• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
By the lee

Gun control

Recommended Posts

If not now, when?

Quote

“I was putting my backpack away and I heard a loud pop, and I turned around. He was walking around,” Elisa Vigil said. “He had his pistol. His face was completely passive. He shot someone in the head. I crouched down in the hall. I looked up and a girl screamed, ‘Help me, help me, help me.’ The hall was empty. She was shot in the back. I looked to my right, and there was a boy and he was shot in the head.”

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/sep/13/shooting-reported-at-freeman-high-school/#/0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, By the lee said:

We definitely should have laws against 15 year olds carrying pistols and bringing them into schools. Also we should have laws against students bringing rifles into schools. We should also make it illegal to shoot other people.

 

Finally if they want to solve the drug problem in schools they should make drugs illegal to sell and/or possess on school grounds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2017 at 10:52 PM, By the lee said:

How many more children, Mr. Squirrel. How many more?

so what you're saying here is that gun laws would have prevented this? 

another words this poor young thing broke no laws in the commission of shooting innocent children. because of course he would not break a law in order to commit this act? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, avenger79 said:

so what you're saying here is that gun laws would have prevented this? 

A law requiring safe, ie locked, storage could have prevented access to the firearms used in this crime. 

But I realize such concepts are an anathema to most Americans steeped in the mythology of violence and blood they and their country were weaned on.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

41 minutes ago, By the lee said:

 

But I realize such concepts are an anathema to most Americans steeped in the mythology of violence and blood they and their country were weaned on.   

Jfc, don't let your imagination run away with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, By the lee said:

A law requiring safe, ie locked, storage could have prevented access to the firearms used in this crime. 

But I realize such concepts are an anathema to most Americans steeped in the mythology of violence and blood they and their country were weaned on.   

#1- As mentioned earlier... take it to PA

#2- I own more than one gun. When one is not on my person it is under lock and key. Most of the people I shoot with do the same. It seems that many of the incidents occur from people that are not serious about the weapons and do not secure them as they should. Unfortunately common sense is not so common. People leave prescription drugs where their kids can find them, alcohol is readily accessible, car keys left on the table. If you look up the stats for the fatalities involved in these, they are incredibly high.

Its a tragic series of events that lead to something like this and my thoughts and prayers go out to the families.

 

WL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 9/14/2017 at 6:58 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Who can identify a .22 matching Joseph Pelleteri's illegal assault weapon in this picture?

marlins-99.jpg

Tom just entered his tenth month of angst about .22's being assault weapons. He used to be a worthwhile read IMO.

He wants to talk about gun control.

Shootings like the topic one have repeatedly led to "assault weapons" bans.

Whether or not either of those is an assault weapon is a gun control question.

By the way, since you own the assault weapon model in question, you're disqualified from answering my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

He wants to talk about gun control.

Shootings like the topic one have repeatedly led to "assault weapons" bans.

Whether or not either of those is an assault weapon is a gun control question.

By the way, since you own the assault weapon model in question, you're disqualified from answering my question.

1) Nothing personal against Pelletiri, but just what is your problem with letting New Jersey voters decide firepower limitations for themselves? 

2) You need to read some book soon, one that will improve your forum content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

1) Nothing personal against Pelletiri, but just what is your problem with letting New Jersey voters decide firepower limitations for themselves? 

I don't think your gun is a "dangerous and unusual" weapon that merits banning. I think it's an ordinary rifle and just fine for possession by members of the general public.

You apparently agree. If you truly agreed with New Jersey that your gun should be banned, you would get rid of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I don't think your gun is a "dangerous and unusual" weapon that merits banning. I think it's an ordinary rifle and just fine for possession by members of the general public.

 

That's swell, Tom. But you seem confused about democracy. And you dodged the question.  Just what is your problem with letting New Jersey voters decide firepower limitations for themselves? 

Quote

You apparently agree. If you truly agreed with New Jersey that your gun should be banned, you would get rid of it.

 

  • Sorry, what you think has no bearing on the laws of NJ. If you don't like their laws, don't take Grannie's .22 there.
  • NJ laws have no bearing on the legal status of my firearm in WA. 
  • NJ voters are "us, the people" and they get to fabricate their own NJ firearms restrictions, in a free country.
  • This is nothing new. Get over it.
  • Take what you think (CATO's dogma) to the state ballot box in FL. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Just what is your problem with letting New Jersey voters decide firepower limitations for themselves? 

I think that banning common rifles like yours is a choice that the constitution takes off the table.

Much like this summer's planned confiscation program in California. I agree with what the judge said about it.

On 6/30/2017 at 4:44 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Uncooperative Federal Judge

Quote

 

A federal judge has temporarily blocked a voter-approved California law that would have forced gun owners to get rid of high-capacity ammunition magazines by this Saturday.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who is based in San Diego, issued a preliminary injunction Thursday that found the law was likely unconstitutional because it prevented people from using firearms that employed “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation.” The law would have barred people from possessing magazines containing more than 10 bullets.

“The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read.

 

 

 

 


We know from proposals in NY, WA, FL, and elsewhere that the real number that currently defines a "high" capacity magazine is seven, not ten. But that's only because they haven't tried five yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I think that banning common rifles like yours is a choice that the constitution takes off the table.

Much like this summer's planned confiscation program in California. I agree with what the judge said about it.

 

Did the judge's ruling disturb the similar LCM law in CT? Or the Highland Park AW ban from 2015?

Your thinking and conjecture is nice, but NJ and CA had a right to make those state laws, so they're on the books now. Constitutionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2017 at 0:36 PM, jocal505 said:

but just what is your problem with letting New Jersey voters decide firepower limitations for themselves? 

How about letting Mississippi voters decide on the limits of slavery too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Did the judge's ruling disturb the similar LCM law in CT? Or the Highland Park AW ban from 2015?

Your thinking and conjecture is nice, but NJ and CA had a right to make those state laws, so they're on the books now. Constitutionally.

Actually, there is an injunction blocking enforcement of this summer's confiscation program in California. It's on the books now, invalidating the program. Constitutionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

How about letting Mississippi voters decide on the limits of slavery too?

The idea of "popularity test" constitutionality was covered in Kolbe (as they removed constitutional protection from AWs).

How about letting AW owners, 1% of the population, claim "common use" of AW's? (The 4th circuit yucked it up that the average AW owner owns three of them...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Actually, there is an injunction blocking enforcement of this summer's confiscation program in California. It's on the books now, invalidating the program. Constitutionally.

Why are you repeatedly boasting about a temporary preliminary injunction? This law was not reversed or quashed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jocal505 said:
Quote

You apparently agree. If you truly agreed with New Jersey that your gun should be banned, you would get rid of it.

 

  • Sorry, what you think has no bearing on the laws of NJ. If you don't like their laws, don't take Grannie's .22 there.

You clearly don't like their laws or you would demonstrate your agreement by getting rid of your assault weapon.

So why don't you like their laws? Why do you think your assault weapon is something appropriate for someone like yourself to own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Glad to see this was moved from General Anarchy and also glad to see a thread on this topic with an honest title.

Yes it is about controlling the number of guns lying around.You say that like it is a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LB 15 said:

Yes it is about controlling the number of guns lying around.You say that like it is a bad thing.

I know you're fine with being prohibited from purchasing a cool plinker like my wife's Ruger 10-22 but I'm not, so yes, prohibiting them is a bad thing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You clearly don't like their laws or you would demonstrate your agreement by getting rid of your assault weapon.

So why don't you like their laws? Why do you think your assault weapon is something appropriate for someone like yourself to own?

While you were diddling yourself you decided I don't  the NJ law which you presented. You have misunderstood something about democracy.

If the NJ voters like their law, the constitution and I like it too. If CA likes their Peruta law, the SC likes it too.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So joke-al, what about those Mississippi slavery laws that the voters want?  They should be able to decide for themselves, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2017 at 8:41 PM, By the lee said:

A law requiring safe, ie locked, storage could have prevented access to the firearms used in this crime. 

But I realize such concepts are an anathema to most Americans steeped in the mythology of violence and blood they and their country were weaned on.   

well, we don't quite have that law here, although we do sign documents when we purchase a firearm stating we understand if that gun is used in the commission of a crime by a minor we will be held responsible. 

that is enough for me to ensure my guns are locked up or in my hands at all times. 

as WL said most responsible gun owners are the same. my guns are secured in a very well built gun safe lag bolted to studs and not on a main floor. 

but you see on the news all the time how the baby just happened to open the glove box and pull out mom's handgun and pull the trigger. problem is, the next thing they say is "it was deemed and accidental shooting" nope start charging them. (the mom not the kid)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2017 at 11:28 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

So joke-al, what about those Mississippi slavery laws that the voters want?  They should be able to decide for themselves, right?

The constitution's application is there to step in, Shirley. The SC's Heller decision has come in handy. And the 2015 SAFE Act was decreed "constitutional" on appeal in two higher court levels.

But since you mention this voter thing, have any concern about Trump's election commission? Both you and Pooplius quoted this person recently.

The "Oldest Civil Rights Organization's" stooge said what?

Quote

 long on rhetoric, short on integrity

(covering last week's  meeting of Trump's Election Commission)

One particularly egregious presentation was given by Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center. Relying on data from 1996 to 2004, Lott made the case that citizens should have a thorough background check — like the one used for purchasing a firearm — in order to vote. Leaving aside how ridiculous that analogy is, we are already regularly checking many different data sources to keep our voter rolls up-to-date.

We verify voter information through sources such as the United States Social Security Administration, state Department of Licensing, Department of Corrections, King County Vital Statistics, the United States Postal Service, obituaries, and many others. We are part of a 21-state consortium called the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) that matches voter registration data and helps states update their databases when people move.
 

All background checks would do is create another barrier to voting, which is clearly what the commission members are after.

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/trumps-election-commission-long-on-rhetoric-short-on-integrity/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, avenger79 said:

. as WL said most responsible gun owners are the same. my guns are secured in a very well built gun safe lag bolted to studs and not on a main floor. 

I doubt most American gun owners who "think" they are responsible store them like yours.

You know, they're in the back of the closet or nightstand drawer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, By the lee said:

I doubt most American gun owners who "think" they are responsible store them like yours.

You know, they're in the back of the closet or nightstand drawer.

I would not argue with you on that point, however not all of those who store them incorrectly will have an issue either. 

at the end of the day, people simply have to be held accountable for their own actions. it is not a normal thing for a kid to go shoot up a school. I have had guns in my bedroom since I was 11 years old and never once thought about shooting another person. 

it is not the gun that creates a killer, it is a killer who finds a way. if we remove the gun, they will find a knife. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, avenger79 said:

it is not the gun that creates a killer, it is a killer who finds a way. if we remove the gun, they will find a knife. 

 

and the impact to lethality would be????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, avenger79 said:

. I have had guns in my bedroom since I was 11 years old and never once thought about shooting another person. 

it is not the gun that creates a killer, it is a killer who finds a way. if we remove the gun, they will find a knife. 

 

Wow these are very original points you make. None of your fellow gun nuts have ever mentioned them in any of the 45 gazillion posted about tools on PA. Also congratulations on surviving your childhood. Are your parents off the meth yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Wow these are very original points you make. None of your fellow gun nuts have ever mentioned them in any of the 45 gazillion posted about tools on PA. Also congratulations on surviving your childhood. Are your parents off the meth yet?

Chill LB, no doubt Grampaw taught him to shoot safely when he was 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, avenger79 said:

I would not argue with you on that point, however not all of those who store them incorrectly will have an issue either. 

I have had guns in my bedroom since I was 11 years old and never once thought about shooting another person. i

I agree, I lived the same way growing up in midwest. 

Quote

at the end of the day, people simply have to be held accountable for their own actions. it is not a normal thing for a kid to go shoot up a school.

But given its track record vis-a-vis the rest of the developed world it seems obvious America's laissez faire approach to gun ownership has serious issues.

Quote

t is not the gun that creates a killer, it is a killer who finds a way. if we remove the gun, they will find a knife. 

Yeah ok you're gonna' do a lot less damage w/a knife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Wow these are very original points you make. None of your fellow gun nuts have ever mentioned them in any of the 45 gazillion posted about tools on PA. Also congratulations on surviving your childhood. Are your parents off the meth yet?

hmm already to the name calling. 

what would new gun laws do that the old gun laws don't do? I guess you aren't making any original points either. 

same old rhetoric time after time if only it was illegal to have a gun.

 

well it is illegal to kill people, doesn't seem to stop folks from killing one another. 

it was illegal for the shooter to have a gun in his possession didn't seem to stop him. 

it is illegal to have a gun on school property nope that one didn't work either.

 

but now you have the magic law that will make all the murders stop overnight. tell us how you gonna do that? do you realize how many guns in this country are not accounted for? do you know that with very little skill one can build an operating firearm? how do you think you will remove guns from our society?

 oh that's right, just make every legal gun owner pay $1000 per year per gun to have them, because criminals will surely pay theirs as well right? what would you stop with that? absolutely nothing. but than the big bad rich folk will have to pay more tax right?

you do realize that criminal by the very nature of who and what they are will break your new gun laws just like they did your old ones right? I mean after all it is illegal for convicted felons to have guns today and yet how often do we see on the news that a convicted felon shot someone?  

 

and yes I have been shooting since I was a young child. I enjoy it, I do it safely and I am not about to easily give up that right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speeders will always speed. I'm one of them sometimes. But the speed limit signs still mean something. I picked up two tickets in two years. Time for me to pay attention to the law.

Hi Avenger 79, thanks for your participation. We've had many gun threads, but you could easily up our game.  Any person with decent reading habits could make a better presentation than we've seen. 

If there is one pro-gun scholar a cut above the rest, it's Eugene Volokh, the boy genius libertarian guy. Go read a few of his pro-gun articles and get back to us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, avenger79 said:

but now you have the magic law that will make all the murders stop overnight. tell us how you gonna do that?

Been shooting magic bullets since you were five??

The goal is, oh,  a 3% decrease in gunshot wounds in ERs. The goal is any steady shift or trend away from the acceptance of (and planning of) lethal violence on a daily basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, avenger79 said:

well, we don't quite have that law here, although we do sign documents when we purchase a firearm stating we understand if that gun is used in the commission of a crime by a minor we will be held responsible. 

that is enough for me to ensure my guns are locked up or in my hands at all times. 

as WL said most responsible gun owners are the same. my guns are secured in a very well built gun safe lag bolted to studs and not on a main floor. 

but you see on the news all the time how the baby just happened to open the glove box and pull out mom's handgun and pull the trigger. problem is, the next thing they say is "it was deemed and accidental shooting" nope start charging them. (the mom not the kid)

 

 

Agree with all that.  Especially the signing the liability disclaimer that they take responsibility for the negligent use of the tool.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, avenger79 said:

it is not the gun that creates a killer, it is a killer who finds a way. if we remove the gun, they will find a refrigerated box truck

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Raz'r said:
18 hours ago, avenger79 said:

t is not the gun that creates a killer, it is a killer who finds a way. if we remove the gun, they will find a Refrigerated Box Truck

 

and the impact to lethality would be????

Uh, about 80+ dead.  Quite a bit more than most mass shootings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Uh, about 80+ dead.  Quite a bit more than most mass shootings.

Makes you look perty good at the moment, Chief. Bask in it. Shine away, strut around a bit. Take your wife out to dinner to celebrate. Stand on your chair and tell the world. You are not the shortest midget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Speeders will always speed. I'm one of them sometimes. But the speed limit signs still mean something. I picked up two tickets in two years. Time for me to pay attention to the law.

Hi Avenger 79, thanks for your participation. We've had many gun threads, but you could easily up our game.  Any person with decent reading habits could make a better presentation than we've seen. 

If there is one pro-gun scholar a cut above the rest, it's Eugene Volokh, the boy genius libertarian guy. Go read a few of his pro-gun articles and get back to us. 

when I need an English lesson I'll be sure to look you up. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 this thread was fun when it was in GA. I have no desire to beat my head against a wall in PA, 

enjoy all. I will be out shooting the new trap gun this evening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, avenger79 said:

 this thread was fun when it was in GA. I have no desire to beat my head against a wall in PA, 

enjoy all. I will be out shooting the new trap gun this evening. 

I am going sailing. But you have fun big guy.

 

IMG_6218.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, avenger79 said:

when I need an English lesson I'll be sure to look you up. :rolleyes:

If you want great writing, you'll find it in my quote blocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, LB 15 said:

I am going sailing. But you have fun big guy.

 

IMG_6218.JPG

ah huh ah huh. you sure got me there buddy. one would think 6 days a week in the gym as well as long distance rides on bicycles and the occasional obstacle course run would keep me in better shape, but nope there I am. 

 and look at that you even found a pic of my "trap gun" yep I always use my AR for trap. 

I wonder is your ignorance of firearms actually that deep that you think an AR would be used for trap, or is your attempt at humor that lame? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while I managed to have found my way back here let me ask this. Would it be better if we controlled the child instead of the guns?

I mean this seriously, we have a couple that we go out to eat with now and than. They have a child, he is the apple of their eye. Mom dotes over him constantly, dad has never been more proud. All as it should be, than suddenly the child flies into a tantrum in a restaurant, mom explains they don't like to tell him "no" as they want him to make decision for himself as to whether he should act like that or not. he is 4 years old. this is how he acts every time they take him out, they don't see a problem. Luckily they have decided to leave him at home when we go out with them now days. Actually had one friend who got up and left the restaurant when he started his shenanigans.

I feel as though many of these kids who participate in shootings were raised in this same manner. they have never been taught right from wrong, never told "no", never been shown how to respect authority.

we recently had an election that did not go the way a group wanted. rather than accept the fact that a majority of people voted for a candidate they didn't like (not Trump) they chose to rant, rave, protest and than trash our state capitol. 

 Rather than charge those people with destruction of property, what happened was news crews set up and boldly showed video of the destruction and than heralded the great deeds those people had done. they were simply lashing out, being heroic even, in standing in the face of the machine etc. 

 No. they were being disrespectful to a voting process, destructive to public property, dangerous to public servants both police and members who work in that building. 

why was the video not used to round those people up and make them each pay an equal amount towards the repairs of that building? 

maybe the answer lies in controlling people, and getting them to value the property, lives, and opinions of others.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, avenger79 said:

while I managed to have found my way back here let me ask this. Would it be better if we controlled the child instead of the guns?

I mean this seriously, we have a couple that we go out to eat with now and than. They have a child, he is the apple of their eye. Mom dotes over him constantly, dad has never been more proud. All as it should be, than suddenly the child flies into a tantrum in a restaurant, mom explains they don't like to tell him "no" as they want him to make decision for himself as to whether he should act like that or not. he is 4 years old. this is how he acts every time they take him out, they don't see a problem. Luckily they have decided to leave him at home when we go out with them now days. Actually had one friend who got up and left the restaurant when he started his shenanigans.

I feel as though many of these kids who participate in shootings were raised in this same manner. they have never been taught right from wrong, never told "no", never been shown how to respect authority.

we recently had an election that did not go the way a group wanted. rather than accept the fact that a majority of people voted for a candidate they didn't like (not Trump) they chose to rant, rave, protest and than trash our state capitol. 

 Rather than charge those people with destruction of property, what happened was news crews set up and boldly showed video of the destruction and than heralded the great deeds those people had done. they were simply lashing out, being heroic even, in standing in the face of the machine etc. 

 No. they were being disrespectful to a voting process, destructive to public property, dangerous to public servants both police and members who work in that building. 

why was the video not used to round those people up and make them each pay an equal amount towards the repairs of that building? 

maybe the answer lies in controlling people, and getting them to value the property, lives, and opinions of others.  

Yep.  1000% correct.  We now live in a society where it is always someone else's fault.  

  • A kid does poorly in school - it's the teacher's fault.  
  • You crashed into a tree doing 150 mph - it's Porsche's fault. 
  • You weigh 400lbs and have diabetes - its McDonald's fault.
  • A child picks up an unattended gun and shoots his playmate - it's the gunz' fault.

Society today must assign blame to someone else when you fail at something so that you can feel self worth.  Children are not allowed to experience failure and disappointment and instead everyone gets a participation trophy.  And then when they run face first into the brick wall called the harsh reality of "life".  They cannot cope.  I believe this is evadent in the massive increase in suicides.  Coping mechanisms are being slowly bred out of us.  

I blame Dr Spock for what we've become.  It's all SO UNFAIR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just have a referendum and be done with it.

amend the amendment

Owners

must be of voting age, must not have committed a felony within 5 years, must be mentally competent and states MAY require all owners to be licences and all firearms to be registered.

Minors must not have unrestricted access and must be supervised by an adult of voting age etc

That's not unreasonable.

 

"maybe the answer lies in controlling people, and getting them to value the property, lives, and opinions of others." 

:mehthis:

Could all champions of the 2nd please add this to their signature line?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/09/2017 at 11:18 PM, avenger79 said:

ah huh ah huh. you sure got me there buddy. one would think 6 days a week in the gym as well as long distance rides on bicycles and the occasional obstacle course run would keep me in better shape, but nope there I am. 

 and look at that you even found a pic of my "trap gun" yep I always use my AR for trap. 

I wonder is your ignorance of firearms actually that deep that you think an AR would be used for trap, or is your attempt at humor that lame? 

There there princess dry you eyes. Are you sure you want to play in this sandbox with that paper thin skin of yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Owners

must be of voting age, must not have committed a felony within 5 years, must be mentally competent and states MAY require all owners to be licences and all firearms to be registered.

Minors must not have unrestricted access and must be supervised by an adult of voting age etc

That's not unreasonable.

It's not often that an Aussie calls for us to loosen firearms rules.

Current rules:

Must be three years beyond voting age to buy a handgun.

No felonies. Ever.

States have licenses and registries, even the "best" kind of registries in some places. (Closed registries in which all registered guns are destined for confiscation.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/09/2017 at 11:33 PM, avenger79 said:

while I managed to have found my way back here let me ask this. Would it be better if we controlled the child instead of the guns?

 

Well obviously your parents did their best as well, but you still turned out as a dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It's not often that an Aussie calls for us to loosen firearms rules.

Current rules:

Must be three years beyond voting age to buy a handgun.

No felonies. Ever.

States have licenses and registries, even the "best" kind of registries in some places. (Closed registries in which all registered guns are destined for confiscation.)

She is not an Aussie. She is a Liberian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

It's not often that an Aussie calls for us to loosen firearms rules.

Current rules:

Must be three years beyond voting age to buy a handgun.

No felonies. Ever.

States have licenses and registries, even the "best" kind of registries in some places. (Closed registries in which all registered guns are destined for confiscation.)

So why don't you just have a referendum Tom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

OK. We have them all the time but I'm up for another one. What should the topic be?

Gutless :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Well obviously your parents did their best as well, but you still turned out as a dick.

I prefer the term Asshole. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, avenger79 said:

I prefer the term Asshole. LOL

Do you avenger with your gunz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, avenger79 said:

I prefer the term Asshole. LOL

Works for me ,Asshole LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

So why don't you just have a referendum Tom?

Referendum on what?  On whether we should be allowed to have guns, presumably?  

First of all, our system doesn't work by referendum.  The only possible referendum is called a "Constitutional amendment process" and it is clearly spelled out how it works.  The States or Congress are more than welcome to call a Constitutional convention and change the rules.  So any popular referendum would be a pointless exercise as it would be overridden by the constitution.  Like it or not, the entire fucking point of the constitution is to prevent the oppression of the minority by the majority.  If for example in 50 or 100 years from now a majority of people decided slavery was back in vogue and decided to have a popular referendum to vote slavery back in, they would still have to deal with the constitution's 14th Amendment.  They COULD change it to allow slavery by changing the constitution if they got enough states to go along.  But its a MUCH higher bar to clear to do so rather than the simple majority a referendum would allow.  

Another reason a referendum likely wouldn't work, constitution aside - is that I think it would be highly unlikely to get 51% of Americans to ban guns.  That may change in another decade or three.  But I don't think you'd get there right now.  I think if there was a serious move to implement an AUS-style gun confiscation program in the US, even some of the more liberal non-gun owning citizens would pause to think about what that would mean for the rest of our liberties.  I think (hope) that we would be smart enough to understand that so easily giving up one right means other rights are in danger too from the whims of the fickle masses.  

And not letting the whims of the fickle masses drive our national or domestic policy is PRECISELY why we have a Bill of Rights in our constitution and why we have a representative republic rather than a direct democracy.  But I repeat myself.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I don't care if 51% of the USA electorate choose not to ban guns. And I don't care what the process is. so be it. Just do it.

"but "banning guns" would not be the question..the question should be about reasonable (meaning non prohibitive ) registration and ownership.

You people make what should be a "man on the Clapham bus)" opinion so fucking hard!! it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Personally I don't care if 51% of the USA electorate choose not to ban guns. And I don't care what the process is. so be it. Just do it.

"but "banning guns" would not be the question..the question should be about reasonable (meaning non prohibitive ) registration and ownership.

You people make what should be a "man on the Clapham bus)" opinion so fucking hard!! it's not.

Except that "non-prohibitive" registration has often turned into prohibitive registration, and is precisely why most of us are against it.

I have openly and often said that I do not oppose registration in concept.  I do oppose it in practice, because we have many many instances where registries were turned into confiscation programs.  Until THAT changes, registration is a non-starter.  

I have numerous times asked the gun-grabby boyz if they would be in favor of an iron clad constitutional guarantee that any registration program could not be used for confiscation unless it was for a specific reason and only with a specific issued warrant - like in the case of a felony conviction or a mental health commitment to an institution.  The most ardent registration proponents either say no or refuse to answer, even when prodded individually to do so.  And the reason they don't want that is because their ultimate goal is not violence prevention or the ability to track a gun used in a crime - but because they know it is their one best chance to take guns away from private citizens hands and make it terribly hard to posses a gun.  Their supposed "altruistic" motives are complete horseshit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Except that "non-prohibitive" registration has often turned into prohibitive registration, and is precisely why most of us are against it.

I have openly and often said that I do not oppose registration in concept.  I do oppose it in practice, because we have many many instances where registries were turned into confiscation programs.  Until THAT changes, registration is a non-starter.  

I have numerous times asked the gun-grabby boyz if they would be in favor of an iron clad constitutional guarantee that any registration program could not be used for confiscation unless it was for a specific reason and only with a specific issued warrant - like in the case of a felony conviction or a mental health commitment to an institution.  The most ardent registration proponents either say no or refuse to answer, even when prodded individually to do so.  And the reason they don't want that is because their ultimate goal is not violence prevention or the ability to track a gun used in a crime - but because they know it is their one best chance to take guns away from private citizens hands and make it terribly hard to posses a gun.  Their supposed "altruistic" motives are complete horseshit.  

If it's in your constitution It can't turn into anything other than intended...Can it?:rolleyes: a comma here, a comma there? just as well lawyers today know how to write unambiguously :funny:

Like I've said often..I don't get into these bullshit 2a arguments..they are all full of self interested shit. It really is not hard to keep firearms well controlled...Anyone with a decent reason to have a gun for either hunting, sport or self protection can usually get one. Does any other country in the world have a mention of firearm's in their constitutions? Does it make any fucking difference? How about you all forget the concept of a militia needed to protect y'all from your elected gov and just recind 2A..it's irrelevant, archaic BS.

I'll ask a question and expect you to think about it and give an honest answer.

Do you think Australia's constitution, or Italy's. or Japan's or Canada's..would be better if they had a 2A  type insertion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Do you think Australia's constitution, or Italy's. or Japan's or Canada's..would be better if they had a 2A  type insertion?

Before AUS considers a 2A type amendment, perhaps y'all could at least start with freedom of speech and some other bill of rights protections.  Baby steps.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

 

I'll ask a question and expect you to think about it and give an honest answer.

Do you think Australia's constitution, or Italy's. or Japan's or Canada's..would be better if they had a 2A  type insertion?

 

6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Before AUS considers a 2A type amendment, perhaps y'all could at least start with freedom of speech and some other bill of rights protections.  Baby steps.  

I'll take that as a NO then.

Really Jeffie..you couldn't answer a straight question with an (IYHO) honest answer if your life depended on it..I suppose you're so used to justifying everything you do to yourself..it would be hard to be an honest man...it's not to late to change..a little self reflection could save you money..in settlements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

I'll ask a question and expect you to think about it and give an honest answer.

Do you think Australia's constitution, or Italy's. or Japan's or Canada's..would be better if they had a 2A  type insertion?

Not being an historian of any of those particular countries, it would be hard for me to give a concrete yes or no.  The only way I can attempt to answer it is to say that to the best of my knowledge - none of them had similar beginnings as a country to the US's experience when those countries got around to writing a constitution.  My gut reaction is NO, they would not necessarily be better with a 2A type insertion.  But its an irrelevant question.  There are too many what ifs to say for sure.

Given that you seem fascinated by all things Amurica - you should by now know that our constitution was written on the heels of a bloody war and the overthrow of a despotic and cruel monarchy.  So they basically set out to enshrine into law those things they didn't want to have to repeat down the road in some future 'Murica.  Because they were smart enough to know that no matter what our best intentions are, eventually someone or some entity gains power and starts to not be quite so benign anymore.  And without a codified set of rules to check that power, the whole experiment turns to shit.

Think about what every single one of our bill of rights actually is based upon....  Every single one is based on a deep mistrust of too much power in the hands of gov't.  The first Amendment has nothing to do with their desire for me to be able to say whatever I wanted on any given day.  It had everything to do with the fear that if the gov't could stop you from saying something one day, then what would liberty would they erode next.  If the Freedom of speech was really about me being able to say any damn thing I pleased, they would have written it such that another individual couldn't shout me down or that a private business couldn't turn me away.  But they didn't.  It was all about a deep distrust in having too much power concentrated in the gov't and the lack of the ability for THE PEOPLE to be able to check that power of the gov't.

The 1st Amendment is all about checking the power of the gov't - in the ability to speak out against the gov't, for them to be able to assemble and peacefully protest the gov't and for the press to be able to report about the abuses of the gov't.  The 4th Amendment is all about preventing the gov't from taking away your privacy to the point where you would be powerless to oppose the gov't.  The 5th Amendment is all about limiting the power to jail people (such as dissidents) for BS causes.  The 6th Amendment is all about not allowing the gov't to arrest you and lock you away in prison without a fair trial.  

And the 2nd Amendment is all checking the gov'ts power to disarm its citizens so that the citizens can't lose all their other rights.  If the gov't is the only one with the guns - such as the British attempted to do in the lead up to the American Revolution - then it becomes very easy to enforce its will on the people.  Look at what happened in Syria and Libya - yes the people peacefully assembled and spoke out against a despotic gov't.   And the gov't in response machine gunned them down in the streets.  

Even your hero Mao understood this when he said:  "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Don't you think it's time you just got over it?

So you ask me a question and ask that I really give it some thought and give you an honest answer, and this is your response to that much effort???  Would it be impolite to say "fuck you, cunt"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So you ask me a question and ask that I really give it some thought and give you an honest answer, and this is your response to that much effort???  Would it be impolite to say "fuck you, cunt"?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Yes.

Fuck you, cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2017 at 6:58 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Who can identify a .22 matching Joseph Pelleteri's illegal assault weapon in this picture?

marlins-99.jpg

I guess no one is going to answer so I might as well give it up.

The assault weapon is the one on the top in the pic. See how scary and long the tube magazine is? That means it's a battlefield weapon inappropriate for civilian possession. You know, just like an M16.

And grabbers wonder why we deride "mean looking weapons bans."

That's why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites