• 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.  
Sign in to follow this  
badlatitude

This is An Example of Why We Don't Trust Gun Nutterz

Recommended Posts

Authorities say shootings in rural Northern California leave 5 dead, including shooter; 2 children wounded

A gunman killed four people and wounded a number of others at random Tuesday at multiple locations in rural Northern California, including an elementary school, before police shot him dead, authorities said.

Two hospitals said they were treating seven people, including at least three children.

Details were still sketchy hours after the shooting and authorities didn't have a firm count of the wounded due to the number of places where the gunman opened fire in the community of Rancho Tehama Reserve, about 130 miles north of Sacramento, Tehama County Assistant Sheriff Phil Johnston said.

 

One student was wounded at the school and another child was shot while driving with a woman, who also was wounded, Johnston said.

"It was very clear at the onset that we had an individual that was randomly picking targets," Johnston said.

He declined to release the name of the shooter but said the gunfire began with a domestic violence incident that neighbors reported."

 

Brian Flint told the Record Searchlight newspaper in the city of Redding that his neighbor, whom he knows only as Kevin, was the gunman and that his roommate was among the victims. He said the shooter also stole his truck.

"The crazy thing is that the neighbor has been shooting a lot of bullets lately, hundreds of rounds, large magazines," Flint said. "We made it aware that this guy is crazy and he's been threatening us."

Authorities have recovered a semi-automatic rifle and two handguns after the shootings in the rural subdivision described on its website as a "quiet private country community" where "the people are friendly and the pace is relaxed."

Jeanine Quist, an administrative assistant with the Corning Union Elementary School District, said no one was killed at the school with kindergarten through fifth grades.

Three people were being treated at a hospital in Redding, about 50 miles north of the shootings, Mercy Medical Center spokeswoman Marcy Miracle said. She declined to provide other details about the victims or their injuries.

Four others, including three children, were being treated at Enloe Medical Center in Chico, about 50 miles southeast of the shootings, hospital spokeswoman Nicole Johansson said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel I'm late to provide thoughts and prayers.  I will still send them, because I know it will make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mystery of dead man and his 1,200 guns deepens

Quote

Several neighbors said the man was known only as “Bob” in the local area and described him as a gun fanatic who claimed to have worked covertly for either the FBI or the CIA. His fiancée had lived in the town home on Palisades Drive for years, they said.

“He'll say crazy things to people like he does night missions swimming to Catalina,” said one neighbor, who declined to give her name, saying she was afraid. “He would come … and tell us he would show us self-defense moves.”

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lapd-guns-20150720-story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Johnston said the shooter rammed one of the vehicles he was driving through a school gate, entered the school grounds on foot with a semi-automatic gun with a multi-round clip, and was wearing a vest with clips embedded into it. Johnston added it appears that after the shooter realized he was not going to be able to get into the school, he left the school grounds and took his “killing spree” to the streets of Rancho Tehama. 

Don't focus on the tool.  Please don't.  Thoughts and Prayers only.  Lather rinse repeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Authorities say shootings in rural Northern California leave 5 dead, including shooter; 2 children wounded

He declined to release the name of the shooter but said the gunfire began with a domestic violence incident that neighbors reported."

"The crazy thing is that the neighbor has been shooting a lot of bullets lately, hundreds of rounds, large magazines," Flint said. "We made it aware that this guy is crazy and he's been threatening us."

Authorities have recovered a semi-automatic rifle and two handguns after the shootings in the rural subdivision described on its website as a "quiet private country community" where "the people are friendly and the pace is relaxed."

 

I thought California had an assault rifle ban along with magazine capacity restrictions, did these laws fail to prevent this?

Can we add this guy to this list?

 

Quote

The men behind the US's deadliest mass shootings have something in common -- and it's not mental illness

Nine out of the 10 deadliest mass-shooting perpetrators have a history of threatening, committing, or verbalizing domestic violence.

  • Perpetrators of domestic violence are supposed to be barred from buying guns nationwide.
  • High-capacity firearms have been relatively easy for recent killers to get their hands on.

Nine of the shooters on this list of the top 10 most deadly mass shootings in modern America committed violence against women, threatened violence against women, or disparaged women.

According to the nonprofit Everytown for Gun Safety, the majority of mass shootings in the US are in some way related to domestic or family violence. Perpetrators of domestic violence are legally barred from buying guns, according to federal law. But many have been able to get high-capacity firearms anyway.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/deadliest-mass-shootings-almost-all-have-domestic-violence-connection-2017-11?utm_content=buffer16d3f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-science&r=US&IR=T

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

I thought California had an assault rifle ban along with magazine capacity restrictions, did these laws fail to prevent this?

Any state-by-state approach will fail. Been saying that for decades. It's why we had a national change to the laws rather than let states defer and procrastinate. Worked well too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Any state-by-state approach will fail. Been saying that for decades. It's why we had a national change to the laws rather than let states defer and procrastinate. Worked well too.

Tom challenged me a week or so ago to come up with a solution.  i made mention in a different thread that I thought it would take two generations in the US to truly control guns.  I have a friend whose son works as an officer for the Detroit PD.  He told me that if he pulls over a group of four teenage boys on the street, odds are that one will have a gun...unregistered.  

To Tom and others, I don't have a solution and that's very sad. I consider all life precious.  Very sad.  

 

Edit:  I love to laugh and the  father of the cop is Thomas Jefferson.  He used to make me tell the following  joke at parties What do Thomas Jefferson and George Washington have in common, they were the last two white guys with those names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

I thought California had an assault rifle ban along with magazine capacity restrictions, did these laws fail to prevent this?

Can we add this guy to this list?

 

 

I'm on record for registration and confiscation of all weapons upon death. I think it's the only thing that will work.

Share this post


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

I'm on record for registration and confiscation of all weapons upon death. I think it's the only thing that will work.

I'm on record as thinking you're a fucking moron.  

Share this post


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

I'm on record for registration and confiscation of all weapons upon death. I think it's the only thing that will work.

If it doesn't work in Pusstralia what makes you think it will work there?

 

Quote

The shooting death of Senior Constable Brett Forte in the Lockyer Valley has raised serious questions about how someone with a violent criminal past managed to obtain a powerful weapon and kill a police officer.

It is not yet known how Maddison came in possession of the weapon, but some experts believe it was probably imported illicitly.

Dr Samara McPhedran, an expert in firearms policy from Griffith University, said it seemed Maddison was using some type of fully automatic firearm.

"Those have been banned in Australia for over 60 years, so that does raise some very serious questions about where the firearm came from — at this stage it's impossible to speculate," Dr McPhedran said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-31/gatton-police-shooting-raises-questions-criminals-firearm-access/8574600

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

If it doesn't work in Pusstralia what makes you think it will work there?

Hmmm... mass shootings in Australia vs mass shootings in the USA. Yup, seems it does work here. Hell, just on the basis of homicide rate alone, what we're doing works compared to what the US has been trying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I'm on record for registration and confiscation of all weapons upon death. I think it's the only thing that will work.

Well, OK.

The topic post notes that the gunman was ultimately shot by cops.

That means that if we go look at the Gun Violence Archive, once again the most recent shooting will be by a cop.

I'm once again eager to discuss the implications here. Do you mean we should disarm the police too? After all, police shootings are a part of the "gun violence" that plagues our society, just like suicides.

Share this post


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

Well, OK.

The topic post notes that the gunman was ultimately shot by cops.

That means that if we go look at the Gun Violence Archive, once again the most recent shooting will be by a cop.

I'm once again eager to discuss the implications here. Do you mean we should disarm the police too? After all, police shootings are a part of the "gun violence" that plagues our society, just like suicides.

 

I think police shootings should be a separate category and not added to gun death figures, there are times when a good guy (cop) with a gun needs to shoot someone to stop them hurting anyone else.

For some reason nobody really gives a fuck if the police shoot a white criminal who attacks police yet when the police shoot a black criminal who attacks the police it's a fucking outrage, perhaps this could be why some like to include justifiable homicides by police in gun death figures.

When people are happy to include justifiable homicides by police in shooting criminals with gun death figures it shows me they aren't happy with police shooting people who in many cases were shooting at the police.To me it's clear these people are siding with criminals when they include justifiable homicides by police in gun death figures.

In Australia the police are not required to have a firearm license should we count their suicides at their workplace in with firearm suicides when our firearms licensing makes them exempt from having a firearms license? http://www.news.com.au/national/afp-officer-workplace-suicides-headquarters-scene-of-second-tragic-death/news-story/9a5f32d96b34b696307f9b17d316fe32

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:
 

The men behind the US's deadliest mass shootings have something in common -- and it's not mental illness

Nine out of the 10 deadliest mass-shooting perpetrators have a history of threatening, committing, or verbalizing domestic violence.

  • Perpetrators of domestic violence are supposed to be barred from buying guns nationwide.
  • High-capacity firearms have been relatively easy for recent killers to get their hands on.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/deadliest-mass-shootings-almost-all-have-domestic-violence-connection-2017-11?utm_content=buffer16d3f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-science&r=US&IR=T

Any of the gun grabbers care to comment on this article?

Should there be stricter enforcement with banning those who do domestic violence from having guns since many of them have done mass shootings?

Share this post


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

Well, OK.

The topic post notes that the gunman was ultimately shot by cops.

That means that if we go look at the Gun Violence Archive, once again the most recent shooting will be by a cop.

I'm once again eager to discuss the implications here. Do you mean we should disarm the police too? After all, police shootings are a part of the "gun violence" that plagues our society, just like suicides.

Tom, I'm no longer interested in discussing the subject. If we Keep proposed gun law simple, it becomes the easiest way to get laws enacted. Your need to discuss guns into the ground is partly responsible for the conclusion I have drawn. I know your position on registration, you've said it on these pages before. You either need to register, or you need to make your stand, but we need to move forward on this subject.

Share this post


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

Tom, I'm no longer interested in discussing the subject. If we Keep proposed gun law simple, it becomes the easiest way to get laws enacted. Your need to discuss guns into the ground is partly responsible for the conclusion I have drawn. I know your position on registration, you've said it on these pages before. You either need to register, or you need to make your stand, but we need to move forward on this subject.

Your failure to discuss the "scores of thousands" of new felons created by your style of confiscation in CT won't make them go away.

How you're going to "move forward" with them seems an interesting political question to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Uncooperative Tom said:

Your failure to discuss the "scores of thousands" of new felons created by your style of confiscation in CT won't make them go away.

How you're going to "move forward" with them seems an interesting political question to me.

The good thing about state legislatures is that they can rewrite law all day long if necessary. Your claim has all the weight of a 12-year-old girl screaming because she can't have her way.

Share this post


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

Your failure to discuss the "scores of thousands" of new felons created by your style of confiscation in CT won't make them go away.

How you're going to "move forward" with them seems an interesting political question to me.

The idiots get left behind, Tom, in the dustbin of history You are their spokesman, a pariah for a new class of gun criminals. 
During colonial times,  I'm convinced you would have lost your gunz at the hands of George Washington et al.

Though well informed, by  using selective info, you think and speak as a manipulative despot, for the CATO brand.Though verbose full-time, you cannot discuss their Heller scholarship. You seldom even mention their name. That's quite interesting, Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reading through the millionth gun thread, I am wondering what exactly makes one a gun nutter/wanker/whatever.

Gun owners in PA

BJ
Jocal
KIS
Guy
Tom
JBSF
Cal20
Badlat
Me
and I am sure a bunch I am missing

Some on this list are routinely accused of being fanatics, gun wankers, etc, the rest are all considered reasonable progressive individuals, and many on the list are the ones labeling the others as unreasonable gun nuts or worse. The only commonality I can find between the ones accused of being unreasonable nuts is opposition to a new AWB. Is that all it is? Is support of an AWB a purity test which determines whether someone is worth listening to or having a discussion with? On virtually every other topic of gun control, there is widespread differences of opinion between us "gun wankers" on what is reasonable. If this is actually the line, I think it is more than a little bit nuts. Handguns are the weapon of choice in more than 95% of the gun violence reported, but it is support or opposition to banning AR15s, used in less than 2% of gun violence, which is the line between reasonable and gun wanker? How does that make any sense to any rational person? 

 

Share this post


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

Well, OK.

The topic post notes that the gunman was ultimately shot by cops.

That means that if we go look at the Gun Violence Archive, once again the most recent shooting will be by a cop.

I'm once again eager to discuss the implications here. Do you mean we should disarm the police too? After all, police shootings are a part of the "gun violence" that plagues our society, just like suicides.

You really don't have to work so hard at sounding stupid Tom.

Share this post


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

In reading through the millionth gun thread, I am wondering what exactly makes one a gun nutter/wanker/whatever.

Attitudes

Share this post


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

In reading through the millionth gun thread, I am wondering what exactly makes one a gun nutter/wanker/whatever.

Gun owners in PA

BJ
Jocal
KIS
Guy
Tom
JBSF
Cal20
Badlat
Me
and I am sure a bunch I am missing

Some on this list are routinely accused of being fanatics, gun wankers, etc, the rest are all considered reasonable progressive individuals, and many on the list are the ones labeling the others as unreasonable gun nuts or worse. The only commonality I can find between the ones accused of being unreasonable nuts is opposition to a new AWB. Is that all it is? Is support of an AWB a purity test which determines whether someone is worth listening to or having a discussion with? On virtually every other topic of gun control, there is widespread differences of opinion between us "gun wankers" on what is reasonable. If this is actually the line, I think it is more than a little bit nuts. Handguns are the weapon of choice in more than 95% of the gun violence reported, but it is support or opposition to banning AR15s, used in less than 2% of gun violence, which is the line between reasonable and gun wanker? How does that make any sense to any rational person? 

 

I still own a .308 rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun, a .54 caliber black powder rifle, and a .35 caliber black powder pistol.

I no longer have the .44 mag handgun, and multiple other weapons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve got my daddy’s guns, and until last week no ammo.  But a neighbor have me a box last weekend.  Not sure if it fits. But now I have both guns and ammo.

Share this post


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

Authorities say shootings in rural Northern California leave 5 dead, including shooter; 2 children wounded

A gunman killed four people and wounded a number of others at random Tuesday at multiple locations in rural Northern California, including an elementary school, before police shot him dead, authorities said.

Two hospitals said they were treating seven people, including at least three children.

Details were still sketchy hours after the shooting and authorities didn't have a firm count of the wounded due to the number of places where the gunman opened fire in the community of Rancho Tehama Reserve, about 130 miles north of Sacramento, Tehama County Assistant Sheriff Phil Johnston said.

 

One student was wounded at the school and another child was shot while driving with a woman, who also was wounded, Johnston said.

"It was very clear at the onset that we had an individual that was randomly picking targets," Johnston said.

He declined to release the name of the shooter but said the gunfire began with a domestic violence incident that neighbors reported."

 

Brian Flint told the Record Searchlight newspaper in the city of Redding that his neighbor, whom he knows only as Kevin, was the gunman and that his roommate was among the victims. He said the shooter also stole his truck.

"The crazy thing is that the neighbor has been shooting a lot of bullets lately, hundreds of rounds, large magazines," Flint said. "We made it aware that this guy is crazy and he's been threatening us."

Authorities have recovered a semi-automatic rifle and two handguns after the shootings in the rural subdivision described on its website as a "quiet private country community" where "the people are friendly and the pace is relaxed."

Jeanine Quist, an administrative assistant with the Corning Union Elementary School District, said no one was killed at the school with kindergarten through fifth grades.

Three people were being treated at a hospital in Redding, about 50 miles north of the shootings, Mercy Medical Center spokeswoman Marcy Miracle said. She declined to provide other details about the victims or their injuries.

Four others, including three children, were being treated at Enloe Medical Center in Chico, about 50 miles southeast of the shootings, hospital spokeswoman Nicole Johansson said.

 

Sounds like the mistrust should be placed upon the authorities who were notified and failed to respond appropriately? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

I’ve got my daddy’s guns, and until last week no ammo.  But a neighbor have me a box last weekend.  Not sure if it fits. But now I have both guns and ammo.

Sounds like you need some Thoughts and Prayers to go with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Sounds like the mistrust should be placed upon the authorities who were notified and failed to respond appropriately? 

There is certainly room for that argument. However, I maintain that authorities should not have to do cleanup work for people like this. Until we address the problem of mental illness and gun use, this problem will remain a pervasive threat to everyone's safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I still own a .308 rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun, a .54 caliber black powder rifle, and a .35 caliber black powder pistol.

I no longer have the .44 mag handgun, and multiple other weapons.

 

I have a  Mossberg 12ga Over Under for  sporting clays   a Remington 1187 tactical for home safety  and a Taurus 9mm handgun for target shooting with my brother (a cop) and BIL ( a federal agent)   used to own a  .308 deer rifle, 25/06 and a .22 varmint rifle that I got rid of because I stopped hunting and I never used the .22 single shot lever action since it was given to me by my grandfather 20 years ago.......rifles are illegal for hunting in my county...as a matter of fact, I haven;t taken my 9mm out of the lock box in 2 years except to inspect and clean.  I'm selling it to a co worker of my brother's next week...that will leave me with 2 shotguns which is all is needed

Share this post


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

There is certainly room for that argument. However, I maintain that authorities should not have to do cleanup work for people like this. Until we address the problem of mental illness and gun use, this problem will remain a pervasive threat to everyone's safety.

I think that you're quite right, and that in addition to the issue of mental illness, that we ought to concurrently address the pervasive attitude that anyone and everyone who disagrees with us, or thinks differently than us isn't worthy of basic human respect. 

Share this post


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

I’ve got my daddy’s guns, and until last week no ammo.  But a neighbor have me a box last weekend.  Not sure if it fits. But now I have both guns and ammo.

Now you're safe.

Do check that the ammo fits though.

Share this post


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

In reading through the millionth gun thread, I am wondering what exactly makes one a gun nutter/wanker/whatever.

Gun owners in PA

BJ
Jocal
KIS
Guy
Tom
JBSF
Cal20
Badlat
Me
and I am sure a bunch I am missing

Some on this list are routinely accused of being fanatics, gun wankers, etc, the rest are all considered reasonable progressive individuals, and many on the list are the ones labeling the others as unreasonable gun nuts or worse. The only commonality I can find between the ones accused of being unreasonable nuts is opposition to a new AWB. Is that all it is? Is support of an AWB a purity test which determines whether someone is worth listening to or having a discussion with? On virtually every other topic of gun control, there is widespread differences of opinion between us "gun wankers" on what is reasonable. If this is actually the line, I think it is more than a little bit nuts. Handguns are the weapon of choice in more than 95% of the gun violence reported, but it is support or opposition to banning AR15s, used in less than 2% of gun violence, which is the line between reasonable and gun wanker? How does that make any sense to any rational person? 

 

 

Len, Name-calling on this site is a pervasive and nasty rule and I wish we could get away from it. We have discussed guns until we are blue in the face and have rehashed events until we are tired and exhausted. I have had countless sidebars and they usually end up discussing minutiae and we accomplish little of our original goals. I understand all of this it is an electrifying subject, and nothing is ever resolved, This is a pervasive problem here when discussing gun control and it doesn't take much to realize that some people do not wish to discuss the subject. That is fine, you can't force people to recognize a problem when they clearly don't want to see one, and no one has the right to raise an issue just because they think it is overdue and in need of solving. 

We need a comprehensive dialog that addresses everyone's issues and a solution that everyone can live with. I do not know if that is possible and I am disposed to believe that it will never happen if our own gun discussions are an example.

I have an FN 5.7 Mark II, an FN Ballista .338 Lapua Magnum, A SCAR 17S, A Mossberg 930 ProJM. I also have a separate collection in Oregon 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

 

Len, Name-calling on this site is a pervasive and nasty rule and I wish we could get away from it. We have discussed guns until we are blue in the face and have rehashed events until we are tired and exhausted. I have had countless sidebars and they usually end up discussing minutiae and we accomplish little of our original goals. I understand all of this it is an electrifying subject, and nothing is ever resolved, This is a pervasive problem here when discussing gun control and it doesn't take much to realize that some people do not wish to discuss the subject. That is fine, you can't force people to recognize a problem when they clearly don't want to see one, and no one has the right to raise an issue just because they think it is overdue and in need of solving. 

We need a comprehensive dialog that addresses everyone's issues and a solution that everyone can live with. I do not know if that is possible and I am disposed to believe that it will never happen if our own gun discussions are an example.

I have an FN 5.7 Mark II, an FN Ballista .338 Lapua Magnum, A SCAR 17S, A Mossberg 930 ProJM. I also have a separate collection in Oregon 

 

I believe that your comments are an indication that what you claim to desire is indeed possible.  It will require trust and acceptance of some risk for people on both sides of the discussion.  I think that you recognize that there are indeed factions who seriously and intentionally are more interested in eradicating firearms ownership than they are in reducing violent incidents, as well as recognizing that there are some on the "pro rights" side who refuse to consider any infringement of those rights. 

Separating those extremes and pushing them to the sidelines will be necessary for any positive discussion, IMHO.   On a tangent - what do you w/such nice and exotic guns?  That .338 epitomizes the "scary military rifle" - but, the ballistics of that round are phenomenal.  That's serious coin even in exotic gun terms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I believe that your comments are an indication that what you claim to desire is indeed possible.  It will require trust and acceptance of some risk for people on both sides of the discussion.  I think that you recognize that there are indeed factions who seriously and intentionally are more interested in eradicating firearms ownership than they are in reducing violent incidents, as well as recognizing that there are some on the "pro rights" side who refuse to consider any infringement of those rights. 

Separating those extremes and pushing them to the sidelines will be necessary for any positive discussion, IMHO.   On a tangent - what do you w/such nice and exotic guns?  That .338 epitomizes the "scary military rifle" - but, the ballistics of that round are phenomenal.  That's serious coin even in exotic gun terms. 

We are in complete agreement and I am happy that we found middle ground. I moved the SCAR and Ballista to Oregon when California attached rules governing them. Rather than getting into the middle of an argument with the law, it is easier to remove them. I'll be up there permanently next year or the year after so it really is easier. The basic rifle was only $7 grand it is always the attachable toys that run the cost up.

Share this post


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

We are in complete agreement and I am happy that we found middle ground. I moved the SCAR and Ballista to Oregon when California attached rules governing them. Rather than getting into the middle of an argument with the law, it is easier to remove them. I'll be up there permanently next year or the year after so it really is easier. The basic rifle was only $7 grand it is always the attachable toys that run the cost up.

To the 1st - it would seem that coming up with a non-offensive way to separate the rants from productive contributions, and acknowledging the validity of concerns of both perspectives is a start.   Now - let's talk about how to address the folks who's behavior warrants intervention, while affording people protection from "malicious reporting".   I'd suggest that in cases of domestic violence/reports of potential to cause harm, that immediate intervention is warranted, to include seizure of weapons owned/directly accessible in residence to the person who is the subject of the claim.  This intervention must include some mandatory review, conducted w/in a very short period of time in which the veracity of the claim is heard by an educated, objective arbiter.  If the claim is found to be frivolous, any property seized should be immediately returned, without unreasonable effort on the part of the owner - meaning, they should be able to go to the police station w/a dismissal and get their stuff back right then - no waiting, no "proof of ownership", or requirement to satisfy any other administrative burdens thrown up to delay the rightful return of confiscated property.  NO OTHER CONFISCATORY ACTION SHOULD BE PERMITTED solely on the basis of an unsubstantiated claim.     If the claim is substantiated?  Weapons remain in custody (not sold, destroyed) until final adjudication of the claim has completed.  Final adjudication in favor of the subject?  See above.  Adjudication in favor of the claimant?  That one gets sticky - someone who got pissed and threw a coffee cup at their spouse doesn't deserve to lose their rights even if they needed some immediate separation to cool down.  Someone who's a demonstrable threat?  That situation should be handled IAW established law. 

Thoughts? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

Thoughts? 

marry a crazy bitch? Pay the price. Not my problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

To the 1st - it would seem that coming up with a non-offensive way to separate the rants from productive contributions, and acknowledging the validity of concerns of both perspectives is a start.   Now - let's talk about how to address the folks who's behavior warrants intervention, while affording people protection from "malicious reporting".   I'd suggest that in cases of domestic violence/reports of potential to cause harm, that immediate intervention is warranted, to include seizure of weapons owned/directly accessible in residence to the person who is the subject of the claim.  This intervention must include some mandatory review, conducted w/in a very short period of time in which the veracity of the claim is heard by an educated, objective arbiter.  If the claim is found to be frivolous, any property seized should be immediately returned, without unreasonable effort on the part of the owner - meaning, they should be able to go to the police station w/a dismissal and get their stuff back right then - no waiting, no "proof of ownership", or requirement to satisfy any other administrative burdens thrown up to delay the rightful return of confiscated property.  NO OTHER CONFISCATORY ACTION SHOULD BE PERMITTED solely on the basis of an unsubstantiated claim.     If the claim is substantiated?  Weapons remain in custody (not sold, destroyed) until final adjudication of the claim has completed.  Final adjudication in favor of the subject?  See above.  Adjudication in favor of the claimant?  That one gets sticky - someone who got pissed and threw a coffee cup at their spouse doesn't deserve to lose their rights even if they needed some immediate separation to cool down.  Someone who's a demonstrable threat?  That situation should be handled IAW established law. 

Thoughts? 

The death toll from yesterday rose to 6 this morning when they found the shooter's wife buried beneath the floorboards of his house. 

"The gunman who rampaged through a Northern California community Tuesday, killing four people and wounding several others as he fired at an elementary school and apparently random strangers, had killed his wife the night before, according to authorities.

After fatally shooting his wife, Kevin Neal hid her body in their home and, hours later, embarked upon a bloody shooting spree through the rural region, targeting anybody he encountered along the way, Phil Johnston, an assistant sheriff in Tehama County, said Wednesday at a briefing.

Johnston said that before law enforcement officers killed Neal, the gunman wounded several children, striking one of the students at Rancho Tehama Elementary School during his rampage."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/11/15/california-rampage-death-toll-increases-to-5-as-police-say-gunman-killed-his-wife-before-attacking-school/?pushid=5a0c8affedb3621d0000001e&tidr=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term=.0b467e752b30

 

Men or women convicted of domestic violence should lose their right to gun ownership period. I think one way to address the problem directly is to put out the last 5 years of gun crime top to bottom and work backward with legislation that addresses it.

Share this post


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

The death toll from yesterday rose to 6 this morning when they found the shooter's wife buried beneath the floorboards of his house. 

<SNIP>men convicted of domestic violence should lose their right to gun ownership period. I think one way to address the problem directly is to put out the last 5 years of gun crime top to bottom and work backward with legislation that addresses it.

Convicted?  Yes. Charged?  I'd appreciate your thoughts on the approach I outlined above. 

Second thought:  I don't think that new legislation is necessarily the preferred or best approach.  It might be, but, perhaps an analysis of why current statute isn't doing what was intended would be in order. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Convicted?  Yes. Charged?  I'd appreciate your thoughts on the approach I outlined above. 

People with anger issues should not have access to guns. Mandatory cool off period and therapy required.

Edit to add: For both parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Convicted?  Yes. Charged?  I'd appreciate your thoughts on the approach I outlined above. 

Charged is just fine thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

People with anger issues should not have access to guns. Mandatory cool off period and therapy required.

Edit to add: For both parties.

Thanks for helping get to the point.  In cases of actual "anger issues", in which an individual has demonstrated behavior that makes them a potential threat?  I think we're in agreement.  Where I think some protections for the accused need to be codified is w/r/t the "mandatory review" after such a claim has been filed and the requisite intervention has happened.  I suspect that we all know spiteful individuals who'd have no compunction about making false claims of violence/threats if such claims suited their purpose.  If the mandatory review determines the claim to be without foundation - how do we codify treatment of the accused, to include restoration of any property that had been confiscated?    Any discussion of restrictions needs to include a discussion of protections to prevent the mis-application of those restrictions. 

Having an argument and throwing a coffee cup != anger issues, it's sometimes nothing more than the prelude to make-up sex, and any codification of actionable behaviors needs to include some discretion to distinguish between pissed off and a threat. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

Thanks for helping get to the point.  In cases of actual "anger issues", in which an individual has demonstrated behavior that makes them a potential threat?  I think we're in agreement.  Where I think some protections for the accused need to be codified is w/r/t the "mandatory review" after such a claim has been filed and the requisite intervention has happened.  I suspect that we all know spiteful individuals who'd have no compunction about making false claims of violence/threats if such claims suited their purpose.  If the mandatory review determines the claim to be without foundation - how do we codify treatment of the accused, to include restoration of any property that had been confiscated?    Any discussion of restrictions needs to include a discussion of protections to prevent the mis-application of those restrictions. 

Having an argument and throwing a coffee cup != anger issues, it's sometimes nothing more than the prelude to make-up sex, and any codification of actionable behaviors needs to include some discretion to distinguish between pissed off and a threat. 

 

Nope, guns are too damn efficient in their design.

I'm sorry, you marry a nutcase, and she slaps a restraining order on you, not my problem.  Lose your toys until the courts sort it out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Nope, guns are too damn efficient in their design.

I'm sorry, you marry a nutcase, and she slaps a restraining order on you, not my problem.  Lose your toys until the courts sort it out.

Proving my point post after post.   Thanks.. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Proving my point post after post.   Thanks.. 

 

There is no way in the heat of the moment to tell if a restraining order is frivolous or not. Because of the downside of not trusting the person filing the order, the courts err on the side of caution. Which is how it needs to be. There're enough dead Significant Others already out there.

And if you marry a crazy, too bad for you. You shoulda kept your dick in your pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

There is no way in the heat of the moment to tell if a restraining order is frivolous or not. Because of the downside of not trusting the person filing the order, the courts err on the side of caution. Which is how it needs to be. There're enough dead Significant Others already out there.

And if you marry a crazy, too bad for you. You shoulda kept your dick in your pants.

Thanks - go read what I said a few posts above - I think you'll find that it matches what you said almost verbatim.  Yet - you feel compelled to disagree with me.  hmmmm. 

Share this post


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

We are in complete agreement and I am happy that we found middle ground. I moved the SCAR and Ballista to Oregon when California attached rules governing them. Rather than getting into the middle of an argument with the law, it is easier to remove them. I'll be up there permanently next year or the year after so it really is easier. The basic rifle was only $7 grand it is always the attachable toys that run the cost up.

Judging by the thread topic, Cali's rules didn't work.

What happens when we take your recommendation of registration followed by confiscation national and there isn't a state to which to flee for firearms freedom?

And if they need to be banned for the next generation, why not for you? Why not set an example by disposing of yours now? And by "disposing" I mean, of course, giving them to the government to alleviate the public nuisance you're creating. Wouldn't want to treat them like property or anything.

 

Share this post


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

Judging by the thread topic, Cali's rules didn't work.

What happens when we take your recommendation of registration followed by confiscation national and there isn't a state to which to flee for firearms freedom?

And if they need to be banned for the next generation, why not for you? Why not set an example by disposing of yours now? And by "disposing" I mean, of course, giving them to the government to alleviate the public nuisance you're creating. Wouldn't want to treat them like property or anything.

 

If registration and confiscation go to all 50 states, the people will have spoken, and there won't be anything to discuss. I hear there are Caribbean Islands that are attractive and South America will always be a gun owners paradise. So a solution is up to you.

When I drop, my guns will go to the proper disposal center as will yours. We had our fun, and we know you can't take them with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no putting the horse back in the barn.  The Gun Nuts have won and now we just live in their world.   When the next mass shooting happens there is nothing to do except shrug.

And send thoughts and prayers. 

 

Quote

 America’s gun super-owners, have amassed huge collections. Just 3% of American adults own a collective 133m firearms – half of America’s total gun stock. These owners have collections that range from eight to 140 guns, the 2015 study found. Their average collection: 17 guns each.

After the Las Vegas shooting, officials said the killer had 23 guns in his hotel room, and another 19 at home. Some Americans asked, shocked, why one person purchasing so many guns had not set off any red flags.

Part of the answer is that owning more than 40 guns is actually fairly common in the United States: there are an estimated 7.7 million super-owners, which might make it difficult to flag a mass shooter building an arsenal from enthusiastic collectors and gun enthusiasts piling up different kinds of guns for hunting different kinds of game, a selection of handguns for self-defense, and various accessories for the popular, customisable military-style rifles that enthusiasts have compared to lethal Lego sets for grown men.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/the-gun-numbers-just-3-of-american-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

There is no putting the horse back in the barn.  The Gun Nuts have won and now we just live in their world.   When the next mass shooting happens there is nothing to do except shrug.

And that's a fact Jack.

 

Oh, and we can ridicule the selfish cunts who couldn't care less about the collateral damage as long as they can keep playing with their deadly toys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, badlatitude said:

If registration and confiscation go to all 50 states, the people will have spoken, and there won't be anything to discuss. I hear there are Caribbean Islands that are attractive and South America will always be a gun owners paradise. So a solution is up to you.

When I drop, my guns will go to the proper disposal center as will yours. We had our fun, and we know you can't take them with you.

I think "majority rules, period" is not really our rule. Prior to getting to your dream point of ending private gun ownership, we're going to need to amend the Constitution.

I'm Uncooperative, like most people. That's why your style of confiscation has achieved only a 15% compliance rate in CT. When I drop, at least a couple of mine are going to my grandson. I have no problem with future generations having the freedom I do.

If I thought that freedom bad, I'd give it up for myself as well as for future generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

I think police shootings should be a separate category and not added to gun death figures, there are times when a good guy (cop) with a gun needs to shoot someone to stop them hurting anyone else.

A separate category like suicides are??  Hahahaha.  How else are they going to pad their numbers??

Share this post


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

The only commonality I can find between the ones accused of being unreasonable nuts is opposition to a new AWB. Is that all it is?

Yes. I have been pointing out for some time that we have lots of gun owners but only NUTZ say bad things about the bans and confiscation programs.

Share this post


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

Tom, I'm no longer interested in discussing the subject.

You seem to have accidentally started a thread about something you don't wish to discuss.

Share this post


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

In reading through the millionth gun thread, I am wondering what exactly makes one a gun nutter/wanker/whatever.

Gun owners in PA

BJ
Jocal
KIS
Guy
Tom
JBSF
Cal20
Badlat
Me
and I am sure a bunch I am missing

Some on this list are routinely accused of being fanatics, gun wankers, etc, the rest are all considered reasonable progressive individuals, and many on the list are the ones labeling the others as unreasonable gun nuts or worse. The only commonality I can find between the ones accused of being unreasonable nuts is opposition to a new AWB. Is that all it is? Is support of an AWB a purity test which determines whether someone is worth listening to or having a discussion with? On virtually every other topic of gun control, there is widespread differences of opinion between us "gun wankers" on what is reasonable. If this is actually the line, I think it is more than a little bit nuts. Handguns are the weapon of choice in more than 95% of the gun violence reported, but it is support or opposition to banning AR15s, used in less than 2% of gun violence, which is the line between reasonable and gun wanker? How does that make any sense to any rational person? 

 

It doesn't make sense, because the grabberz insist on making this a purely emotional argument rather than a rational one.  

Share this post


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

I’ve got my daddy’s guns, and until last week no ammo.  But a neighbor have me a box last weekend.  Not sure if it fits. But now I have both guns and ammo.

It'll fit fine.  Don't worry.  If its a bit small, that's really easy it'll still fire fine.  If its too big, just take a ball peen hammer and tap it into place.  In either event, hold your face close to the chamber so you can hear if there are any problems as you pull the trigger.  Oh and eye protection is for sissies.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, badlatitude said:

The basic rifle was only $7 grand it is always the attachable toys that run the cost up.

 

8 hours ago, badlatitude said:

When I drop, my guns will go to the proper disposal center as will yours.

You really want a ridiculously expensive rifle destroyed because you think the next generation can't be trusted with the freedoms you enjoy?

This should go in the Hang The Rich thread IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
14 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I have an FN 5.7 Mark II, an FN Ballista .338 Lapua Magnum, A SCAR 17S, A Mossberg 930 ProJM. I also have a separate collection in Oregon 

 

I believe that your comments are an indication that what you claim to desire is indeed possible.  It will require trust and acceptance of some risk for people on both sides of the discussion.  I think that you recognize that there are indeed factions who seriously and intentionally are more interested in eradicating firearms ownership than they are in reducing violent incidents, as well as recognizing that there are some on the "pro rights" side who refuse to consider any infringement of those rights. 

Separating those extremes and pushing them to the sidelines will be necessary for any positive discussion, IMHO.   On a tangent - what do you w/such nice and exotic guns?  That .338 epitomizes the "scary military rifle" - but, the ballistics of that round are phenomenal.  That's serious coin even in exotic gun terms. 

I think the problem is that we are discussing the wrong issues.  The issue is not toolz, but rather an acceptance of violence in our society as a means of resolving common disputes.  The uptick in general violence in our society has been happening for decades and its a multi-faceted problem that having a singular focus on one tool will not only NOT address the issue, but it will delay actually dealing with the issue as we pursue this BS agenda. However, having said that - I AM willing to consider some reasonable tool regulations while we are working on the longer term stuff that will take years to see results.  But I honestly don't think most tool regulators are interested in "reasonable".  Not when they continue to be dishonest about suicides being a reason to ban AR-15s and such.

I would also submit that Bad Latte's SCAR 17S is a far scarier weapon than his .338 LM.  I"m trying to understand what a committed gun grabber, and staunch AWB proponent such as BL is doing with those "assault rifles"???  Seems like a case of a "jocal do as I say not as I do" syndrome.  How is that even Kali legal?  

I've been struggling with the decision on a SCAR 16 or 17.  BL, if you're interested in selling your 17S and having it leave the state in order to assuage your guilt, I'm more than happy to take it off your hands for a reasonable price.  Hopefully its FDE.  Black is just too scary for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2017 at 10:28 AM, LenP said:

In reading through the millionth gun thread, I am wondering what exactly makes one a gun nutter/wanker/whatever.

Gun owners in PA

BJ
Jocal
KIS
Guy
Tom
JBSF
Cal20
Badlat
Me
and I am sure a bunch I am missing

Some on this list are routinely accused of being fanatics, gun wankers, etc, the rest are all considered reasonable progressive individuals, and many on the list are the ones labeling the others as unreasonable gun nuts or worse. The only commonality I can find between the ones accused of being unreasonable nuts is opposition to a new AWB. Is that all it is? Is support of an AWB a purity test which determines whether someone is worth listening to or having a discussion with? On virtually every other topic of gun control, there is widespread differences of opinion between us "gun wankers" on what is reasonable. If this is actually the line, I think it is more than a little bit nuts. Handguns are the weapon of choice in more than 95% of the gun violence reported, but it is support or opposition to banning AR15s, used in less than 2% of gun violence, which is the line between reasonable and gun wanker? How does that make any sense to any rational person? 

 

Handguns? How about knives. More murders every year by knives then by AR15s. 

Share this post


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

 you think the next generation can't be trusted with the freedoms you enjoy?

Judging by the news reports, THIS generation can't be trusted with those freedoms.

Share this post


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

I think "majority rules, period" is not really our rule. Prior to getting to your dream point of ending private gun ownership, we're going to need to amend the Constitution.

I'm Uncooperative, like most people. That's why your style of confiscation has achieved only a 15% compliance rate in CT. When I drop, at least a couple of mine are going to my grandson. I have no problem with future generations having the freedom I do.

If I thought that freedom bad, I'd give it up for myself as well as for future generations.

If mass shootings continue to be a serious problem, you'll get your amendment. Confiscation will continue to be a problem, but so what? We will never have to worry about our prisons being empty. When you drop, any weapon you have will be confiscated as the law requires. Your grandson will be a law breaker by accepting your gift, but if the law is amended you won't be able to gift anything.

Share this post


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

 

You really want a ridiculously expensive rifle destroyed because you think the next generation can't be trusted with the freedoms you enjoy?

This should go in the Hang The Rich thread IMO.

There will always be those who think their toys should be preserved. Think of it like covered wagons, in a hundred years, there won't be much of a market at all for them.

Share this post


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

There will always be those who think their toys should be preserved. Think of it like covered wagons, in a hundred years, there won't be much of a market at all for them.

You don't really have that .338 do ya, BL? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

There will always be those who think their toys should be preserved.

I'm just not sure why you're sort of among us.

Why are you so special? Your should be preserved for your life, but not beyond? Why not give it to the government now, if that's the right thing to do? What are you waiting for?

Share this post


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

Judging by the news reports, THIS generation can't be trusted with those freedoms.

If badlad really agreed, he'd get rid of his guns. Would you mind scolding him for me?

Share this post


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

I'm just not sure why you're sort of among us.

Why are you so special? Your should be preserved for your life, but not beyond? Why not give it to the government now, if that's the right thing to do? What are you waiting for?

Did I make you delirious Tom? They'll get their gun soon enough.

Share this post


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

I think the problem is that we are discussing the wrong issues.  The issue is not toolz, but rather an acceptance of violence in our society as a means of resolving common disputes.  The uptick in general violence in our society has been happening for decades and its a multi-faceted problem that having a singular focus on one tool will not only NOT address the issue, but it will delay actually dealing with the issue as we pursue this BS agenda. However, having said that - I AM willing to consider some reasonable tool regulations while we are working on the longer term stuff that will take years to see results.  But I honestly don't think most tool regulators are interested in "reasonable".  Not when they continue to be dishonest about suicides being a reason to ban AR-15s and such.

I would also submit that Bad Latte's SCAR 17S is a far scarier weapon than his .338 LM.  I"m trying to understand what a committed gun grabber, and staunch AWB proponent such as BL is doing with those "assault rifles"???  Seems like a case of a "jocal do as I say not as I do" syndrome.  How is that even Kali legal?  

I've been struggling with the decision on a SCAR 16 or 17.  BL, if you're interested in selling your 17S and having it leave the state in order to assuage your guilt, I'm more than happy to take it off your hands for a reasonable price.  Hopefully its FDE.  Black is just too scary for me.

I'm sick of talking in circles about gun control and I'll side with whatever law comes out doing something. I know that sounds desperate, but nothing is going to happen unless people take a radical stand and force Congress to do what they should have done long ago.

I love the SCAR and wouldn't part with it, I will say I have not had more fun with any other weapon I have ever used and I recommend that you get one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Did I make you delirious Tom? They'll get their gun soon enough.

Sloop, will you please explain to him that it's already too late and gets more so with each mass shooting?

Share this post


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

I have a lot of toys Ches, and you can't take a single one with you.

I'm just confused by the apparent juxtaposition of your stance:  You've spent a LOT of money on some pretty exotic firearms, yet, you are clamoring for private ownership to be eradicated.  It seems that your emotions are overriding logic in many of these discussions. I don't say that to demean your opinion, but, to try to understand the thought process by which you participate in the thing you advocate becoming illegal.   Many of the grabbers simply want to say "make a law", knowing that it won't impact them, that they won't have to make any personal adjustments or accept any personal responsibility whatsoever in implementing "the fix".   

I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but, I'm of the opinion that "the fix" is going to require effort and adjustment on the part of each and every one of us, as "the fix" that I see as necessary is changing societal norms such that we stop vilifying anyone who disagrees with us, who looks differently than we do, who has different priorities than we do.  We need to stop thinking that every disappointment in life is a result of someone's intentional slight, warranting a repercussion.   It's not gonna happen quickly, it's not going to be happy-happy/joy-joy, but, that change in attitudes IS what I think we need. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have a lot of toys Ches, and you can't take a single one with you.

You can, however, leave the next generation with the freedoms you enjoy. Or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Uncooperative Tom said:

You can, however, leave the next generation with the freedoms you enjoy. Or not.

Sorry, my generation ruined future generations ability to enjoy what we had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

There will always be those who think their toys should be preserved. Think of it like covered wagons, in a hundred years, there won't be much of a market at all for them.

Have you checked on the price of an original Conestoga wagon recently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm just confused by the apparent juxtaposition of your stance:  You've spent a LOT of money on some pretty exotic firearms, yet, you are clamoring for private ownership to be eradicated.  It seems that your emotions are overriding logic in many of these discussions. I don't say that to demean your opinion, but, to try to understand the thought process by which you participate in the thing you advocate becoming illegal.   Many of the grabbers simply want to say "make a law", knowing that it won't impact them, that they won't have to make any personal adjustments or accept any personal responsibility whatsoever in implementing "the fix".   

I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but, I'm of the opinion that "the fix" is going to require effort and adjustment on the part of each and every one of us, as "the fix" that I see as necessary is changing societal norms such that we stop vilifying anyone who disagrees with us, who looks differently than we do, who has different priorities than we do.  We need to stop thinking that every disappointment in life is a result of someone's intentional slight, warranting a repercussion.   It's not gonna happen quickly, it's not going to be happy-happy/joy-joy, but, that change in attitudes IS what I think we need. 

I have a lot of money to throw away Ches, and I'm also sure that people will get a tax deduction for destroying weapons should it ever become law. I'll be dead, and I'm sure at that point I could care less about possessions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Have you checked on the price of an original Conestoga wagon recently?

I'm sure there may be a market, but maintenance and storage charges will wreck any profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites