future abuses.
I cannot argue against that, because I cannot predict the future, however I think that it has little to do with politics as it has to do with people and desire for control and power. It could quite easily be a Republican president who commences the operations that so many 'Freedom-loving' Americans fear, or it could be a Democrat one. Anyone who tries to argue in favour of one or the other being 'the evil party' is merely snared within the petty web of partisan politics.
Of course government wants more power, it wants more power because it wants to be able to do what it wants to do without anyone getting in the way. It could be argued that the most productive governments are dictatorships, however since they are usually run by mentally unstable leaders, their productiveness is curbed by the fact that it's usually in the wrong direction. Dictatorships can do what they want, at the price they want to, and the people have little choice but to go along with it. Look at China, it has cornered the market in producing goods because it can use its people as menial serfs, pay them pittance and they will be grateful for it. It's too big a nation to be blockaded or knocked down like Cuba or the DPRK, so it can flood the market with mass manufactured tat and reap the rewards. Meanwhile in the west we are concerned more with being paid lots and lots of money for doing less work than a Chinese labourer and if we get a pay cut we raise merry hell about it. Yes, we have a much higher standard of living, but in the global trade market we can only compete in higher technology and inventions which flourish because of our higher standard of living and freedom of expression, and all that nations like China need to do is just steal the idea and mass produce it. It may not be quite as effective as our version but it's ten times cheaper, and the average Joe American or Brit will go for the cheaper option, particularly in the middle of a recession.
But I digress.
If you choose to believe that there is a liberal conspiracy taking place within the American government, or that Obama is looking to make himself President for life or to take away your guns, well...it's your right to believe that, and obviously anything I say is not going to change your mind on it, just it won't change Yubba or Bubblehead or any other person who has this very deep set belief. I'm not here to change minds anyway, I'm here to put across my viewpoint which is different, I am a liberal, but I am centralist, not extreme left or right, and I see the fact that American politics has become a battle between the extreme left and the extreme right to be a very dangerous and worrying thing. That worries me more than any attempt by the US government to enact gun control regulation. When a global superpower can barely agree its own budget, that gives me cause for concern...however, I am not Skybird, I do not think that America is going to self-destruct or sink under its own deficits, because America isn't that kind of nation, it tends to find a crazy approach to something and make it work, and make it work damn well. That's what Americans are, they come together and they make things work...sure, they may argue about it the entire time they're doing it, but they'll do it.

In short, if there's any power play going on here, then it's not political, it's personal.

[Ducimus]

Where exactly where the protests and howls of indignation when the PATRIOT act was signed? Why is it only now when it comes to guns that people are so up in arms (pardon the pun) when an act was signed twelve years ago which gave the government a carte blanche to poke into its citizens lives on the suspicion of terrorist activity.
THAT was when the ball which so many people are worrying about today started rolling, that was the first step on this path that you...no...we find ourselves walking. When CCTVs appeared on every street corner, when our emails are monitored, when anyone trying to enter America can be detained indefinitely for suspicion that they might be going to commit a terrorist act, that is when it began.


Sad truth of the matter is most American's do not care about anything which does not effect them directly. I cannot claim exemption here. No matter what it is, be it war, legislation, or what have you, most simply do not care unless it has effected them somehow.

The difference with guns from the patriot act:
- the patriot act feels like something so far flung from daily life it's hard to grasp it. Just one more piece of legislation congress does to justify it's paycheck. Political BS as usual, and in the last decade, we've come used to seeing a lot of BS coming out of our capital. War on terror, etc etc.

- gun control hits you directly, like a punch in the gut. Gun ownership is/feels directly tied to your constitutional rights, and there sits the government dictating to you what your rights mean in their eyes. Which is why regardless if one owns a gun or not, they should be concerned. Particurally when looking at the larger picture.

I cannot lie, I did not start looking at the larger issues until gun control came up. It got me looking at things I didn't care to be bothered with before. I sincerely hope the government has "awaken a sleeping giant". It strikes me hypocritical that we as a nation are supposedly this great proponent for standing up for human rights and liberty, when we haven't even stood up for our own. At least, not until now.

[Oberon]

I think you've hit the nail on the head there Ducimus, people will only notice something when it affects them directly. Not just Americans too. :yep:

[Tribesman]

Thats the essence of the issue, some people are becoming aware of "new" things that in reality are just normal.
As their awarenesss kicks in they still have this stark black/white view of issues and as such they ingest and regurgutate spin from one extreme or the other and hold it as the ultimate truth when it is in fact only a very partial distorted view of the reality.
Anything which doesn't agree with thier new distorted view they simply attribute to being part of the opposite distorted view instead of looking and thinking about it.
For most people that extremism will fade with time, but some will stick to it no matter what.

[Cybermat47]

You know what? I don't need a gun. Here's why:

Gun: Expensive, might creep some people out. Costs money to maintain.

Dog: Expensive, people love animals, costs less money to maintain.

One time my Uncle found two people stealing his property. He just let his dog loose on them. Apparently, one of them still can't walk properly.

[Oberon]

You know what? I don't need a gun. Here's why:

Gun: Expensive, might creep some people out. Costs money to maintain.

Dog: Expensive, people love animals, costs less money to maintain.

One time my Uncle found two people stealing his property. He just let his dog loose on them. Apparently, one of them still can't walk properly.

That's good until someone shoots your dog.

Unfortunately once the lid is off the bottle, you're not putting the contents back in it. The guns are available in America, a good deal of people have them and can get them, even if you ban them, you will have at least 50-75% of people who don't turn their guns in, and if one of them is a criminal then what are you going to do?

[Ducimus]

You know what? I don't need a gun. Here's why:

Gun: Expensive, might creep some people out. Costs money to maintain.

You can buy a pump action shotgun for 250-300 dollars. A box of 25 birdshot will run you 8 bucks. A box of 5 buckshot will run you about.... 5 bucks. (pun not intended). So you buy yourself about 15 dollars worth of buckshot for home defense, and you'll probably (EDIT: Never hopefully) need to use it. No maintenance involved unless you just want to blow holes in paper or milk jugs.

Dog: Expensive, people love animals, costs less money to maintain.

I have it on good authority that Dogs are more expensive then you think. My wife has her DVM and she works in a pet hospital. She wears a white lab coat, and her first name is "Doctor". And i can tell you from all the stories I hear every night when she gets home from work, just how much vet care costs. Apparently people have this misguided notion that a 300 dollar visit, should cost about 20 bucks.

EDIT: And nevermind costs of food. You'll be feeding a Dog a lot more then you'll be feeding a firearm, unless you get into shooting as a hobby or sport. Then the costs go the other way around.


One time my Uncle found two people stealing his property. He just let his dog loose on them. Apparently, one of them still can't walk properly.


And Man Created Dog - a National Geographic presentation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE-3aggrAHI) (1Hr and 30 mins)

On our property, we have this guy aside from any firearms. He's not exactly an attack dog, but he sure makes a good watch dog.
http://www.ducimus.net/temp/raven.jpg

EDIT:
That's good until someone shoots your dog.


Then there's that. :shifty:

[Cybermat47]

Oberon and Ducimus, you make very good points. And nice dog, Ducimus.

[Sailor Steve]

Dog: Expensive, people love animals, costs less money to maintain.
It costs more to feed a dog for a year than it does to buy a gun. The other expenses have been mentioned.
http://dogs.about.com/od/becomingadogowner/a/costofdogs.htm

[Ducimus]

Oberon and Ducimus, you make very good points. And nice dog, Ducimus.

Thanks. he's a regular "smarty pants" too. Also, has a lot of energy. I guess that's what happens when a Aussie shepard male jumps the fence to get at a Border collie female on her first heat cycle. We end up with a designer breed by accident, and two herding dogs for the price of one. A "Borderaussie" some would call him. He's smart as a whip, runs like the wind, and has quite the vertical takeoff. I think it's a shame he's fixed, he would have sired some good pups. He has no genetic defects, no hip dysplasia, etc. Really healthy dog.

[Tchocky]

Thought you were talking about Oberon for a minute there :D

[Cybermat47]

has quite the vertical takeoff.

Vertical take off, you say? Here's a story for you. I've got two dogs, both of them female. One of htm was hit by a car and left by the road in a plastic bag, but was saved. Sadly, she doesn't realise that when we throw the ball to her, she's supposed to return it. One time, my Dad was trying to get a ball with a strap on it (don't ask me why) from her, but she just held on, and Dad gave her a helicopter ride.

And my other dog's hyper, but she still managed to become overweight at one point.

[Oberon]

Thought you were talking about Oberon for a minute there :D

Me? I run like a 20 year old St Bernard. :O:

[Platapus]

When I am conducting interviews for puppy/dog adoptions, I tell them to budget between $1,500 - $2,000 per year for all the expenses of owning and properly taking care of a dog. They can be quite expensive. :yep:

Worth it, but potentially expensive.

Dogs "can" be great security, but to attempt to compare a dog against a weapon is not logical.

In some conditions a dog may be better
In other conditions a gun may be better

Perhaps the optimum solution is to have a dog AND a gun. :up:

[Webster]

if one of them is a criminal then what are you going to do?


there is the big hole found in all pro anti gun arguments, criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS so gun bans only disarm law abiding citizens and prevents them from being able to defend themselves and family and makes them easy prey for any criminal.

its so silly that people still think laws can change how criminals behave, criminals by definition do not follow or obey laws so laws mean nothing to them be it 1 or 1,000 laws saying they cant do something

[Tribesman]

criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS

You had better abolish those laws that say felons can't have guns then.

[Oberon]

there is the big hole found in all pro anti gun arguments, criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS so gun bans only disarm law abiding citizens and prevents them from being able to defend themselves and family and makes them easy prey for any criminal.

its so silly that people still think laws can change how criminals behave, criminals by definition do not follow or obey laws so laws mean nothing to them be it 1 or 1,000 laws saying they cant do something


This is true, although there are some things to take into question.
If one cannot trust the police to catch criminals then why do the police exist?
Furthermore, one does not know who will become a criminal until after they have performed their act. Now, say for example a man robs a bank with an assault rifle and kills a teller. Up until that day, the man was a perfectly upright citizen with a legal rifle, however...I don't know...perhaps he lost his job and couldn't afford to pay something, or he got himself into a tight corner that he saw that the only way out was to commit a felony and hope to reap its rewards. Now, a person is dead and only now can the police act and confiscate his weapon, when it's too late.
Now, if a ban or a tougher regulation had come into place before hand, then the man would either have to break the law to obtain the weapon, or use a different weapon, in the first instance there is the opportunity to detain the man before the crime is committed, in the latter, sadly, short of banning or regulating tougher ALL offensive weapons then there is not, however depending on the weapon it makes the job harder (after all, unless you're pretty good with a throwing knife, then a knife is not a ranged weapon and you have to get close to a person to use it which opens up a window of self-defence or indeed prevents the incident entirely [through the use of, for example, a stab proof window like they have on London buses]) than it does with a gun where depending on the weapon, all you have to do is point and click.

Now, obviously I have argued for and against a ban or tougher regulation on assault rifles and guns in general on several occasions on this forum, because I can see where people are coming from, and in many instances it's not so much the fact that it is a weapon being taken away as it is a right given by the amendment of the founding document of the American nation. When you tie this into the slippery slope started by the PATRIOT act then it's understandable why people are so on edge about the whole affair. Likewise, it's understandable that many people in America are very much tired of seeing dead school children on the evening news and they seek for the nearest and easiest object available to counter that.
What neither side seems to be able to come to terms with, in this clash over firearms, is that it is not the firearm that is the problem, it merely exacerbates the existing problem which is a polarised culture with a lack of mental health care and facilities.
There has become a very much 'them or us' sort of attitude generated by Americans over the past ten years, obviously this is a generalisation and I don't tar everyone with the same brush, but it's the impression that I'm sure that many outside America have got, and I'm sure that some inside it have as well. There's no middle ground, no common ground for people to agree on or appetite for compromise. The internet has not helped in this, radical ideas are much easier to spread now, it's a lot like when the printing press was first invented and you had a massive upsurge in groups like the Levellers, Diggers and the Quakers, because ideas were a lot easier to exchange and were no longer limited to one set of people telling you the same thing over and over. As such a more fractured society has emerged, just as it did back then. War and the conflict against the Muslim faith has also leant its part into the increasing radicalisation of our society, and it has all lead to nations of people who range between depression, naivety or anger.
So...what do you do?
Well, leaving the firearm issue aside, obviously a move towards greater tolerance is required, as well as better mental health awareness and services. When the Sandy Hook massacre took place, there was a good discussion on here about the deterioration of mental health care in America, and I think that this would be a more productive avenue to explore than simply taking assault weapons out of the equation, because as it has been shown before, that does not work.
There has already been an Assault Weapons Ban...it did not stop school shootings, it did not even lead to a decrease in them, in short it did nothing.

However, to the men and women in office pressing for one, it is a helpful popularity boost amongst their core voters who are calling for one because they are told by the media that is what will help, and because there is no middle ground in America, the extreme left will read and watch their media and believe what it tells them, and the extreme right will read and watch their media and believe what it tells them, and the problem shall remain at an impasse because both sides are fighting over the wrong issue.
In short, when both left and right are wrong, where do you go from there?

Please, American politics, find a middle ground...come back to it... :yep:

[Ducimus]

I'm quite pleased to see that my senator, is doing his job! (http://www.ksl.com/?sid=24586467&nid=757&title=sen-lee-plans-to-block-any-federal-gun-legislation-attempt&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-3)

I suspect he got inundated with letters just like the ones I wrote him.

[Webster]

This is true, although there are some things to take into question.
If one cannot trust the police to catch criminals then why do the police exist?

well we don't have a policeman inside every single house wearing a gun on his side (if we did it would be the same as having every homeowner owning a gun) so when someone busts down your door the fact that you have a gun means you "might" be able to stay alive long enough for the police to arrive which often takes 15 minutes if you are very lucky and in most cases its a half hour to an hour before they show up.

its not about killing people or trying to "play" cop, its about protecting your life until those properly trained to deal with criminals (cops) can get there to protect you.

as far as trusting the police, well in my town (not a bad area mind you) if you call 911 for a noise complaint, fight, car accident, or a break-in then the cops show up in about 15-20 minutes but if you tell them someone is shooting it takes no less then an hour before they show up and they arrive driving slowly with no flashing lights or sirens so good luck living long enough for help to arrive from the police.

it is what it is but in my town its obvious the police wait until the shooting stops before they go anywhere near the scene so if the perps run away, gun jams, or they run out of bullets then you "might" live to see another day.

bottom line is the police can never be everywhere all the time and that's why we have the second amendment

[Oberon]

well we don't have a policeman inside every single house wearing a gun on his side (if we did it would be the same as having every homeowner owning a gun) so when someone busts down your door the fact that you have a gun means you "might" be able to stay alive long enough for the police to arrive which often takes 15 minutes if you are very lucky and in most cases its a half hour to an hour before they show up.

its not about killing people or trying to "play" cop, its about protecting your life until those properly trained to deal with criminals (cops) can get there to protect you.

as far as trusting the police, well in my town (not a bad area mind you) if you call 911 for a noise complaint, fight, car accident, or a break-in then the cops show up in about 15-20 minutes but if you tell them someone is shooting it takes no less then an hour before they show up and they arrive driving slowly with no flashing lights or sirens so good luck living long enough for help to arrive from the police.

it is what it is but in my town its obvious the police wait until the shooting stops before they go anywhere near the scene so if the perps run away, gun jams, or they run out of bullets then you "might" live to see another day.

bottom line is the police can never be everywhere all the time and that's why we have the second amendment


So, how do countries with gun laws handle it? :hmmm:
I was under the impression that the second amendment was not to do with crime rates but prevention of tyrannical actions by the government by providing the ability for citizens to be able to overthrow their government if it became tyrannical.
Of course, how relevant such a thing is when you're armed with an M16 and the government has a B52 dropping bombs on you is another matter for another thread.

[Sailor Steve]

I was under the impression that the second amendment was not to do with crime rates but prevention of tyrannical actions by the government by providing the ability for citizens to be able to overthrow their government if it became tyrannical.
That's partly true. First, the American Founders were steeped in the Enlightenment concept that all of us are posessed of natural rights, i.e. rights that are inherent to our existence. I don't have the right to kill you because you have an inherent right to life; you also have a right to defend yourself. They not only believed that the body of the people should organize to form an army in times of need, but that a standing army was in itself a dangerous thing. The following is a thick piece of reading, but it should help explain what they were really thinking.
http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com/Journal/

Of course, how relevant such a thing is when you're armed with an M16 and the government has a B52 dropping bombs on you is another matter for another thread.
Well, the North Vietnamese did just fine for ten years in that exact situation, and even managed to win. Of course they didn't have M-16s, they had AK-47s.

[Oberon]

That's partly true. First, the American Founders were steeped in the Enlightenment concept that all of us are posessed of natural rights, i.e. rights that are inherent to our existence. I don't have the right to kill you because you have an inherent right to life; you also have a right to defend yourself. They not only believed that the body of the people should organize to form an army in times of need, but that a standing army was in itself a dangerous thing. The following is a thick piece of reading, but it should help explain what they were really thinking.
http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com/Journal/

So, where do PMCs fit in? Academi, for example, is that a militia or a military force?

I understand the concept behind the Bill of Rights and the Amendments, and why people are so upset about any form of gun regulation, as I said in my TLDR ramble a few posts ago. I shall have a look through that link at a time when my focus is a bit more sharp, otherwise I hit the wall of text and bounce off it. :03: But I get the general gist of the idea, although I do wonder if the founding fathers of America were to look upon America now, whether they'd still make that amendment. Still, that's a question that has no answer really.

[Tribesman]

Well, the North Vietnamese did just fine for ten years in that exact situation, and even managed to win. Of course they didn't have M-16s, they had AK-47s.
Steve.
Are you forgetting minor little details like surface to air missiles and Migs?

[Sailor Steve]

Steve.
Are you forgetting minor little details like surface to air missiles and Migs?
The point wasn't that they shot down some B-52s, but that they survived the bombing and still were able to wage a ground war, and win it.

[Tribesman]

The point wasn't that they shot down some B-52s, but that they survived the bombing and still were able to wage a ground war, and win it.
The point being, it wasn't because they had some AK47s, it was because they were backed by a superpower and supplied with that superpowers military hardware.
So is the Michigan militia going to be backed and supplied by China or Russia in the struggle against Americas secret NWO?
Maybe they can call on the French again.

[Sailor Steve]

The point being, it wasn't because they had some AK47s, it was because they were backed by a superpower and supplied with that superpowers military hardware.
So is the Michigan militia going to be backed and supplied by China or Russia in the struggle against Americas secret NWO?
Maybe they can call on the French again.

No, it was because they refused to give in. It was the common Vietnamese and his AK that won that war. Exactly what hardware are you referring to?

The entire US military isn't going to follow an order to attack fellow Americans without asking questions. While many of us don't consider the National Guard to be the militia described in the Constitution, in fact they have refused to obey orders to arrest protesters, at least here in Utah. There is every chance that a significant portion of the military would side with a resistance.

This is also one of the reasons that we argue that citizens should have access to military weapons, just to minimize the possibility of that sort of government control.

[Oberon]

I think the number of American soldiers who would fire on Americans would depend on how the situation is sold to them.
In the beginning it would be relatively easy to paint the enemy Americans as terrorists, you've already gone partially down that road since 9/11. Perhaps by staging another even bigger terrorist attack (ala Operation Northwoods) which is pinned on a specific group of Americans, it would serve to muster some force against them.
As the operation continues on, it becomes a bit harder, but if you exploit the 'Them or us' attitude which is popular then you could probably create enough propaganda to motivate not just the ordinary American military, but people who are loyal towards the government who might want to be formed into their own militias.

[Tribesman]

No, it was because they refused to give in. It was the common Vietnamese and his AK that won that war.
Really? and what won the war against the French?

Exactly what hardware are you referring to?

Do you want to start with those I already mentioned or do you want to go through the whole communist supplied arsenal the NVA had?

[Platapus]

Furthermore, one does not know who will become a criminal until after they have performed their act.

That brings up an interesting point. The draconian gun laws being considered are presuming that I, as a gun owning citizen, will, with some high probability, become a gun using criminal. Hence, the need to preemptively preventing me from obtaining high capacity magazines (clips) or worse thumb-holes in pieces of wood or plastic.

I, as a law abiding gun owner, object to the government presuming that I am going to commit a gun related crime with no probable cause.

The harsh fact of society is that every criminal is allowed their first crime. Until they commit an illegal act, they are citizens and enjoy all the freedoms that other citizens enjoy.


We can't, and should not even attempt, to preemptively prevent criminals from committing their first crime.

What we can, and should do is preemptively prevent specifically mentally ill (as defined by competent medical authority) people from obtaining firearms.

Let's solve that problem first. If we can solve that problem, I wager that the number of these horrible school/workplace/mall shootings will go down.

In my opinion, the anti-gun people are trying to solve the wrong problem the wrong way.

[Sailor Steve]

Really? and what won the war against the French?
I give up. You tell me.

Do you want to start with those I already mentioned or do you want to go through the whole communist supplied arsenal the NVA had?
What you already mentioned? The SAMs and MiGs? This conversation started because I stated that shooting down B-52s didn't win the war. You're going in circles.

[Tribesman]

I give up. You tell me.

Lots of different things.
Though I am sure you realise it wasn't small arms which led to a reversal of the earlier French success with hedgehogs.

What you already mentioned? The SAMs and MiGs? This conversation started because I stated that shooting down B-52s didn't win the war. You're going in circles.
This conversation started with you saying it was the common man with an AK47 that won the war
Since AK 47s didn't win the war any more than the SA-7 did it can only go full circle..
It started with some chinese PT boats and ended with some russian tanks visiting the palace, the man with the AK was just another bit player in a big story.

[yubba]

An american with an ar-15 is a american rifle man, he can be called up to protect the nation, his state, his community, his home, his family it has been that way for over 200 years so what's the problem. Me owning an ak-47 makes me half as lethal as I was when I was an active duty Marine with my issued M-16, I could hit a 9in plate at 500 yards with open sights with a 6 shot group of 2 inches, the ak is all over the place at 300 now the sks on the over hand isn't to bad. Stuff coming down the pike on Bengazi sounds like a plan kidnapping gone wrong, Obama was to save the day and trade the blind sheik for the ambassador,..No wonder the seals were told to stand down, I'm not very happy about being lead by a bunch of traitors...Nixon could have started a war to save is butt from watergate..

[Sailor Steve]

It started with some chinese PT boats and ended with some russian tanks visiting the palace, the man with the AK was just another bit player in a big story.
Doesn't matter. The question was whether people with M-16s could stand up to bombing by B-52s, and my point that the North Vietnamese did it for ten years still stands. They shot down a few, but the bombing continued. And they survived it. The point was that they never had air superiority, but that didn't kill them all, and it didn't stop the war. They didn't win by shooting down all the enemy planes, but they still won.

[yubba]

One thousand ,,, seven hundred and fifty aircraft lost to hostile activities is not a few. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War 17 b-52s might be considered a few.

[Cybermat47]

One thousand ,,, seven hundred and fifty aircraft lost to hostile activities is not a few. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War 17 b-52s might be considered a few.

Steve was talking about B-52s, not all aircraft. His point still stands.

Dear lord, I'm helping a conservative.

[Tribesman]

Doesn't matter. The question was whether people with M-16s could stand up to bombing by B-52s, and my point that the North Vietnamese did it for ten years still stands. They shot down a few, but the bombing continued. And they survived it. The point was that they never had air superiority, but that didn't kill them all, and it didn't stop the war. They didn't win by shooting down all the enemy planes, but they still won.
And you missed the point entirely that they were backed by a superpower, just like the American revolutionaries were.
So the question you missed is who is going to back the American with an M-16, as if they have no big backers then they cannot be compared to N. Vietnam at all.

[Sailor Steve]

One thousand ,,, seven hundred and fifty aircraft lost to hostile activities is not a few. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War 17 b-52s might be considered a few.
Irrelevant. How many aircraft were shot down has nothing to do with the question I originally addressed. You're picking nits.

Steve was talking about B-52s, not all aircraft. His point still stands.
Actually I was talking about surviving the bombing and fighting on.

Dear lord, I'm helping a conservative.
What makes you think I'm a conservative?

[Tribesman]

Irrelevant. How many aircraft were shot down has nothing to do with the question I originally addressed. You're picking nits.
You are still going in circles.
You didn't address it as a states armed forces with foriegn backing are nothing at all like the issue in question.

[MH]

You are still going in circles.
You didn't address it as a states armed forces with foriegn backing are nothing at all like the issue in question.
Every one knows that Mexicans will take care of that.:haha:

[Sailor Steve]

You are still going in circles.
Only because you're making me

You didn't address it as a states armed forces with foriegn backing are nothing at all like the issue in question.
That had nothng to do with Oberon's original question, which I answered. It's always more complex than can be stated without a full-page tome, then and now.

[yubba]

So we have a civil war against the federal government lets say red states against blue states, and they the feds managed to coherse some pilots to fly against the american people,, breaking their oath,, remeber, states have the air national guard and the states have the right to protect their sovernity the question ought to be could blue states take red states and how many service men and women would break their oath and turn against the american people, if red states stop producing and giving services to northern blue states I believe they would starve or they would end up looking like north korea...As it stands now 340 sheriffs won't support the governments assult on the 2nd amendment.

[Buddahaid]

Your surrounded. Lay down your arms and give yourself up.
http://douglas.nerad.org/journal/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/statepopredblue.png

[yubba]

I think Chesty Puller, said it the best, now that we are surrounded we won't have any problem finding the enemy. or was it Nutz

[Oberon]

Your surrounded. Lay down your arms and give yourself up.
http://douglas.nerad.org/journal/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/statepopredblue.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xFgNZG3gmqc#t=7s

[Tribesman]

That had nothng to do with Oberon's original question, which I answered. It's always more complex than can be stated without a full-page tome, then and now.
I was just pointing out that due to the other factors involved N. Vietnam is an example that does not answer the question.

[Buddahaid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xFgNZG3gmqc#t=7s

Thanks, I'll add that one to my list of movies to not see. :O:

[Sailor Steve]

I was just pointing out that due to the other factors involved N. Vietnam is an example that does not answer the question.
The soldiers in the field survived the bombings. Not through airpower or foreign backing. All that bombing just failed to kill them. Yes, you're right; they recieved a lot of help to keep them supplied, which helped keep them going. I only spoke to their surviving the bombings.

[Cybermat47]

What makes you think I'm a conservative?

FAIL :oops:

[Cybermat47]

The soldiers in the field survived the bombings. Not through airpower or foreign backing.

Possibly through the environment though, and Vietnam has a very different environment to America.

[Sailor Steve]

FAIL :oops:
LOL.

That's the problem with being a true independent. Some issues (guns) get me labeled an arch-conservative and some (abortion) get me called a flaming liberal. I catch it from both sides, and I can't win.

[yubba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xFgNZG3gmqc#t=7s
WAY TO GO DALLAS I mean Texas,, and I never watch that show,,, I think the Air National Gaurd is also flying A-10s and apche attack helicopters,, I don't think big sis's armored cars will like the business end of that 30mm cannon or a 20mm for that matter if it comes down to push and shove.

[Oberon]

WAY TO GO DALLAS I mean Texas,, and I never watch that show,,, I think the Air National Gaurd is also flying A-10s and apche attack helicopters,, I don't think big sis's armored cars will like the business end of that 30mm cannon or a 20mm for that matter if it comes down to push and shove.

A10s aren't known for their liking of SAMs and AAAs either...if it came down to push and shove.

[yubba]

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/map-620x335.jpeg
As of jan 12 2013 30 state signed petitions to succeed from the federal government,,I'd say someone is a little out numbered,,,that also goes for those black helicopters with no markings if it comes to push beomes shove...it :O:took me the damnist time to get that phrase spit out. I know New York ain't going to fight against any red state they can't have more than 7 rounds in their guns at anytime, I think I heard there was more hunters in the woods the first day of deer season than are federal employees.

[Buddahaid]

Let the games begin.
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4893463314826169&pid=15.1

[Oberon]

"Second US civil war?"

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58592000/jpg/_58592633_coffee.jpg

"I drink to that."

[yubba]

It will be more like red dawn, our economy collapses we go nuts some foreign power makes a move to steal our resources right out from under our feet, look what happened in Cyprus. I believe we've been sold out the only way they can seal the deal is takeing our guns, and the funny thing about this is more people than I can count believe the same.

[Hottentot]

http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2008-10-20.gif

[Buddahaid]

It will be more like red dawn, our economy collapses we go nuts some foreign power makes a move to steal our resources right out from under our feet, look what happened in Cyprus. I believe we've been sold out the only way they can seal the deal is takeing our guns, and the funny thing about this is more people than I can count believe the same.

That's it. I guess I'll have to put up a perimeter wire and rig some Claymores. :yeah:

[Betonov]

That's it. I guess I'll have to put up a perimeter wire and rig some Claymores. :yeah:

I'm not allowed to have claymores.

I'll just build a fougassee :up:

[Ducimus]

Red Dawn is a bit of fiction that made for a fun Teenybopper movie in the 80's, nobody's going to invade us, and the government wouldn't have an easy time putting down a full scale revolt as some folks across the Atlantic may think. As Government facilities depend on the local populace to operate, as do the people who work there, and their families, who are also part of the local populace.

[Platapus]

As of jan 12 2013 30 state signed petitions to succeed from the federal government,,.

I don't think states need to have a petition to succeed. Our 50 states has been successful for decades.

[Buddahaid]

As of jan 12 2013 30 state signed petitions to succeed from the federal government.....

No they didn't. Residents of thirty states signed petitions and even Texas (insert angelic chorus) officially distanced itself from them.

[Jimbuna]

No they didn't. Residents of thirty states signed petitions and even Texas (insert angelic chorus) officially distanced itself from them.

A lot closer to the truth.

[Platapus]

No they didn't. Residents of thirty states signed petitions and even Texas (insert angelic chorus) officially distanced itself from them.


Ugh, There you go. Bringing in facts again. :nope:

[Tribesman]

and the government wouldn't have an easy time putting down a full scale revolt as some folks across the Atlantic may think. As Government facilities depend on the local populace to operate, as do the people who work there, and their families, who are also part of the local populace.
The problem with that notion in practical terms is the people who are talking about revolution manage to open their mouths and express what they call thoughts, and instantly alienate vast swaths of the population with their kooky ideologies.
Its kinda hard to get mass public support when the vocal elements of the upcoming uprising are clearly nuts.

[Buddahaid]

Residents in all 50 states have signed petitions now and amount to less than 0.5% of the US population. You got a ways to go Yubba. :O:

EDIT: Oops I had to fix my math.

[Feuer Frei!]

A former mayoral candidate in Tucson, Ariz., is drawing heated criticism from Democrats after he launched a program this week to hand out free shotguns in high-crime neighborhoods.


Well, it seems it's perfectly ok for Joe 'Smokin Gun' Biden to proclaim: "Get a shotgun", but when it's suggested they actually be handed out to people in Texas and Arizona, where they are needed in some neighbourhoods, the elites are getting all huffy and puffy:

State Rep. Victoria Steele, who represents Tucson, called the program plain lunacy.

Arizonans in Tucson and across the state are demanding that we reduce gun violence and create safer communities. Handing out shotguns is not a solution," she said in a written statement.

House Minority Leader Chad Campbell called it "ideological extremism at its worst" and a political gimmick that could have dangerous consequences.


The article is sourced from here (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/28/plan-to-hand-out-free-shotguns-in-tucson-stirs-debate/)




This idea came from the Armed Citizen Project, in a nutshell, handing out guns to citizens in high-crime neighbourhoods and studying the effect.
http://www.armedcitizenproject.org/


Guns for Votes? Hell yea.

[AndyJWest]

Maybe they should make gun ownership compulsory for welfare claimants...

[August]

Hey if the Vice President, speaking in the name of the President of the United States says to get a shotgun then how can anyone argue?

[Betonov]

I want one. Will they be checking ID or is a Texas accent enough :hmmm:

[mookiemookie]

Maybe they should make gun ownership compulsory for welfare claimants...

I saw what you did there. :up::rotfl2:

[NeonSamurai]

Suddenly Ice Cube's song "they give us guns and drugs then wonder why the <censored> we're thugs" comes to mind.

I doubt such a move will make the communities safer, but I'm sure it will increase the body count a fair amount.

[the_tyrant]

Is it really going to happen?

Probably the guy just wants to pull a Marilyn Manson

[gimpy117]

and suddenly a bunch of shotguns get sawed off and fall into the hands of gangsters

:doh:

[Oberon]

Better form of population control than the FEMA death camps I guess... :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

Maybe they should make gun ownership compulsory for welfare claimants...

Not without a drug test first. :stare:

[mookiemookie]

A proliferation of guns in a town just 70 miles away from the Mexican border and the Sinaloas. Sounds like a fine idea. :roll:

[Ducimus]

http://itmakessenseblog.com/files/2013/02/Biden-guns.jpg

[Madox58]

Here's a video of those shotguns being passed out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR5q-eRqkv0

[August]

A proliferation of guns in a town just 70 miles away from the Mexican border and the Sinaloas. Sounds like a fine idea. :roll:


Yeah because you wouldn't want the citizenry to have an opportunity to defend themselves right?

[Betonov]

Here's a video of those shotguns being passed out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR5q-eRqkv0

I got to try this :D

[Ducimus]

http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/biden-shotgun-3.jpg

[August]

I got to try this :D

Just do a good bore cleaning afterwards. That junk will foul up a barrel but good. :yep:

[Betonov]

Just do a good bore cleaning afterwards. That junk will foul up a barrel but good. :yep:

It's clean homegrown. No junk there.
It's forgeting the shot in the chamber that worries me :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, hand out more weapons! Good stuff. Second Amendment! Give me more ammo! It is entirely out of control. Specifically when it hits close to home.

My kids school made the news today:

http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/schools/glen-burnie-high-student-arrested-for-bringing-loaded-gun-to/article_b542d126-cf1a-5444-9d5f-b196c7b8717c.html

With luck and thinking from the school secretary the little bastard was caught.

I would suspect the "go guns" cheering would be much less when it hits close to home. Specifically when it could have involved a loved one.

[Ducimus]

Yes, hand out more weapons! Good stuff. Second Amendment! Give me more ammo! It is entirely out of control. Specifically when it hits close to home.

My kids school made the news today:

http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/s...6c7b8717c.html

With luck and thinking from the school secretary the little bastard was caught.

I would suspect the "go guns" cheering would be much less when it hits close to home. Specifically when it could have involved a loved one.
.

Well, lets see.
- I was for all intents and purposes, mugged while in Junior high and had a knife put to my throat.

- I had a stray round miss the drivers side of my car by 6 inchs in one of several drive by shootings in high school

- Also had a lovely bunch of gang bangers who were after my ass for at least 6 months before they gave up. Knives, baseball bats, fist bats, chains, and the occasional gun is what I've heard they kept in their gym bags. As an aside,for at least a year I carried a 6" folding buck knife in my jean jacket to defend myself with.


So i got a bit of a newsflash for ya AVG. Violence at schools, and weapons, and yes, even guns being brought to school, is not as Diana Fienstien would say a "new advent". Hit close to him? **** man, it was right up in my face. Frankly, I don't think creating more sheep or sheeple is the answer to violence problem.

Maybe.. i know.. totally novel concept, but PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY! yeah, i know.. crazy, will never catch on. No no, it totally wasn't the fault of the parent of said 15 year old who didn't properly secure his firearm(s) where Junior could get them. No no.. it's much easier to blame it on the gun then for people to take responsibility for their own actions or lack thereof.

[Platapus]

Residents in all 50 states have signed petitions now and amount to less than 0.5% of the US population. You got a ways to go Yubba. :O:

EDIT: Oops I had to fix my math.


.05% is a mandate from the people! :yeah:

[Ducimus]

Joy.


Original Link here. (http://www.longislandfirearms.com/forum/topic/67755-just-the-mention-of-a-gun-in-school/)

Just The Mention Of A Gun In School

March 1st was just another day when I put my 10 year old, fourth grade son John on the bus and sent him off to school. Or so I thought. On the contrary, today was the day that my life as a gun owner was about to change, dramatically and rapidly.

Sometime during the day, my son allegedly spoke with a few of his classmates. The boys (excluding my son) were involved in a school yard pushing incident the day before. Two or three of these boys (including my son) were talking about going to the house of the boys that did the pushing. These boys were to take with them a water, paint and bb gun. Word of this got to the principal. She immediately interrogated the children. I received a call from the principal advising me of this just as my son got off the bus. She also advised me that my son was to be suspended for two days because of his words. She decided that this talk amongst students warranted filing a police report. If this wasn't bad enough, the police were sent to my residence and I was advised that my guns may be taken from me. This can't be happening, I thought. But it was.

The following Monday I received a call from Pistol Licensing that they would be at my residence in the morning to take my guns and suspend my license. I attempted to explain that this must be a mistake, no wrong doing occurred on my part. My son has no access to any of my guns. The officer that came to my residence saw that all my guns were secured.Pistol Licensing was not interested in my side of the story. They were only interested in what happened with my ten year old son in school.

If you think this can't happen to you, you are wrong. It is happening every day here in American.
Kids get suspended from school and the aftermath can be as ugly as my situation.

When will my license be restored? What is involved? What is the cost? These are all questions that I had. Some still remain unanswered. The few answers I have are not at all comforting. According to the police, I can expect to have my license restored when my son is an adult and moves out of my residence. If I don't want to wait that long I can file an Article 78 and request that my license be reinstated. The cost, so far, about $6,500 monetarily. Emotionally, the cost is far, far higher. That can't be calculated. All my handguns are gone, my license is suspended and my long arms are out of the house waiting to be sold at a local store.

What can you do to protect yourself and others? First, pick up the phone and call Senator Flanagans office. Demand that they enact legislation similar to Maryland's Senate Bill 1058. It will protect school age children, their rights and those of their parents. Second, keep a firearms attorney on your speed dial. Carry his card. Remember his number. Next, buddy up with someone you trust that has a valid pistol license. Be ready at a moments notice to transfer your guns to him. You of course will do the same for him if the need arises. That will protect your guns from becoming property of the County in which you live. Talk to your kids. This is what hurts. In order to make them "School Compliant", you will have to supress there rights to exist as children. Don't let them say "pow" when they point there little fingers. Don't let them mention guns, water, paint, bb, or other. You just learned what can happen. And it happened right here in Suffolk County, to one of us.

With any luck, and some hard work from us all, a bill comparable to 1058 will pass here in New York. Then we can begin to breathe more freely. Schools need to understand that 5-12 year olds pointing their fingers in harmless gestures, are not the threats they need to subdue. What we need to subdue is the army of over zealous, over paid, school administrators that suddenly have become the "finger pointing police",



This is the lunacy that is now in our schools. Read it and weep.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/21/us/pennsylvania-girl-suspended

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/05/boy-7-suspended-for-shaping-pastry-into-gun-dad-says/

http://www.gloucestercitynews.net/clearysnotebook/2013/01/gun-in-a-text-message-leads-to-lawsuit.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/16/its-ridiculous-three-6-year-olds-suspended-for-making-gun-signs-with-hands-during-recess/

http://www.infowars.com/arizona-student-suspended-for-having-gun-screen-saver/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/elementary-school-girl-threatened-with-arrest-over-paper-gun.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/five-year-old-faces-suspension-after-building-lego-gun.html

http://www.wfmz.com/news/Regional-Poconos-Coal/Tamaqua-7th-grader-suspended-for-pointing-finger-gun-at-classmates/-/149546/17844114/-/f8djvnz/-/index.html

http://chickashanews.com/local/x1303511299/Local-student-suspended-for-gun-gesture



Another school district is requesting that a deaf students name be changed
because when using sign language his name "resembles a weapon"

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/08/28/school-allegedly-asks-deaf-preschooler-to-change-his-name-because-sign-language-version-resembles-weapons/

I am confident that there are many more of these suspensions . Most, like
my son's, have yet to make it to the media. In speaking with attorneys, I have learned that these suspensions are reaching alarming levels.

The "Pastry Gun Suspension" has already started a cry for the enactment of
legislation by Senator J. B. Jennings.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/09/maryland-lawmaker-introduces-bill-after-pastry-gun-suspension/

Senate Bill 1058 (The Reasonable School Discipline Act of 2013) was created by Senator Jennings to eradicate these issues in Maryland.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb1058F.pdf


This is exactly the type of legislation we need here in New York to protect our children, our guns and our rights.

A good place to start is Senator Flanagans office. This occurred in his district. His phone number is 631-361-2154. His contact information can be found here

http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/john-j-flanagan/contact

Be aware. Be prepared. Be vigilant. Be safe.

[Platapus]

Yikes that is pretty sad.

It does illustrate a real threat when legislators require guns to be registered. In this case, assuming the story is true, the government did indeed use such a weapon registration list to enable them to confiscate firearms.

This appears to be no longer a possible or potential threat, but an actual example of government weapon confiscation with little probable cause. :nope:

Glad I live in a state where guns do not have to be registered.

[Tribesman]

Just The Mention Of A Gun In School

Just the mention that they are going to someones house to get revenge and are planning on bringing a weapon.
So thats conspiracy to commit a crime, and a violent crime at that.
Very different from "just the mention of a gun" isn't it:yep:
You certainly don't make a good arguement for your cause.

[August]

Interesting article:

In discussing Second Amendment issues with other gun rights advocates, I have sometimes encountered an attitude along the lines of, “Why even argue about this? If they don’t like it, they should try and repeal it.”I am actually sympathetic to this point of view because the Second Amendment speaks for itself. Regardless of what anyone thinks about gun ownership, our right to keep and bear arms is legally guaranteed by this amendment. In theory, repealing it is the only way that anyone can address this right legitimately. Theory and reality are often quite different, though. Many disagree with the constitutionality of gun control, but gun-control advocates have succeeded in getting legislation passed that most certainly infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/2/resisting-the-nibbling-at-second-amendment/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz2PMADTPFQ

[AVGWarhawk]

What is the point of your story? Your stories do not justify anything in the least. Yes, weapons and violence has been in schools since schools opened. This is my child I'm talking about. You sir spend your day doing your very best to assure your child's safety?How did you handle the situation with your upset child. Did you simply say you got your butt kicked around and survived? Suck it up and just take cover? How did it work out for you? Personally I find your post insensitive. Did I post that the gun is the problem? In part, yes. So are the people(little bastard) holding the guns. So, with this thread...let's read and agree or disagree handing out free shotguns is a great idea. Accountability? That is novel. No one is accountable for anything anymore. Honey Boo Boo and a few more pills for a "disorder." Honestly, of the shooters that did not off themselves after mowing down a few how many stood up and took accountability? They all look for insanity plea and spend their time at trial staring off into space. It is the same picture every time. Accountability is not a word used when one finds themselves taking a life or two because the world completely misunderstands them.

[August]

The point is kids have brought weapons to school forever. Infringing on peoples civil rights will not change that. Ducimus is right. The parent that did not secure their firearm is at blame here.

[AVGWarhawk]

And you naturally assume the gun belongs to the kids parents? Who said anything about infringing on anything? The thread concern handing out free shotguns. I interjected with today's experience and saying its a bad idea. Furthermore, Duci needs no back up. He does just fine without the help. :03:

[August]

And you naturally assume the gun belongs to the kids parents? Who said anything about infringing on anything? The thread concern handing out free shotguns. I interjected with today's experience and saying its a bad idea. Furthermore, Duci needs no back up. He does just fine without the help. :03:

Well I fail to see what a 15 year old illegally smuggling a 22 caliber revolver into school has to do with giving shotguns to adults living in dangerous neighborhoods, but I'm not the one trying to say it's a bad idea, you are.

As for backing up Ducimus you're right, but I also have the right to not only agree with him but say so when I do.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Too bad the "throw more guns at the problem until it goes way" mentality is probably just as ineffective as banning weapons altogether.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well I fail to see what a 15 year old illegally smuggling a 22 caliber revolver into school has to do with giving shotguns to adults living in dangerous neighborhoods, but I'm not the one trying to say it's a bad idea,

And this after you post the kid probably got the gun from irresponsible parents ? Let's hand out shotguns to "adults" in bad neighborhoods. I'm guessing you are assuming the adults that are more than likely parents will be accountable with this shotgun? Certainly the people in the bad neighbor will be much more responsible. The way I see it then is the person handing out the shotgun is an enabler. So, irresponsible parents(adults) leave guns around for their kids(after all, kids can only get guns from their parents) and providing more weapons to these folks is a good idea. I do not see this as a good idea.

[Ducimus]

The point is kids have brought weapons to school forever. Infringing on peoples civil rights will not change that. Ducimus is right. The parent that did not secure their firearm is at blame here.

This.

And you naturally assume the gun belongs to the kids parents? Who said anything about infringing on anything? The thread concern handing out free shotguns. I interjected with today's experience and saying its a bad idea. Furthermore, Duci needs no back up. He does just fine without the help. :03:

The gun came from somewhere. Odds are it was a parent. Maybe the kids parents, or maybe a friends parents who didn't keep their gun away from kids reach.

As for infringing, that's exactly what your post there was implying, only in a very sarcastic way. (I know all about sarcasm, i should write a book on it). As to shotguns, i was happy posting funny biden pictures until you made that post.
After reading that post, I can understand your being emotional about it. Any parent would be. Despite that, what your post there makes me wonder, is just how much of your personal freedoms are you willing to give up for the illusion of safety. If your willing to let government take away some or all of your personal freedoms in order to make you feel safer, that's fine. But don't expect the rest of us to go along with that idea. I for one would go down fighting to defend them.

[Penguin]

It's clean homegrown. No junk there.
It's forgeting the shot in the chamber that worries me :hmmm:

Just use a double-barrelled shotgun. :up: Easy to check if it still contains a shell, in the latter case it's also impossible to blow through it.

[AVGWarhawk]

This.



The gun came from somewhere. Odds are it was a parent. Maybe the kids parents, or maybe a friends parents who didn't keep their gun away from kids reach.

As for infringing, that's exactly what your post there was implying, only in a very sarcastic way. (I know all about sarcasm, i should write a book on it). As to shotguns, i was happy posting funny biden pictures until you made that post.
After reading that post, I can understand your being emotional about it. Any parent would be. Despite that, what your post there makes me wonder, is just how much of your personal freedoms are you willing to give up for the illusion of safety. If your willing to let government take away some or all of your personal freedoms in order to make you feel safer, that's fine. But don't expect the rest of us to go along with that idea. I for one would go down fighting to defend them.

-Once again, you are assuming the gun was gotten from a irresponsible parent, friends parent, aunt, uncle....can't do that. Guns are gotten on the street all the time.

-Please show me in my original post were infringing on anything was implied, inferred or out right saying it. You will not find it.

-My post was not about personal freedom and giving up any part of it. It concerned being on the other side of the coin and the picture is much different. Are some weapons available for purchase really necessary to have and own?

-Did I ask anyone to go along with my "idea"? On the same token, do not expect others to go along with your idea that having a arsenal is a personal freedom and all people are responsible gun owners ready and willing to be accountable.




-No sir, you did not understand anything about being emotional in my post. You blatantly went on a dissertation of your life in high school and everyone should suck it up and invest in body armor. You understanding any emotion in my post was utterly lost between the following:

Well, lets see. and it's much easier to blame it on the gun then for people to take responsibility for their own actions or lack thereof.

Your post basically states it happens all the time so it is ok. Reaming the bore is what it is all about.

[August]

And this after you post the kid probably got the gun from irresponsible parents ? Let's hand out shotguns to "adults" in bad neighborhoods. I'm guessing you are assuming the adults that are more than likely parents will be accountable with this shotgun? Certainly the people in the bad neighbor will be much more responsible. The way I see it then is the person handing out the shotgun is an enabler. So, irresponsible parents(adults) leave guns around for their kids(after all, kids can only get guns from their parents) and providing more weapons to these folks is a good idea. I do not see this as a good idea.

I'll trade your irresponsible parent with a parent who uses one of these shotguns to protect his family from home invaders. I'll bet there are a heckuva lot more of the latter than the former in the high crime neighborhoods of our country.

[AVGWarhawk]

I'll trade your irresponsible parent with a parent who uses one of these shotguns to protect his family from home invaders. I'll bet there are a heckuva lot more of the latter than the former in the high crime neighborhoods of our country.

I think you bet on too much. I also believe you love to muddle conversations with post such as this. Finding hard evidence would be helpful. Honestly, what does home invaders have to do with my original post?

[August]

I think you bet on too much. I also believe you love to muddle conversations with post such as this. Finding hard evidence would be helpful. Honestly, what does home invaders have to do with my original post?

Muddle? It's the reason for the thread. Why else do you think they want to hand out shotguns? To shoot skeet?

[AVGWarhawk]

Muddle? It's the reason for the thread. Why else do you think they want to hand out shotguns? To shoot skeet?

Avgwarhawk:
Honestly, what does home invaders have to do with my original post?

Did you bother to read my entire post or only selected items?

[August]

Avgwarhawk:


Did you bother to read my entire post or only selected items?

You mean this one?

Yes, hand out more weapons! Good stuff. Second Amendment! Give me more ammo! It is entirely out of control. Specifically when it hits close to home.

My kids school made the news today:

http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/s...6c7b8717c.html (http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/schools/glen-burnie-high-student-arrested-for-bringing-loaded-gun-to/article_b542d126-cf1a-5444-9d5f-b196c7b8717c.html)

With luck and thinking from the school secretary the little bastard was caught.

I would suspect the "go guns" cheering would be much less when it hits close to home. Specifically when it could have involved a loved one.

Seems like a general rant against the 2A using an example that nothing to do with the subject at hand to me.

The bottom line here is just because some people might abuse a right, that is not a justification for denying that right to others.

[AVGWarhawk]

You mean this one?



Seems like a general rant against the 2A using an example that nothing to do with the subject at hand to me.

The bottom line here is just because some people might abuse a right, that is not a justification for denying that right to others.

You still did answer my question. What does home invaders have to do with my original post? Did I state we should deny any rights? Was I justifying anything other than when the coin is flipped it looks different from that side?

[August]

You still did answer my question. What does home invaders have to do with my original post?

About as much as your example has to do with the thread topic of arming adults. Good enough answer?

Did I state we should deny any rights?You called it "entirely out of control" That implies that you favor control and would likely support efforts to deny people their civil rights.

Was I justifying anything other than when the coin is flipped it looks different from that side?The problem is you're comparing the halves of two different coins. Giving an adult the means to defend themselves vs an underage person illegally possessing something. Apples and oranges my friend.

[Ducimus]

Lets rewind so AVG can understand what he was really saying.
You open with sarcasm. So what your meaning is the exact opposite of what your saying. So your "did i say that?" defense is a load of crap.


Yes, hand out more weapons!

What your really saying, "Lets exacerbate the problem as i see it!"


Good stuff.

What your really saying, "Bad stuff!"

Second Amendment!

So now your chastising.


Give me more ammo!

More chastisement.

It is entirely out of control.


Here is where your sarcasm stopped and you start talking directly.

Specifically when it hits close to home.

Your lead in to what has you emotionally charged.

My kids school made the news today:

http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/schools/glen-burnie-high-student-arrested-for-bringing-loaded-gun-to/article_b542d126-cf1a-5444-9d5f-b196c7b8717c.html

Your reason for switching stance on the 2nd amendment.


With luck and thinking from the school secretary the little bastard was caught.

About the only thing that wasn't offensive, because it's something everyone can be grateful for.


I would suspect the "go guns" cheering would be much less when it hits close to home. Specifically when it could have involved a loved one.

This, may as well have been a personal insult. Like i said, I've seen plenty of violence growing up. Much less cheering for gun ownership, right to self defense and the 2A ? Yeah right. I experienced violence directly against my own life growing up. So yeah, I took that as a personal insult since i'm probably someone you catagorize as "go guns".


When you use sarcasm, what you say, and what you mean are two different things.

[AVGWarhawk]

About as much as your example has to do with the thread topic of arming adults. Good enough answer?

You called it "entirely out of control" That implies that you favor control and would likely support efforts to deny people their civil rights.

The problem is you're comparing the halves of two different coins. Giving an adult the means to defend themselves vs an underage person illegally possessing something. Apples and oranges my friend.

-The answer will have to do.

-I am in favor of some form of control. Support a control is not supporting efforts tot deny a civil right. Do we really need fully auto rifles with magazines that hold 50 rounds? In my mind, unless you are defending yourself in a wartime situation, a fully auto capable of holding 50 rounds is overkill for "home defense." The word "control" is simply over defined. The good upstanding people my have their guns if they desire. It is their civil right. There just won't be any that hold 50 rounds capable of mowing down the entire lot of mall patrons. So, everyone can get a gun. Just not one particular kind of gun. Were then has a civil right been denied?

-Apples and oranges? But, wait, the responsible adults ready to take on accountability for their weapons is forming up to be a myth. The kids are still getting the weapons from the parents lot of firearms as you have assumed since my first post in this thread. The apples have become the enablers for the oranges. :03:

[AVGWarhawk]

So yeah, I took that as a personal insult since i'm probably someone you catagorize as "go guns".




You not a a person who is "go guns." You are a person who is "go Bill of Rights and Constitution." You do not beat the bush about either. Guns just happen to be the subject matter. Your are passionate about the Constitution and Bill of Rights as evident in your sig and postings. Admirable certainly. However, do not allow it to trump what others think or believe on the subject. We are entitled to our opinions. Only my wife is allowed to give me my opinion. :shifty:

[Ducimus]

Just so you know, getting fully auto guns is extremely hard to do. You have to go through ATF to get finger printed, photo taken, etc etc. They're called Class 3 weapons, and nobody uses those as self defense weapons that I am aware of.

[August]

Do we really need fully auto rifles with magazines that hold 50 rounds? In my mind, unless you are defending yourself in a wartime situation, a fully auto capable of holding 50 rounds is overkill for "home defense." The word "control" is simply over defined. The good upstanding people my have their guns if they desire. It is their civil right. There just won't be any that hold 50 rounds capable of mowing down the entire lot of mall patrons.

You keep bouncing between subjects. This thread is about SHOTGUNS. Your example of why you are against it included a link to a story about REVOLVERS. Now you're defending your position by talking about supposed evils of MACHINEGUNS?

So, everyone can get a gun. Just not one particular kind of gun. Were then has a civil right been denied?

One type of gun? In this thread alone you have objected to four types of guns by my count.

Do we really need fully auto rifles with magazines that hold 50 rounds?

They call it the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of NEEDS Brother. If you don't like it then try and repeal the second Amendment. To do anything less is both dishonest and weakens the rest of the BoR.

[AVGWarhawk]

Just so you know, getting fully auto guns is extremely hard to do. You have to go through ATF to get finger printed, photo taken, etc etc. They're called Class 3 weapons, and nobody uses those as self defense weapons that I am aware of.

I have not applied for such a weapon. But these weapons do find their way on the streets. But I'm entire agreement concerning parents that allow guns to lay around for kids to have at if needed. I'm kind of in favor of having the parent arrested if the weapon used by the kid is registered to the kids parent. These days home owners are arrested if a under age kid drinks at their home. Why not translate this thought to weapons?

[August]

Just so you know, getting fully auto guns is extremely hard to do. You have to go through ATF to get finger printed, photo taken, etc etc. They're called Class 3 weapons, and nobody uses those as self defense weapons that I am aware of.

It should also be noted that the current semi-auto ban proposal in Congress would be more restrictive than the full auto ban.

[Ducimus]

We are entitled to our opinions. Only my wife is allowed to give me my opinion. :shifty:

Ha! Fair enough on that one. :haha:

[Ducimus]

It should also be noted that the current semi-auto ban proposal in Congress would be more restrictive than the full auto ban.

Feinstien's bill that will most assuridly be introduced as an amendment to the current democratic package? yeah that will pretty much gut, and neuter the second amendment without ever having to go through the political circus of repealing it like they want to.

[AVGWarhawk]

It should also be noted that the current semi-auto ban proposal in Congress would be more restrictive than the full auto ban.

Are semi-auto or fully auto necessary?

[AVGWarhawk]

You keep bouncing between subjects. This thread is about SHOTGUNS. Your example of why you are against it included a link to a story about REVOLVERS. Now you're defending your position by talking about supposed evils of MACHINEGUNS?



They call it the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of NEEDS Brother. If you don't like it then try and repeal the second Amendment. To do anything less is both dishonest and weakens the rest of the BoR.

I'm not bouncing around on anything. You are apparently believing all weapons are going away and your rights are denied. It is not true. Certain weapons and clips will be denied. I do not need to defend a position. I defend the idea that some types of guns are not necessary. It would seem you call it the bill of needs. The Bill of Rights states everyone is entitled to a fully auto with a 50 round clip? The 2A said you can bear arms. And you may do so. Just not with a particular type of arm. Therefore, it looks like a bill of needs for you. Who said anything about repealing the 2A? You bring that up. I brought up some weapons are just not necessary on the market place nor in the hands of "responsible adults."

[Ducimus]

Are semi-auto or fully auto necessary?

Well AVG, most firearms nowdays are semi auto. If they banned Semi auto weapons, then we're left with
- revolvers
- break or pump action shotguns
- bolt action rifles.

Limiting firearm selection to just that, does three things.
1. It completely redefines the second amendment. All of the above are pure sporting arms. Nowhere in the second amendment is sporting or hunting defined. Those of the progressive political persuassion have been wanting to redefine 2A for awhile. The idea of what it's really there for i think frightens them.

2. Puts firearm technology back to the early 20th century. As an aside, I think the majority of the "accessories" you see our troops using on their M-4's was developed in the civilian sector. I don't think it's a far stretch to say that had the 94 weapons ban not expired, our troops today, would have been using 1990's technology in afganistan, Iraq, and elsewhere on their small arms.

3. Would outlaw im guessing 3/4's of existing firearms. Talk about a "gun grab".

[AVGWarhawk]

Ducimus:
It completely redefines the second amendment.

When the 2A was written was such a weapon like AR15 available to general public? Not being a smart arse here, just what kind of weapon was discussed if any at all when the 2A was written? The powers that be look to have a broad definition at their disposal.

As far as the military, government contracts for improved weapons are lucrative. I do not believe our troops would be using Viet Nam era weapons in the latest wars we have had in Iraq, etc. I could be wrong. If so, let me know. It is in my experience the military is unaffected by civilian laws.

[Ducimus]

Ducimus:


When the 2A was written was such a weapon like AR15 available to general public? Not being a smart arse here, just what kind of weapon was discussed if any at all when the 2A was written? The powers that be look to have a broad definition at their disposal.

The anti crowd brings up that argument. By that logic, we should all be limited to black powder, muzzle loading muskets.

If your interested. I suggest watching this.
The Second Amendment in 2013 (David B. Kopel) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6swSM_nqCnk) - Cato Institute.

If your into reading about law, you might consider this:
District of Columbia v. Heller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)
In particular, I would call your attention to the phrase "in common use at the time" within that link. An AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America today. Because of that, I think it would fall under "common use" under the Heller decision.

[AVGWarhawk]

I sure will read your links. There is always more to study on the subject.

[AVGWarhawk]

Just read a bit of it and thought the Heller case might be used in CT today as they attempt to approve a very sweeping new law on arms. :hmmm: But yes, DC was way over their boundries for the 1975 banning what they did. The 2A was basically ignored. I will read more. Very interesting.

The Breyer dissent also objected to the "common use" distinction used by the majority to distinguish handguns from machineguns: "But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun...There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning."[50]

[Ducimus]

As an aside, I really don't think a ban of any kind is going to work, nor is a real solution. Based on production data from firearm manufacturers, there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.

I don't know what the current statistics are but it is much higher now. I've heard reports from California, to Oklamhoma, that the majority of people that have been in doing the run on the gun shops buying up firearms, isn't your old crotchity redneck types. 80% of the customers were new to firearms. That made me ask around my local shops and the range I frequent. Sure enough, the majority of the people that have been buying up the firearms, are new shooters, and that's saying something.

[AVGWarhawk]

I have discussed this with you before. My wife expressed interest in having a firearm because, the crazies as she put it, have one. But yeah, in your and my lifetime, the amount of guns out there already kind of makes the control part moot. I think thought that some of the 80% are buying guns out of fear of the country and the idea that we will be going into a collapse, etc. Just a theory.

I'm still of mind that the only real law that would help is making the registered gun owner responsible for that weapon no matter who is pulling he trigger. The irresponsible might become responsible when a few go down for not being responsible. :timeout:

[Ducimus]

I have discussed this with you before. My wife expressed interest in having a firearm because, the crazies as she put it, have one. But yeah, in your and my lifetime, the amount of guns out there already kind of makes the control part moot. I think thought that some of the 80% are buying guns out of fear of the country and the idea that we will be going into a collapse, etc. Just a theory.

I'm still of mind that the only real law that would help is making the registered gun owner responsible for that weapon no matter who is pulling he trigger. The irresponsible might become responsible when a few go down for not being responsible. :timeout:

Well I agree with you on the the fear of the country and economic collapse. I don't think that fear is an irrational one.

As to gun owner responsiblity, I can't say I'm a big fan of registration, but I agree wholeheartedly on responsibility. If it's your gun, and your kid, and he does something really stupid or really heinous, I don't see how it couldn't be your fault by virtue of not properly securing said firearm, and not properly raising said kid.

Right now I have a gun safe on order. Should get it this month. Paid the extra money for an electronic lock where I can change the combo whenever I feel the need to. I know for my own childhood, keys, or unchangeable combos, do not work. Hell, even my wife knew where my father in law kept the key to his gun cabinent. When your away, they will eventually snoop around. I did, my wife did, and kids continue to do so today im sure.

[AVGWarhawk]

Agreed, the fear is not unfounded. My wife is fearful of the crazies! She basically said they have one and I want one because of that. I had firearms. I felt them not necessary and sold them off. Truth be told, never thought of buying one in over 20 years. At any rate, my original post, no update on where Jr got the weapon. I did catch wind this was his second week at the HS. He was probably feeling insecure and or someone was hard timing him. I wish kids would see administrators before taking action like a handgun. Bullying is something my kids school talks about all the time. So, the wife is wanting to take the kids out of the school. Are we to live in a bubble the rest of our lives? My 15 year old said she did not care about what happened. Then proceeded to talk about graduating early and joining Jumpstart that allows students in 11-12th grades start taking college courses at the community college. Little kid is getting a tough skin and has no time for the soon to be truant classmates of hers.

[August]

I'm not bouncing around on anything. You are apparently believing all weapons are going away and your rights are denied. It is not true. Certain weapons and clips will be denied. I do not need to defend a position. I defend the idea that some types of guns are not necessary. It would seem you call it the bill of needs. The Bill of Rights states everyone is entitled to a fully auto with a 50 round clip? The 2A said you can bear arms. And you may do so. Just not with a particular type of arm. Therefore, it looks like a bill of needs for you. Who said anything about repealing the 2A? You bring that up. I brought up some weapons are just not necessary on the market place nor in the hands of "responsible adults."

Where does the 2A say "just not a particular type of firearm"? It says the right cannot be infringed period. Gun bans if nothing else are huge infringements upon that right.

[AVGWarhawk]

It says the right cannot be infringed. Gun bans if nothing else are huge infringements upon that right.

Not all guns are banned. You may have a firearm. Just not a particular type of firearm. The only thing infringed up is not being able to purchase a particular type of firearm and or type of clip. Is that really an infringement or a limitation? So go right on and purchase a firearm. Your right then has been exercised. No infringement. It seems to me your more upset because particular types of weapons are not available for purchase. Get to the meat of the matter. No right is infringed. Good thing there is no Plasma Rifle in the 40 watt range for sale. But you can get 100's of other types of weapons. Where is the huge infringement?

[August]

Not all guns are banned. You may have a firearm. Just not a particular type of firearm. The only thing infringed up is not being able to purchase a particular type of firearm and or type of clip. What is the issue? So go right on and purchase a firearm. Your right then has been exercised.

Where does the 2A say "except for a particular type of firearm"? It doesn't.

[AVGWarhawk]

Where does the 2A say "except for a particular type of firearm"? It doesn't.

Where does it say AR15? :hmmm:

[August]

Where does it say AR15? :hmmm:

It doesn't. Your point? Are you trying to claim that an AR15 wouldn't classify as a militia weapon?

Again what does this have to do with shotguns?

[AVGWarhawk]

August, you really make my head hurt. What the 2A says or does not say, in your part of the country....what CT passes today....your state is next. Good luck. :up:

[August]

August, you really make my head hurt. What the 2A says or does not say, in your part of the country....what CT passes today....your state is next. Good luck. :up:


Yeah we'll see. We'll also see if Cts laws stand up in court.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah we'll see. We'll also see if Cts laws stand up in court.

Witnessing what we have in the past 4 years...I'm inclined to think it will not hit the Supreme Court anytime soon. And John Roberts will pull another one out of the hat in the 11th hour.

[August]

Witnessing what we have in the past 4 years...I'm inclined to think it will not hit the Supreme Court anytime soon. And John Roberts will pull another one out of the hat in the 11th hour.

It could happen sure enough. If it does I may have to move to a state that actually abides by the Bill of Rights. That's where all the jobs are going anyways...

[AndyJWest]

... I may have to move to a state that actually abides by the Bill of Rights. That's where all the jobs are going anyways...

I thought all the jobs went to China?

[Ducimus]

Marlin, Mossberg, Ruger, and Colt are in CT. That's a lot of industry that CT must not want anymore.

EDIT:

It could happen sure enough. If it does I may have to move to a state that actually abides by the Bill of Rights. That's where all the jobs are going anyways...

You might find these interesting:

Freedom in the 50 states (http://freedominthe50states.org/)

G&A Ranks the Best States for Gun Owners in 2013 (http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/03/14/ga-ranks-the-best-states-for-gun-owners-in-2013/)

[AVGWarhawk]

Marlin, Mossberg, Ruger, and Colt are in CT. That's a lot of industry that CT must not want anymore.

If I could count the amount of business that has left Maryland because of our spineless gov'ner on one hand it would be a miracle. Sometimes they shoot themselves in their own foot. No pun intended.

[Ducimus]

If I could count the amount of business that has left Maryland because of our spineless gov'ner on one hand it would be a miracle. Sometimes they shoot themselves in their own foot. No pun intended.

You know, It will be kind of a big deal if COLT ends up moving out of CT. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/21/colt-ceo-says-no-definite-plans-to-stay-or-flee-connecticut-amid-gun/) Cause, guess who manufactures the service rifles that every branch of our armed forces have been using... :shifty:

EDIT: As maryland goes, Beretta is still there, you know, the guys who make the service pistol that all our armed forces are using. However, they are being "wooed" by other states to move as well. Not sure if they're serious or not, but I've heard they're giving it some thought.

edit:
yup.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/27/gun-maker-beretta-considers-leaving-maryland-as-omalley-pushes-tougher-gun-laws/

[AVGWarhawk]

It would not surprise me. Maryland is courting casinos now. :88)

[Ducimus]

It would not surprise me. Maryland is courting casinos now. :88)

Hah, they are inviting a whole slew of problems that come along with casinos. Drugs, prostitution, etc etc. See vegas.

EDIT: What i should have said, was an increase in crime.

You know there was an argument made that our country has always been "awash" in firearms and readily available ammunition, and yet it's only within the last decade do the rise of mass shootings occur. What changed? Moral decay was the argument. Certainly some validity to that claim if a state would replace good honest trade skill jobs, with a vice industry.

[AVGWarhawk]

The state has been lying about the casinos for years. Money for schools. Job, jobs, jobs....etc. Truly a joke. But the morons in MD still vote this same idiots in for office. The taxes go up constantly. The state has not seen one red cent from the casinos. Sure as hell financed them. Soon there will be game tables. Currently it is one armed bandits. So yes, there will be more crime. But hey, more jobs for security. :88) School won't see any money as claimed by the gov'nr. Sad state of affairs.

[Ducimus]

Happy happy joy Joy.

[August]

Happy happy joy Joy.

Speaking of such sentiments today I finally received permission from the Mass state government to exercise my constitutional rights today.

I am the proud new owner of a Mass large capacity / concealed weapons license to carry.

It only took 10 weeks. Lightning speed here in the peoples republic.

[Ducimus]

You have to have a permit for what I'm assuming are normal capacity magazines? (IE, anything over 10 rounds)

EDIT:
And while im on that subject, what is "large capacity" and what is normal depends on the firearm being talked about.

Say for example your talking about a 9MM handgun. Normal or standard mags would be 15 or 17 rounds. The mag sits flush with the end of the grip. A large capacity would be 30 rounds. The mag sticks way the heck down past the grip.

Conversely, for a rifle like the M1A, normal capacity is 20 rounds. High capacity would be 25 rounds. (yes really) Or an AR-15, Normal capacity would be 30 rounds. Hell, they ship with 30 round mags. High capacity for an AR-15 would be anything in excess of 30. Typically 50 or 100 round drum mags or something like that.

[August]

You have to have a permit for what I'm assuming are normal capacity magazines? (IE, anything over 10 rounds)

Yeah fixed or detachable holding more than 10 rifle rounds or 5 shotgun rounds.

[Ducimus]

You may as well as hold up a sign that says, "Fienstien was here"

[August]

EDIT:
And while im on that subject, what is "large capacity" and what is normal depends on the firearm being talked about.

Say for example your talking about a 9MM handgun. Normal or standard mags would be 15 or 17 rounds. The mag sits flush with the end of the grip. A large capacity would be 30 rounds. The mag sticks way the heck down past the grip.

Conversely, for a rifle like the M1A, normal capacity is 20 rounds. High capacity would be 25 rounds. (yes really) Or an AR-15, Normal capacity would be 30 rounds. Hell, they ship with 30 round mags. High capacity for an AR-15 would be anything in excess of 30. Typically 50 or 100 round drum mags or something like that.


No they aren't that discriminating Duc. After all these laws were written by people who know little or nothing about firearms and motivated by ignorance and fear.

[Stealhead]

An interesting fact that many people even pro gun rights folks tend to forget; Back in the day when the 2nd amendment was written a musket was the most powerful hand held firearm in the world.

In fact at that time most armed forces carried a smooth bore musket a civilian could likely carry a musket with a rifled barrel actually a more accurate firearm and therefore better than what the typical solider would be armed with.Though it is harder to ram a musket ball down a rifled barrel.Some from a rapidity of engagement stand point a civilian could be armed with the same weapon as a military force would have.

Needless to say the musket was the best firearm available equal to any firearm in military hands.This implies to me that they did intend for citizens to own a weapon viable for combat against an enemy armed with military grade weapons.Why would the right change over time? If they had wanted the right to be limited to a certain time span they would have worded it that way.

I other words when comparing the firearms technology at the time of the 1770s' and 1780s' and the technology today an AR-15 (or any other magazine fed select fire rifle) is on par with what a military armed force would be armed with at both dates in history the people according to the word could own the same small arm that a military force would be armed with.If a person is only allowed to own a substantially inferior firearm than what those who might attempt to oppress he or she according the the 2nd Amendment that is a violation of rights.The same would apply from a self defense stand point.

In the old day to make up for the single shot and slow reload nature of firearms one would carry more than one loaded firearm and they would also carry a knife and yet a hatchet like Rogers Rangers would do.

My last ditch weapon for late 18th century life would be an Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake in a sack toss that at an attacker and see what he makes of it.

[AVGWarhawk]

No they aren't that discriminating Duc. After all these laws were written by people who know little or nothing about firearms and motivated by ignorance and fear.

I think you can say that concerning quite a few laws.

[August]

It should also be noted that when the 2A was written people had lot more than just rifles. They had cannon and carronades and swivel guns too. Civilian ships were often outfitted with dozens of them.

All those things, as well as automatic weapons and short barreled shotguns have already been surrendered in the name of compromise. Now the anti-gunners want another compromise, universal registration and semi-automatic bans.

If we let them get away with it next it'll be "high powered sniper rifles" and "easily concealed handguns" that we are asked to surrender in the name of compromise.

No compromise on civil liberties.

[August]

I think you can say that concerning quite a few laws.

Yep.

[Ducimus]

What was that old say... oh yes. "Best to be thought of a fool then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."

Rep. Diana DeGette has removed all doubt she is a fool.
Here's what she has to say about magazine bans.

Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette said:

“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

What she didn’t appear to understand is that a magazine can be reloaded with more bullets. According to the Shooter’s Log, only early on were magazines for AR-15s designed to be disposable, but the military changed that and now magazines are used several times. In handguns, a magazine is designed to be reused hundreds of times.

Here's a link to the denver post if your interested.

As lead sponsor in House on gun legislation, Rep. Diana DeGette appears to not understand how they work (http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/04/03/as-lead-sponsor-in-house-on-gun-legislation-rep-diana-degette-appears-to-not-understand-how-they-work/93506/)

Apparently, intelligence, knowledge, and education aren't necessary requirements to be a legislator of law in our country.