Jump to content


What does "gun control" mean to you?


  • Please log in to reply
242 replies to this topic

#1 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 01 September 2013 - 07:17 AM

I'm sick and fracking tired of these gun control debates where we all talk past each other and ignore what the other side is saying.  I can count on one hand the number of people here who actually debate the issue logically. 

 

So pretend this is a National debate and you are tasked with articulating what federal (and state/local if you choose to include it) policy SHOULD BE wrt to guns and gun ownership, access to guns, buying and selling of guns, screening for ownership (if applicable), etc, etc. 

 

This isn't a hypothetical world of unicorns and rainbows either..... you must frame this policy in the current context of existing Constitutional law, federal law and SCOTUS rulings.  If your policy runs counter to any of those, explain how and why you would change it.  Changing the law is certainly a viable option, as is changing the Constitution.  Just the consider the likelihood of success if you choose to go that route.

 

Finally, ideally would would explain the expected outcome of your policy (i.e. what are you trying to achieve) and what you think the actual likelihood of being able to achieve your desired outcome with your policy compared to the infringment of rights and freedoms of citizens.  Your policy has to weigh and accoun for that balance.

 

Your homework assignment is due by COB on Friday. 



#2 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,485 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 01 September 2013 - 08:02 AM

Keeping my Slidefire equipped Colt LE6920 M4 on target while I empty 100 M855 GreenTips from a Surefire magazine.

Oh, I'm sorry you wanted a serious discussion. Unfortunately that is a courtesy you have to earn.

How About nice recipe or animated GIF instead?

#3 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 01 September 2013 - 08:14 AM

OK, I'll start.......

 

1st of all - lets start with some definitions and common terms so we can all work from a common language.  The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is an individual right.  The SCOTUS has ruled that it does NOT apply to only militias.  Furthermore, the SCOTUS has definitely ruled that a common core purpose aside from defense of the country from external AND internal enemies - is defense of self, of home and of others.  You don't have to like it or accept it, but that IS the current law of the land.  Don't like it, then change the Connie.

 

However, the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is NOT an absolute right.  There can and should be common sense restrictions on gun ownership.  For instance, I don't want felons, violent people, mentally unstable people, juvenilles, etc to have access to guns.

 

Next, I would define "Arms" so we can better categorize them.  To me, "Arms" in the context of the 2A are personal firearms that one would reasonably be expected to possess in order to carry out the core purposes of the 2A including SELF-DEFENSE.  IMHO, that means "normal and common weapons" up to and including military grade weapons that would commonly be carried by a "person" as an individual arm.  I would NOT include in that explosive devices, rockets, artillery, tanks, fighter jets, nukes, MANPADS, etc.  Because NONE of those are "carried" as the principle means of a personal weapon.  RPGs, grenades, tanks, MANPADs are ALL secondary weapons to the rifle and pistol.  The citizen soldier did not keep cannons and naval warships for personal use in 1776.  The same will be true as technology progresses...... a phased plasma rifle for the individual will be fine but I would not allow common access to bigger stuff.  I don't need RPGs, SAWs, Stingers and Claymores for "self-defense".

 

Any weapon that meets the "arms" definition is ok.  Mag limits, barrel lengths, caliber and such are irrelevant to the discussion of whether it could be used to commit a crime.

 

The focus should be not on regulating the gun, but on regulating and screening the individual.  If you're a convicted felon - no gun.  If you're a hard drug user - no gun.  If you're violent or mentally unstable - no gun.  If you're under 18, you can't buy a gun yourself - and your parents or legal guardian are LEGALLY responsible for you if you misuse a gun as a juvy.  That means THEY are fined or go to jail if their kid hurts someone with a gun they own.

 

I would beef up screening and background checks - to include a database of your criminal history in ALL states.  I would mandate BGC for ALL sales including private sales.  I would make it possible that instant BGCs could be done over the phone or internet like a dealer can do right now.  It puts the onus on the seller to make sure (or at least as best as the system allows) for that gun to not get into the hands of a criminal.  If a gun that you own shows up at a crime scene and it wasn't reported stolen and it wasn't transferred properly - YOU are on the hook for the crime.  "Loaning" guns to friends and family members could be done as easily as going on line and filling out a quick form stating the name and period of transfer.  I would hold each of the transferees to the same instant background check standard as I would someone buying the gun. 

 

The only way to do the above is to have expanded and linked DBs of criminal history updated by the states and feds.  (garbage in, garbage out)  I would have very strong laws on the books that very clearly describe what the information can and cannot be used for to prevent abuse byt the gov't.  We can do it with other databases they keep on us, they can do it for this.

 

I would significantly increase the penalties on people who illegally possess guns, illegally sell guns and who use guns in a crime.  I would make it mandatory in ALL states that guns that are lost or stolen must be reported in a timely manner. 

 

I would make it mandatory that guns are reasonably secured in the home.  That does NOT mean that you have to keep it locked up, dissassembled, trigger lock or whatever at ALL times.  But if you leave it unsecured and child picks it up and shoots himself or others or if you leave a gun under your bed or in the closet while you're at work and a thief breaks in and steals it - YOU are liable for fines or criminal penalties.  A gun safe is not that expensive.  If you can't afford a safe or lock, you can't afford (and shouldn't have) a gun.  Sorry, gone are the days when you can leave it in a glass gun cabinet at home or in a gun rack in your unlocked truck and think its safe.  Yes, I expect my locked house to be safe from burglery, but that's just not reasonable anymore.  Being a gun owner comes with a responsibility.  Now if someone comes into your house while you're at work and rips the door off the safe or rips the safe off the wall and takes it... that's a different story.

 

I would strengthen the mental health screening & reporting aspect.  This is likely the hardest part to do correctly - but I would make reporting of mentally unstable/violent folks mandatory.  I would set up medical health professional boards to conduct screening and in extreme cases have a panel of judges adjudicate the case to see if suspension or revocation of gun ownership is justified.  Even if a temp removal is done, that's better than letting a deranged person intent on harm to self or others have a weapon.  But along with that has to come a judicial and legal oversight.  LEO alone cannot and should not be enough to confiscate weapons or place someone on a "do not buy" list.  A single doctor also shouldn't be enough to do this.  If someone is enough of a threat - they need to be evaluated by a board docs and then adjudicated by a judge or judges.  And there needs to be a speedy process to reverse that and restore rights once the problem has passed.

 

Finally, there needs to be a concerted effort by gov't and more importantly by society to condemn and shape poor behavior when it comes to misuse of guns.  No longer should we accept the "no snitch" attitudes in the ghettos.  We shouldn't accept the glorification of poor behavior by hip hoppers who use guns in violent and sexist images.  We need to take the MADD approach and treat the behavior rather than the implements.

 

Thank you for your time and consideration...... 



#4 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,776 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 12:40 PM

To me it's the freedom to supply covert arms to terrorists in Syria and drug dealers in Mexico...



#5 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,947 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 01 September 2013 - 12:45 PM

Gun control is impossible in this country.  You can't un-ring a bell.  We live in a fire-arm dystopia where we just accept things like school shootings and such.



#6 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 01 September 2013 - 12:47 PM

Jeff is feeling the heat of public opinion turning against his cause.

Funny as hell that he wants to have a conversation when he has a long history of calling people cunts.

#7 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 01 September 2013 - 01:20 PM

Well there's three non-answers so far.  Anyone have anything to actually add?  This is your chance to actually explain what gun control means to you.  Whattsamatta - too much thought involved?  Easier to just throw out snark and one-liners?



#8 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 01 September 2013 - 01:27 PM

I'm willing to have a discussion on gun control with you, but we need some ground rules.

You must refrain from calling me a cunt.
You must refrain from using homoerotic imagery.
You must address my questions directly, even the uncomfortable ones.
You must accept that some of my arguments are valid.

If you can comply with my rules, then we can talk.

#9 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 01 September 2013 - 01:38 PM

You have to start with the real words of the 2nd. That is, in effect, the ONLY "constitutional" part of the discussion. No law says that gun regs must be "common sense" any more than other laws. The SCOTUS upheld that men can be owned by others and dozens (hundreds) of other crimes, so don't start quoting the court. 

 

If we are going to start from ground zero, there is a right for the states and cities and counties to form armed militia, which has already been stated is now the National Guard.

 

So we agree on that.

 

All other decisions, including the right to bear arms for personal protection and hunting, are not under the 2nd, but rather decisions which have been made over the years.

 

No decent debate can be had until people read the short 2nd Amendment and understand that it has nothing to do with a citizen owning guns WITHOUT the gubment knowing about it. You don't. In fact, the arms of the militia were carefully counted. 

 

Funny how the main talking points, like the Swiss having guns in all households as militia, have either changed or been debunked. The Swiss have 50 rounds - which are kept LOCKED in a local armory! 

 

To even begin this debate, we need a couple things. First, all guns must be fully insured and sellers, manufacturers and users must be FULLY liable for any and all damage or accidents which involve them.

 

Secondly, all guns and ammo must be registered and kept track of - just like the founders militia did. They must be reported when stolen or lost. This is not much different than a credit card, cell phone, boat, car or any other piece of equipment. 

 

Thirdly, a need must be shown for excess and especially lethal weapons or ammo. I believe in the right to self-defense, but the right to have 10,000 rounds of ammo which dismembers people is another subject.

 

Do ya wanna keep talking?



#10 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 01 September 2013 - 01:40 PM

I'm willing to have a discussion on gun control with you, but we need some ground rules.

You must refrain from calling me a cunt.
You must refrain from using homoerotic imagery.
You must address my questions directly, even the uncomfortable ones.
You must accept that some of my arguments are valid.

If you can comply with my rules, then we can talk.

 

Rules?   This is Sailing "Anarchy".  You don't get to make rules here.  But I have intelligent, respectful discussion with people I disagree with all the time.  Your treatment here is totally up to you and how you behave.

 

Don't want to be called a cunt, then don't act like a trolling cunt who won't discuss anything seriously. 

Gay marriage is the law of the land.... I don't have an issue with your personal choices. 

I have zero problem addressing uncomfortable issues directly.  I've seen very little of it from you however - lets see if you can follow your own rule.

I reserve the right to disagree that any of your arguments are valid or not.  Put 'em out there and lets see.  I haven't seen any yet, but then again you haven't ever discussed the matter seriously.  So forgive me if I think you're full of shit until you prove otherwise.

 

Ball's in your court, big guy.....



#11 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 01 September 2013 - 01:43 PM

You must agree to my rules or I won't play your game.

#12 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 01 September 2013 - 01:46 PM

Jeff is feeling the heat of public opinion turning against his cause.
Funny as hell that he wants to have a conversation when he has a long history of calling people cunts.


In His defense he's not a smart man. Name calling is his primary means of berate. I have a well articulate vision of what gun control means and how to achieve it on the gum nutter thread but he is way to dense to understand it let alone argue against it.

#13 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,109 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 01 September 2013 - 02:04 PM

OK, I'll start.......

 

1st of all - lets start with some definitions and common terms so we can all work from a common language.  The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is an individual right.  The SCOTUS has ruled that it does NOT apply to only militias.  Furthermore, the SCOTUS has definitely ruled that a common core purpose aside from defense of the country from external AND internal enemies - is defense of self, of home and of others.  You don't have to like it or accept it, but that IS the current law of the land.  Don't like it, then change the Connie.

 

However, the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is NOT an absolute right.  There can and should be common sense restrictions on gun ownership.  For instance, I don't want felons, violent people, mentally unstable people, juvenilles, etc to have access to guns.

 

Next, I would define "Arms" so we can better categorize them.  To me, "Arms" in the context of the 2A are personal firearms that one would reasonably be expected to possess in order to carry out the core purposes of the 2A including SELF-DEFENSE.  IMHO, that means "normal and common weapons" up to and including military grade weapons that would commonly be carried by a "person" as an individual arm.  I would NOT include in that explosive devices, rockets, artillery, tanks, fighter jets, nukes, MANPADS, etc.  Because NONE of those are "carried" as the principle means of a personal weapon.  RPGs, grenades, tanks, MANPADs are ALL secondary weapons to the rifle and pistol.  The citizen soldier did not keep cannons and naval warships for personal use in 1776.  The same will be true as technology progresses...... a phased plasma rifle for the individual will be fine but I would not allow common access to bigger stuff.  I don't need RPGs, SAWs, Stingers and Claymores for "self-defense".

 

Any weapon that meets the "arms" definition is ok.  Mag limits, barrel lengths, caliber and such are irrelevant to the discussion of whether it could be used to commit a crime.

 

The focus should be not on regulating the gun, but on regulating and screening the individual.  If you're a convicted felon - no gun.  If you're a hard drug user - no gun.  If you're violent or mentally unstable - no gun.  If you're under 18, you can't buy a gun yourself - and your parents or legal guardian are LEGALLY responsible for you if you misuse a gun as a juvy.  That means THEY are fined or go to jail if their kid hurts someone with a gun they own.

 

I would beef up screening and background checks - to include a database of your criminal history in ALL states.  I would mandate BGC for ALL sales including private sales.  I would make it possible that instant BGCs could be done over the phone or internet like a dealer can do right now.  It puts the onus on the seller to make sure (or at least as best as the system allows) for that gun to not get into the hands of a criminal.  If a gun that you own shows up at a crime scene and it wasn't reported stolen and it wasn't transferred properly - YOU are on the hook for the crime.  "Loaning" guns to friends and family members could be done as easily as going on line and filling out a quick form stating the name and period of transfer.  I would hold each of the transferees to the same instant background check standard as I would someone buying the gun. 

 

The only way to do the above is to have expanded and linked DBs of criminal history updated by the states and feds.  (garbage in, garbage out)  I would have very strong laws on the books that very clearly describe what the information can and cannot be used for to prevent abuse byt the gov't.  We can do it with other databases they keep on us, they can do it for this.

 

I would significantly increase the penalties on people who illegally possess guns, illegally sell guns and who use guns in a crime.  I would make it mandatory in ALL states that guns that are lost or stolen must be reported in a timely manner. 

 

I would make it mandatory that guns are reasonably secured in the home.  That does NOT mean that you have to keep it locked up, dissassembled, trigger lock or whatever at ALL times.  But if you leave it unsecured and child picks it up and shoots himself or others or if you leave a gun under your bed or in the closet while you're at work and a thief breaks in and steals it - YOU are liable for fines or criminal penalties.  A gun safe is not that expensive.  If you can't afford a safe or lock, you can't afford (and shouldn't have) a gun.  Sorry, gone are the days when you can leave it in a glass gun cabinet at home or in a gun rack in your unlocked truck and think its safe.  Yes, I expect my locked house to be safe from burglery, but that's just not reasonable anymore.  Being a gun owner comes with a responsibility.  Now if someone comes into your house while you're at work and rips the door off the safe or rips the safe off the wall and takes it... that's a different story.

 

I would strengthen the mental health screening & reporting aspect.  This is likely the hardest part to do correctly - but I would make reporting of mentally unstable/violent folks mandatory.  I would set up medical health professional boards to conduct screening and in extreme cases have a panel of judges adjudicate the case to see if suspension or revocation of gun ownership is justified.  Even if a temp removal is done, that's better than letting a deranged person intent on harm to self or others have a weapon.  But along with that has to come a judicial and legal oversight.  LEO alone cannot and should not be enough to confiscate weapons or place someone on a "do not buy" list.  A single doctor also shouldn't be enough to do this.  If someone is enough of a threat - they need to be evaluated by a board docs and then adjudicated by a judge or judges.  And there needs to be a speedy process to reverse that and restore rights once the problem has passed.

 

Finally, there needs to be a concerted effort by gov't and more importantly by society to condemn and shape poor behavior when it comes to misuse of guns.  No longer should we accept the "no snitch" attitudes in the ghettos.  We shouldn't accept the glorification of poor behavior by hip hoppers who use guns in violent and sexist images.  We need to take the MADD approach and treat the behavior rather than the implements.

 

Thank you for your time and consideration...... 

I just cannot see this as a problem that we have the ability to solve at this point.  All we accomplish by going through the motions is to enrich lobbyists and inflame morons on both sides with wedge issues and/or pure partisan malarkey.  The horse is out of the barn.  

 

If I were to advocate any change, it would be to amend the Constitution to nix any decision, statute or ordinance that purports to limit the terms in the Second Amendment in any way shape or form.  Let people keep and bear arms, without infringement.  

 

We are better off directing limited resources to fixing other problems.  



#14 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 01 September 2013 - 02:10 PM

You have to start with the real words of the 2nd. That is, in effect, the ONLY "constitutional" part of the discussion. No law says that gun regs must be "common sense" any more than other laws. The SCOTUS upheld that men can be owned by others and dozens (hundreds) of other crimes, so don't start quoting the court. So you're saying that EVERYTHING the SCOTUS does now is invalid because of that one decision, which was fixed?  Feel free to continue thinking that way.  But you're wrong and the SCOTUS does have the final say until you change the Constitution.
 
BTW - why would we not want common sense laws?  The whole point is to balance the rights of citizens with safety and actually makes laws that work, not just make laws for the sake of making yourself feel better.  If the latter is your goal, like it seems to be for too many politicians - then we have nothing further to discuss. 
 
If we are going to start from ground zero, there is a right for the states and cities and counties to form armed militia, which has already been stated is now the National Guard.  You're simply wrong about thatDo NG members get to "keep and bear arms"?  No, they get to store and use arms only when they come to work.  They are a form of militia - but not the militia the 2A refers to.  If the NG is the militia in the 2A - then we are in massive violation as the RKBA to have their M-16s is most certainly being infringed.
 
So we agree on that.  Not even close.  Keep dreaming
 
All other decisions, including the right to bear arms for personal protection and hunting, are not under the 2nd, but rather decisions which have been made over the years.  Nope, see above
 
No decent debate can be had until people read the short 2nd Amendment and understand that it has nothing to do with a citizen owning guns WITHOUT the gubment knowing about it. You don't. In fact, the arms of the militia were carefully counted.  Really?  Cite please.
 
Funny how the main talking points, like the Swiss having guns in all households as militia, have either changed or been debunked. The Swiss have 50 rounds - which are kept LOCKED in a local armory!  The issued ammo is kept in the armory.  Ammo for their rifles is commercially available.  From wiki:  Most types of ammunition are available for commercial sale, including full metal jacket bullet calibres for military-issue weapons; hollow point rounds are only permitted for hunters.
 
To even begin this debate, we need a couple things. First, all guns must be fully insured and sellers, manufacturers and users must be FULLY liable for any and all damage or accidents which involve them.  Why are manufacturers and dealers liable for perfectly functioning tools?  Do car makers and dealers get sued when someone runs over a crowd on the sidewalk when driving drunk?  You're just being silly.  However, users being fully liable for damage or accidents?  Sounds good to me.
 
Secondly, all guns and ammo must be registered and kept track of - just like the founders militia did. They must be reported when stolen or lost. This is not much different than a credit card, cell phone, boat, car or any other piece of equipment.  the difference is cell phones, credit cards boats and cars are not constitutionally protected items or rights.  I also don't HAVE to report a lost or stolen credit card or cell phone.  It makes sense to, but I don't have to.  However, I've already addressed mandatory reporting of lost or stolen firearms. 
 
You will have to convince me WHY registration solves anything other than giving the gov't a way to restrict my rights.  It has been regularly abused and does nothing to prevent crime.   Make a better case for it and we'll talk.
 
Thirdly, a need must be shown for excess and especially lethal weapons or ammo. I believe in the right to self-defense, but the right to have 10,000 rounds of ammo which dismembers people is another subject.  Define "especially lethal weapons or ammo".  If you mean the weapon that kills the vast majority of people in this country and used in the vast majority of crime - then we are talking about basic handguns.  Focusing 90% of your effort on a weapon that is used in less than 2% of crime is again silly and specious.  Try again.
 
Show me a case where someone with 10k rounds stored in their garage was a problem and used all that ammo in a crime?  I might be able to carry a few hundred at a time.  Your problem is you simply fear the number but haven't really thought through what problem they actually cause.
 
Do ya wanna keep talking?  Sure - but it would be best if you actually know what it is you're trying to solve.  I don't think you really know and just want something to feel good about.

 
I strongly disagree with most of everything you've said.  But at least you tried.....

#15 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 01 September 2013 - 02:12 PM

You must agree to my rules or I won't play your game.

 

ok



#16 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 01 September 2013 - 03:08 PM

Jeff's Rules of Order.

 

Jeff reserves the right to call someone a cunt.

Jeff reserves the right to degrade any discussion to homoerotic name calling.

Jeff reserves the right to not answer specifc questions

Jeff reserves the right to ignore valid arguments.



#17 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 01 September 2013 - 03:27 PM

Jeff's Rules of Order.

 

Jeff reserves the right to call someone a cunt.

Jeff reserves the right to degrade any discussion to homoerotic name calling.

Jeff reserves the right to not answer specifc questions

Jeff reserves the right to ignore valid arguments.


Waaaah.  Coming from you whining about not answering specific questions and ignoring valid arguments is priceless.  Hypocrite much?

 

And I'm not begging you to answer or participate.  You haven't shown anything but speciousness and obtuseness on any of the other threads on the topic.  I doubt agreeing to your "rules" is going to change anything.  So answer..... or don't. 

 

No skin off my nose.  In fact, if you have no intent to participate - try S'ing the FTU.  You are not even subtle about attempting to derail gun discussions with specious side tracks. 



#18 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,485 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 01 September 2013 - 04:02 PM

Well there's three non-answers so far.  Anyone have anything to actually add?  This is your chance to actually explain what gun control means to you.  Whattsamatta - too much thought involved?  Easier to just throw out snark and one-liners?


Reconsider your own past behavior before casting aspersions.

#19 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,485 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 01 September 2013 - 04:06 PM

Jeff's Rules of Order.
 
Jeff reserves the right to call someone a cunt.
Jeff reserves the right to degrade any discussion to homoerotic name calling.
Jeff reserves the right to not answer specifc questions
Jeff reserves the right to ignore valid arguments.


Waaaah.  Coming from you whining about not answering specific questions and ignoring valid arguments is priceless.  Hypocrite much?
 
And I'm not begging you to answer or participate.  You haven't shown anything but speciousness and obtuseness on any of the other threads on the topic.  I doubt agreeing to your "rules" is going to change anything.  So answer..... or don't. 


 
No skin off my nose.  In fact, if you have no intent to participate - try S'ing the FTU.  You are not even subtle about attempting to derail gun discussions with specious side tracks. 


And so it goes. Maybe if you had started with an apology for your own behavior rather than bemoaning everyone else's.

#20 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,740 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 01 September 2013 - 04:26 PM

...If a gun that you own shows up at a crime scene and it wasn't reported stolen and it wasn't transferred properly - YOU are on the hook for the crime.

 

Only my wife and I know for sure which guns we own.
 

 



#21 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 01 September 2013 - 05:29 PM

Jeff, you are really full of poop....

 

BUT, just for fun, tell me why the 2nd says things don't have to be insured or registered. 

 

You are making up your own rules and having a debate with yourself.......

 

As far as perfectly good tools needing insured and registered, I installed fire (heaters) in people's houses for 20 years. I was insured and each appliance had to be serialized, registered and a building permit obtained. Moreover, I insured quite well- and sued once because someone lost "consortium" because the yuletide flame (in a fireplace) was not high enough (their fault, not mine).....

 

Taking one sentence out of the Constitution and then positing that it means no liability, insurance, registration, etc. makes you full of it. Sorry. If Madison wanted no registration or insurance, he would have said so. 

 

Note that, in 1789, the 2nd read like this:

"ARTICLE THE FIFTH. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person"

 

Now, a thinking person would question why the same paragraph is so clear about military and security of the STATE, and not of the person! Inconvenient. 

Read the exact debate and you will see that the vast majority of it was about the trained militia:

http://constitution....debate_1789.htm

 

Here is an Idiots Guide which may fit the bill - note that state gun laws like PA's were DROPPED from the Constitution, because they gave the individual rights as opposed to the militia:

http://idiotsguides....-bear-arms.html

 

Summary from that guide:

 

"all states had game laws and controlled the use of guns. In cities, fire wardens regulated gunpowder storage for fear of explosions. People in “actual rebellion” could be disarmed. Private rights were always balanced by public safety. In bringing the laws of those by-gone days forward, we can embrace the fundamental wisdom of the Founders on this score. We can have our guns and regulate them, too."



#22 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,911 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 01 September 2013 - 06:04 PM

  The citizen soldier did not keep cannons and naval warships for personal use in 1776.  The same will be true as technology progresses...... a phased plasma rifle for the individual will be fine but I would not allow common access to bigger stuff.  I don't need RPGs, SAWs, Stingers and Claymores for "self-defense".

 

That's not entirely accurate, Privateers and Letters of Marque were in common use at this time, so a private warship would not be entirely unreasonable.

 

Other than that your proposal sounds pretty reasonable, sensible, and mostly in line with where I am coming from.  All but the latter of course make it completely unworkable from a political perspective. 

 

You won't pacify the Nugent style nutters of the world with controlling every change of hands, and you won't satisfy the anti-gun crowd if they can't feel they've removed some "military" hardware by banning things like flash suppressors or large magazines which don't really do much to make the weapon any less deadly but feel good to ban.



#23 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 01 September 2013 - 06:09 PM

One has to wonder - if technology creates non-lethal weapons with reliability as good as or better than firearms, would most of the self-defense questions be taken care of? 

 

The non-reversible effects of firearms is a problem.....like when you shoot your own kid, yourself, etc. in error. 

 

These questions come down to what is needed for personal and self-defense. This is, IMHO, a different issue than militia. 

 

At that point, we can talk about hunting, etc. and have reasonable regs for that as well as target shooting and other sports. 

 

None of this is going to happen soon, though. Money talks and safety and BS and common sense...walks. 



#24 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 01 September 2013 - 10:45 PM

At the risk of being called a cunt or a homoerotic slur, I'll give Jeff my opinion despite his refusal to accept my terms.

 

Gun control is simple.  Registration and licensing.  All transactions must be done through licensed dealers and the transactions recorded.  All guns should be tied to their owners.  Owners are responsible for the safe storage and use of their armory.  If a crime is perpetrated with their weapons, they will have some liability.  Insurance or bonding will be necessary for ownership to cover such liability.   Any transgression in responsibility such as an accidental discharge causing injury will require the perp to forfeit their guns until reviewed by authorities.  Any transgression in other laws that demonstrate careless or dangerous behavior will also bring the scrutiny of the authorities and gun forfeiture until adjudicated.


With great power, comes great responsibility.



#25 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,719 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 01 September 2013 - 11:47 PM

And following your logic, the same should go with knives, gasoline, matches and lighters?.....



#26 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 01 September 2013 - 11:49 PM

And following your logic, the same should go with knives, gasoline, matches and lighters?.....

Deflection is not permitted in this argument.   We have rules.   Jeff enforces them. Want to call me a cunt?



#27 Mike G

Mike G

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,285 posts
  • Location:Ventura County, CA

Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:39 AM

A favorite line from Pulp Fiction..

 

Mia:  In a conversation, do you listen or wait to talk?



#28 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,109 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:50 AM

A favorite line from Pulp Fiction..

 

Mia:  In a conversation, do you listen or wait to talk?

220px-HowToTalkToALiberal.jpg



#29 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 03:13 AM

Why do I feel like applying corporal punishment or pistol whipping that snarky face ever time I gaze at it?



#30 WarBird

WarBird

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,100 posts
  • Location:lake michigan

Posted 02 September 2013 - 03:14 AM

. In fact, the arms of the militia were carefully counted. 

Gotta get back to calling Craigirli a fum duck    FUM DUCK

The militia was who ever showed up after baling, plowing , goat fucking or whatever,  when they could, if they could. 

 

 

 

DId HeaCK



#31 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:05 AM

  The citizen soldier did not keep cannons and naval warships for personal use in 1776.  The same will be true as technology progresses...... a phased plasma rifle for the individual will be fine but I would not allow common access to bigger stuff.  I don't need RPGs, SAWs, Stingers and Claymores for "self-defense".

 

That's not entirely accurate, Privateers and Letters of Marque were in common use at this time, so a private warship would not be entirely unreasonable.

 

Other than that your proposal sounds pretty reasonable, sensible, and mostly in line with where I am coming from.  All but the latter of course make it completely unworkable from a political perspective. 

 

You won't pacify the Nugent style nutters of the world with controlling every change of hands, and you won't satisfy the anti-gun crowd if they can't feel they've removed some "military" hardware by banning things like flash suppressors or large magazines which don't really do much to make the weapon any less deadly but feel good to ban.

 

Wow, you're going to lose your liberal card if you keep talking like that......  :lol:

 

I agree though - there seems to be no room for common sense on either side anymore.



#32 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:43 AM

Gun control is simple.  Registration and licensing.  All transactions must be done through licensed dealers and the transactions recorded.  All guns should be tied to their owners.  Owners are responsible for the safe storage and use of their armory.  If a crime is perpetrated with their weapons, they will have some liability.  Insurance or bonding will be necessary for ownership to cover such liability.   Any transgression in responsibility such as an accidental discharge causing injury will require the perp to forfeit their guns until reviewed by authorities.  Any transgression in other laws that demonstrate careless or dangerous behavior will also bring the scrutiny of the authorities and gun forfeiture until adjudicated.


With great power, comes great responsibility.

 

If there were ironclad protections in there against abuse of the registries by the gov't - then I might give it some thought.  But the gov't has repeatedly abused them and they been shown to be of little to no value in preventing crime.

 

How does a registration scheme prevent crime when the vast majority of gun crime is committed by guns off the books.  Do you think criminals will suddenly come into the PD to register their guns the next day? 

 

Futhermore, your registration, insurance and bonding scheme would have to be non-punitive in terms of cost and effort.  Otherwise it ends up being EXACTLY what you accuse voter ID laws of - disenfranchising the poor.  Rich people are the only ones who end up with the right to enjoy the 2A.  The NFA is a perfect example of how that works. 

 

See that wasn't so hard, now was it?



#33 Battlecheese

Battlecheese

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,777 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, music, physics.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:53 AM

If there were ironclad protections in there against abuse of the registries by the gov't - then I might give it some thought.  But the gov't has repeatedly abused them and they been shown to be of little to no value in preventing crime.
 
How does a registration scheme prevent crime when the vast majority of gun crime is committed by guns off the books.  Do you think criminals will suddenly come into the PD to register their guns the next day?

As you point out, the problems are damn big and will be hard to solve.

The obvious solution is to install a dictator to sort shit out. I personally expect you will have one within 20 years.

#34 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:02 PM

Gun registries would be an extremely useful tool in crime fighting. Gun violence would decline. Illegal guns would be easily confiscated when found and destroyed. People who should not have guns will not be able to get them.

#35 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,363 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 12:49 PM

I have come to the conclusion that, in the same way as abortion, the goal of the gun control activists is the complete banning of all guns, and on the other side the activists opposing gun control see every law as the first step in a slippery slope and so oppose any new laws. The problem is that the extremes are driving the bus here. So the reality is while I am in favor of expanded background checks, including most private sales, I will be telling all my reps I want them to oppose it, since as long as the discussion is focused on those background checks, it is not on registration, licensing, insurance, and confiscation, because that is where the other side wants to take it. It is unfortunate that this is what politics has come to, but pretending we still have a rational system is just setting yourself up for disappointment.

#36 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:03 PM

. In fact, the arms of the militia were carefully counted. 

Gotta get back to calling Craigirli a fum duck    FUM DUCK

The militia was who ever showed up after baling, plowing , goat fucking or whatever,  when they could, if they could. 

 

 

 

DId HeaCK

 

Uh, as you prob know, they had LAWS about the militia having to be armed, either with their own arm (type and size specified) or they would provide arms if the man was poor. Do you think they didn't keep track of who was poor and got a free Obamaphone? Do you think they didn't keep track of powder and who bought it and who paid for it and where it was stored?

 

They had forts and garrisons where the powder and (more) arms were stored and counted. There are records existing of the militia paying for powder and sending folks to buy it - with the exact weights and measures and where it was stored for years.

 

That's a FAR cry from today when you can buy 10,000 rounds and no one is the wiser.



#37 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:07 PM

I have come to the conclusion that, in the same way as abortion, the goal of the gun control activists is the complete banning of all guns, and on the other side the activists opposing gun control see every law as the first step in a slippery slope and so oppose any new laws. The problem is that the extremes are driving the bus here. So the reality is while I am in favor of expanded background checks, including most private sales, I will be telling all my reps I want them to oppose it, since as long as the discussion is focused on those background checks, it is not on registration, licensing, insurance, and confiscation, because that is where the other side wants to take it. It is unfortunate that this is what politics has come to, but pretending we still have a rational system is just setting yourself up for disappointment.

 

It must be nice to make up the opinions of all the extremists as a reason to be extreme yourself.

 

If you read any of the "extreme" opinions above, you'd see that none of them claimed to ban guns. 

 

As far as abortion, that's no "debate" any more than whether weed or beer should be legal. It's her (and his, to a non-legal extent) choice. Period. 

 

I do agree that the extremists, like you (above), are driving the nutter side of the bus. But the gun control advocates simply want to lower the statistics like Newtown and get the millions of guns flowing to the criminals slowed down.

 

Now go send some more money so they don't have to do that.....



#38 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,363 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:07 PM


. In fact, the arms of the militia were carefully counted. 

Gotta get back to calling Craigirli a fum duck    FUM DUCK
The militia was who ever showed up after baling, plowing , goat fucking or whatever,  when they could, if they could. 
 
 
 
DId HeaCK
 
Uh, as you prob know, they had LAWS about the militia having to be armed, either with their own arm (type and size specified) or they would provide arms if the man was poor. Do you think they didn't keep track of who was poor and got a free Obamaphone? Do you think they didn't keep track of powder and who bought it and who paid for it and where it was stored?
 
They had forts and garrisons where the powder and (more) arms were stored and counted. There are records existing of the militia paying for powder and sending folks to buy it - with the exact weights and measures and where it was stored for years.
 
That's a FAR cry from today when you can buy 10,000 rounds and no one is the wiser.

10000 ? Pikers.

#39 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,363 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:15 PM


I have come to the conclusion that, in the same way as abortion, the goal of the gun control activists is the complete banning of all guns, and on the other side the activists opposing gun control see every law as the first step in a slippery slope and so oppose any new laws. The problem is that the extremes are driving the bus here. So the reality is while I am in favor of expanded background checks, including most private sales, I will be telling all my reps I want them to oppose it, since as long as the discussion is focused on those background checks, it is not on registration, licensing, insurance, and confiscation, because that is where the other side wants to take it. It is unfortunate that this is what politics has come to, but pretending we still have a rational system is just setting yourself up for disappointment.

 
It must be nice to make up the opinions of all the extremists as a reason to be extreme yourself.
 
If you read any of the "extreme" opinions above, you'd see that none of them claimed to ban guns. 
 
As far as abortion, that's no "debate" any more than whether weed or beer should be legal. It's her (and his, to a non-legal extent) choice. Period. 
 
I do agree that the extremists, like you (above), are driving the nutter side of the bus. But the gun control advocates simply want to lower the statistics like Newtown and get the millions of guns flowing to the criminals slowed down.
 
Now go send some more money so they don't have to do that.....
SE wants to have registration and insurance. I have seen others here advocate licensing. Marks wants to limit magazine capacity. A whole bunch of people want to ban military looking guns. People like Bloomberg and Cuomo are pretty clear in their desire to ban everything they can. It is a tug if war, giving up one inch to the other side means that is one inch they don't need to fight for anymore. They consider me the enemy because I oppose things like registration and banning magazines over 10 rounds, you can not have a rational discussion with people who consider you the enemy. There is no compromise on this issue. The only thing to do is make sure the other side is busy fighting for the inch you don't mind losing, so they can not yet get a foothold to fight for the inch you really do not want to lose. It is what it is. I wish we could treat each other as adults and have a true national discussion on this, but we can't.

#40 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 01:59 PM

As far as abortion, that's no "debate" any more than whether weed or beer should be legal. It's her (and his, to a non-legal extent) choice. Period. 

 

I do agree that the extremists, like you (above), are driving the nutter side of the bus. But the gun control advocates simply want to lower the statistics like Newtown and get the millions of guns flowing to the criminals slowed down.

 

That's such BS and you know it.  Many gun control advocates do want to reduce the body count, sure.  But there are many, including noted senators, governors, etc. who have let slip that that would like to see all private gun ownership cease.

 

"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein

 

Sorry craigy and diane fukstein - the right to gun ownership, like abortion, is not up for debate.  The ONLY debate we should be having is how to keep irresponsible people from getting guns and misusing them.



#41 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 02:13 PM

It is what it is. I wish we could treat each other as adults and have a true national discussion on this, but we can't.

 

I said to BJ over on the big pharma thread is that there can be no national discussion so long as we focus on the implement and essentially ignore the person and the behavior committing the crime.  We should take the MADD approach and target behavior instead of implements.  Did MADD call for registration of Johnny Walker bottles?  Did we need a license to buy that can of bud?  Did we limit sales of Red wine so people couldn't stockpile it in their garage? 

 

No, we targeted the behavior and harshly punished anyone who got behind the wheel drunk.  And we held enablers accountable like bartenders and friends who gave them one more drink and sent them out the door. 


We should have the same mindset for mentally ill and disturbed people.  Keep them away from guns.  Take their guns away (like we take their car keys away) if they act dangerous.  It took this country a LONG time before we felt comfortable confronting drunks and telling them they can't drive.  We need to adopt the same mentality with mentally ill people.  Talk to them, confront them before they become dangerous or suicidal, report them to the authorities if they are acting dangerous..... etc. 



#42 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,363 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 02:29 PM

It is what it is. I wish we could treat each other as adults and have a true national discussion on this, but we can't.

 
I said to BJ over on the big pharma thread is that there can be no national discussion so long as we focus on the implement and essentially ignore the person and the behavior committing the crime.  We should take the MADD approach and target behavior instead of implements.  Did MADD call for registration of Johnny Walker bottles?  Did we need a license to buy that can of bud?  Did we limit sales of Red wine so people couldn't stockpile it in their garage? 
 
No, we targeted the behavior and harshly punished anyone who got behind the wheel drunk.  And we held enablers accountable like bartenders and friends who gave them one more drink and sent them out the door. 

We should have the same mindset for mentally ill and disturbed people.  Keep them away from guns.  Take their guns away (like we take their car keys away) if they act dangerous.  It took this country a LONG time before we felt comfortable confronting drunks and telling them they can't drive.  We need to adopt the same mentality with mentally ill people.  Talk to them, confront them before they become dangerous or suicidal, report them to the authorities if they are acting dangerous..... etc. 

I agree, but we are a hundred years too early for that type of discussion. We can't even have an honest discussion about what risks we are trying to address. Everything gets lumped in together, gang violence, mass shootings by crazy people, domestic violence, and suicide. If you are committing suicide, you only need one bullet, yet suicide deaths are used as a justification for banning magazines over 10 rounds and banning ar 15s. How many people use an ar to commit suicide, or need 11 rounds? It is a dishonest tug of war, and with the rules set, you can either play by those rules or you can get beat by people who do. That is why I am now in the oppose everything camp. Not because I believe we should not have expanded background checks, but because I think we need to keep Feinstein busy with this fight so she can't fight he next one. We have seen their playbook, and it is clear where they want to go. If we had applied the same strategy when hey rolled out the patriot act, we might not have to accept the NSA reading our email today.

#43 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,485 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 02 September 2013 - 02:59 PM

It is what it is. I wish we could treat each other as adults and have a true national discussion on this, but we can't.

 
I said to BJ over on the big pharma thread is that there can be no national discussion so long as we focus on the implement and essentially ignore the person and the behavior committing the crime.  We should take the MADD approach and target behavior instead of implements.  Did MADD call for registration of Johnny Walker bottles?  Did we need a license to buy that can of bud?  Did we limit sales of Red wine so people couldn't stockpile it in their garage? 
 
No, we targeted the behavior and harshly punished anyone who got behind the wheel drunk.  And we held enablers accountable like bartenders and friends who gave them one more drink and sent them out the door. 

We should have the same mindset for mentally ill and disturbed people.  Keep them away from guns.  Take their guns away (like we take their car keys away) if they act dangerous.  It took this country a LONG time before we felt comfortable confronting drunks and telling them they can't drive.  We need to adopt the same mentality with mentally ill people.  Talk to them, confront them before they become dangerous or suicidal, report them to the authorities if they are acting dangerous..... etc. 

Crazy is subjective. Some think owning guns is crazy. Why do you think gun control advocates use the tern "Gun Nut"? Who is this "Authority" you want to give the arbitrary power to preemptively confiscate someone's guns before any crime is committed?

You even go further and think neighbors, friends and relatives should take away someones keys/guns. "Gee Billy Bob I'm gonna hold on to your guns till I think you are safe to shoot again."

No chance that could go south is there?

Isn't that exactly what happened in Sandy Hook where his mom was trying to commit him and it spurred him to kill her etc.

In Florida it's called the Baker Act. It has a long history of misuse. Private mental hospitals sprung up all over Florida that lured concerned family with commercials and after examining the insurance papers would invent diagnosis, Baker them, exhaust the insurance and then declare them cured and kick them out.

Your idea is a recipe for disaster.

#44 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 03:01 PM

My idea of gun control ...

 

Generally free use of guns by citizens (with some exceptions)

 

Control the the gun lobby/manufacturers/advocacy groups/advertisers ... they're making everyone friggen nuts.

 

Please give me some examples of where these groups are driving people to commit crimes?  Serious request.

 

And Advertising????  I'm an avid gun fanatic and I rarely see advertising for guns in anything other than a dedicated gun mag or publication.  Is advertising really a problem?



#45 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,881 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 03:13 PM

  The citizen soldier did not keep cannons and naval warships for personal use in 1776.  The same will be true as technology progresses...... a phased plasma rifle for the individual will be fine but I would not allow common access to bigger stuff.  I don't need RPGs, SAWs, Stingers and Claymores for "self-defense".

 

That's not entirely accurate, Privateers and Letters of Marque were in common use at this time, so a private warship would not be entirely unreasonable.

 

The militia had a cannon owned by a village or town during the war. They were privately funded.

 

There were privately owned cannons on the side of the North in their War of Aggression. 

 

There were privately owned machine guns in the Battle of San Juan hill. 



#46 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 03:45 PM

 

  The citizen soldier did not keep cannons and naval warships for personal use in 1776.  The same will be true as technology progresses...... a phased plasma rifle for the individual will be fine but I would not allow common access to bigger stuff.  I don't need RPGs, SAWs, Stingers and Claymores for "self-defense".

 

That's not entirely accurate, Privateers and Letters of Marque were in common use at this time, so a private warship would not be entirely unreasonable.

 

The militia had a cannon owned by a village or town during the war. They were privately funded.

 

There were privately owned cannons on the side of the North in their War of Aggression. 

 

There were privately owned machine guns in the Battle of San Juan hill. 

 

I stand corrected......



#47 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:01 PM

Fair and just gun control must begin with universal registration.  Until all guns are accounted for, you can't even consider any controls.

No registration, no control.  Its as simple as that.



#48 PBO

PBO

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,896 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:03 PM

Fair and just gun control must begin with universal registration.  Until all guns are accounted for, you can't even consider any controls.

No registration, no control.  Its as simple as that.

 

How would you propose to universally register all guns?



#49 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:18 PM

Fair and just gun control must begin with universal registration.  Until all guns are accounted for, you can't even consider any controls.

No registration, no control.  Its as simple as that.

 

How would you propose to universally register all guns?

It would take time.

First would be to record every transaction from this point forward.  Public sales, privates sales, interfamily transfers.  Once the mechanisms are in place, it would gather 100% of new gun purchases and a large majority of resales.

Second would be require all unregistered guns to become registered.  A grace period set to allow every gun owner to easily comply and without charge.  

Any involuntary transfer of a weapon, theft or loss, would have to be reported to authorities to flag the weapon as illegal if it ever surfaces again.

 

At that point, the only illegal weapons would be in the hands of criminals.  Over time, they will be recovered, identified and destroyed.



#50 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:58 PM

Amazing that people agree with registration for voting (lots about that in the Constitution)...and, in a general sense, the more pro-gun states are trying to put MORE roadblocks in place to stop the vote (costs in time and money to get special ID, etc.) - yet, at the same time, the idea of registering deadly weapons which are PROVEN (unlike voter fraud) to cause thousands of deaths and injuries to innocents....NAH, that's a bad idea.

<_<

 

Insurance would probably require registration, since an actuary is not going to be too keen on protecting a gun owner who "loses and has stolen" lots of guns without reporting them.



#51 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,363 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 10:17 PM

Guys like se and craigi do a better job than wlp at stopping expanded background checks.

#52 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 02 September 2013 - 11:04 PM

Guys like se and craigi do a better job than wlp at stopping expanded background checks.

If you are a law abiding citizen, you should have no fear of registration.  Only nutterz will fear registration due to irrational thoughts.



#53 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,363 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 02 September 2013 - 11:40 PM

Guys like se and craigi do a better job than wlp at stopping expanded background checks.

If you are a law abiding citizen, you should have no fear of registration.  Only nutterz will fear registration due to irrational thoughts.

It is not fear. People like Bloomberg and Feinstein have shown us their cards, we know the end goal is banning and confiscating every gun they possibly can. Registration is one tool that enables it, therefor I will fight registration as a precursor to confiscation. It really is as simple as that. If it were not for both the history of abuse when it comes to registries and the clear plans of folks like Feinstein, I would consider supporting registration. As it is, I will fight tooth and nail even the most benign seeming legislation, since as long as the dummies in congress have to fight for expanding background checks, they are not yet close to banning and confiscating.

#54 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 03 September 2013 - 12:35 AM

I have not seen a call to ban all guns.  That is your irrational fear.  We cannot deal with your irrational fears.  We must deal with reality, facts, precedence, logic and process.  

You fear a ban on all guns.  Ok.  But it isn't in the cards.  You are a nutter if you think it is.  Simple regulation of firearms is in the 2nd Amendment.  Get over it.  A well regulated militia.



#55 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,453 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 03 September 2013 - 12:36 AM

So - when do we get to the point of this discussion in which the implements cease to be confused for the intentions of those who don't respect law/themselves/anyone else? 



#56 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,453 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 03 September 2013 - 12:43 AM

I have not seen a call to ban all guns.  That is your irrational fear.  We cannot deal with your irrational fears.  We must deal with reality, facts, precedence, logic and process.  

You fear a ban on all guns.  Ok.  But it isn't in the cards.  You are a nutter if you think it is.  Simple regulation of firearms is in the 2nd Amendment.  Get over it.  A well regulated militia.

SE - the point that you continuously fail to recognize is that the "call to ban all guns" is EXACTLY what the gun-control advocates would like to implement - regardless of the demonstrable inefficacy of that position.   You want gun control?  OK - let's start by talking about what you want to achieve by that implementation - and then, let's discuss the probable outcomes of your prescribed actions.   

 

Most of what I've witnessed in the last 15 years is a bunch of scared people who don't know what they're talking about trying to prescribe solutions to problems that haven't been properly defined - typical knee jerk let's do "SOMETHING" reactions. you wanna fix stuff?  Brudda - I'm right there with you - let's start by nailing down what we want to fix, and then let's talk about how to get there.   



#57 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,363 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 12:45 AM

I have not seen a call to ban all guns.  That is your irrational fear.  We cannot deal with your irrational fears.  We must deal with reality, facts, precedence, logic and process.  
You fear a ban on all guns.  Ok.  But it isn't in the cards.  You are a nutter if you think it is.  Simple regulation of firearms is in the 2nd Amendment.  Get over it.  A well regulated militia.



Facts, precedence and the words of politicians like Feinstein, Cuomo , and Bloomberg tell me they do want to ban as many guns as they possibly can. They are failing because now that they have shown their cards, people like me will fight anything tooth and nail to prevent them from taking even one step forward towards their goals. Even simple regulation has to get through congress, e which will be turning more gun friendly in 2014. Sucks to be a gun control proponent these days, worst case of legislative blue balls in several decades.

#58 PBO

PBO

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,896 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 12:50 AM

 

Fair and just gun control must begin with universal registration.  Until all guns are accounted for, you can't even consider any controls.

No registration, no control.  Its as simple as that.

 

How would you propose to universally register all guns?

It would take time.

First would be to record every transaction from this point forward.  Public sales, privates sales, interfamily transfers.  Once the mechanisms are in place, it would gather 100% of new gun purchases and a large majority of resales.

Second would be require all unregistered guns to become registered.  A grace period set to allow every gun owner to easily comply and without charge.  

Any involuntary transfer of a weapon, theft or loss, would have to be reported to authorities to flag the weapon as illegal if it ever surfaces again.

 

At that point, the only illegal weapons would be in the hands of criminals.  Over time, they will be recovered, identified and destroyed.

 

What you're suggesting is not too dissimilar to the Australian system of registration & lawful ownership. One I'm comfortable with

 

Not sure how well it would translate to the US though as the register needs to be national & respective states would want their own laws to overlay national registry laws

 

I find it interesting that some states choose to onsell confiscated guns...seems like a large backward step in reasonable gun control no matter what your opinion about guns & private gun ownership



#59 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 03 September 2013 - 01:00 AM

Those that fear registration, come to the table with unsupported allegations of intent to ban all guns.  Their fear is what drives them.  Its an irrational fear.  Nowhere has a call to ban all guns been presented except in their imaginations. 

This is why we cannot have rational gun control.  There is a large element of the population so addicted to their firearms, that they are susceptible to such lies and disinformation.

 

A simple registry of all firearms is necessary.  It logical and law abiding citizens support it.



#60 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,740 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 03 September 2013 - 01:39 AM

I have pointed out various abuses of registries on this forum. Closed registries, registries with unreasonable restrictions, unreasonable licensing restrictions, and others . None of those abuses have anything to do with a ban on all guns.

None are things Special and his elk will address.

#61 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 01:46 AM

Ok, Jeffie says he wants a reasonable debate.

 

He and Len claim that extremists are driving the debate and that is why they feel the need to be extreme...(or back "their" extremists).

 

I politely point out that is not the case. The NRA and their previously mentioned mailing and registration lists are one of the most powerful lobbies and shapers of public opinion in the USA. 

 

To prove to us that "both sides are extreme", Jeffie pulls out a quote from a single person....as if that makes it even-steven or has anything to do with one side being extreme.

 

Let me repeat. The NRA and nutters who back their "not a inch given" stances are extremists. There is virtually NO "extreme other side" of any stature. However, if we want to look at tiny groups - maybe 1/100th the size of the NRA, we can look at the Brady Center. They are perhaps the Gold Standard for gun control groups. Let's see how "extreme" they are!

 

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

 

Wow! They have the EXTREME position of wanting to reduce and prevent violence. Imagine!

Let's look at some of their reports:

http://www.bradycamp...t/brady-reports

 

WOW, it looks like they are against illegal guns.....

 

Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but I find nothing about taking away all your guns. Nothing....

 

I'm outa this thread. It's a bunch of BS when Jeffie says he wants to have an honest debate and then equates the NRA and Nutters with folks who want reasonable laws, less violence, etc. 

 

Len is right. You guys are not ready to have this debate. 



#62 PBO

PBO

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,896 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 01:51 AM

I have pointed out various abuses of registries on this forum. Closed registries, registries with unreasonable restrictions, unreasonable licensing restrictions, and others . None of those abuses have anything to do with a ban on all guns.

None are things Special and his elk will address.

 

Tom, you need to use the pronoun 'ilk' not elk



#63 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,363 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 01:55 AM

Ok, Jeffie says he wants a reasonable debate.

 

He and Len claim that extremists are driving the debate and that is why they feel the need to be extreme...(or back "their" extremists).

 

I politely point out that is not the case. The NRA and their previously mentioned mailing and registration lists are one of the most powerful lobbies and shapers of public opinion in the USA. 

 

To prove to us that "both sides are extreme", Jeffie pulls out a quote from a single person....as if that makes it even-steven or has anything to do with one side being extreme.

 

Let me repeat. The NRA and nutters who back their "not a inch given" stances are extremists. There is virtually NO "extreme other side" of any stature. However, if we want to look at tiny groups - maybe 1/100th the size of the NRA, we can look at the Brady Center. They are perhaps the Gold Standard for gun control groups. Let's see how "extreme" they are!

 

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

 

Wow! They have the EXTREME position of wanting to reduce and prevent violence. Imagine!

Let's look at some of their reports:

http://www.bradycamp...t/brady-reports

 

WOW, it looks like they are against illegal guns.....

 

Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but I find nothing about taking away all your guns. Nothing....

 

I'm outa this thread. It's a bunch of BS when Jeffie says he wants to have an honest debate and then equates the NRA and Nutters with folks who want reasonable laws, less violence, etc. 

 

Len is right. You guys are not ready to have this debate. 

 

 

Jeff is the one who wants to be reasonable and have a discussion, he is also a Republican. I am the Democrat who could give a fuck about being reasonable, and refuse to give an inch. Try to keep it straight.



#64 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,363 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 01:57 AM

I have pointed out various abuses of registries on this forum. Closed registries, registries with unreasonable restrictions, unreasonable licensing restrictions, and others . None of those abuses have anything to do with a ban on all guns.

None are things Special and his elk will address.

 

Tom, you need to use the pronoun 'ilk' not elk

 

reigning in language abuse



#65 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,740 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 03 September 2013 - 02:01 AM


I have pointed out various abuses of registries on this forum. Closed registries, registries with unreasonable restrictions, unreasonable licensing restrictions, and others . None of those abuses have anything to do with a ban on all guns.

None are things Special and his elk will address.

 
Tom, you need to use the pronoun 'ilk' not elk

Piss off, meme killer.

#66 PBO

PBO

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,896 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 02:06 AM

 

I have pointed out various abuses of registries on this forum. Closed registries, registries with unreasonable restrictions, unreasonable licensing restrictions, and others . None of those abuses have anything to do with a ban on all guns.

None are things Special and his elk will address.

 

Tom, you need to use the pronoun 'ilk' not elk

 

reigning in language abuse

 

yeah well OCD...haters gunna hate :)



#67 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 03 September 2013 - 02:55 AM

Registries could be abused.  How about regulating them?



#68 Keith

Keith

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,703 posts
  • Location:Vancouver B.C.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:07 AM

Gun control, for me, is simply about hitting the target.

 

In the USA there are soooooo many guns, that have been out there, for years and years and years, that its simply too little, too late.

 

But that's the living in the real world, isn't it ?



#69 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:12 AM

Jeff is the one who wants to be reasonable and have a discussion, he is also a Republican. I am the Democrat who could give a fuck about being reasonable, and refuse to give an inch. Try to keep it straight.

 

Has absolutely nothing to do with political party...Bloomberg won as a Republican, as I remember.

 

It's more about logic and reason vs. Taliban-type thinking.

 

I'm glad you have weighed in because it certainly will make me give a bigger share of my charity to causes which may tamp down violence. With folks like you out there, we need to give a foot so you'll move an inch or two.



#70 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:22 AM

Fair and just gun control must begin with universal registration.  Until all guns are accounted for, you can't even consider any controls.

No registration, no control.  Its as simple as that.

 

Sounds like you want control for control's sake.  What is your goal?  Controlling guns or preventing deaths?



#71 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,719 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:22 AM

Gun registries would be an extremely useful tool in crime fighting. Gun violence would decline. Illegal guns would be easily confiscated when found and destroyed. People who should not have guns will not be able to get them.

 

 

1). If a 'legally registered' gun is stolen by some fuk stick, how would that prevent crime?

 

2). 'Gun Violence' would just be replaced by knife violence, hammer violence or baseball bat violence. Violence, perpetrated by violent people, will never cease. Ever.

 

3). 'Illegal guns' will be much, much harder to purchase/own/find----until AFTER a horrific crime occurs. Good for you feel-gooders....bad for the perforated victims. To wit, making EVERY F'ng Gun out there right now 'illegal'.....won't do shit to curb shootings. At. All.

 

4). People who should not have guns WILL ALWAYS BE ABLE TO GET THEM. This is something that no one on this planet can ever stop. Ever....and you're kidding yourself if you think it's true.

 

5). How's that fuking flying death trap of yours going?.....:lol:



#72 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:28 AM

Guys like se and craigi do a better job than wlp at stopping expanded background checks.

If you are a law abiding citizen, you should have no fear of registration.  Only nutterz will fear registration due to irrational thoughts.

 

So much for rules of civility.  And you wonder why you get called names eventually......



#73 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:30 AM

So - when do we get to the point of this discussion in which the implements cease to be confused for the intentions of those who don't respect law/themselves/anyone else? 

 

Uuuuhhhh, from one side of this discussion...... I would say.... never?



#74 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:34 AM

Most of what I've witnessed in the last 15 years is a bunch of scared people who don't know what they're talking about trying to prescribe solutions to problems that haven't been properly defined - typical knee jerk let's do "SOMETHING" reactions. you wanna fix stuff?  Brudda - I'm right there with you - let's start by nailing down what we want to fix, and then let's talk about how to get there.   

 

+69 million!



#75 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 04:42 AM

I find it interesting that some states choose to onsell confiscated guns...seems like a large backward step in reasonable gun control no matter what your opinion about guns & private gun ownership

 

Why?  That mentality implies that the gun is at fault for the crime.  If it can be sold to a responsible, law-abiding citizen - why would you not want it to go to a good home.  Destroying them, along with other schemes of limiting the supply of new guns, is PRECISELY the end game of gun control advocates.  They want, over time, to eventually dry up the supply of guns so no one has them. 

 

How is a properly registered gun in the hands of a properly checked out individual a threat to society?  Oh wait, its because the registration is simply a means to an end to remove to restrict the supply fo guns in the hopes of draining the pond eventually.  Do you honestly think we are THAT stupid?



#76 One eye Jack

One eye Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts
  • Location:Reno,Nv. San Francisco Bay , Santa Cruz,Ca. Tahoe,Nv
  • Interests:Sailing. I shot a man in Reno.. Just to watch him die..

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:07 AM

What does gun control mean to me? Where you have complete control, and don't shake when you fire the weapon.

#77 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,174 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:26 AM

Registries could be abused.  How about regulating them?

 

Typical response from a cunt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

;)



#78 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:50 AM

I'm outa this thread. It's a bunch of BS when Jeffie says he wants to have an honest debate and then equates the NRA and Nutters with folks who want reasonable laws, less violence, etc. 

 

Len is right. You guys are not ready to have this debate. 

 

Haha, i think that is a long-winded way to say that cagi wants to stomp his feet and go home because he's run out of actual things to say other than using pure emotion.

 

crai - I can pull out other quotes too if you would like.....  Here are a few more.  And these are not just Ted Nugent types who don't matter.  They are actual people in actual power.  Either in the actual gov't or direct policy making roles.  You DO get the difference, right?

 

 - Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.  -- Diane Feinstein     

 

- I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns. -- Howard Metzenbaum (Fmr US Senator D-OH)

 

- I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should  move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.  -- Prof Dean Morris, Director: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, in testimony to Congress
 

- I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.  -- Michael Dukakis, Fmr Gov MA

  

- If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly      
regulated, the rest would be confiscated.  -- Nancy Pelosi

 

- I want to make it as hard as possible. Gun owners would have to be evaluated by how they scored on written and firing tests, and have to pass the tests in order to own a gun. And I would tax the guns, bullets and the license itself very heavily.  --Joycelyn Elders, Fmr Surgeon General of the US

 

- We're going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of all guns - is going to take time.....The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal.  -- Nelson Shields III, founder of the advocacy group Handgun Control

 

- Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose. -- Janet Reno, Fmr US Attorney General                                                  

- We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.      -- Rep Major Owens, D-NY

 

- If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns...  -- Richard Daley, Fmr Mayor Chicago

 

- My own view on gun control is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns, would be banned.  -- Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health

 

- We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles...that we are unable to think about reality.        -- Bill Clinton

 

 

Straight from the Mouth of a U.S. Government Attorney

The U.S. government argues in federal court (U.S. v. Emerson information page) that there is absolutely no right of an individual to own firearms!

Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes"

Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Meteja: "Exactly."

Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn't protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.

Garwood: "Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed?"

Meteja: "The weapon in question must be used IN the National Guard."
(Excerpt of oral arguments in U.S. v. Emerson, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 13, 2000)

 

Is this enough for you to see the actual agenda here?  These are not just extremist positions from extremist people.  These are/were rank and file mainstream gun grabbers. 



#79 PBO

PBO

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,896 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:54 AM


 

I find it interesting that some states choose to onsell confiscated guns...seems like a large backward step in reasonable gun control no matter what your opinion about guns & private gun ownership

 

Why?  That mentality implies that the gun is at fault for the crime.  If it can be sold to a responsible, law-abiding citizen - why would you not want it to go to a good home.  Destroying them, along with other schemes of limiting the supply of new guns, is PRECISELY the end game of gun control advocates.  They want, over time, to eventually dry up the supply of guns so no one has them. 

 

How is a properly registered gun in the hands of a properly checked out individual a threat to society?  Oh wait, its because the registration is simply a means to an end to remove to restrict the supply fo guns in the hopes of draining the pond eventually.  Do you honestly think we are THAT stupid?


I thought this was a civil discussion?

 

I’m not implying anything that suggests the gun is ‘at fault’, I believe you’ve delivered your own train to that station by yourself

 

Are you now saying that states that don’t on sell the confiscated guns associated with crime(s) are advocating gun control?



#80 PBO

PBO

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,896 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 06:04 AM

Gun registries would be an extremely useful tool in crime fighting. Gun violence would decline. Illegal guns would be easily confiscated when found and destroyed. People who should not have guns will not be able to get them.

 

 

1). If a 'legally registered' gun is stolen by some fuk stick, how would that prevent crime?

 

This argument is profoundly flawed

 

There are still thousands of people convicted of crimes every year in the US. Because these laws didn't stop these crimes it doesn't mean they should not exist does it now?



#81 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 06:05 AM

I thought this was a civil discussion?

 

I’m not implying anything that suggests the gun is ‘at fault’, I believe you’ve delivered your own train to that station by yourself

 

Are you now saying that states that don’t on sell the confiscated guns associated with crime(s) are advocating gun control?

 

I'm sorry.... what was "uncivil" about my reply?  Did I call you a cunt?  :D

 

I simply asked you why would you feel the need to destroy the gun when it could be resold into the hands of a responsible person who could enjoy it and put it to good use?  I simply inferred that the act of "destroying" the gun means that it is somehow inherently bad or will be used for further bad things later on.  Do we destroy confiscated cars used in a hit & run that killed a child? 

 

and I never said some states don't on sell the confiscated guns.  Some do, some don't.  I simply asked YOU why selling them on  "...seems like a large backward step in gun control".  MY take on it (which is why I asked for clarification), is that gun control in and of itself is the goal rather than crime prevention.  If a gun is sold to a properly vetted and licensed citizen, as you all claim would reduce crime - thenw hy would you be worried about selling the gun?

 

Unless...... it really IS all about gun control as an end rather than "crime control".



#82 PBO

PBO

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,896 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 07:21 AM

The way I view this follows a logic echoed here so see if this makes sense;

  1. The US by all accounts has an abundant supply of guns
  2. The 2A protects the right to private gun ownership for eligible citizens & generally speaking this means adult citizens without a criminal record
  3. Responsible, law abiding & licensed citizens generally don't commit crimes with guns
  4. There are a significant but somewhat unknown number of guns circulating within the US internal black market
  5. Guns traded within the black market are more likely to be used in crime(s)
  6. Guns are generally only confiscated whn they are directly associated with crime

So the gun that ends up confiscated, was involved in crime & is likely to have been sourced through the black market. At the very least it was used irresponsibly if not much worse for it to have been confiscated

 

Will the confiscated gun be missed if it's destroyed? as it was 'off the grid' prior to being confiscated I'm thinking probably not

Will someone be deprived of enjoying the gun if it's destroyed? well no, probably not

Will Police become frustrated if they see the same gun circulating through their hands? I assume they probably would

 

What could happen if it is on sold by Police? it could plausibly find its way back into the black market. It could plausibly be involved in another crime or crimes. The Police could benefit financially from the transaction

 

There isn't a compelling upside to Police on selling the gun in my view. The 'less waste' argument that I've read seems fairly fragile when you consider the ease & relatively low cost options available to the potential buyer through other legal avenues

 

Do they on sell confiscated marijuana or destroy it?



#83 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 08:30 AM

The way I view this follows a logic echoed here so see if this makes sense;

  1. The US by all accounts has an abundant supply of guns
  2. The 2A protects the right to private gun ownership for eligible citizens & generally speaking this means adult citizens without a criminal record
  3. Responsible, law abiding & licensed citizens generally don't commit crimes with guns.  Licensing has little to do with the propensity to commit crime or not.  Responsible, law-abiding citizens by definition do not generally commit crime
  4. There are a significant but somewhat unknown number of guns circulating within the US internal black market. 
  5. Guns traded within the black market are more likely to be used in crime(s)
  6. Guns are generally only confiscated whn they are directly associated with crime

So the gun that ends up confiscated, was involved in crime & is likely to have been sourced through the black market. At the very least it was used irresponsibly if not much worse for it to have been confiscated  Where do black market guns come from?  They don't just magically appear out of nowhereWhat if that gun was stolen from someone?  Should a reasonable effort be made to return it to the original owner?  Also, a significant number of guns are illegally purchased through straw sales or corrupt dealers.  Those guns are legitimate guns that have been removed from the market that John Q Citizen could have bought.  If they are destroyed, then that is a gun that the law abiding citizen never had a chance to purchase in the 1st place and now its been removed from circulation.

 

Will the confiscated gun be missed if it's destroyed? as it was 'off the grid' prior to being confiscated I'm thinking probably not  It depends, see above

Will someone be deprived of enjoying the gun if it's destroyed? well no, probably not  Maybe, maybe not.  See above

Will Police become frustrated if they see the same gun circulating through their hands? I assume they probably would.  Why would the gun keep circulating among criminals if proper regulations were in place like I proposed at the beginning of this thread (background checks, secure storage, etc)?

 

What could happen if it is on sold by Police? it could plausibly find its way back into the black market. It could plausibly be involved in another crime or crimes. The Police could benefit financially from the transaction.  The gun industry would certainly benefit from having cheap used guns removed from circulation.  But there is a segment of the market where that might be their only avenue to exercise thetr RKBA.  Just like many will never afford a new car in their lives.  Do poor people not have the right to defend themselves?

 

There isn't a compelling upside to Police on selling the gun in my view. The 'less waste' argument that I've read seems fairly fragile when you consider the ease & relatively low cost options available to the potential buyer through other legal avenues.  I don't care either way if its sold or not.  I just don't see a compelling argument to support your statement "...seems like a large backward step in gun control".   You're assuming a lot of "What Ifs" that with proper screening of people, the gun won't be an issue.

 

Do they on sell confiscated marijuana or destroy it? Apples and oranges...... They destroy it only because the marijuana ITSELF is illegal (not true in some states now).  Guns themselves are not illegal to own, it is the person who either qualifies or not to possess a gun.  Previously, when pot was outlawed universally - there was no split rules where some could have it and some could not.  The plant itself was illegal and therefore destroyed.  In the case of guns, the gun itself is not illegal - it is the qualification for ownership/possession that is up for question.  For instance, the same gun would be perfectly legal in my hands while it might not be in gaytor's after his vespa DUI conviction.

 

However, now that some states have legalized pot - why would you destroy if its confiscated?  Is it causing anyone harm if its taken out of the bad person's hands and put into a good person's hands? 



#84 PBO

PBO

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,896 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 10:07 AM

The way I view this follows a logic echoed here so see if this makes sense;

  1. The US by all accounts has an abundant supply of guns
  2. The 2A protects the right to private gun ownership for eligible citizens & generally speaking this means adult citizens without a criminal record
  3. Responsible, law abiding & licensed citizens generally don't commit crimes with guns.  Licensing has little to do with the propensity to commit crime or not.  Responsible, law-abiding citizens by definition do not generally commit crime
  4. There are a significant but somewhat unknown number of guns circulating within the US internal black market. 
  5. Guns traded within the black market are more likely to be used in crime(s)
  6. Guns are generally only confiscated whn they are directly associated with crime

So the gun that ends up confiscated, was involved in crime & is likely to have been sourced through the black market. At the very least it was used irresponsibly if not much worse for it to have been confiscated  Where do black market guns come from?  They don't just magically appear out of nowhereWhat if that gun was stolen from someone?  Should a reasonable effort be made to return it to the original owner? Sure, why not Also, a significant number of guns are illegally purchased through straw sales or corrupt dealers.  Those guns are legitimate guns that have been removed from the market that John Q Citizen could have bought.  If they are destroyed, then that is a gun that the law abiding citizen never had a chance to purchase in the 1st place and now its been removed from circulation. Wow, that's possibly the mother of all 'what ifs' - perhaps the law abiding citizen could just buy another gun from legal avenues

 

Will the confiscated gun be missed if it's destroyed? as it was 'off the grid' prior to being confiscated I'm thinking probably not  It depends, see above lets not forget it's off the grid

Will someone be deprived of enjoying the gun if it's destroyed? well no, probably not  Maybe, maybe not.  See above lets not forget it's off the grid

Will Police become frustrated if they see the same gun circulating through their hands? I assume they probably would.  Why would the gun keep circulating among criminals if proper regulations were in place like I proposed at the beginning of this thread (background checks, secure storage, etc)? see your bold-ed words above

 

What could happen if it is on sold by Police? it could plausibly find its way back into the black market. It could plausibly be involved in another crime or crimes. The Police could benefit financially from the transaction.  The gun industry would certainly benefit from having cheap used guns removed from circulation.  But there is a segment of the market where that might be their only avenue to exercise thetr RKBA.  Just like many will never afford a new car in their lives.  Do poor people not have the right to defend themselves? If only we can arm one poor person it will all be worth it. Are you seriously above this one - really!?

 

There isn't a compelling upside to Police on selling the gun in my view. The 'less waste' argument that I've read seems fairly fragile when you consider the ease & relatively low cost options available to the potential buyer through other legal avenues.  I don't care either way if its sold or not.  I just don't see a compelling argument to support your statement "...seems like a large backward step in gun control".   You're assuming a lot of "What Ifs" that with proper screening of people, the gun won't be an issue.

 

Do they on sell confiscated marijuana or destroy it? Apples and oranges...... They destroy it only because the marijuana ITSELF is illegal (not true in some states now).  Guns themselves are not illegal to own, it is the person who either qualifies or not to possess a gun.  Previously, when pot was outlawed universally - there was no split rules where some could have it and some could not.  The plant itself was illegal and therefore destroyed.  In the case of guns, the gun itself is not illegal - it is the qualification for ownership/possession that is up for question.  For instance, the same gun would be perfectly legal in my hands while it might not be in gaytor's after his vespa DUI conviction.

 

However, now that some states have legalized pot - why would you destroy if its confiscated?  Is it causing anyone harm if its taken out of the bad person's hands and put into a good person's hands?   Don't know, I was asking the question because I know some states have decriminalised it

 

Maybe we agree to disagree?



#85 JBSF

JBSF

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,865 posts
  • Interests:Racing, diving, cycling, flying, pussy, shooting and any other action sports.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 10:52 AM

Maybe we agree to disagree?

 

ok



#86 GRUMPY

GRUMPY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,954 posts
  • Location:Balikpapan, Indonesia
  • Interests:Hobie Miracle 20

Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:07 AM

Based on personal experience gun control leads to eventual surrender or confiscation of your weapons. I surrendered all but one of my guns after Pt Arthur. Due to my circumstances and the law I had to surrender my old Mauser when I was last in Aussie.

 

There's a bloke in Aussie that is currently under criminal charge for not securing the key to his gun safe. Aussie law says your guns & ammo must be secured in separate places. The law doesn't mention keys. (His mentally unstable kid did nick his guns & ammo to kill 3 people)



#87 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,740 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:14 AM

Registries could be abused.  How about regulating them?

 


They have been abused. How about discussing the abuses?



#88 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,740 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:19 AM

So the gun car or boat that ends up confiscated, was involved in crime & is likely to have been sourced through the black market. At the very least it was used irresponsibly if not much worse for it to have been confiscated

 

Will the confiscated gun car or boat be missed if it's destroyed? as it was 'off the grid' prior to being confiscated I'm thinking probably not

Will someone be deprived of enjoying the gun car or boat if it's destroyed? well no, probably not

Will Police become frustrated if they see the same gun car or boat circulating through their hands? I assume they probably would

 

What could happen if it is on sold by Police? ...

 

Do they on sell confiscated marijuana or destroy it?

 

I changed your post a bit in an effort to illustrate the flaw in your logic. What could happen to valuable property if it is sold by police? The money could be used instead of thrown away.

 

They sell cars and boats that are confiscated. All the things you said about guns apply equally to them. Marijuana is illegal everywhere in the US under federal law but is not illegal in some areas under local laws, so what might happen to confiscated marijuana depends on who took it and where. That would apply to very few guns in very few places.
 



#89 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,363 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:20 AM

Registries could be abused.  How about regulating them?

 

They have been abused. How about discussing the abuses?

If they are being abused, I say we ban them. Who really NEEDS a registry.

#90 PBO

PBO

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,896 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:34 AM

So the gun car or boat that ends up confiscated, was involved in crime & is likely to have been sourced through the black market. At the very least it was used irresponsibly if not much worse for it to have been confiscated
 
Will the confiscated gun car or boat be missed if it's destroyed? as it was 'off the grid' prior to being confiscated I'm thinking probably not
Will someone be deprived of enjoying the gun car or boat if it's destroyed? well no, probably not
Will Police become frustrated if they see the same gun car or boat circulating through their hands? I assume they probably would
 
What could happen if it is on sold by Police? ...
 
Do they on sell confiscated marijuana or destroy it?

 
I changed your post a bit in an effort to illustrate the flaw in your logic. What could happen to valuable property if it is sold by police? The money could be used instead of thrown away.
 
They sell cars and boats that are confiscated. All the things you said about guns apply equally to them. Marijuana is illegal everywhere in the US under federal law but is not illegal in some areas under local laws, so what might happen to confiscated marijuana depends on who took it and where. That would apply to very few guns in very few places.
 

My logic isn't flawed, you simply don't agree with it & prefer your own. There are many countries that destroy the implements and proceeds of crime so they are permanently removed from circulation

#91 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,740 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:40 AM

 

So the gun car or boat that ends up confiscated, was involved in crime & is likely to have been sourced through the black market. At the very least it was used irresponsibly if not much worse for it to have been confiscated
 
Will the confiscated gun car or boat be missed if it's destroyed? as it was 'off the grid' prior to being confiscated I'm thinking probably not
Will someone be deprived of enjoying the gun car or boat if it's destroyed? well no, probably not
Will Police become frustrated if they see the same gun car or boat circulating through their hands? I assume they probably would
 
What could happen if it is on sold by Police? ...
 
Do they on sell confiscated marijuana or destroy it?

 
I changed your post a bit in an effort to illustrate the flaw in your logic. What could happen to valuable property if it is sold by police? The money could be used instead of thrown away.
 
They sell cars and boats that are confiscated. All the things you said about guns apply equally to them. Marijuana is illegal everywhere in the US under federal law but is not illegal in some areas under local laws, so what might happen to confiscated marijuana depends on who took it and where. That would apply to very few guns in very few places.
 

My logic isn't flawed, you simply don't agree with it & prefer your own. There are many countries that destroy the implements and proceeds of crime so they are permanently removed from circulation

 

Well, we don't. We sell valuable property and destroy contraband. Your comparison of guns to pot instead of the more appropriate comparison to cars or boats shows that you don't see the difference.
 



#92 PBO

PBO

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,896 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:50 AM

Tom, I was asking a question about the pot

And only select US states sell a select number of confiscated guns or weapons, where does that leave the others?

#93 Bent Sailor

Bent Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Location:Lake Macquarie
  • Interests:Sailing
    Software Development
    A Good Yarn with Mates

Posted 03 September 2013 - 11:51 AM

You do realise that the logic behind "X can be abused, so we should allow it" applies to gun ownership right? I could have gone the long way around and point out how nations give police powers (even though they can & have abused them) or a wide variety of other compromises we make for public order & safety, but I thought pointing out how the logic applies to the tool your somewhat obsessed over might drill through the nonsense quicker.

 

At the very least, it'll be interesting to see how some dodge the point.



#94 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 03 September 2013 - 12:11 PM

Gun registries would need to be well regulated, being necessary for the security of the free state.

#95 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,453 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 03 September 2013 - 12:48 PM

Those that fear registration, come to the table with unsupported allegations of intent to ban all guns.  Their fear is what drives them.  Its an irrational fear.  Nowhere has a call to ban all guns been presented except in their imaginations. 

This is why we cannot have rational gun control.  There is a large element of the population so addicted to their firearms, that they are susceptible to such lies and disinformation.

 

A simple registry of all firearms is necessary.  It logical and law abiding citizens support it.

 

It's not an unsupported fear - it's a statement that's been proffered repeatedly by many of the electorate.  Those comments, SE, aren't imagination.  The issue as I see it isn't a population "addicted to their firearms", it's a segment of the population that wants to protect all of our rights, and that wants to understand how and why any proposed restriction of any right is going to further progress towards that restriction's stated goal. 

 

As I've said numerous times, state the goal, show me how your proposed restrictions will achieve that goal, and we've got something to talk about.  Until then, I'd suggest that the basis for your suggestion is purely emotional. 

 

 



#96 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 03 September 2013 - 01:02 PM

Post a quote from a politician that promotes a total gun ban.  You can't.  Its imaginary.  Fabricated.  



#97 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,453 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 03 September 2013 - 01:19 PM

Post a quote from a politician that promotes a total gun ban.  You can't.  Its imaginary.  Fabricated.  

The ones above not good enough for you?  

 

http://www.freerepub...ws/912305/posts



#98 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 01:29 PM

 

 

Is this enough for you to see the actual agenda here?  These are not just extremist positions from extremist people.  These are/were rank and file mainstream gun grabbers. 

 

No, it's the statements of people - mostly individuals - and has no "equality" with organization who pull the strings of many millions of people and successfully control ANY debate in the USA on guns. 

 

Neither you or Mr. Boothy get it.

 

For example, it's very clear how a stolen or lost firearm reporting systems would stop crime.

 

A large percentage of stolen and lost firearms are not stolen or lost at all. Rather they are sold and resold through the black and gray markets as well as by dealers themselves. Having strict laws about these things makes the criminals (which, in this case, you call "law abiding gun owners and sellers") think twice and break the law less. Less guns in the hands of the gangs = less crime.

 

Easy. But I don't expect you to think these things out.



#99 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,881 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 03 September 2013 - 01:29 PM

Lefties have been caught on open mike stating their desires - so what?



#100 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 03 September 2013 - 01:41 PM

Post a quote from a politician that promotes a total gun ban.  You can't.  Its imaginary.  Fabricated.  

The ones above not good enough for you?  

 

http://www.freerepub...ws/912305/posts

Not liking guns and supporting a total ban are different things.  Show me a current serving politician (you know the ones that can write laws) that promotes a total ban.  






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users