Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sadolph

gun control bs.

Recommended Posts

Riveting stuff. I don't care enough to go spelunking through boring, long winded articles in our library.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

 

And yes, implementation is the tough part.

 

challenging one's "beliefs" is boring indeed. I suggest a day or two in the real world LH.

 

You mean like paying income tax? Going to work everyday? Nah espy isn't ready for that yet.he is ready to lecture other people on those things though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

man you've taken an awful lot of time to say nothing.

 

and you're just stupid for making assumptions which aren't true.

 

You associate guns with penises. I suggest a Freudian psychologist.

 

Kiwis do work in the Capital Markets - but then again - when they're on walkabout - are they supposed to say they're working?

 

Rambo you really should get back to work - Those traders’ waste paper bins won't empty themselves after all. If that is the best comeback you can muster I suggest you look up the term 'Tongue in cheek'. But don't use Google images- them kinds of imagery might fry the brain of a good ol' boy like yourself.

If you do work in securities however, that does explain your anger and your need for a quick exit strategy. Keep them guns close old mate. Just don’t miss hey!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe we are all responsible.

 

By golly you're right. I failed to raise correctly some asswipe I never met. How comforting it must be to his its parents, the weight of that responsibility now lifted from their shoulders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fack.

 

Sending good thoughts.

 

Fuck is right----you Kidz wanna see what the Kalifornia's latest, despicable scum sucking useless p.o.s. looks like?.....

 

 

616_1330476276.jpg

 

 

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

 

 

 

Redondo Beach Murders

 

[uPDATE] Police have named a person of interest in the case. They're looking for 23-year-old Jonathan Chacon, the boyfriend of one of the murdered women. He drives a 1996 Ford Mustang.

 

===============

 

REDONDO BEACH (CNS) Two women were found slain today in an apartment in Redondo Beach, police said.

 

The bodies were found in the 1900 block of Rockefeller Lane shortly after 10 a.m. by someone who worked with one of the victims, Capt. Jeff Hink said.

 

"I'm not sure what led to her concern, but the fact remains she was concerned for one of the resident's welfare; so she came to the house,'' Hink said.

 

"I don't know if it's because the person didn't show up for work or what,'' he said.

 

Neighbor Laurie Lara told KCAL9 she didn't "know if it's someone out there on the loose,'' and that she and others in the ``tight-knit'' neighborhood were concerned.

 

The causes of death, if known, were not disclosed.

 

Police asked that anyone with more information about the homicides call the police tipline at (310) 937-6685, to text to (310) 339-2362, or send email to crimetipsredondo.org.

 

Read more: http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/NEWS.html#ixzz1njFkTTyu

 

I believe we are all responsible.

 

 

You may be righter than you think----turns out I now recognize this prick----'cuz he was invited to our house (along with a large group of her friends)a few times by The Nursetta for a couple of bbq's.

 

 

Jfc, I hope when the cops find him that they shoot him enough times so that it really fuking hurts....but lives....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fack.

 

Sending good thoughts.

 

Fuck is right----you Kidz wanna see what the Kalifornia's latest, despicable scum sucking useless p.o.s. looks like?.....

 

 

616_1330476276.jpg

 

 

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

 

 

 

Redondo Beach Murders

 

[uPDATE] Police have named a person of interest in the case. They're looking for 23-year-old Jonathan Chacon, the boyfriend of one of the murdered women. He drives a 1996 Ford Mustang.

 

===============

 

REDONDO BEACH (CNS) Two women were found slain today in an apartment in Redondo Beach, police said.

 

The bodies were found in the 1900 block of Rockefeller Lane shortly after 10 a.m. by someone who worked with one of the victims, Capt. Jeff Hink said.

 

"I'm not sure what led to her concern, but the fact remains she was concerned for one of the resident's welfare; so she came to the house,'' Hink said.

 

"I don't know if it's because the person didn't show up for work or what,'' he said.

 

Neighbor Laurie Lara told KCAL9 she didn't "know if it's someone out there on the loose,'' and that she and others in the ``tight-knit'' neighborhood were concerned.

 

The causes of death, if known, were not disclosed.

 

Police asked that anyone with more information about the homicides call the police tipline at (310) 937-6685, to text to (310) 339-2362, or send email to crimetipsredondo.org.

 

Read more: http://www.kfiam640....l#ixzz1njFkTTyu

 

I believe we are all responsible.

 

 

You may be righter than you think----turns out I now recognize this prick----'cuz he was invited to our house (along with a large group of her friends)a few times by The Nursetta for a couple of bbq's.

 

 

Jfc, I hope when the cops find him that they shoot him enough times so that it really fuking hurts....but lives....

 

Nice folks she hangs out with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fack.

 

Sending good thoughts.

 

Fuck is right----you Kidz wanna see what the Kalifornia's latest, despicable scum sucking useless p.o.s. looks like?.....

 

 

616_1330476276.jpg

 

 

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

 

 

 

Redondo Beach Murders

 

[uPDATE] Police have named a person of interest in the case. They're looking for 23-year-old Jonathan Chacon, the boyfriend of one of the murdered women. He drives a 1996 Ford Mustang.

 

===============

 

REDONDO BEACH (CNS) Two women were found slain today in an apartment in Redondo Beach, police said.

 

The bodies were found in the 1900 block of Rockefeller Lane shortly after 10 a.m. by someone who worked with one of the victims, Capt. Jeff Hink said.

 

"I'm not sure what led to her concern, but the fact remains she was concerned for one of the resident's welfare; so she came to the house,'' Hink said.

 

"I don't know if it's because the person didn't show up for work or what,'' he said.

 

Neighbor Laurie Lara told KCAL9 she didn't "know if it's someone out there on the loose,'' and that she and others in the ``tight-knit'' neighborhood were concerned.

 

The causes of death, if known, were not disclosed.

 

Police asked that anyone with more information about the homicides call the police tipline at (310) 937-6685, to text to (310) 339-2362, or send email to crimetipsredondo.org.

 

Read more: http://www.kfiam640....l#ixzz1njFkTTyu

 

I believe we are all responsible.

 

 

You may be righter than you think----turns out I now recognize this prick----'cuz he was invited to our house (along with a large group of her friends)a few times by The Nursetta for a couple of bbq's.

 

 

Jfc, I hope when the cops find him that they shoot him enough times so that it really fuking hurts....but lives....

 

Nice folks she hangs out with...

 

 

This was three years ago during her senior year. She's got tons of friends of both sexes, and one of her better gal pal friends at that time dated this bastard for about 7 months. I recall making him a couple of burgers one afternoon----seemed nice enough. But obviously something happened to him and his head afterwards. To whit;

 

 

 

A 23-year-old Redondo Beach man with "death" tattooed on his arm is being sought for questioning in the slayings of his girlfriend and her mother in a Redondo Beach apartment.

 

Jonathan Scott Chacon, called a "person of interest" in the killings, is driving a black

Courtney Bergman, murdered in Redondo Beach.

1996 Ford Mustang with the license plate number 6CQF458, Redondo Beach police Lt. Joe Hoffman said.

 

Chacon is described as Latino, 23 years old, 5 feet 7 inches tall and 160 pounds. He has black hair and black eyes. His has tattoos of the Grim Reaper and nautical star on his upper right arm; "death" on his left forearm; and "distraught" on his chest.

 

Chacon's car has damage to the rear bumper and trunk lid. The convertible top is damaged on both the passenger and driver's side.

 

 

Nice, huh? A real live ticking time bomb....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His has tattoos of the Grim Reaper and nautical star on his upper right arm; "death" on his left forearm; and "distraught" on his chest.

 

 

Sounds like a nice enough chap - are they sure it was him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His has tattoos of the Grim Reaper and nautical star on his upper right arm; "death" on his left forearm; and "distraught" on his chest.

 

 

Sounds like a nice enough chap - are they sure it was him?

 

Come to think of it I know a couple BN's who fit that same description!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His has tattoos of the Grim Reaper and nautical star on his upper right arm; "death" on his left forearm; and "distraught" on his chest.

 

 

Sounds like a nice enough chap - are they sure it was him?

 

 

If the Redondo Beach cops are on a manhunt for him, then I'm sure they're sure. Unlike some of our pussified cities here, RB police do not fuck around.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wes, I want you to read this story (that I borrowed from another forum). In fact I want you to read this story twice. The same goes to you other frickin Anti's here. Read it and think about it. Then hopefully,perhaps, just maybe you'll see things in a slightly different light afterwards....

 

 

 

 

The Weight of History (Memories and an Inherited Gun)

 

(I posted this a few places in 2010 when my Father passed away. To honor his memory on the two year anniversary I respectfully present this repost.)

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

Well, that's it, dad's gone.

 

It was all I could think as I sat there looking at the old (c1968)

Remington 552 Speedmaster sitting on my workbench. It was dad's favorite

"rabbit" gun and the one that was never going to leave his possession

while he was on this earth. It was also the first real firearm I was

ever allowed to handle, the one I learned all the basics on, the one

that made me the terror of the rats out by the feed bins.

 

Sadly, when dad's emphysema really took hold I think the rifle was also

a reminder of his younger and more vigorous "outdoor" days. Wistful

recollections turned from bittersweet to simply bitter as his body

failed him and he stuffed the wood and steel yardstick of his prime

years into the back of a closet and did his best to forget it.

 

When we uncovered it during the cleanup we pulled it from the closet to

find that time hadn't been any nicer to dad's guns than it had been to

him. The rifle looked bad enough at first sight, but now that I was

home, the clinical and unforgiving lighting in my workshop revealed all.

The rifle was bone dry and coated with dust and cobwebs. Wiping off the

surface grime revealed a diseased looking finish with a peppering of

rust spots all over the metal. The wood had also sprouted a dusting of

mold. Still, a patch run through the bore revealed a bright shine so, I

thought, maybe there was hope.

 

The cleanup was tedious and frustrating. Every part disassembled

revealed more rust spots and a ton of rock-hard, dried up, lube and old

powder fouling but I could hear dad's voice saying "well you started the

job, you need to finish it". A lot of time was spent with patches,

brushes, solvents, oil, and steel wool until the ugly warts of rust had

been reduced to mere surface blemishes. The wood was oiled and rubbed

until the manufacturer would have been proud.

 

Re-assembly was as satisfying as the dis-assembly had been frustrating

with the parts clicking together precisely and the mechanical actions

working smoothly. I stood up to un-kink my back, crabbed by the hours

bent over the workbench, and appreciated the results of my labor. The

metal had a deep glow interspersed with a mottling that gave the gun a

pleasing appearance of honest use. The wood caught the light with a

warm-honey glow, and the smell of clean metal and gunoil were still in

the air. I think dad and I were both smiling at a job well done.

 

The next morning was clear and very cold as I tramped into the woods

with the restored Remington and a box of .22LR shells. As I "broke

trail" through the deeper snow I could see my dad, all those years ago,

dressed in his red and black hunting jacket and the fur cap with the ear

flaps tied up. He was stepping carefully, his big boots creating a

nearly heel-to-toe trail through the snow that my 10 year old feet could

easily follow. I'd been given the awesome responsibility of actually

carrying the gun (not just the box of shells) and he spent the walk

constantly reminding me to keep the gun pointed in a safe direction and

issuing sharp warnings that "I'd better keep the barrel out of the

damned snow or he'd tan my hide". I smiled as I visualized what my

serious little-child face must have looked like as I labored mightily to

simultaneously keep up the pace and carry the weight of responsibility

along with the weight of the gun.

 

Finally I arrived at the chosen location and set up a swinging target.

Then I backed up a fair distance, loaded the gun, and prepared to fire.

 

Suddenly my trigger finger was paralyzed by a flood of internal doubt.

 

Thoughts clashed in my head "What if shooting this gun wasn't as cool as

I remembered?", "What if the gun was really a worn out piece of scrap

metal?" Did I want to risk shattering the beautiful childhood memories

now clustering all around me?

 

After another breath to steady myself, I pulled the trigger.

 

CRACK!...... /"TING"/

 

I was laughing...with relief? with joy? Yes all that and more as the

little metal spinner twirled. The old Remington was still "cool", it was

still accurate, and after it's long slumber it was ready to play.

 

CRACK!...... /"TING"/

 

CRACK!...... /"TING"/

 

CRACK!...... /"TING"/

 

CRACK!...... OOPS, a miss. And there was dad's ghost, beaming but trying

to look serious as he gently chided me on "wasting ammo" and once again

walked me through the steps of breathing and trigger control until I'd

settled back down.

 

150 rounds later I walked out of the woods side by side with the spirit

of my father. When I got to my parked Jeep I looked back and in my mind

I could see him older, but still healthy, still dressed in that ratty

old hunting jacket, heavy canvas pants and huge rubber boots sniffing

the clean forest air and smiling. It was like he was saying "You go on

boy, I'm gonna walk in the woods for a while".

 

So I pulled out, me heading my way, him heading his, but I could almost

hear his gruff last words "you make sure you clean that damned gun good

or I'll tan your hide!"

 

Dedicated to the memory of Frank George Hawley 1940-2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wes, I want you to read this story (that I borrowed from another forum). In fact I want you to read this story twice. The same goes to you other frickin Anti's here. Read it and think about it. Then hopefully,perhaps, just maybe you'll see things in a slightly different light afterwards....

 

 

 

 

The Weight of History (Memories and an Inherited Gun)

 

(I posted this a few places in 2010 when my Father passed away. To honor his memory on the two year anniversary I respectfully present this repost.)

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

Well, that's it, dad's gone.

 

It was all I could think as I sat there looking at the old (c1968)

Remington 552 Speedmaster sitting on my workbench. It was dad's favorite

"rabbit" gun and the one that was never going to leave his possession

while he was on this earth. It was also the first real firearm I was

ever allowed to handle, the one I learned all the basics on, the one

that made me the terror of the rats out by the feed bins.

 

Sadly, when dad's emphysema really took hold I think the rifle was also

a reminder of his younger and more vigorous "outdoor" days. Wistful

recollections turned from bittersweet to simply bitter as his body

failed him and he stuffed the wood and steel yardstick of his prime

years into the back of a closet and did his best to forget it.

 

When we uncovered it during the cleanup we pulled it from the closet to

find that time hadn't been any nicer to dad's guns than it had been to

him. The rifle looked bad enough at first sight, but now that I was

home, the clinical and unforgiving lighting in my workshop revealed all.

The rifle was bone dry and coated with dust and cobwebs. Wiping off the

surface grime revealed a diseased looking finish with a peppering of

rust spots all over the metal. The wood had also sprouted a dusting of

mold. Still, a patch run through the bore revealed a bright shine so, I

thought, maybe there was hope.

 

The cleanup was tedious and frustrating. Every part disassembled

revealed more rust spots and a ton of rock-hard, dried up, lube and old

powder fouling but I could hear dad's voice saying "well you started the

job, you need to finish it". A lot of time was spent with patches,

brushes, solvents, oil, and steel wool until the ugly warts of rust had

been reduced to mere surface blemishes. The wood was oiled and rubbed

until the manufacturer would have been proud.

 

Re-assembly was as satisfying as the dis-assembly had been frustrating

with the parts clicking together precisely and the mechanical actions

working smoothly. I stood up to un-kink my back, crabbed by the hours

bent over the workbench, and appreciated the results of my labor. The

metal had a deep glow interspersed with a mottling that gave the gun a

pleasing appearance of honest use. The wood caught the light with a

warm-honey glow, and the smell of clean metal and gunoil were still in

the air. I think dad and I were both smiling at a job well done.

 

The next morning was clear and very cold as I tramped into the woods

with the restored Remington and a box of .22LR shells. As I "broke

trail" through the deeper snow I could see my dad, all those years ago,

dressed in his red and black hunting jacket and the fur cap with the ear

flaps tied up. He was stepping carefully, his big boots creating a

nearly heel-to-toe trail through the snow that my 10 year old feet could

easily follow. I'd been given the awesome responsibility of actually

carrying the gun (not just the box of shells) and he spent the walk

constantly reminding me to keep the gun pointed in a safe direction and

issuing sharp warnings that "I'd better keep the barrel out of the

damned snow or he'd tan my hide". I smiled as I visualized what my

serious little-child face must have looked like as I labored mightily to

simultaneously keep up the pace and carry the weight of responsibility

along with the weight of the gun.

 

Finally I arrived at the chosen location and set up a swinging target.

Then I backed up a fair distance, loaded the gun, and prepared to fire.

 

Suddenly my trigger finger was paralyzed by a flood of internal doubt.

 

Thoughts clashed in my head "What if shooting this gun wasn't as cool as

I remembered?", "What if the gun was really a worn out piece of scrap

metal?" Did I want to risk shattering the beautiful childhood memories

now clustering all around me?

 

After another breath to steady myself, I pulled the trigger.

 

CRACK!...... /"TING"/

 

I was laughing...with relief? with joy? Yes all that and more as the

little metal spinner twirled. The old Remington was still "cool", it was

still accurate, and after it's long slumber it was ready to play.

 

CRACK!...... /"TING"/

 

CRACK!...... /"TING"/

 

CRACK!...... /"TING"/

 

CRACK!...... OOPS, a miss. And there was dad's ghost, beaming but trying

to look serious as he gently chided me on "wasting ammo" and once again

walked me through the steps of breathing and trigger control until I'd

settled back down.

 

150 rounds later I walked out of the woods side by side with the spirit

of my father. When I got to my parked Jeep I looked back and in my mind

I could see him older, but still healthy, still dressed in that ratty

old hunting jacket, heavy canvas pants and huge rubber boots sniffing

the clean forest air and smiling. It was like he was saying "You go on

boy, I'm gonna walk in the woods for a while".

 

So I pulled out, me heading my way, him heading his, but I could almost

hear his gruff last words "you make sure you clean that damned gun good

or I'll tan your hide!"

 

Dedicated to the memory of Frank George Hawley 1940-2010

Doesn't impress me in the slightest. Fucking gun nuts. Two of your daughters friends people murdered close to you and you still don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wes, I want you to read this story (that I borrowed from another forum). In fact I want you to read this story twice. The same goes to you other frickin Anti's here. Read it and think about it. Then hopefully,perhaps, just maybe you'll see things in a slightly different light afterwards....

 

 

 

 

The Weight of History (Memories and an Inherited Gun)

 

(I posted this a few places in 2010 when my Father passed away. To honor his memory on the two year anniversary I respectfully present this repost.)

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

Well, that's it, dad's gone.

 

It was all I could think as I sat there looking at the old (c1968)

Remington 552 Speedmaster sitting on my workbench. It was dad's favorite

"rabbit" gun and the one that was never going to leave his possession

while he was on this earth. It was also the first real firearm I was

ever allowed to handle, the one I learned all the basics on, the one

that made me the terror of the rats out by the feed bins.

 

Sadly, when dad's emphysema really took hold I think the rifle was also

a reminder of his younger and more vigorous "outdoor" days. Wistful

recollections turned from bittersweet to simply bitter as his body

failed him and he stuffed the wood and steel yardstick of his prime

years into the back of a closet and did his best to forget it.

 

When we uncovered it during the cleanup we pulled it from the closet to

find that time hadn't been any nicer to dad's guns than it had been to

him. The rifle looked bad enough at first sight, but now that I was

home, the clinical and unforgiving lighting in my workshop revealed all.

The rifle was bone dry and coated with dust and cobwebs. Wiping off the

surface grime revealed a diseased looking finish with a peppering of

rust spots all over the metal. The wood had also sprouted a dusting of

mold. Still, a patch run through the bore revealed a bright shine so, I

thought, maybe there was hope.

 

The cleanup was tedious and frustrating. Every part disassembled

revealed more rust spots and a ton of rock-hard, dried up, lube and old

powder fouling but I could hear dad's voice saying "well you started the

job, you need to finish it". A lot of time was spent with patches,

brushes, solvents, oil, and steel wool until the ugly warts of rust had

been reduced to mere surface blemishes. The wood was oiled and rubbed

until the manufacturer would have been proud.

 

Re-assembly was as satisfying as the dis-assembly had been frustrating

with the parts clicking together precisely and the mechanical actions

working smoothly. I stood up to un-kink my back, crabbed by the hours

bent over the workbench, and appreciated the results of my labor. The

metal had a deep glow interspersed with a mottling that gave the gun a

pleasing appearance of honest use. The wood caught the light with a

warm-honey glow, and the smell of clean metal and gunoil were still in

the air. I think dad and I were both smiling at a job well done.

 

The next morning was clear and very cold as I tramped into the woods

with the restored Remington and a box of .22LR shells. As I "broke

trail" through the deeper snow I could see my dad, all those years ago,

dressed in his red and black hunting jacket and the fur cap with the ear

flaps tied up. He was stepping carefully, his big boots creating a

nearly heel-to-toe trail through the snow that my 10 year old feet could

easily follow. I'd been given the awesome responsibility of actually

carrying the gun (not just the box of shells) and he spent the walk

constantly reminding me to keep the gun pointed in a safe direction and

issuing sharp warnings that "I'd better keep the barrel out of the

damned snow or he'd tan my hide". I smiled as I visualized what my

serious little-child face must have looked like as I labored mightily to

simultaneously keep up the pace and carry the weight of responsibility

along with the weight of the gun.

 

Finally I arrived at the chosen location and set up a swinging target.

Then I backed up a fair distance, loaded the gun, and prepared to fire.

 

Suddenly my trigger finger was paralyzed by a flood of internal doubt.

 

Thoughts clashed in my head "What if shooting this gun wasn't as cool as

I remembered?", "What if the gun was really a worn out piece of scrap

metal?" Did I want to risk shattering the beautiful childhood memories

now clustering all around me?

 

After another breath to steady myself, I pulled the trigger.

 

CRACK!...... /"TING"/

 

I was laughing...with relief? with joy? Yes all that and more as the

little metal spinner twirled. The old Remington was still "cool", it was

still accurate, and after it's long slumber it was ready to play.

 

CRACK!...... /"TING"/

 

CRACK!...... /"TING"/

 

CRACK!...... /"TING"/

 

CRACK!...... OOPS, a miss. And there was dad's ghost, beaming but trying

to look serious as he gently chided me on "wasting ammo" and once again

walked me through the steps of breathing and trigger control until I'd

settled back down.

 

150 rounds later I walked out of the woods side by side with the spirit

of my father. When I got to my parked Jeep I looked back and in my mind

I could see him older, but still healthy, still dressed in that ratty

old hunting jacket, heavy canvas pants and huge rubber boots sniffing

the clean forest air and smiling. It was like he was saying "You go on

boy, I'm gonna walk in the woods for a while".

 

So I pulled out, me heading my way, him heading his, but I could almost

hear his gruff last words "you make sure you clean that damned gun good

or I'll tan your hide!"

 

Dedicated to the memory of Frank George Hawley 1940-2010

 

the answer is obvious, remove the firing mechanism, then he can have the sentimental value of the gun without it being a danger to society.

 

in all seriousness, thanks for posting. good read.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the answer is obvious, remove the firing mechanism, then he can have the sentimental value of the gun without it being a danger to society.

 

in all seriousness, thanks for posting. good read.

 

 

Absolutely.

 

If you didn't read above, I have no problem with rifles like this. They don't hold more than 5-6 rounds, aren't easily concealable, etc.

 

I have no problem with a son holding onto his dads old gun, but not along with 10 or 20 other guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then how do you draw the limit? is it 10guns? 20guns? who sets the limit on what is what is an unconstitutional number of guns? people collect all kinds of things, whats wrong with a responsible person collecting guns for whatever reason they choose, and any amount that they choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here ya go, Wes.....seems that you pissed off Virginia today. Thank you for that.... :lol:

 

 

 

Virginia repeals law on 1 handgun buy per month

 

Published February 28, 2012

 

| Associated Press

 

 

RICHMOND, Va. – A Virginia law limiting handgun purchases to one per month was repealed Tuesday, over the opposition of gun control supporters and survivors of victims in the Virginia Tech massacre.

 

Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell signed the bill into law after it was passed two weeks ago by the GOP-controlled General Assembly. He did not comment on signing the bill, though he said earlier he supported repealing the law.

 

The governor met Saturday with families of people killed or injured in the April 2007 shooting rampage at Virginia Tech, the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. The families had hoped to persuade him to veto the bill, although they knew it was a long shot.

 

Andrew Goddard, whose son Colin was wounded at Tech, was at the meeting. He said the governor had previously said he would sign the bill and "it would have been very difficult for him to go back on it."

 

Goddard, president of the Virginia Center for Public Safety, reserved his harshest criticism for legislators who passed the bill.

 

"They have not learned a damn thing," Goddard said. Alluding to Monday's school shooting that left three students dead in Ohio, Goddard said: "Here we are watching kids dying in other states, and we're going to be a purveyor of firearms for other states."

 

Lori Haas, whose daughter Emily was wounded in the shooting that left the gunman and 32 others dead at Virginia Tech, said she was disappointed by the governor's action.

 

"Getting rid of the one-handgun-a-month law will make it easier for gun traffickers to purchase handguns in bulk," she said in a written statement. "There have been too many tragedies in other states fueled by guns that come from Virginia, and this will only make the situation worse."

 

Del. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Prince William and sponsor of the repeal bill, said the one-handgun limit didn't accomplish much for law enforcement.

 

"I think Virginians deserve effective laws, and one handgun a month has been overtaken by technology and improved background checks," he said. "Criminals don't go into gun stores, stand there in the bright light, hand over their driver's license and stand there and wait for the vendor to see if they have a criminal record."

 

He added: "If you really want to get after gun crime, you get after people who use guns illegally. You don't punish law-abiding citizens."

 

The 1993 law was a major legislative legacy of Democratic former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, passed when Virginia was a favorite armory for East Coast criminals. It never applied to rifles or shotguns.

 

The law was intended to stanch the flow of guns from Virginia to New York City and other metropolitan areas in the Northeast. In 1991, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that 40 percent of the 1,236 guns found at crime scenes in New York had been purchased in Virginia.

 

Goddard said the repeal legislation was one of 30 gun bills his organization opposed this year in a session that has seen an increase in conservative measures pushed by Republicans, who strengthened their House majority and gained control of the Senate in last November's elections. Ten of those bills are still alive, he said, whereas in previous years only one or two pro-gun bills typically were passed.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/28/virginia-repeals-law-on-1-handgun-buy-per-month/#ixzz1nk8LzaHI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the fuck is buying more than 1 handgun a month?!

 

Us responsible gun owners/collectors/investors/enthusiasts/hobbyists who have perfectly clean records.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the fuck is buying more than 1 handgun a month?!

 

Us responsible gun owners/collectors/investors/enthusiasts/hobbyists who have perfectly clean records.....

 

And selling the things to bad guys at huge profits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At one time I did...but once I was satisfied with my collection,then I stopped buying them...BTW, I'm not a shooter anymore...just a collector.

 

Now that I'm retired...that might change....my kids and wife like shooting a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the fuck is buying more than 1 handgun a month?!

 

Us responsible gun owners/collectors/investors/enthusiasts/hobbyists who have perfectly clean records.....

 

And selling the things to bad guys at huge profits.

 

You do realize, doncha, that I actually have a Federal Firearms Licence? An FFL003? You have any muthafuking clue what my responsibilities are regarding guns? The legal hoops I have to jump thru, and in the correct order? The paperwork I need to keep? Furthermore, do you have any f'ng idea how many years in a federal prison I'd be stuck in if I ever even THOUGHT about doing what you just said? Gawd-damn J-Boi, are you really this much of an ignorant fuck?Or are you just bored, drunk and lonely?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the fuck is buying more than 1 handgun a month?!

 

Us responsible gun owners/collectors/investors/enthusiasts/hobbyists who have perfectly clean records.....

 

And selling the things to bad guys at huge profits.

 

You do realize, doncha, that I actually have a Federal Firearms Licence? An FFL003? You have any muthafuking clue what my responsibilities are regarding guns? The legal hoops I have to jump thru, and in the correct order? The paperwork I need to keep? Furthermore, do you have any f'ng idea how many years in a federal prison I'd be stuck in if I ever even THOUGHT about doing what you just said? Gawd-damn J-Boi, are you really this much of an ignorant fuck?Or are you just bored, drunk and lonely?....

You might not be but somebody is certainly doing so.

 

"In 1991, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that 40 percent of the 1,236 guns found at crime scenes in New York had been purchased in Virginia."

 

From one of YOUR posts. Not very clever are you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't follow this whole thread...but the record keeping and paperwork is mandatory.

 

FFL holders are required to keep a registry of firearms sales in an ATF-approved Bound Book, or a computerized equivalent using ATF-approved software. Licensed dealers must also maintain file copies of Form 4473 or eForm 4473 "Firearms Transaction Record" documents, for a period of not less than 20 years after the date of sale or disposition. When retiring or otherwise relinquishing a license, these records are sent to the BATFE's Out-of-Business Records Center. Licensed collectors are not required to send their records to the BATFE when relinquishing their license. The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person in a five business day period must be reported to ATF on Form 3310.4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wes, I want you to read this story (that I borrowed from another forum). In fact I want you to read this story twice. The same goes to you other frickin Anti's here. Read it and think about it. Then hopefully,perhaps, just maybe you'll see things in a slightly different light afterwards....

 

 

 

 

The Weight of History (Memories and an Inherited Gun)

 

(I posted this a few places in 2010 when my Father passed away. To honor his memory on the two year anniversary I respectfully present this repost.)

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

Well, that's it, dad's gone.

 

It was all I could think as I sat there looking at the old (c1968)

Remington 552 Speedmaster sitting on my workbench. It was dad's favorite

"rabbit" gun and the one that was never going to leave his possession

while he was on this earth. It was also the first real firearm I was

ever allowed to handle, the one I learned all the basics on, the one

that made me the terror of the rats out by the feed bins.

 

Sadly, when dad's emphysema really took hold I think the rifle was also

a reminder of his younger and more vigorous "outdoor" days. Wistful

recollections turned from bittersweet to simply bitter as his body

failed him and he stuffed the wood and steel yardstick of his prime

years into the back of a closet and did his best to forget it.

 

When we uncovered it during the cleanup we pulled it from the closet to

find that time hadn't been any nicer to dad's guns than it had been to

him. The rifle looked bad enough at first sight, but now that I was

home, the clinical and unforgiving lighting in my workshop revealed all.

The rifle was bone dry and coated with dust and cobwebs. Wiping off the

surface grime revealed a diseased looking finish with a peppering of

rust spots all over the metal. The wood had also sprouted a dusting of

mold. Still, a patch run through the bore revealed a bright shine so, I

thought, maybe there was hope.

 

The cleanup was tedious and frustrating. Every part disassembled

revealed more rust spots and a ton of rock-hard, dried up, lube and old

powder fouling but I could hear dad's voice saying "well you started the

job, you need to finish it". A lot of time was spent with patches,

brushes, solvents, oil, and steel wool until the ugly warts of rust had

been reduced to mere surface blemishes. The wood was oiled and rubbed

until the manufacturer would have been proud.

 

Re-assembly was as satisfying as the dis-assembly had been frustrating

with the parts clicking together precisely and the mechanical actions

working smoothly. I stood up to un-kink my back, crabbed by the hours

bent over the workbench, and appreciated the results of my labor. The

metal had a deep glow interspersed with a mottling that gave the gun a

pleasing appearance of honest use. The wood caught the light with a

warm-honey glow, and the smell of clean metal and gunoil were still in

the air. I think dad and I were both smiling at a job well done.

 

The next morning was clear and very cold as I tramped into the woods

with the restored Remington and a box of .22LR shells. As I "broke

trail" through the deeper snow I could see my dad, all those years ago,

dressed in his red and black hunting jacket and the fur cap with the ear

flaps tied up. He was stepping carefully, his big boots creating a

nearly heel-to-toe trail through the snow that my 10 year old feet could

easily follow. I'd been given the awesome responsibility of actually

carrying the gun (not just the box of shells) and he spent the walk

constantly reminding me to keep the gun pointed in a safe direction and

issuing sharp warnings that "I'd better keep the barrel out of the

damned snow or he'd tan my hide". I smiled as I visualized what my

serious little-child face must have looked like as I labored mightily to

simultaneously keep up the pace and carry the weight of responsibility

along with the weight of the gun.

 

Finally I arrived at the chosen location and set up a swinging target.

Then I backed up a fair distance, loaded the gun, and prepared to fire.

 

Suddenly my trigger finger was paralyzed by a flood of internal doubt.

 

Thoughts clashed in my head "What if shooting this gun wasn't as cool as

I remembered?", "What if the gun was really a worn out piece of scrap

metal?" Did I want to risk shattering the beautiful childhood memories

now clustering all around me?

 

After another breath to steady myself, I pulled the trigger.

 

CRACK!...... /"TING"/

 

I was laughing...with relief? with joy? Yes all that and more as the

little metal spinner twirled. The old Remington was still "cool", it was

still accurate, and after it's long slumber it was ready to play.

 

CRACK!...... /"TING"/

 

CRACK!...... /"TING"/

 

CRACK!...... /"TING"/

 

CRACK!...... OOPS, a miss. And there was dad's ghost, beaming but trying

to look serious as he gently chided me on "wasting ammo" and once again

walked me through the steps of breathing and trigger control until I'd

settled back down.

 

150 rounds later I walked out of the woods side by side with the spirit

of my father. When I got to my parked Jeep I looked back and in my mind

I could see him older, but still healthy, still dressed in that ratty

old hunting jacket, heavy canvas pants and huge rubber boots sniffing

the clean forest air and smiling. It was like he was saying "You go on

boy, I'm gonna walk in the woods for a while".

 

So I pulled out, me heading my way, him heading his, but I could almost

hear his gruff last words "you make sure you clean that damned gun good

or I'll tan your hide!"

 

Dedicated to the memory of Frank George Hawley 1940-2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But the fact of the matter is that somewhere in the country there are people who aren't responsible or respectfully fearful of guns like you and your target shooting buddies are. These are the people who, despite their good intentions, mess up and allow slugs to go where they shouldn't. Does that make all gun owners fuckups? No. Does it mean that we should be scared of the potential for mistakes to happen? Yes. I'm not scared by those who are responsible, you are model gun owners who should be praised for setting a good example by treating them safely and limiting your collection to simply what you need for your hobby. That said; no amount of training or social engineering for those who aren't like you is ever going to make me feel safe because people slip through the cracks and wingnuts happen.

 

Here's a chance to redeem yourself from doucheland and explain to me exactly how taking the guns out of the hands of responsible gun owners like me is going to solve or even put a dent in the poor behavior of the irresponsible folks who don't play by the rules???

 

There are irresponsible people who make a CONSCIOUS DECISION to drive drunk and put other people in danger behind the wheel of a 6000 lb "weapon". Why are you not taking all our cars away because of the irresponsible few?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fack.

 

Sending good thoughts.

 

Fuck is right----you Kidz wanna see what the Kalifornia's latest, despicable scum sucking useless p.o.s. looks like?.....

 

 

616_1330476276.jpg

 

 

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

 

 

 

Redondo Beach Murders

 

[uPDATE] Police have named a person of interest in the case. They're looking for 23-year-old Jonathan Chacon, the boyfriend of one of the murdered women. He drives a 1996 Ford Mustang.

 

===============

 

REDONDO BEACH (CNS) Two women were found slain today in an apartment in Redondo Beach, police said.

 

The bodies were found in the 1900 block of Rockefeller Lane shortly after 10 a.m. by someone who worked with one of the victims, Capt. Jeff Hink said.

 

"I'm not sure what led to her concern, but the fact remains she was concerned for one of the resident's welfare; so she came to the house,'' Hink said.

 

"I don't know if it's because the person didn't show up for work or what,'' he said.

 

Neighbor Laurie Lara told KCAL9 she didn't "know if it's someone out there on the loose,'' and that she and others in the ``tight-knit'' neighborhood were concerned.

 

The causes of death, if known, were not disclosed.

 

Police asked that anyone with more information about the homicides call the police tipline at (310) 937-6685, to text to (310) 339-2362, or send email to crimetipsredondo.org.

 

Read more: http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/NEWS.html#ixzz1njFkTTyu

 

I believe we are all responsible.

 

We are not responsible. Society is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a good read about days gone by and a fun pastime.

It makes me melancholy to reflect that our nation's general sickness makes the gun an anomaly.

 

Rick,it a real bitch about your family friends.

Yeah, the world we grew up in is kind of mutating but the powder in the crisp air still smells the same.

Johnyysaint is not gonna go pack a sandwich, but I will. Let's go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fack.

 

Sending good thoughts.

 

Fuck is right----you Kidz wanna see what the Kalifornia's latest, despicable scum sucking useless p.o.s. looks like?.....

 

 

616_1330476276.jpg

 

 

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

 

 

 

Redondo Beach Murders

 

[uPDATE] Police have named a person of interest in the case. They're looking for 23-year-old Jonathan Chacon, the boyfriend of one of the murdered women. He drives a 1996 Ford Mustang.

 

===============

 

REDONDO BEACH (CNS) Two women were found slain today in an apartment in Redondo Beach, police said.

 

The bodies were found in the 1900 block of Rockefeller Lane shortly after 10 a.m. by someone who worked with one of the victims, Capt. Jeff Hink said.

 

"I'm not sure what led to her concern, but the fact remains she was concerned for one of the resident's welfare; so she came to the house,'' Hink said.

 

"I don't know if it's because the person didn't show up for work or what,'' he said.

 

Neighbor Laurie Lara told KCAL9 she didn't "know if it's someone out there on the loose,'' and that she and others in the ``tight-knit'' neighborhood were concerned.

 

The causes of death, if known, were not disclosed.

 

Police asked that anyone with more information about the homicides call the police tipline at (310) 937-6685, to text to (310) 339-2362, or send email to crimetipsredondo.org.

 

Read more: http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/NEWS.html#ixzz1njFkTTyu

 

Before we get too invested in the meme. The killer actually looked like

 

8554117_600x338.jpg

 

Ex-husband of the mother, not the boyfriend of the daughter.

 

Dunno what we can do to prevent a similar situation occuring in the future - banning divorce?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I view the issue as societal, namely that more people view a gun as a solution to a problem, and THAT is the real problem. Having said that, a second problem is that guns make someone with marginal ability truly deadly. Messed up idiots don't try to take out his McDonalds/school/place of employment with a knife because someone would get the knife away from him and beat the living shit out of him before the cops showed up. With the gun they feel invincible, that or they believe they'll do their damage then check out with a painless bullet to the head. The easier it is to get a gun the easier it is for someone who is prone to use one to get one and use it. I honestly don't know how you balance that with those who acquire and use guns responsibly.

 

The difference between Swiss gun ownership and American gun ownership is that the Swiss generally do not want to (1) get rich or die trying, or (2) emulate TuPac or 50 Cent. But - I bet even the Swiss would be a bit confused by the American 'from my cold, dead hands'opinion of guns. Private citizens aren't allowed tanks, military aircraft or working artillery, so a line already has been drawn on what you can own. We're discussing whether that line needs to be moved a bit.

 

Canada has had our own psychos (École Polytechnique, Dawson College, Taber School shootings), so we have to find a solution too. While we have rules/bans on fully automatic rifles, assault rifles, armour piercing ammo, incendiary rounds (etc), we have no limits on magazine capacity for semi-automatic guns, so for someone bent on shooting up a school our guns are only slightly less lethal than those in the US.

 

To those who work on a farm or who are truly in the country, guns are a necessary tool. I don't know how you balance the needs of the many vs the lethality of the few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I view the issue as societal, namely that more people view a gun as a solution to a problem, and THAT is the real problem. Having said that, a second problem is that guns make someone with marginal ability truly deadly. Messed up idiots don't try to take out his McDonalds/school/place of employment with a knife because someone would get the knife away from him and beat the living shit out of him before the cops showed up. With the gun they feel invincible, that or they believe they'll do their damage then check out with a painless bullet to the head. The easier it is to get a gun the easier it is for someone who is prone to use one to get one and use it. I honestly don't know how you balance that with those who acquire and use guns responsibly.

 

The difference between Swiss gun ownership and American gun ownership is that the Swiss generally do not want to (1) get rich or die trying, or (2) emulate TuPac or 50 Cent. But - I bet even the Swiss would be a bit confused by the American 'from my cold, dead hands'opinion of guns. Private citizens aren't allowed tanks, military aircraft or working artillery, so a line already has been drawn on what you can own. We're discussing whether that line needs to be moved a bit.

 

Canada has had our own psychos (École Polytechnique, Dawson College, Taber School shootings), so we have to find a solution too. While we have rules/bans on fully automatic rifles, assault rifles, armour piercing ammo, incendiary rounds (etc), we have no limits on magazine capacity for semi-automatic guns, so for someone bent on shooting up a school our guns are only slightly less lethal than those in the US.

 

To those who work on a farm or who are truly in the country, guns are a necessary tool. I don't know how you balance the needs of the many vs the lethality of the few.

 

 

Nicely put mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we have rules/bans on fully automatic rifles, assault rifles, armour piercing ammo, incendiary rounds (etc), we have no limits on magazine capacity for semi-automatic guns, so for someone bent on shooting up a school our guns are only slightly less lethal than those in the US.

 

 

Actually, we do have limits on clips. Not sure it is worth much, because of course you can carry multiple clips.

 

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/bulletins/bus-ent/20110323-72-eng.htm

 

 

Example:

Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 rifle and 15-22P pistol chambered for 22LR caliber:

 

the 10 round magazine is unregulated

the 25 round magazine is a prohibited device

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure it made a lot of people feel good when that measure was passed. Some would argue that the moment someone has to switch magazines is the opportunity for a random hero to chuck a chair at the perpetrator or simply charge his ass, but how often in these situations does that actually occur?

 

Overall, and just as a general comment, I would suggest that the reason Canadians don't habitually go and shoot up office buildings and schools is because of a greater concentration of basically decent people, not necessarily because of it's hardware limitations.

 

If not for that damned 11th round, guns would be so much safer :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fack.

 

Sending good thoughts.

 

Fuck is right----you Kidz wanna see what the Kalifornia's latest, despicable scum sucking useless p.o.s. looks like?.....

 

 

616_1330476276.jpg

 

 

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

 

 

 

Redondo Beach Murders

 

[uPDATE] Police have named a person of interest in the case. They're looking for 23-year-old Jonathan Chacon, the boyfriend of one of the murdered women. He drives a 1996 Ford Mustang.

 

===============

 

REDONDO BEACH (CNS) Two women were found slain today in an apartment in Redondo Beach, police said.

 

The bodies were found in the 1900 block of Rockefeller Lane shortly after 10 a.m. by someone who worked with one of the victims, Capt. Jeff Hink said.

 

"I'm not sure what led to her concern, but the fact remains she was concerned for one of the resident's welfare; so she came to the house,'' Hink said.

 

"I don't know if it's because the person didn't show up for work or what,'' he said.

 

Neighbor Laurie Lara told KCAL9 she didn't "know if it's someone out there on the loose,'' and that she and others in the ``tight-knit'' neighborhood were concerned.

 

The causes of death, if known, were not disclosed.

 

Police asked that anyone with more information about the homicides call the police tipline at (310) 937-6685, to text to (310) 339-2362, or send email to crimetipsredondo.org.

 

Read more: http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/NEWS.html#ixzz1njFkTTyu

 

Before we get too invested in the meme. The killer actually looked like

 

8554117_600x338.jpg

 

Ex-husband of the mother, not the boyfriend of the daughter.

 

Dunno what we can do to prevent a similar situation occuring in the future - banning divorce?

 

 

Uhm, Noz? That is a completely different murder/suicide that happened last week. Same town but totally unrelated to yesterday's tragedy. Redondo is having a tuff February....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mexican police found this fuker early this morning hiding out in a Rosarita Beach motel, and have just turned him over to authorities at the border. Nice work by both country's LEOs.

W.F.D......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we have rules/bans on fully automatic rifles, assault rifles, armour piercing ammo, incendiary rounds (etc), we have no limits on magazine capacity for semi-automatic guns, so for someone bent on shooting up a school our guns are only slightly less lethal than those in the US.

 

 

Actually, we do have limits on clips. Not sure it is worth much, because of course you can carry multiple clips.

 

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/bulletins/bus-ent/20110323-72-eng.htm

 

 

Example:

Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 rifle and 15-22P pistol chambered for 22LR caliber:

 

the 10 round magazine is unregulated

the 25 round magazine is a prohibited device

 

I've got a 50 round banana clip for a Ruger 10-22

My 7 yr old loves wiping out chipmunks with it when we play 'Mogadishu' out in the yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

<snip>

 

Uhm, Noz? That is a completely different murder/suicide that happened last week. Same town but totally unrelated to yesterday's tragedy. Redondo is having a tuff February....

 

Yeah. I've now worked that out. Must be something in the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LeftHook- I'd assume if you've made it to college, somewhere along the way you've taken an American History class, and know how and why this country came to be.

 

Answer one question for me please. How is a dis-armed citizenry suppose to protect themselves from a tyrannical, corrupt, oppressive government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

<snip>

 

Uhm, Noz? That is a completely different murder/suicide that happened last week. Same town but totally unrelated to yesterday's tragedy. Redondo is having a tuff February....

 

Yeah. I've now worked that out. Must be something in the water.

 

 

 

Maybe it's just something about that street---- 'cuz ironically, the ex-husband also lived on Rockerfeller......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Hidden by Lee G, February 29, 2012 - .
Hidden by Lee G, February 29, 2012 - .

LeftHook- I'd assume if you've made it to college, somewhere along the way you've taken an American History class, and know how and why this country came to be.

 

Answer one question for me please. How is a dis-armed citizenry suppose to protect themselves from a tyrannical, corrupt, oppressive government?

 

In his mind, it is the govts job to protect us from ourselves, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post

LeftHook- I'd assume if you've made it to college, somewhere along the way you've taken an American History class, and know how and why this country came to be.

 

Answer one question for me please. How is a dis-armed citizenry suppose to protect themselves from a tyrannical, corrupt, oppressive government?

 

Partial disarmament is different than complete disarmament. I am advocating partial.

 

You can still defend yourself just fine with 1-3 rifles. Hell, most soldiers in the revolutionary or civil wars were lucky if they had two muskets! Why do you need 20 when 1-3 has done just fine for us so far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitting here discussing this I got to thinking about my second ammendment rights; that I can keep and bear arms. The following is a hypothetical discussion and I know how ridiculous it sounds but oftentimes taking things to an extreme is a valid way of making an argument. Please keep that in mind while responding. I do NOT have any desire to do anything I've outlined.

 

Anyways, second amendment... " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

Therefore, hypothetically, I should be able to keep and use nuclear weapons.

 

Is this not insane? "Nukes are dangerous and can kill millions of people" you say - you are correct. But say I have an overpowering urge to protect my property or hunt Bambi with a mile high fireball. Technically the constitution defends my ability to do so.

 

What's the difference between a split atom and a bullet?

 

Both are originally designed to kill, both are incredibly dangerous when they fall into the wrong hands, both can also (hypothetically) be used for sport and for self defense.

 

So if you take my nukes away because they are "incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands and were only designed to kill" then how is that different from taking a firearm away from someone? It has the same attributes as a giant bomb. They are (as proven in ohio) incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands, were in fact originally designed to kill. Besides scale how is that different from the fundamental attributes of a nuclear weapon? How different are 1 million guns from 1 nuclear weapon?

 

And as a second hypothetical discussion point:

 

If there are laws preventing me from owning a nuclear weapon aren't those laws unconstitutional due to a violation of my second amendment rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need a job, I'm sure that Sarah Brady can squeeze you in somewhere....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitting here discussing this I got to thinking about my second ammendment rights; that I can keep and bear arms. The following is a hypothetical discussion and I know how ridiculous it sounds but oftentimes taking things to an extreme is a valid way of making an argument. Please keep that in mind while responding. I do NOT have any desire to do anything I've outlined.

 

Anyways, second amendment... " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

Therefore, hypothetically, I should be able to keep and use nuclear weapons.

 

Is this not insane? "Nukes are dangerous and can kill millions of people" you say - you are correct. But say I have an overpowering urge to protect my property or hunt Bambi with a mile high fireball. Technically the constitution defends my ability to do so.

 

What's the difference between a split atom and a bullet?

 

Both are originally designed to kill, both are incredibly dangerous when they fall into the wrong hands, both can also (hypothetically) be used for sport and for self defense.

 

So if you take my nukes away because they are "incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands and were only designed to kill" then how is that different from taking a firearm away from someone? It has the same attributes as a giant bomb. They are (as proven in ohio) incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands, were in fact originally designed to kill. Besides scale how is that different from the fundamental attributes of a nuclear weapon? How different are 1 million guns from 1 nuclear weapon?

 

And as a second hypothetical discussion point:

 

If there are laws preventing me from owning a nuclear weapon aren't those laws unconstitutional due to a violation of my second amendment rights?

 

Who says laws against owning a nuke are constitutional?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the vernacular of the founders, "arms" are those weapons that a man can easily carry. Such as a musket, rifle, pistol, pike, sword.... Cannon and the like are "ordnance".

 

The latter is where your nuke comes in, ditto for all those bazooka and shoulder-fired SAM strawmen you control freaks keep bringing up.

 

I don't read about any gun rights advocacy groups asking for nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitting here discussing this I got to thinking about my second ammendment rights; that I can keep and bear arms. The following is a hypothetical discussion and I know how ridiculous it sounds but oftentimes taking things to an extreme is a valid way of making an argument. Please keep that in mind while responding. I do NOT have any desire to do anything I've outlined.

 

Anyways, second amendment... " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

Therefore, hypothetically, I should be able to keep and use nuclear weapons.

 

Is this not insane? "Nukes are dangerous and can kill millions of people" you say - you are correct. But say I have an overpowering urge to protect my property or hunt Bambi with a mile high fireball. Technically the constitution defends my ability to do so.

 

What's the difference between a split atom and a bullet?

 

Both are originally designed to kill, both are incredibly dangerous when they fall into the wrong hands, both can also (hypothetically) be used for sport and for self defense.

 

So if you take my nukes away because they are "incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands and were only designed to kill" then how is that different from taking a firearm away from someone? It has the same attributes as a giant bomb. They are (as proven in ohio) incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands, were in fact originally designed to kill. Besides scale how is that different from the fundamental attributes of a nuclear weapon? How different are 1 million guns from 1 nuclear weapon?

 

And as a second hypothetical discussion point:

 

If there are laws preventing me from owning a nuclear weapon aren't those laws unconstitutional due to a violation of my second amendment rights?

 

Who says laws against owning a nuke are constitutional?

He hasn't got to that chapter in the book yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitting here discussing this I got to thinking about my second ammendment rights; that I can keep and bear arms. The following is a hypothetical discussion and I know how ridiculous it sounds but oftentimes taking things to an extreme is a valid way of making an argument. Please keep that in mind while responding. I do NOT have any desire to do anything I've outlined.

 

Anyways, second amendment... " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

Therefore, hypothetically, I should be able to keep and use nuclear weapons.

 

Is this not insane? "Nukes are dangerous and can kill millions of people" you say - you are correct. But say I have an overpowering urge to protect my property or hunt Bambi with a mile high fireball. Technically the constitution defends my ability to do so.

 

What's the difference between a split atom and a bullet?

 

Both are originally designed to kill, both are incredibly dangerous when they fall into the wrong hands, both can also (hypothetically) be used for sport and for self defense.

 

So if you take my nukes away because they are "incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands and were only designed to kill" then how is that different from taking a firearm away from someone? It has the same attributes as a giant bomb. They are (as proven in ohio) incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands, were in fact originally designed to kill. Besides scale how is that different from the fundamental attributes of a nuclear weapon? How different are 1 million guns from 1 nuclear weapon?

 

And as a second hypothetical discussion point:

 

If there are laws preventing me from owning a nuclear weapon aren't those laws unconstitutional due to a violation of my second amendment rights?

 

Who says laws against owning a nuke are constitutional?

He hasn't got to that chapter in the book yet.

 

 

 

He needs to go visit you in England some day. I'll even chip in if you wanna give him an 0200 tour of the 'nicer' parts of town....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the book described the colonials standing their ground at Lexington and beating off the British (no offence), our revisionist constitutional scholar got excited and stopped there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the vernacular of the founders, "arms" are those weapons that a man can easily carry. Such as a musket, rifle, pistol, pike, sword.... Cannon and the like are "ordnance".

 

The latter is where your nuke comes in, ditto for all those bazooka and shoulder-fired SAM strawmen you control freaks keep bringing up.

 

I don't read about any gun rights advocacy groups asking for nukes.

 

The 'arms' bit makes sense, thanks for clarifying - I'm no constutional scholar... :blink:

 

And for the record I'm not a gun nut or a gun control advocate, I just think that we are living in a time where the federal governemnt assumes too much power and control over the way people live their lives - and its people like Wes that make it all possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the vernacular of the founders, "arms" are those weapons that a man can easily carry. Such as a musket, rifle, pistol, pike, sword.... Cannon and the like are "ordnance".

 

The latter is where your nuke comes in, ditto for all those bazooka and shoulder-fired SAM strawmen you control freaks keep bringing up.

 

I don't read about any gun rights advocacy groups asking for nukes.

 

Arms = Armaments. Show me a supreme court interpretation which says that it's limited to what a man can easily carry.

 

Nuclear weapon is an armament.

 

Besides, what a man can carry is very subjective. I'm sure that at his peak Arnold S could have lifted the actual warhead part of a nuclear weapon. And what about portable nukes? Have you ever heard of the Luna shoulder fired nukes that the USSR developed and our equivalent, the Davy Crockett W54 system. Those literally fit in a suitcase.

 

And yes, I should be allowed to, under the constitution, hypothetically carry Bazookas and SAM's as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the vernacular of the founders, "arms" are those weapons that a man can easily carry. Such as a musket, rifle, pistol, pike, sword.... Cannon and the like are "ordnance".

 

The latter is where your nuke comes in, ditto for all those bazooka and shoulder-fired SAM strawmen you control freaks keep bringing up.

 

I don't read about any gun rights advocacy groups asking for nukes.

 

Arms = Armaments.

 

Nuclear weapon is an armament.

 

Besides, what a man can carry is very subjective. I'm sure that at his peak Arnold S could have lifted the actual warhead part of a nuclear weapon. And what about portable nukes? Have you ever heard of the Luna shoulder fired nukes that the USSR developed and our equivalent, the Davy Crockett W54 system. Those literally fit in a suitcase.

 

And yes, I should be allowed to, under the constitution, hypothetically carry Bazookas and SAM's as well.

 

 

Wes? Ya know I love ya pal, but.......at this moment in your life? I honestly wouldn't trust you with (a) Daisy......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kids are resourceful. They don't need guns to try and kill teachers.

 

Is the problem objects? Or is the problem related to people? (Kids, parents, etc... )

 

Should we ban rat poison?

 

fifth-graders-suspended-for-trying-to-poison-teacher

 

Its interesting that the nine year old boy from Washington was charged with "unlawful possession of a gun, bringing a dangerous weapon to school and third-degree assault" -- criminal charges -- for what was essentially an accident.

 

Yet these 10- and 11-year-olds were merely suspended from school for a premeditated murder attempt.

 

It would seem there's some fixing to be done in the US judicial system...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wes? Ya know I love ya pal, but.......at this moment in your life? I honestly wouldn't trust you with (a) Daisy......

 

Blode_woman_with_a_plastic_gun_with_a_yellow_flower_on_the_barrel.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arms = Armaments. Show me a supreme court interpretation which says that it's limited to what a man can easily carry.

 

Nuclear weapon is an armament.

 

<snip>

 

And yes, I should be allowed to, under the constitution, hypothetically carry Bazookas and SAM's as well.

 

 

If you want to understand what the writers of the Constitution were saying, you must accept the definitions of the day rather than what all the modern-day analogies might be construed to mean.

 

To start with, there's US v. Miller defining a sawed-off shotgun as inconsistent with suitable weaponry of the militia. Things such as that and machine guns are more strictly controlled this or that way as "destructive" weapons (yes, I know, as if a handgun isn't destructive in it's own right). It's reasonable to extrapolate that if those things fail to match the intent of the founders, then certainly bazookas don't have a chance in hell of being accepted as "arms" within the context of the Second Amendmet.

 

But if YOU disagree then go forth through the system and make your case. The NRA et al aren't defending any such assumptions that we should have access to what the Founders called "ordnance".

 

Straw man away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LeftHook- I'd assume if you've made it to college, somewhere along the way you've taken an American History class, and know how and why this country came to be.

 

Answer one question for me please. How is a dis-armed citizenry suppose to protect themselves from a tyrannical, corrupt, oppressive government?

 

Partial disarmament is different than complete disarmament. I am advocating partial.

 

You can still defend yourself just fine with 1-3 rifles. Hell, most soldiers in the revolutionary or civil wars were lucky if they had two muskets! Why do you need 20 when 1-3 has done just fine for us so far?

 

There are many who do or don't live in highly populated areas and don't feel the need for using a gun for defense on such a level.The guns of many collectors aren't kept for defense,but for other reasons such as hunting,sport or competition shooting or primarily as a collection.Competitive rifle,pistol and shotgun shooters may have just a few guns initially,but usually that collection grows with new and old additions,with more then a few favorites.

 

The same with hunters,having the proper rifle,pistol or shotgun for the intended game,and their collections will grow as well and be quite varied.Then there are collectors like myself who used to shoot and still maintain their collections.You would be amazed at the size of some of the impressive collections I've seen over the years,more then a few handed down from their forefathers.

 

Some of the guns in our collection have been handed down generation to generation,with some dating back six generations.Others are guns built by my great-grandfather & grandfather that were handed down to my father,then on to me.I plan to hand these guns down to my sons,some of which I already have.Some of these are still used,others haven't been used in over 50-75 years or more.It's a collection and a family heritage,and that's what such collections are about,heritage and history of our forefathers.It's also about respecting and honoring those traditions and heritage,and respecting rights that go along with gun ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting interpretation of the issues by an ACLU attorney -

 

http://www.guncite.com/journals/embar.html

 

Actually, I like that site in general. You might read the whole thing and still come away wanting to strictly regulate firearms, but, you'd at least know what today's gun owners are - and are not - fighting for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following your logic there then lets discuss suitable weaponry of the militia.

 

How many semi automatic weapons existed during the times of the founders? At the time of the writing of the constitution a firearm consisted of a single shot, muzzle loaded, black powder musket or pistol. Today we have rifles which can hold upwards of 25 rounds that can be emptied in a matter of seconds and pistols that hold 10+ rounds and can be used in the same fashion. Are those not also inconsistent with suitable weaponry of the militia? Are they not "destructive" weapons?

 

A further point with the nukes. If nuclear weapons are, as you say, incredibly dangerous because they are far more powerful than a gun then you're right. There are 192,000,000 firearms in the us. If a nuclear weapon could kill, say, 1 million people then that would equate to 192 nukes floating around in private hands in the US. Sure some of them may be used for sport or as collection but they're inherently designed for killing just like guns. Since you feel that these nukes are not covered under the second amendment then you would say they should be taken away. How is a person having 1 nuke that can kill a million people different from a person having 1 million guns which can kill 1 person each? Would you not endeavor to take his guns away because, even if they're used peacefully, he can't have that one nuke even if it was intended to be used peacefully?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LeftHook- I'd assume if you've made it to college, somewhere along the way you've taken an American History class, and know how and why this country came to be.

 

Answer one question for me please. How is a dis-armed citizenry suppose to protect themselves from a tyrannical, corrupt, oppressive government?

 

Partial disarmament is different than complete disarmament. I am advocating partial.

 

You can still defend yourself just fine with 1-3 rifles. Hell, most soldiers in the revolutionary or civil wars were lucky if they had two muskets! Why do you need 20 when 1-3 has done just fine for us so far?

 

There are many who do or don't live in highly populated areas and don't feel the need for using a gun for defense on such a level.The guns of many collectors aren't kept for defense,but for other reasons such as hunting,sport or competition shooting or primarily as a collection.Competitive rifle,pistol and shotgun shooters may have just a few guns initially,but usually that collection grows with new and old additions,with more then a few favorites.

 

The same with hunters,having the proper rifle,pistol or shotgun for the intended game,and their collections will grow as well and be quite varied.Then there are collectors like myself who used to shoot and still maintain their collections.You would be amazed at the size of some of the impressive collections I've seen over the years,more then a few handed down from their forefathers.

 

Some of the guns in our collection have been handed down generation to generation,with some dating back six generations.Others are guns built by my great-grandfather & grandfather that were handed down to my father,then on to me.I plan to hand these guns down to my sons,some of which I already have.Some of these are still used,others haven't been used in over 50-75 years or more.It's a collection and a family heritage,and that's what such collections are about,heritage and history of our forefathers.It's also about respecting and honoring those traditions and heritage,and respecting rights that go along with gun ownership.

 

I wouldn't oppose collecting weapons either so long as they're made safe. In my book if you render the weapon unusable (either removing the firing pin or some other method) then you can have a collection of thousands. Sentimental and historical value are incredibly important and I wouldn't try to keep anyone from maintaining that.

 

Though if they insist on having some be operational then they would have to choose between owning sentimental functioning weapons and non-sentimental functioning weapons.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1st is to start by banning the sale of the affected weapons.

Doesn't work. The 1994 "assault weapon" bill proved it. California's misguided (and very fluid) "assault weapon" laws continue to prove it. The problem is that those bans address cosmetic characteristics. There is absolutely no functional difference between an AR-15 "assault weapon" and a Remington "woodsmaster" hunting rifle. So, either you're going to have to find a way to ban everything that has a bullet come out the end, or you're going to be swirling the drain for a really long time trying to define a new "cosmetic attribute" faster than the manufacturers can work around you. It's a complete non-starter.

 

Not to mention the fact that "banning the sale" assumes that it was a lawful sale which resulted in the bad person being in possession of a gun. Point to any of the gun-related tragedies that have occurred in the recent past, and see if you can find the lawful sale that took place. Hint: the bad guys don't get their guns by buying them. So "banning the sale" of them is destined to have exactly zero-point-zero-zero percent chance of solving the problem.

 

2nd is to collect the ones already out there... which is tough.

...and, there it is. The be-all-and-all solution. If you don't like a thing, pass a law to make it illegal for every one to have one of those things. I believe they tried that with alcohol.... how'd that go? Yeah, sure, it is theoretically possible that some color-inside-the-lines people decided to stop drinking alcohol "just because" it was prohibited. But far more of the population chose to keep drinking as they had been, and a whole underbelly of society took advantage of the situation. So... what stretch of logic would make you think that would work with the 200-million or so guns believed to be lawfully owned right now in the US? Sure, maybe some straight-arrow types would turn them in.

 

I wouldn't. For a whole host of reasons. Ignoring that whole pesky 2nd-amendment thing, which unequivocally recognizes the "right of the people" in this regard, there is no legal justification to take away my guns (absent a criminal act), any more than there is legal justification to seize my car, my house, or my collection of vintage vinyl. It is just a "thing", which I legally bought, legally own and is protected as my "property". Forget the 2nd, such "collect the ones out there" would run afoul of (at least) the 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments. I'm sure if you think of property *you* own, you'll agree that the government has no unilateral right to just "collect" it at their whim.

 

But even that misses the point. Let's say they did manage to pass a law saying "guns are now illegal, turn them in". Who do you suppose is going to turn them in? By definition, it will be "the people who obey laws". Not the criminals, the rapists, the bank robbers, the theives, the muggers, the mass murderers.... *those* guys will have whatever guns they want, in defiance of any passed law, because, well, they don't care about the law anyway.

 

So... your proposal has pragmatic issues, consistutional issues, legal issues, logical issues and a complete functional disconnect with the problem you claim you're trying to solve.

 

Good try, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LeftHook- I'd assume if you've made it to college, somewhere along the way you've taken an American History class, and know how and why this country came to be.

 

Answer one question for me please. How is a dis-armed citizenry suppose to protect themselves from a tyrannical, corrupt, oppressive government?

 

Partial disarmament is different than complete disarmament. I am advocating partial.

 

You can still defend yourself just fine with 1-3 rifles. Hell, most soldiers in the revolutionary or civil wars were lucky if they had two muskets! Why do you need 20 when 1-3 has done just fine for us so far?

 

There are many who do or don't live in highly populated areas and don't feel the need for using a gun for defense on such a level.The guns of many collectors aren't kept for defense,but for other reasons such as hunting,sport or competition shooting or primarily as a collection.Competitive rifle,pistol and shotgun shooters may have just a few guns initially,but usually that collection grows with new and old additions,with more then a few favorites.

 

The same with hunters,having the proper rifle,pistol or shotgun for the intended game,and their collections will grow as well and be quite varied.Then there are collectors like myself who used to shoot and still maintain their collections.You would be amazed at the size of some of the impressive collections I've seen over the years,more then a few handed down from their forefathers.

 

Some of the guns in our collection have been handed down generation to generation,with some dating back six generations.Others are guns built by my great-grandfather & grandfather that were handed down to my father,then on to me.I plan to hand these guns down to my sons,some of which I already have.Some of these are still used,others haven't been used in over 50-75 years or more.It's a collection and a family heritage,and that's what such collections are about,heritage and history of our forefathers.It's also about respecting and honoring those traditions and heritage,and respecting rights that go along with gun ownership.

 

I wouldn't oppose collecting weapons either so long as they're made safe. In my book if you render the weapon unusable (either removing the firing pin or some other method) then you can have a collection of thousands. Sentimental and historical value are incredibly important and I wouldn't try to keep anyone from maintaining that.

 

Though if they insist on having some be operational then they would have to choose between owning sentimental functioning weapons and non-sentimental functioning weapons.

 

Yeah, and all my rich friends with zillion dollar Ferrari, Porsche, Lambo and Maseratti collections disable their cars by filling in the ignition switches with JB Weld. Thereby rendering them....inoperable.

 

Boy? Now you're really starting to fuking scare me. Your mindset, your political views, your desire to control others and your total naivette about Life are faaaaaar more dangerous to me and mine than any legal gun collector in America is.

 

Just. F'ng. Wow, I thought we had cut off the head of the Medusa that is East Coast College Liberalism back in the mid 90's....but I was obviously wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the militia members' rifles were superior to what the Continental Army had - smooth bore muskets. So, yes, some might take the position that we are entitled to keep and bear rifles on par with what the current foot soldier might be issued. "I" have not advocated the same at this point though that's why the 2nd Amendment isn't necessarily limited to a Brown Bess. And "I" didn't determine the classification of what a destructive weapon is.

 

Are the aggregate ownership of guns by regular citizens, who are not felons etc, as powerful as an A-bomb? Let's hope so. I don't mind if my government has in the back of it's collective mind a latent fear of it's people in good standing. If you'd brush up on your US and world history you'd see that it's kind of the point. It's not about duck hunting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the fuck is buying more than 1 handgun a month?!

 

Us responsible gun owners/collectors/investors/enthusiasts/hobbyists who have perfectly clean records.....

 

Huh? Someone call my name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I know. I know that the news is filled every day with tragic stories of accidents and murders where peoples lives are ended by fools with guns, I know that our country has the highest death-by-firearms rate in the world, I know that there are terrifying amount of unsecured weapons out there and I know that more and more are made and sold every day.

 

These facts have influenced me to develop the opinions that I hold regarding the usefulness of our current system of firearm ownership. No indoctrination, political views or naivety about it. The only influences on me have been statistics and mathematics, pure and simple.

 

If a love for human life and a desire to have a clean moral conscience makes me some monstrous East Coast College Liberal then so be it. I know what my vote is going to be for come this November and every following November. That's my opinion and it's not changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the fuck is buying more than 1 handgun a month?!

 

Us responsible gun owners/collectors/investors/enthusiasts/hobbyists who have perfectly clean records.....

 

Huh? Someone call my name?

 

What? Never been tried on armed robbery or murder charges? How could that possibly be, since handguns are made soley for killing? Methinks you're not doing it right..... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sitting here discussing this I got to thinking about my second ammendment rights; that I can keep and bear arms. The following is a hypothetical discussion and I know how ridiculous it sounds but oftentimes taking things to an extreme is a valid way of making an argument. Please keep that in mind while responding. I do NOT have any desire to do anything I've outlined.

 

Anyways, second amendment... " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

Therefore, hypothetically, I should be able to keep and use nuclear weapons.

 

Is this not insane? "Nukes are dangerous and can kill millions of people" you say - you are correct. But say I have an overpowering urge to protect my property or hunt Bambi with a mile high fireball. Technically the constitution defends my ability to do so.

 

It's a very fun straw-man frequently posed by the anti-gun crowd. Congratulations, you've sipped the cool-aid. It's not only a logical FAIL, it is a historical FAIL, too.

 

There are plenty of contemporary writings about the 2nd amendment. You could start with the Federalist papers, if you're interested. The intent of the 2nd was to ensure that the average citizen had the right to keep and bear whatever the average regular-army trooper kept and bore. The average regular-army trooper today doesn't carry tactical nukes. He (or she) carries a full-auto carbine or a large-bore battle-rifle, and a sidearm.

 

I'd be fine with that.

 

ObNote, historically speaking, in the time of the constitution there was nothing in the law of the land that prevented private ownership of cannons, howitzers, mortars, war-ships and the like. I don't think the 2nd protects those... but if we want to delve into the true meaning of the 2nd amendment, I'd certainly have no objection to that conversation.

 

Again, as you've already observed (but not admitted), it isn't the object that matters, it's the intent of the person holding it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Following your logic there then lets discuss suitable weaponry of the militia.

 

How many semi automatic weapons existed during the times of the founders?

 

Another highly entertaining but completely specious red-herring.

 

How many laser printers existed at the time of the founders? personal computers? websites, blogs, online media outlets? Gossip magazines? Perez Hilton?

 

Are you suggesting that those things are NOT protected by the 1st amendment, because they didn't exist when it was written?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following your logic there then lets discuss suitable weaponry of the militia.

 

How many semi automatic weapons existed during the times of the founders? At the time of the writing of the constitution a firearm consisted of a single shot, muzzle loaded, black powder musket or pistol. Today we have rifles which can hold upwards of 25 rounds that can be emptied in a matter of seconds and pistols that hold 10+ rounds and can be used in the same fashion. Are those not also inconsistent with suitable weaponry of the militia? Are they not "destructive" weapons?

 

A further point with the nukes. If nuclear weapons are, as you say, incredibly dangerous because they are far more powerful than a gun then you're right. There are 192,000,000 firearms in the us. If a nuclear weapon could kill, say, 1 million people then that would equate to 192 nukes floating around in private hands in the US. Sure some of them may be used for sport or as collection but they're inherently designed for killing just like guns. Since you feel that these nukes are not covered under the second amendment then you would say they should be taken away. How is a person having 1 nuke that can kill a million people different from a person having 1 million guns which can kill 1 person each? Would you not endeavor to take his guns away because, even if they're used peacefully, he can't have that one nuke even if it was intended to be used peacefully?

So you think if the need should arise we should defend ourselves with pikes, and muskets? Genius.

The whole point of the second amendment is an extension of the checks and balances, whereas it keeps the government not in complete control, where the citizens have a course of action should the republic fail them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I know. I know that the news is filled every day with tragic stories of accidents and murders where peoples lives are ended by fools with guns, I know that our country has the highest death-by-firearms rate in the world, I know that there are terrifying amount of unsecured weapons out there and I know that more and more are made and sold every day.

 

These facts have influenced me to develop the opinions that I hold regarding the usefulness of our current system of firearm ownership. No indoctrination, political views or naivety about it. The only influences on me have been statistics and mathematics, pure and simple.

 

If a love for human life and a desire to have a clean moral conscience makes me some monstrous East Coast College Liberal then so be it. I know what my vote is going to be for come this November and every following November. That's my opinion and it's not changing.

 

Not even top 10 matey....might wanna check those stats....from your favorite source...

 

This is a historical list of countries by firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year.

 

And once you remove suicide stats....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With intent to kill...

 

A gun is only one way to kill.

 

There are numerous different ways to kill someone.

 

Off the top of my head,can think of more then 30 ways to kill someone by no other means then my hands...by some of those means they will die quickly...with some of those means they will die within a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A gun is only one way to kill.

 

There are numerous different ways to kill someone.

 

Off the top of my head,can think of more then 30 ways to kill someone by no other means then my hands.

 

Add 22 more ways if you're a Navy Seal.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come in guys. Our man with his pulse on the nation knows what he knows. No use confusing an expert with facts and citations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really need to raise the voting age to about 37 I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
some monstrous East Coast College Liberal then so be it. I know what my vote is going to be for come this November and every following November.

 

Wow. With due (?) respect, that's more frightening than anything else you've written in this thread. For at least two reasons.

 

1) Assuming that what you say is your true feeling now, you will be voting for a social agenda which has a stated intent to make things more "fair". On the surface, that seems reasonable. But just under the surface it becomes clear that "fair" means taking away - by force of law - from the people who actually work hard and produce things, in order to redistribute - as an "entitlement" - to whoever they think "deserves" it. That may sound really reasonable when you are in college and on the "deserving" end of the program. Trust me, though, when you are out of school and earning a living and raising a family and trying to "be a productive member of society", maybe even trying to tuck away enough to buy your own boat, having the government take 30-40-50% of your earnings and "give" them to someone "less fortunate" than you is... considerably less attractive. Especially when that person is "less fortunate" by choice, having decided that it is easier to live off government handouts than it is to, you know, have a job and all that bothersome stuff. Be really careful what you wish for, because if there aren't enough "producers" to pay for those who can't or won't work, it's all going to fall apart... and probably on your watch, not mine. Do the math... the "fairness" scheme is a ponzi scam. And

 

2) Wow, 18? 19? That's a really young age to be so closed-minded. I've never yet reached the point where I feel I have nothing more to learn and nothing more to gain by listening to other people. I have my values, sure, but more than that I have the ability to think and judge and reason. I would be... really sad, if your mind was so made up that you were closed to all other viewpoints for "every following November" to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Kidz, here's an idea-----can any of you guys out near Wes-Land take our young, naive librul to a nice, outdoor shooting range for a day? And let him play with a wide variety of different toys? Just say the word and you can count me in for $10.00....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really need to raise the voting age to about 37 I think.

 

and don't let them drive till they're 30...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really need to raise the voting age to about 37 I think.

 

and don't let them drive till there 30...

 

And procreate until they are 30 too....wait, in Wes' case that wont be a problem :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like he will vote the "Party Line" forever.

 

Between puking on the liferaft and voting the party line forever, we (as Americans) do not need enemies..

 

Sail Safe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites