NOT ANOTHER GUN CONTROL THREAD

[Q]

Unless you're law enforcement. Then you just get suspended with pay for awhile while the department or agency throws up a smokescreen and handles the civil suit. No need to worry about criminal charges; that hardly ever happens.

So cherry picking is the answer, you are just looking at only the parts that fit you argument. How many of the 31,076 deaths in 2010 were from people entering crowed places and opening fire? Compare that to the unintentional shootings or even those 5 years old and under that died from unintentional gunshots. I am pretty sure we can also say a kid 5 year old and under is not responsible for a accidental shooting. Well considering this thread maybe I should not assume that.

I have no problem with responsible gun stowage at all. To me, that's just common sense. I'm just not sure how that can be effectively enforced without infringing even more on the freedom and privacy of law-abiding citizens.

 

I did notice something, however. First you say something like this:

I have never written anything in this thread that people should not have the right and ability to defend their-self.

And then you go and say this:

So no, I don't want the person, that would leave a gun out so a small child could get hold of it, to open up on a crazy in a crowed place. If they are so irresponsible with their weapon, what makes you think they will not add to the body count rather than limiting it? People have just watched too many Rambo, John Wayne, Dirty Harry movies...John Wayne is dead, unless you have real training or are willing to die to protect others run away not towards. In that situation you must pick your target and be absolutely sure that is your target and you have a shot, if not you are just a wanna-be hero that accidentally killed a innocent.

Either you're confused, or I am, but you seem to be hopping from one foot to the other a lot on this subject.

[mimartin]

Either you're confused, or I am,

You're the one confused, because saying someone has the right to do something and saying someone shouldn't do something because they don't have the ability are two different things.

[Q]

K.

 

So, what you're saying is that, worn-out cliches of dumb rednecks who've seen one too many action films aside (because, you know, it's common knowledge that everyone with a CCW is a dumb redneck who's seen one too many action films ), the scenario where no one takes action against an armed assailant in a crowded area, and thereby guaranteeing that he will inflict the maximum number of casualties before the police magically teleport in is somehow preferable to someone who carries a pistol and knows how to use it shooting the crazy ****er because he might accidentally hit an innocent person?

[mimartin]

K.

 

So, what you're saying is that, worn-out cliches of dumb rednecks who've seen one too many action films aside (because, you know, it's common knowledge that everyone with a CCW is a dumb redneck who's seen one too many action films ), the scenario where no one takes action against an armed assailant in a crowded area, and thereby guaranteeing that he will inflict the maximum number of casualties before the police magically teleport in is somehow preferable to someone who carries a pistol and knows how to use it shooting the crazy ****er because he might accidentally hit an innocent person?

 

No I am not...I will write what I am mean; you do not have to wrongly add to it.

 

Besides I have a CCW. If you have ever had training then you should know what I am saying is the same thing that any instructor would teach you. It is also the same thing that police and soldiers are taught.

 

Read again what I wrote, I did not WRITE NO ONE SHOULD TAKE ACTION…. Never mind typical non-reading and people adding their own definition to words. This place is a cesspool when it comes to debate, I write something clear as day

So no, I don't want the person, that would leave a gun out so a small child could get hold of it, to open up on a crazy in a crowed place.

What is so hard to understand there? If someone is so irresponsible and has such disregard for the safety of a child, I would not want them running in to shot the target. They are just as likely to shoot the responsible gun owner that was about to take out the crazy.

 

I’m done, if you guys are not going to actually discuss and read, I don’t see the point.

[Q]

Sorry for the confusion, but why did you think that I was saying that people without a CCW and training should shoot back in a situation like that? They shouldn't even be carrying in the first place.

 

That's doesn't fit with the term "law-abiding".

 

 

And, no offense, but my "non-reading" is likely due to your non-writing. Sorry, but sometimes your posts are about as clear as mud.

(Please don't get angry; the last thing I'd want to do is offend you.)

[mimartin]

Sorry I have the ability to look at both side of every argument and see the pros and cons of both sides and I have the ability to change my opinion something that escapes the majority of those that post in Kavars.

[machievelli]

the usa is no different to any other western world country, except that is one of the youngest and feel like they have something to prove. We over here in the uk don't get pushed around any more or less than the americans do... this was true even back in the "founding father" days, just didn't want to pay the kings taxes, but they ended up paying their own tax, amusing.

 

i'll never be convinced of being pro-gun owner ship, especially arming people to the teeth, that is just immature and ignorant. if there is a problem with massacres, handing out more guns will not resolve the issue, it would just make it easier for the suspect to do what they will do.

 

i went to Vegas a few years ago, even the car valet people have pistols, how ridiculous, et they will be arming MacDonald's employees next. That is one of the most off putting things about the USA, their fetish for guns.

 

but as i said before, ban and make automatic and some semi automatic weapons, anyone who has an arsenal of weapons has intent, if you only wanted to own a weapon for protection, you would only need a small pistol or something to that extent. Anything bigger or more powerful and it goes beyond defence and into the realm of intent.

 

After Obama made that ridiculous speech, I felt a need to check here to see if we had a current thread on this subjuect. I chose your comment because of the inconsistencies in your facts.

 

First, we did not rebel because we had to pay taxes, it was the idea that we were not allowed representation in even the Commons to protest the fact. It was like the South before the War Between the States being told they could not protest punitive tariffs on Cotton sold outside the US itself.

 

As for intent; Guns are a good investment. There are a couple of places here in Vegas where if I had the money, I could go in, rent a weapon, anything from a German machine gun from WWII up to a Ma Deuce fifty caliber or even 'old painless' from Predator, and fire it. Of course they aren't going to let me off the range with it, but if you've ever wanted to see an MG42 'Hitler's Zipper' and actually fire it, you get the chance.

 

As recently as the Shrub's administration, the Justice department was ordered to get together with Constitutional law scholars to examine the wording of the constitution, and they reported (2006 if I am correct) that while the term militia is used, it states that the average American has the right to own a gun, and our government does not have the right to restrict that.

 

The reason they keep pushing these laws is because we can muzzle ourselves if they get enough sheep to baa in chorus.

 

As for polarization, back in the late 60s, the pro gun lobby tried to get a bill passed to ban Saturday Night Specials, cheap guns sometimes more dangerous to those who use them. The NRA actually came out at the time and stated they would support it if it were properly written. The basics of the law was the gun had to be cheap (At the time, the price was set at less than a hundred dollar) poorly constructed, small enough to conceal, and of an inefficient caliber (The NRA would have accepted anything smaller than 7.62 short, the old .32).

 

Where this alliance fell apart was in deciding how many of these had to apply. The NRA wanted at least two. But the Pro control mob wanted it to be any one criteria.

 

Using that measure, a Ruger Olympic Match in 22 short is one, even if it would cost you 1500 dollars to buy. The Beretta .380 a finely machined weapon which back then cost about 75 dollars would have been banned because of the price, and the Colt Chief's Special with a 2 and a half inch barrel (63mm) would have been banned because it was designed to be concealed.

 

In my lifetime they have tried to ban [ammunition[/i] on the grounds that it is like dynamite, meaning you need a special permit to buy it. They tried to say the National Guard was the Militia the 2nd Amendment spoke of, so we don't need guns. Since I was alive when the National Guard opened fire at Kent State I can't call them 'well organized'. The minor fact that since 1903 the National Guard is defined as a secondary Army reserve unit, and the Feds used this when they first nationalized, then ordered the National Guard to Stand down when Governor Wallace used them to block College integration in Alabama is incidental.

 

The militia spoken of in 1783 was every armed citizen coming out ready to defend their homes, not some guy being paid for 36 days a year to go out and get some remedial training as a soldier, which is what the Guard is.

 

The problem is every time this comes up, it's an emotional response to a failure to enforce existing laws. And the Advocates, especially in Hollywood come down on their own who disagree. When Tom Selleck made a commercial for the NRA, Rosie O'Donnel, a Gun Control advocate accused him of being paid to make it, even though it has always been NRA policy that only members of the NRA make public announcements for the organization and ask them to do it as members, not as paid spokesmen. O'Donnel can say 'I don't need a gun' because she has a security system that sends armed officers if she hits the panic button. I, with an income of about $720 a month can't afford to even get a price estimate from one. And saying 'the police will protect you' is a joke. We'd need one cop per a hundred people to have anywhere close to that protection.

 

The reason I came down on Obama's speech is because I've heard something like it before. Back when they had a TV show named Quincy on the air, the producers got on a 'cause of the week' spree. When they got to gun control, Jack Klugman who starred as the title character said, '75% of the American people want a comprehensive ban of guns, but no one listens'.

 

Sounds a lot like 'Our people want this, and I'm going to give it to them' to me. The problem with that claim is simple.

 

When 75% of our people want something they get it, even if they have to do a grass roots campaign needed to create a new Constitutional Amendment.

[Tommycat]

Heh, my problem is that I see this as a bit of a slippery slope. And it seems that it's just going to continue. I remember in 1986 hearing them talk of getting rid of the dangerous machine guns because "Nobody needs an automatic weapon to kill a deer."(ignoring the fact that the only machine guns used in crimes were ILLEGAL machine guns) Yet just recently that exact phrase was used with "automatic weapon" replaced by "30 rounds" by Cuomo. Neglecting the fact that the second amendment does not state "the right to keep and bear HUNTING arms." If you fudds let this go, next it will be "Nobody needs to shoot a deer from 1000 yards away" as they go for your "sniper" scopes. Then "Nobody needs more than a .243" Then as they limit rounds lower and lower... One day maybe these fudds will realize that when they called a .223 a "High Powered Assault Bullet" their .308, or .30-06 wouldn't be long for this world either.

[machievelli]

Tommy, you should read the Federalist Papers. Madison (The framer of the 2nd) Amendment, commented that in the event of the Federal govrnment (Who had less than 50,000 troops in 1783) using them to force Pennsylvania to accept a Federal decision, they would face several times their number (and this is only a paraphrase) 'armed with equal weapons ready to stop them'.

 

There is a term called the law of unconsidered consequences at work here. Until 1903, Militias (Such as the different Regiment on both sides of the War Between the States, and later the Rough Riders in the Spanish American war) were armed with whatever their state could buy them, or wanted to buy them. During the first war, this meant that the US government was supplying ammunition in over 60 different calibers and bullet weights instead of just a few. In both of those wars, the commanding officers on the Regimental level were originally elected]/i] to lead, which if you think about it, explains a lot of the problems both sides in the WBS and later had.

 

The wording of the Militia act only allowed the US to pick the officers and equipment, with a 'when war occurs they come under Federal command' codicil instead of the blanket 'we control them, not the states' accepted by our government since.

 

The one nation where guns are allowed for whoever wants to buy them, yet has the least violent crimes of any type is Switzerland. That is because every man between the ages of 18 and 45 serves in the military and reserves. Would you break into a home to rob it knowing the man inside or his neighbor has anything from a pistol and rifle right up to a Carl Gustav anti tank launcher to hit you with?

 

As for using an illegal firearm, To quote Dirty Harry, 'go ahead, make my day'.

 

Part of the reason it works is because the Swiss regulate the weapons and ammunition sold. A soldier going into reserve, or home on leave carries his issue weapons and sealed packs of his full ammunition issue for those guns. If he wants to practice with them, he leaves the ammo at home in the locked room required, carries the weapon down to a military of police range where he is issued ammunition for his practice.

 

Civilians have to follow the same rules; if I had an urge to buy a Barrett .50 caliber just for the fun of, as Sean Connery said in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen of 'pipping the ace' at 1500 meters, I could do so. But the same rules for the military applies. I have to go to a military range (Police ones don't have the range), show them the ammunition I brought, fire them off, show them the expended brass, then take it home. Every round fired, even for a civilian has to be accounted for.

 

If you defend your home or neighbor by loading that weapon, as soon as the danger is gone, you report immediately that you have done so. The local police arrive, verify this is true, verify the amount of ammunition loaded (It is issued in magazines,) how many rounds if any, were fired, and actually unload and count every round in every magazine.

 

If someone is killed with a gun in that nation, even as the street cops and Homicide are blocking off the scene, other cops are going to every residence with a gun and verifying that they have not used the issue or legally purchased ammunition. If they do not find someone has done so, as soon as they know what caliber was used, they extend that search nationwide to anyone who has that caliber of weapon. With modern forensics, they can even tell you what make and model was used.

 

Their laws for illegal use of a fire arm, or using ammunition smuggled in is draconian. If you want to spend the next twenty odd years in jail, just get caught smuggling ammunition, let's not even consider what the penalty is for an illegal weapon.

 

I hadn't noticed that the laws regarding automatic weapons of the 80s had included the stopping of the Tax Stamps for them. That is bothersome because of the internal problems it would create. You see, I did know they had to be purchased from the government every time an automatic weapon was sold in the states that allowed ownership. The problem with them back then when I first heard about them was they were (1970s) were 150 dollars per gun, and the new owner had to buy one before he could buy the gun if you had to sell it.

 

Back in the decade right before the War Between the States the US government made the importation of new slaves illegal.That meant the only slaves still allowed were those already owned. In the South, a number of states made manumission illegal. You could no longer free slaves. There had been punitive taxes already in place since the Revolution on freeing slaves; the way our founding fathers got around it (Washinton and Jefferson) was by freeing them upon their deaths in their will. But a slave owner of say 1852 was not allowed to do this. The slaves of the dead man automatically became the property of their children, who, at need, were required to sell them on to other slave owners.

 

As a simple example of applied economic, let's say I was living in Texas in '75; chosen because in the 70s, I could legally own a machine gun (Hell, under Texas law, the only things I could not own were bazookas, modern artillery pieces, and modern tanks). I decide to buy a cheap sub machine gun just because I am the type of nut that wants to say I have it. The John Wayne Movie M'Q had Wayne using an Ingram M11 in .380 caliber, and I decide if the Duke used it, it's all good. So I go down to the local gun shop, and ask. The gun is cheap straight from the manufacturer; try $125. But then he tells it will cost me $275 because of that blasted tax stamp. But hey, if I want to sell it, I just find someone willing to pay me that amount, and leave the next tax stamp to him.

 

Jump to today, assuming I had bought that weapon way back whenm and still had it. Nevada is one of those states that still allows me to own it, I just get a 10 round clip and turn in the 32 round ones I used to have. The ban didn't stop me from owning the weapon itself, it's grandfathered in because it was bought before the ban, which only banned new purchases.

 

I'm skirting on the edge of the poverty level (As I am in actuality), and I can use what a collector would pay for the gun (try about a thousand now). But then I find that I can't sell the gun unless I am willing to find a foerign buyer, and even then, I have to get permission to sell it overseas. Why? Because if it were sold to some nice guy from Columbia say, and he uses it anywhere and the weapon is recovered by law enforcement, take a wild guess who ends up in jail linked to not only illegal weapons, but maybe drug charges as well.

 

Worse yet, if I were to die, my daughter could not even own the gun, let alone sell it because she can't buy a new tax stamp.

[Tommycat]

Worse yet, if I were to die, my daughter could not even own the gun, let alone sell it because she can't buy a new tax stamp.

 

Tax stamps can still be transferred. Just no NEW tax stamps are issued. You still have to get approval from your highest LEO(Sheriff). But you can get them transferred. There are web pages which currently assist in the selling of these pre-ban firearms.

[mimartin]

The bodies were still warm from the shots fired and talk radio was already talking about Obama taking our guns. They said the Libs pray for this kind of thing just so they can take away our rights. Just as likely idiots on the radio pray for this type of thing so they can work everyone into a frenzy about Obama taking our guns. Then they can set back in rake in the cash as we see a run on the flavor or the week weapons and ammo.

 

Almost as funny a Rush saying science isn't science. He must have went to a Texas school where science isn't science but bible study 2.0.

[Tommycat]

The bodies were still warm from the shots fired and talk radio was already talking about Obama taking our guns. They said the Libs pray for this kind of thing just so they can take away our rights. Just as likely idiots on the radio pray for this type of thing so they can work everyone into a frenzy about Obama taking our guns. Then they can set back in rake in the cash as we see a run on the flavor or the week weapons and ammo.

 

Almost as funny a Rush saying science isn't science. He must have went to a Texas school where science isn't science but bible study 2.0.

 

To be fair, Feinstein was already talking about her assault weapon ban before the shooting was over. Obama has not stopped talking about gun control, and every time there is a news story about guns, he blathers on about how "We're not done yet" about gun control. He and Bloomberg have spent so much time on gun control how can you blame the pro-2nd groups believing they're out to get them. The Right is justified in believing he's after guns, because hours after the shooting began he said,

So we are confronting yet another mass shooting, and today it happened on a military installation in our nation’s capital. Obviously, we’re going to be investigating thoroughly what happened, as we do so many of these shootings, sadly, that have happened, and do everything that we can to prevent them

Then add in Kerry signing the UN arms treaty which is opposed by BOTH parties...

 

And honestly the media in general DO pray for this kind of thing(regardless of political affiliation) so they can get the public all tuned in to get the latest information on what underwear the shooter preferred.

[mimartin]

Yeah that does sound better, way to deflect, they didn't say people in the media, they said Libs. Sure some in the media are Libs, but not all Libs are in the media.

 

also bad Obama for wanting to prevent mass shootings, that is so un-American.

[Tommycat]

Yeah that does sound better, way to deflect, they didn't say people in the media, they said Libs. Sure some in the media are Libs, but not all Libs are in the media.

 

also bad Obama for wanting to prevent mass shootings, that is so un-American.

 

When you combine that with all of his other statements on gun control, Yeah the way he goes about it is bad. His conclusion has almost always been more gun control.

 

I wasn't deflecting ANYTHING. I'm saying that BOTH progressive AND conservative media outlets enjoy this kind of thing. It gives them both something they enjoy talking about that their viewers and listeners tune in for. But for some reason you want to focus on the conservative media. Meanwhile the progressive media were talking about him roaming the halls with an AR-15... OOPS he had a shotgun... Well he was going to buy an AR-15 in another state, but was stopped by gun control. Oops that was ALSO a lie as buying a rifle OR shotgun goes through the same process. Only pistols are different. Gee, I wonder why pro-2a people think there's some agenda to remove their firearms.

[mimartin]

Whatever, Rush and Michael Berry and others were saying all libs were praying for it not the media, but that is okay since it is about libs. Got it.

 

And yes, there should be some gun control, since nuts getting guns are out of control, even if it is just keeping guns out of nuts hands, that is still gun control.

[Tommycat]

Whatever, Rush and Michael Berry and others were saying all libs were praying for it not the media, but that is okay since it is about libs. Got it.

 

And yes, there should be some gun control, since nuts getting guns are out of control, even if it is just keeping guns out of nuts hands, that is still gun control.

Since I rarely(if ever) listen to Rush, and actually have no idea who the heck Michael Berry is I couldn't care less what they claim. I was stating that all media outlets love this kind of thing. Conservatives use it to bash liberals, Liberals use it to bash conservatives(as you're apparently doing). The remainder of the media are throwing it out there to 1) promote some anti-gun message or 2) drum up some viewers to find out every aspect of this person's pathetic life.

 

You're the one who claimed it was the Conservatives saying Obama was using it to push for removing our guns. I pointed out that they have a valid reason to believe that. I was agreeing partially with you, in that BOTH sides were loving this. The anti-gunners and the conservative talking heads are more than happy to use a tragedy to push their agenda.

 

Gun control is not the answer. If you make it so that any mental instability is grounds for having guns removed, you will find fewer people getting treatment for things that would otherwise be easily controlled. Make it easier to get treatment rather than controlling the millions because of a few bad apples.

[mimartin]

You're the one who claimed it was the Conservatives saying Obama was using it to push for removing our guns.

No I wasn't, I stated a fact. I claimed nothing about that.

 

Just give everyone guns and the last one standing wins. Got it. Always great debating with such logic.

 

Liberals use it to bash conservatives(as you're apparently doing).

Where? I bashed Rush and radio taking heads, I did not put all conservatives into that, I was bitching about taking heads putting all libs in one big pile, so wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical of me to do the thing I am bitching about?

[Tommycat]

No I wasn't, I stated a fact. I claimed nothing about that.

 

Just give everyone guns and the last one standing wins. Got it. Always great debating with such logic.

 

Where? I bashed Rush and radio taking heads, I did not put all conservatives into that, I was bitching about taking heads putting all libs in one big pile, so wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical of me to do the thing I am bitching about?

 

Right, okay so Rush isn't a conservative. The other talking heads you're talking about are liberal right? You're being specifically critical of the right, while ignoring the leftists who did the same if not worse.

 

And knowing that one of the talking heads was Rush, he has ALWAYS pushed the boundaries of decency. His business model is based on calling the other side a bunch of monsters.

 

And where the eff do you get me saying give everyone a gun?

[mimartin]

Where is the rule that states I have to give equal time to both parties?

 

I attacked radio talking heads that were attacking all libs, saying they prayed for mass murder. I did not attack everyone on the right. As you like to over look I'm fairly right on this issue, just not stupid to the far right like the NRA, but I guess that is the new left now.

 

"If you make it so that any mental instability is grounds for having guns removed" ~ no I don't want to make it, since it is already the law. I want to enforce those laws. No it will not stop it, nothing will, but it will save lives and that is all we should really be striving to do.

[Tommycat]

Where is the rule that states I have to give equal time to both parties?

 

I attacked radio talking heads that were attacking all libs, saying they prayed for mass murder. I did not attack everyone on the right. As you like to over look I'm fairly right on this issue, just not stupid to the far right like the NRA, but I guess that is the new left now.

 

I guess expecting any level of objectivity is too much. My bad.

[mimartin]

I guess expecting any level of objectivity is too much. My bad.

[Tommycat]

Right, because I haven't been in any way objective? I have criticized my own side as well. Where as you have? NOPE you can call me the pot calling the kettle black all you want, but in this case, I have been rather objective. I'm pretty well equally disgusted with both the conservatives AND the liberal/progressive/whatever the heck the "bad guys" are called nowadays.

[mimartin]

Well if I am to the right on this issue, wouldn't me going after the right be objective?

 

I made a comment on what I heard on the radio, I did not listen to anyone from the left that stated anything so stupid, so I did not comment on something I did not hear. I live in Texas, not a lot of left radio talk shows around here. Guess they didn't get the memo about being objective.

[Tommycat]

On guns you may be center right, but on the issue you are talking about, you're left. You supported Obama, so technically attacking those who attack him are NOT your side. This portion of the conversation isn't really on the guns, but the left/right media. Which you were more than happy to "catch" that big headed buffoon saying something stupid.

 

"Rush said something stupid and insensitive."

 

*yawn* AND?

[mimartin]

"Rush said something stupid and insensitive."

 

*yawn* AND?

Yet you defend him at all cost.

 

And no on the issue I am talking about I am right, you do not have the right nor do you know me enough to define me. Yes, I gave money to Obama, me and Achilles played a game and we donated money, you actually helped because I gave Obama money based on something you did, so you could say you supported Obama too. That does not mean I agree with him on every issue or support his stance on every issue. I also voted for George Bush in his first election and you can pretty much guess I did not support him on every issue.