Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/2479416/

Topic: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: iowaman
Posted 2012-12-25 19:35:50 and read 2956 times.

As the last thread is almost 300 replies please continue the discussion here.

Previous thread:

NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? (by tugger Dec 21 2012 in Non Aviation)

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2012-12-25 20:10:41 and read 2939 times.

D.C. police are looking into whether or not "Meet The Press" host David Gregory violated local law when he displayed what he described as a 30 round magazine as part of an interview with an NRA rep on last Sunday's show. And, not too surprisingly, it was "several conservative commentators" who first raised the issue of whether Gregory had broken D.C. law by using the magazine. Sour grapes?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-moderator-violated-law/?hpt=hp_t3

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: seb146
Posted 2012-12-25 20:16:29 and read 2936 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 1):
D.C. police are looking into whether or not

So, they have time to go after a TV host but not real criminals who are using real bullets to kill real people?

We know where their priorities are...

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2012-12-25 20:22:54 and read 2934 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 2):
So, they have time to go after a TV host but not real criminals who are using real bullets to kill real people?

We know where their priorities are...

I have a strong suspicion there was some political pressure applied to make them open an investigation. I'm pretty sure a police force whose jurisdiction saw a 40% increase in violent crimes this year has higher priorities than going after Daivd Gregory for displaying an empty high-capacity magazine.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-12-25 20:30:47 and read 2929 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 281):
If I have to explain why I should be allowed to own something, then I'm not really free to own it. It's really that simple. Gun licenses and registrations are fine as far as restrictions go and proving one is responsible enough.

You can be free to own a firearm you just should't be free to own any firearm. All freedom comes with restrictions. There is no such thing as unrestricted freedom. It is not conducive to a civlized society.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2012-12-25 20:37:05 and read 2923 times.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 4):
You can be free to own a firearm you just should't be free to own any firearm

Which is exactly what Justice Scalia and four others ruled in D.C v. Heller. But in BMI727's eyes, his opinion carries more weight than that of five Supreme Court Justices.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-25 20:56:54 and read 2912 times.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 4):
You can be free to own a firearm you just should't be free to own any firearm. All freedom comes with restrictions. There is no such thing as unrestricted freedom.

If someone can explain how your rights are violated by someone having a 30 round magazine rather than 10 rounds, you might be able to make a case for restricting that freedom.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: tugger
Posted 2012-12-25 21:06:13 and read 2904 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
If someone can explain how your rights are violated by someone having a 30 round magazine rather than 10 rounds, you might be able to make a case for restricting that freedom.

It's not always/primarily about "rights" being violated, it is often about potential damage and usefulness to society versus the effect of the restriction on the right. Hence the speech restriction on crying "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater etc.

A restriction on 30 round magazines will neither deprive you of your right to a firearm or your ability to use it when needed.

So I will ask you how a restriction on 30 round magazines will detrimentally harm you, your life, or your right to own and bear a firearm?

Tugg

[Edited 2012-12-25 21:57:52]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-12-25 21:08:33 and read 2903 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
If someone can explain how your rights are violated by someone having a 30 round magazine rather than 10 rounds, you might be able to make a case for restricting that freedom.

It's not a question of my right's being violated its a matter of the safety of the society at large over weighing your freedom. In the sense you are saying a person owning a bomb or missle does not violate any one else's rights either. There has to be limits. I don't see how it's unreasonable to understand. There are limits to all freedom's why should firearms be exempt.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: TheCommodore
Posted 2012-12-25 21:27:35 and read 2899 times.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 8):
There has to be limits. I don't see how it's unreasonable to understand. There are limits to all freedom's why should firearms be exempt.

Precisely.


You ask a very good question of your fellow country men.

In every civilized society, there are limits placed on what people can and cant do, from smoking in public, to limiting how fast people can drive. Everyone accepts this without question.....

But when it comes to guns, apparently that's different ????????

Completely bizarre, that its so hard to get this message across.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-25 21:58:34 and read 2882 times.

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):
It's not always/primarily about "rights" being violated,

It is. That has to be the primary criteria when it comes to outlawing something: "Whose rights are being violated if it's allowed to continue." If the question is concerning shooting in public places, the answer is obvious. If the question is concerning the ownership of assault weapons, the answer is "nobody."

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):
Hence the speech restriction on crying "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater etc.

But I still get to have a voice. Possession of a voice does not violate anyone's rights or constitute a crime. Using it in a way that violates someone's rights is a problem, and is illegal. The same should apply to guns. All guns.

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):
So I will ask you how a restriction on 30 round magazines will detrimentally harm you, your life, or you right to own and bear a firearm?

Personally, none. I don't feel the need to own any gun, let alone an assault rifle.

But it does violate the rights of people who wish to own such things and do nothing to harm others. Law should be permissive by default rather than restrictive by default. That's what freedom is. The question should be how allowing ownership of such things by others would harm me. The answer is that it wouldn't. Shooting at me would, but of course that's already illegal.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 8):
It's not a question of my right's being violated its a matter of the safety of the society at large over weighing your freedom.

No it isn't. If something you want to do doesn't violate anyone's rights you should be able to do it. If you want to harm my safety by shooting at me, then you're committing a crime. But if you move in next to me with your cache of AR-15s and ammunition, there is absolutely nothing I could do before that I could not continue, nor any onerous task that didn't need to be done before.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 9):
In every civilized society, there are limits placed on what people can and cant do, from smoking in public, to limiting how fast people can drive.

There are already plenty of wise limitations on where and how firearms may be used, but this does not have any bearing on the ownership of weapons. Just as limits on public smoking or speed limits do not constitute or necessitate restrictions on ownership of cigarettes or sports cars.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 9):
Completely bizarre, that its so hard to get this message across.

I'll tell you what this gun control outrage in the wake of Newtown is: it's bullying. It's a large scale scapegoating of gun owners and shouting down of those who don't agree. It has a base of enforced conformity in the form of "I don't need a gun. The (insert nationality) don't need guns. You don't need guns either."

It's like during the Vietnam war when protesters couldn't stop the politicians in charge, so they took it out on returning veterans. After 9/11 people couldn't get their hands on the hijackers. but that didn't stop many from blaming other brown skinned men with beards. And now we can't get a hold of Adam Lanza, so people who own guns like the one he used will have to do. Never mind that most such people pose no threat nor do they infringe upon the rights of others, it isn't good enough. Something has to be done. Americans have to somehow give themselves the illusion of control and justice in the face of chaos, and it's turned many into bullies seeking retribution where none is possible.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: tugger
Posted 2012-12-25 22:05:23 and read 2874 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
It is. That has to be the primary criteria when it comes to outlawing something: "Whose rights are being violated if it's allowed to continue." If the question is concerning shooting in public places, the answer is obvious. If the question is concerning the ownership of assault weapons, the answer is "nobody."

No, the question is: "Is a restriction on "X" (in this case a 30 round magazine) infringing on the right to "bear arms"? And in what we are talking about here it does not.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
But it does violate the rights of people who wish to own such things and do nothing to harm others. Law should be permissive by default rather than restrictive by default. That's what freedom is. The question should be how allowing ownership of such things by others would harm me. The answer is that it wouldn't. Shooting at me would, but of course that's already illegal.

But that is not the discussion. There is no "right" to bear "high capacity magazines". Is there?

Tugg

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-25 22:18:07 and read 2860 times.

Quoting tugger (Reply 11):
But that is not the discussion.

That has to be the discussion.

Quoting tugger (Reply 11):
There is no "right" to bear "high capacity magazines". Is there?

Not written down, but that's why Alexander Hamilton was correct about the Bill of Rights.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: tugger
Posted 2012-12-25 22:21:02 and read 2859 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
That has to be the discussion.

Actually no. Because I do not advocate for the denial of the right to keep and bear arms.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
Not written down,

Then it is not an "enshrined" right and can be changed without any impact on the people's rights. It is just is not that big a deal.

Tugg

[Edited 2012-12-25 22:29:50]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-25 22:33:43 and read 2851 times.

Quoting tugger (Reply 13):
Actually no.

When freedom has value, the law has to be permissive by default. Better too much freedom than too little.

Quoting tugger (Reply 13):
Then it is not an "enshrined" right and can be changed without any impact on the people's rights. It is just is not that big a deal.

That's an unspeakably backwards way of thinking. If that's the way many people think, then the Bill of Rights is possibly the biggest blunder of American government.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: tugger
Posted 2012-12-25 22:43:01 and read 2841 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
When freedom has value, the law has to be permissive by default. Better too much freedom than too little.

Very true.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
That's an unspeakably backwards way of thinking. If that's the way many people think, then the Bill of Rights is possibly the biggest blunder of American government.

You are thinking backwards. Rights belong to people not things but people do have the "right" to those things that are legal and meet the requirement of applicable law.. Passing legislation on how "things" should be does not grossly affect the rights of people. Cars are required to have seat belts. Aircraft required to pass rigorous certification. Products required to have certain information available on demand. Are you saying these are all blunders? Are you saying this is "backwards"?

Tugg

[Edited 2012-12-25 22:45:15]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-12-26 00:40:23 and read 2812 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
It is. That has to be the primary criteria when it comes to outlawing something: "Whose rights are being violated if it's allowed to continue." If the question is concerning shooting in public places, the answer is obvious. If the question is concerning the ownership of assault weapons, the answer is "nobody."

How are your rights to bear arms being violated when restrictions are placed on what type of arms you can bear. With your interpetation I have the right to own a missle or bomb. If you believe that I shouldn't have the right to own that, then it has to be feesable that others can believe that the right to own an assult rifle. A gun designed for infatry usage during wartime.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-26 04:56:54 and read 2776 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
I'll tell you what this gun control outrage in the wake of Newtown is: it's bullying.

Other way around. It is a reaction to the bullying pro-gunners have done over the last 40 years.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: MD11Engineer
Posted 2012-12-26 07:05:14 and read 2751 times.

To add to the discussion above:
Actually the public has nothing to fear from a law abiding, responsible gun owner, who knows gun safety by heart, stores his guns and ammunition safely and has no mental issues (and I think that the large majority of the gun owners in the US fall into this category, though training might be an issue as I´ve been rold by a licenced gun trainer. Too many people buy guns in the US without having any idea about gun safety. He assumes that only 1 % of all gun owners in the US had formal training).

The problem is a minority of unsafe, criminal or plain crazy gun owners. They are the real danger, and as I have said in the previous thread, I wouldn´t let them get their hands on on anything more dangerous than a plastic spoon.

The question is how to reasonably prevent guns or other dangerous materials (e.g. chemicals which can be used for making bombs) to fall into the hands of the last group. 30 years ago, when I was a teenager interested in chemical experiments, I still could buy a lot of chemicals freely at the local chemicals supplier. Nowadays you´ll need documentation of commercial use and police clearances before they will sell you anything. To be fair, it is not only the threat of terrorist bombs, which caused this change, also a lot of formerly easily available chemicals (e.g. potassium permanganate) have been used for the manufactire of illegal synthetic drugs.
Similarly possession of lasers will probably restricted because of of idiots, who aim them at aircraft. Nobody cares if this rule will affect those who e.g. create holographic pictures as a hobby in their garage or carry out scientific experiments as a hobby.
I know you can never really stop a determined person from getting what he wants. E.g. during WW2 the Danish resistance built thousands of copies of the British Army Sten submachine gun right under the noses of the Gestapo
During my apprenticeship as a mechanic I have been trained in operating tooling machines, like lathes and milling machines as well as to weld. I could easily churn out illegal guns, with the quality ranging from crude to professional.

One thing I´ve heard about (but don´t know if it true) the US that once it becomes official that you are insane (and maybe get put into a closed institution), you´ll lose your constitutional citizen´s rights for good and for life, even if your condition has been successfully treated. Maybe this is also one of the reasons why people with mental issues in the US are so reluctant to go for help.

Jan

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: luv2fly
Posted 2012-12-26 07:18:26 and read 2745 times.

What is sad is that NYC has laws on the size of sodas to curb obesity and the gun people won't work with us to limit the size of magazine to hopefully save lives. What does that tell us about our society.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-26 07:43:05 and read 2743 times.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 18):
Actually the public has nothing to fear from a law abiding, responsible gun owner, who knows gun safety by heart, stores his guns and ammunition safely and has no mental issues

Problem is how to identify those who are not. How do you identify the guy who shot a person for complaining that the pizza line is moving too slow. How do you identify the guy who gets too angry over some incident out in public? The warning signals expressed by them are expressed by large parts of the population. I don't think it is possibly to track.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-26 07:49:15 and read 2742 times.

I wouldn't be opposed to making 30 round magazines harder to get, but after going through hoops, let legal, good gun owners use them. I'll flat out tell you now there is no reason why they are NEEDED. The reason why they are desirable is simple: go shooting using 30 round magazines, then shoot the same amount using 5 round magazines.

Very annoying.

MILLIONS of Americans use them safely and legally every year. We have a problem that needs to be addressed, yes. Isn't there a middle ground that limits them from the hands of weirdos yet allows the MILLIONS of good gun owners the right to possess them?

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-12-26 08:18:34 and read 2729 times.

"I'm perfectly fine with punishing those who actually do something illegal. As far as the rest, I really don't care what guns they own. Believe me, I'll be the first to throw the book at anyone who shoots at me, but until someone does I don't have any interest in punishing people for what they might do."

The above is a quote from the previous thread in which I would like to respond.

The 26 kindergarten children and adults and their families I am sure would like to do like wise. I would like to know how to prevent such atrocities from occurring and to take semi-automatic assault files out the hands of the untrained and the general populace would be a great way to start.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-12-26 08:22:33 and read 2725 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
Isn't there a middle ground that limits them from the hands of weirdos yet allows the MILLIONS of good gun owners the right to possess them?

How about only shooting ranges. So you can have the joy of shooting it and low chance of getting into unsavory hands.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: MD11Engineer
Posted 2012-12-26 08:32:08 and read 2721 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 22):

The 26 kindergarten children and adults and their families I am sure would like to do like wise. I would like to know how to prevent such atrocities from occurring and to take semi-automatic assault files out the hands of the untrained and the general populace would be a great way to start.

AFAIK there were no semiautomatic rifles used in the kindergarten massacre. AFAIK, the killing was carried out with handguns.
And per definition a semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle, even if it looks like an M-16 or an AK-47. Per definition an assault rifle has to have a full auto function and is as such not accessible to the general population in the US.

Jan

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-12-26 09:11:11 and read 2752 times.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 24):
AFAIK there were no semiautomatic rifles used in the kindergarten massacre. AFAIK, the killing was carried out with handguns.

Then it looks like you'd be wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20744701

Quote:
The state's chief medical examiner said the gunman used a rifle as his main weapon, and all the victims appeared to have been shot several times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

Quote:
A large quantity of unused ammunition was recovered from the school along with three semi-automatic firearms found with Adam Lanza: a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM-15 rifle, a 10mm Glock 20 SF handgun and a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun.
...
According to the state's chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver, many of the victims were shot up to 11 times with the same "long weapon"—the Bushmaster rifle.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: MD11Engineer
Posted 2012-12-26 09:55:55 and read 2732 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 25):

Then it looks like you'd be wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20744701

Quote:
The state's chief medical examiner said the gunman used a rifle as his main weapon, and all the victims appeared to have been shot several times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

Quote:
A large quantity of unused ammunition was recovered from the school along with three semi-automatic firearms found with Adam Lanza: a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM-15 rifle, a 10mm Glock 20 SF handgun and a 9mm SIG Sauer handgun.
...
According to the state's chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver, many of the victims were shot up to 11 times with the same "long weapon"—the Bushmaster rifle.

I stand corrected.

But what Istill wonder is the increased frequency of such massacres (and especially of copy cat attacks a short while after) during the last 20 or so years. Massacres like this were virtually unknown before. Could it be that the fast electronic news networks and the opportunity of everybody getting his 15 minutes in the news as long as he just does something attrocious play a role?

Also, if you compare porn from 20-30 years ago with porn from today, you´ll find a lot more sadistic themed porn.

It is a very complex subject and just going for a kneejerk gun ban reaction is IMO too simplicistic.

To me it seems like the proverbial Nanny state. Remember when we were little children and were not allowed to touch knives or matchsticks because it was considered too dangerous for us? Mummy knew best.
Today, with the gun ban and some other bans (e.g. chemicals to be sold for industrial use only) it seems that the government and it´s employees (civil servants, military, police etc.) have taken over the Mummy role. The citizens of a stare, though formaly the souvereign, are not to be trusted in general. I hear this in the gun debate quite noften from soldiers and police officers, who consider themselves to be the state´s elite and only they should be trusted with weapons or chemicals or lasers etc.. Everybody else is either too stupid or not disciplined enough.
E.g. in the UK, you are strongly discouraged from defending yourself, even if attacked. You are either supposed to run, if you can or to endure the attack and let the police sort it out later.

On the other hand there exist people in the population who really can´t be trusted. Either because the decide to ignore the basic rules of living together in a community (these are called laws and the people who break them are called criminals) or they simply don´t have the ability to control themselves and their impulses, those people have mrntal issues.
Now it is considered not to be PC to declare somebody with mental issues unfit to live in a society unless this person does something extreme.

Over here in Germany, if you apply for a gun licence, if you are below 25, or if the issuing civil servant deems so (maybe because you appeared to be weird in the interview), you´ll have to undergo a psychological evaluation.
IIRC the law in the US states quite clearly that felons and people with mental issues are not allowed to have access to guns. The problem is the implementation, because any check beyond a criminal records check is considered interference into the privacy of the person. Even if possession of guns is anchored in the constitution, why would it not to be possible to issue a "no objections" card, which gets issued based on a criminal background check, a psychological evaluation and a certificate of having successfully passed gun safety training?

Jan

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-26 10:00:39 and read 2735 times.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 24):
AFAIK there were no semiautomatic rifles used in the kindergarten massacre.

The reports I have see state AR-15 but I have not seen an official report.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 24):
And per definition a semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle, even if it looks like an M-16 or an AK-47. Per definition an assault rifle has to have a full auto function and is as such not accessible to the general population in the US.

I think that is a difference without meaning. It is the closest thing you can legally get and if you look at how it is advertised there is no question.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: MD11Engineer
Posted 2012-12-26 10:12:38 and read 2723 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 27):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 24):
And per definition a semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle, even if it looks like an M-16 or an AK-47. Per definition an assault rifle has to have a full auto function and is as such not accessible to the general population in the US.

I think that is a difference without meaning. It is the closest thing you can legally get and if you look at how it is advertised there is no question.

The definition clearly marks weapons which in the US would fall under the 1934 Federal Firearms Act as machine guns and are highly regulated (very difficult to legally obtain by civilians and very expensive). They are basically only available to the military and police in the US (with the exception of some older, grandfathered weapons, but these are so expensive and the owners are more or less contantly watched by the BATF and FBI, that these weapons are effectively rare collector´s items and investments. The owners know that any misstep will get them up to ten years in prison plus a bankruptcy inducing fine, so they obey the rules extremely well. I know of only one case of a homicide carried out with one of these weapons since 1934 and this case involved a police officer, who stole his weapon from the police armoury).

Here is short breakdown of the German gun law from Wikipedia:

Quote:
Firearms ownership license

A firearms ownership license (Waffenbesitzkarte) must be obtained before a weapon can be purchased. Owners of multiple firearms need separate ownership licenses for every single firearm they own. It entitles owners to purchase firearms and handle them on their own property and any private property with property owner consent. On public premises, a licensed firearm must be transported unloaded and in a stable, fully enclosing, locked container. A weapons ownership license does not entitle the owner to shoot the weapon or carry it on public premises without the prescribed container. Owners must obtain mandatory insurance and a means to securely store the weapon on their premises (a weapons locker). Blanket ownership licenses are issued to arms dealers, firearms experts and – with limitations – to collectors. Today, there are ca. four million legal private gun owners.[11]

A number of criteria must be met before a firearms ownership license is issued:

age of majority (18 years) (§ 4 WaffG)
trustworthiness (§ 5 WaffG)
personal adequacy (§ 6 WaffG)
expert knowledge (§ 7 WaffG) and
necessity (§ 8 WaffG)

Necessity is automatically assumed present for licensed hunters and owners of a carry permit (Waffenschein). Competition shooters can demonstrate necessity by being an active member of a Schützenverein (marksmen club) for over a year. A competition shooter can lose necessity – and be required to give up owned firearms – by abandoning the shooting sport. Self-defense is not a recognized ground for necessity, outside the narrow requirements of a carry permit.

Inheritors of legal firearms can obtain a permit without having to demonstrate expert knowledge or necessity, but without them, the firearm has to be blocked by an arms dealer (§ 20 WaffG) and an inheritor's license does not include the right to acquire or handle ammunition.

Persons who are

convicted felons
have a record of mental disorder or
are deemed unreliable (which includes people with drug or alcohol addiction histories and known violent or aggressive persons)

are barred from obtaining a firearms ownership license.

Firearms ownership licenses come in three color-coded varieties: Green licenses enable the holder to acquire and own all non-assault weapons. Every acquisition requires prior approval and per-firearm necessity. License holders are normally limited to two short firearms and three semi-automatic rifles. Yellow licenses enable the holder to acquire and own single-shot and repeater long firearms and single-shot short ones, without having to obtain prior approval or demonstrate individual necessity. Acquisition is limited to two firearms per half-year. Red licenses are available to collectors and experts. They allow unlimited acquisition of firearms, for collectors they are usually constrained to a specific collectible "theme".
Firearms carry permit

Firearms carry permits (Waffenschein) entitle licensees to publicly carry legally owned weapons, loaded in a concealed or non-concealed manner. A mandatory legal and safety class and shooting proficiency tests are required to obtain such a permit. Carry permits are usually only issued to persons with a particular need for carrying a firearm. This includes some private security personnel and persons living under a raised threat-level like celebrities and politicians. They are valid up to three years and can be extended. Carrying at public events is prohibited. Licensed hunters do not need a permit to carry weapons while hunting.
Small firearms carry permit

A small firearms carry permit (Kleiner Waffenschein) was introduced in 2002. It can be obtained without having to demonstrate expert knowledge, necessity or a mandatory insurance. The only requirements are that the applicant be of legal age, trustworthy and personally adequate. It entitles the licensee to publicly carry gas pistols (both of the blank and irritant kind) and flare guns. These types of firearms are freely available to adults; only the actual carrying on public property requires the permit. Similarly to the "real" or big permit, carrying at public events is prohibited.
Firearms without a license

For persons over 18 years of age, a license is not required to own a single shot percussion firearm developed before 1870, as well as all muzzle loaders with a flintlock or earlier design. Participating in competitive shooting can require additional permits, as well as the purchase of black powder or similar.

Note that there is an estimate of about 4 million licenced civilian gun owners in Germany. I´ve read about an estimate of about 20 million legally registered guns in civilian hands. But an estimate by the BKA (Germany´s equivalent to the FBI) I once read states that they assume at least the same number of illegal guns being around, among them guns normally not available to civilians, like machine guns.

Jan

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-26 10:39:33 and read 2714 times.

Quoting tugger (Reply 15):
Are you saying these are all blunders?

I'm saying the Bill of Rights was a blunder, and for exactly the reasons some opposed it when it was written.

Quoting cmf (Reply 17):
It is a reaction to the bullying pro-gunners have done over the last 40 years.

What bullying? What of your rights have been taken away by gun owners? What rights did you lose when the assault weapons ban expired? No, this is bullying by the gun control faction against the gun owners. You can't get your hands on Adam Lanza, so taking it out on people who own guns like the one he used will have to do.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 22):
I would like to know how to prevent such atrocities from occurring and to take semi-automatic assault files out the hands of the untrained and the general populace would be a great way to start.

Too much freedom is taken away. There are plenty of (well trained) people who own such guns with no problems whatsoever. And allowing a crazy person to have a pistol is maybe only marginally better than them having an assault rifle. What happens when the next massacre takes place using a weapon with a fifteen round clip?

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-26 11:16:35 and read 2697 times.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 28):
The definition clearly marks weapons which in the US would fall under the 1934 Federal Firearms Act as machine guns and are highly regulated

Technically that is absolutely correct. But everyone know what weapons are meant and we all know how they are advertised. It is pretty much the same image NRA stated as reason for the mass shootings. Do you want your man card back...

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-26 11:28:59 and read 2696 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
If that's the way many people think, then the Bill of Rights is possibly the biggest blunder of American government.

I come onto this thread only to state that on this point alone, I agree with BMI -- the Bill of Rights was a blunder, put into the Constitution as an afterthought. (Which is why they're all amendments, and why in some cases, they are contradictory to each other.)

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-26 11:29:33 and read 2694 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 29):
What bullying? What of your rights have been taken away by gun owners?

You have been told several times. The freedom to walk in public spaces without fear that a weapon will be used because a person not adequately trained will accidentally use it or that a person who shouldn't have access to a weapon he shouldn't and will use it either in public or to commit crime.

In no small mean because the meaning of the Second Amendment has been rewritten over the last 40 years.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 29):
Too much freedom is taken away.

Provide a solution that works for all sides.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: MD11Engineer
Posted 2012-12-26 11:41:56 and read 2684 times.

Well, you could interpret the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment that whoever wants to own a gun has to fullfill certain conditions, e.g. be trained and fit to hold the responsibility that goes with it to own or handle a gun.

The German gun law automatically excludes people from owning guns:
- who are below the age of 18
- have a criminal record
- have mental health issues
- or have other issues which make them unreliable to follow the laws and regulations, e.g. being drug addicts or alcoholics, having a history of violence etc.


Jan

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: ER757
Posted 2012-12-26 11:59:42 and read 2672 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
But it does violate the rights of people who wish to own such things and do nothing to harm others.

Let's go back to the speed limit for cars analogy and try it to help explain suggested restrictions on guns and or ammo.
Why are some cars classified as "street legal" and others not? By your definition if I wanted to buy a funny car or a top fuel dragster and go tooling down the I-405, my rights are violated because they aren't "street legal." By the same token, what others are trying to point out is that your 2nd amendment rights are NOT infringed upon by placing certain limits on the type of firearms you can own or the size of the ammo clip. Hope this helps illustrate their point.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-26 12:01:51 and read 2667 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
The freedom to walk in public spaces without fear that a weapon will be used because a person not adequately trained will accidentally use it or that a person who shouldn't have access to a weapon he shouldn't and will use it either in public or to commit crime.

Fear is in your own mind. Unless someone is threatening you, there is nothing that can be done. Again, you're trying to preemptively punish those who probably won't violate any of your rights. Unless there is a solid reason to believe that a given gun owner is likely to commit a crime, there is no reason to violate their rights.

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
Provide a solution that works for all sides

Just do this:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 33):
The German gun law automatically excludes people from owning guns:
- who are below the age of 18
- have a criminal record
- have mental health issues
- or have other issues which make them unreliable to follow the laws and regulations, e.g. being drug addicts or alcoholics, having a history of violence etc.

None of that has anything to do with clip size however, but that's just fine. You don't get to limit everyone else on the off chance that someone might do something to you.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2012-12-26 12:23:21 and read 2649 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
The freedom to walk in public spaces without fear

Is NOT a right enumerated in the Constitution... similar to when people want to ban "offensive" speech, with not only the right to free speech enumerated, but no right to not be offended.

And even if it were, what about the right to walk in public spaces without fear of being defenseless?

Quoting cmf (Reply 32):

In no small mean because the meaning of the Second Amendment has been rewritten over the last 40 years.

Has it really?

Quoting ER757 (Reply 34):

Let's go back to the speed limit for cars analogy and try it to help explain suggested restrictions on guns and or ammo.

False analogy. There is nothing in the Constitution that says, "The right of the people to keep and operate cars on public rights-of-way shall not be infringed."

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: ER757
Posted 2012-12-26 12:37:51 and read 2639 times.

[quote=Maverick623,reply=36]False analogy. There is nothing in the Constitution that says, "The right of the people to keep and operate cars on public rights-of-way shall not be infringed."

There's lots of things not in the constitution. Doesn't mean I don't have the "right" to own one of whatever. It's not a false analogy at all. As others have pointed out - the 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to own a rocket launcher or an RPG. The point of the post was to illustrate that we do not have "absolute" freedoms. There are limitations placed on nearly any right or freedom - what BMI727 was referring to sounded more like anarchy and that was more or less the point I was trying to make. There are reasonable limitations placed on society even in a democracy and one which provides its citizens with many "freedoms."

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-26 12:48:14 and read 2636 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
Provide a solution that works for all sides

Just do this:

Great, lets implement the German system. It more than covers what I feel is needed.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
None of that has anything to do with clip size however, but that's just fine. You don't get to limit everyone else on the off chance that someone might do something to you.

That is not what the Supreme Court said.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 36):
Is NOT a right enumerated in the Constitution

It is a basic human right.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: MD11Engineer
Posted 2012-12-26 13:06:47 and read 2630 times.

I could take a 100 years old British Army WW1 Lee Enfield rifle in .303 (therefore mudch stronger than the .223 round of the AR-15 / M-16)


and fill my jacket pockets full with 5 round chargers, as issued to the Commonwealth soldiers in WW1 and WW2
.

With a bit of practice it would take me only seconds to reload the internal 10 round magazine of the rifle (a British WW1 soldier was issued cloth bandoliers containing 50 rounds packed in those charger clips).
Then the Lee Enfield is famous for it´s smooth manual action (nothing automatic or semiautomatic there), so I could fire the rounds almost as fast as with a semiautomatic weapon.
This oldstyle bolt action battle rifle is still used in many places for hunting or in India, rechambered to 7.62 NATO, as a police weapon.

A British WW1 soldier would be expected to fire 30 aimed shot per minute and to hit a target at a range of 600 metres regularly using simple iron sights. This means one round every 2 seconds, including reloading the magazine twice.

Jan

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-26 13:31:24 and read 2616 times.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 36):
Quoting cmf (Reply 32):
The freedom to walk in public spaces without fear

Is NOT a right enumerated in the Constitution.

So? Lots of Constitutional rights are not enumerated. These rights are specifically protected by the Ninth Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 36):
Quoting cmf (Reply 32):

In no small mean because the meaning of the Second Amendment has been rewritten over the last 40 years.

Has it really?

Yup. It used to be about regulating militia. It was never an individual right to own a handgun until the current Supreme Court decided that it was.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: TheCommodore
Posted 2012-12-26 13:42:52 and read 2609 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
Fear is in your own mind.

BMI727

With all due respect.

How can you say its "in his mind" when killings occur on such a regular, almost daily basis in the US ?

It is a reality, not some far fetched nightmare.

I would have thought its was perfectly normal, to have reservations about how armed people will behave in general. And with what I have read about the mental health care system in the US, I think everyone should be concerned, gun owners included !

[Edited 2012-12-26 13:43:53]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: MD11Engineer
Posted 2012-12-26 13:47:04 and read 2596 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 40):

Yup. It used to be about regulating militia. It was never an individual right to own a handgun until the current Supreme Court decided that it was.

Well, as I´ve written in the other thread you could argue that "well regulated" can mean:
Everybody has the right to own guns provided he fullfills certain requirement:

- being older than 18
- have no criminal history (felonies)
- is not mentally ill
- there is no evidence that he might not obey laws and regulations, e.g. being a drug addict or alcoholic, having a history of violence. This means that he is reliable
- has received minimum traing in gun safety.

Issue a "no objections" card, which the applicant has to renew every 2 years. If anybody gets caught with a gun and none of such cards, come down hard on him. The punishment included in the 1934 Federal Firearms Act has IMO quite a sobering effect (10 years jail and $100.000 fine for the illegal possession of a machine gun).

Also pass a law that guns have to be securely stored when not in direct control by the owner and that the owner is responsible for whatever happens with them (even in the military guns are never left unguarded).

Jan

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: TheCommodore
Posted 2012-12-26 14:05:23 and read 2584 times.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 42):
Also pass a law that guns have to be securely stored when not in direct control by the owner and that the owner is responsible for whatever happens with them (even in the military guns are never left unguarded).

That fact that this isn't already a requirement on behalf of the gun owner is simply unbelievable....   

I suppose its got something to do with peoples "rights" again                    

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: MD11Engineer
Posted 2012-12-26 14:21:37 and read 2570 times.

Mentalities have changed. When my mother was a little girl back in the 1950s my grandfather was a customs officer, who used to patrol along the border to East Germany. When he came home from work he usually would bring his carbine, which then went on the top of living room cabinet. The four children were threatened with drastic consequences should they ever touch the rifle (think about belt and bare bottom). According to my mother they obeyed .

Today this wouldn´t be possible anymore, therefore the rule that the guns have to be stored in a gun safe with minimum security requirements concerning how it is designed (you need power tools to cut it open). On the other hand, if a gun owner had obeyed all security regulations and his guns still got stolen (e.g. professional safecrackers used the opportunity while has on vacation to use power tools to open the safe), them he wouldn´t be in trouble if he reported the theft to the police.

Jan

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: cptkrell
Posted 2012-12-26 15:05:53 and read 2557 times.

In reference to the occassionally presented "car analogy", it certainly isn't against the law for me to own a top fuel dragster or another racing only or off-road only vehicle; it is against the law for me operate them illegally (ie: public roads, etc).

It isn't against the law to own an F-86 Sabre jet fighter. It is against the law to operate said aircraft illegally.

It's not against the law for me to fertilize my acreage but it is illegal for me to blow up a building with amonium nitrate.

And, it shouldn't be against the law to responsibly own firearms and their accessories; And it's already against the law to use said materiel illegally.

I'm certainly not a know-it-all, but I'll bet I know this debate will outlast even the AvsB debate.

BTW; I'm surprised nobody has yet screamed about the Knob Creek Gun Range in Bullit County (apropos, eh?), Kentucky where they yearly hold the world's largest machine gun shooting and assault rifle competitions. Legal owners bring their weapons (along with flame throwers, vintage tanks, etc) to blow stuff up for fun. What's wrong with that? Regards...jack

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-12-26 15:12:45 and read 2554 times.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 45):
In reference to the occassionally presented "car analogy", it certainly isn't against the law for me to own a top fuel dragster or another racing only or off-road only vehicle; it is against the law for me operate them illegally (ie: public roads, etc).

The car analogy I use is that all cars are registered so why not all guns. Also cars are not designed to kill so it would only make sense that they would be regulated slightly more strictly. As for owning the fighter jet I'm sure there are tons of restrictions regarding its ownership as well.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: cptkrell
Posted 2012-12-26 15:24:27 and read 2544 times.

FlyDeltaJets: I support 100% registering all guns and also support licensing (only after training) people passing a background check. I simply do not support banning them. regards...jack

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-12-26 16:33:13 and read 2518 times.

We have come to far to ban them but track ability and ease of access needs to be addressed. Also a right to gun ownership just for the sake of having one is ridiculous. We need to really think why we are the only country in the world that enshrined ownership of a gun into our constitution.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2012-12-26 18:20:29 and read 2496 times.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 46):
The car analogy I use is that all cars are registered so why not all guns

I'm having a hard time understanding and accepting the argument that registration is the answer, or even a partial answer to the number of firearm-related injuries and deaths we have in this country. We have to register our automobiles but that doesn't stop people from doing stupid things with them (driving drunk, driving recklessly, texting while driving, shaving while driving, ect...) that often have catastrophic results. It also doesn't stop those who legally can't operate an automobile for one reason or another from getting behind the wheel and driving. Same applies to firearms. For all intents and purposes, our current restrictive system worked and Lanza was unsuccessful when he tried to buy a gun at Dick's Sporting Goods three days before his rampage. He didn't want to comply with the waiting period that CT requires and he left the store empty handed. But that didn't stop him from killing 27 people with a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle three days later , did it?

The statement that because we "can't get our hands on Adam Lanza" we want to take our frustration out on everyone who owns a gun like the one he used is ridiculous. We're finally fed up with the number of firearm-related injuries and deaths that occur in this country and we want to put a stop to it. Not being able to get our hands on Adam Lanza or Eric Harris or Dylan Kleybold or William Spengler has nothing to do with it. The fact THEY were able to get THEIR hands on the weapons they used to kill people is what we're pissed off about. Scream and reference the Second Amendment all you want but it does not give you the right to own any firearm of your choosing. While it's too bad that it has taken the deaths of 20 six year olds to get our politicians off their asses, maybe their deaths won't be in vain.

As several, including myself have already said, there is absolutely no sensible reason or need for a private citizen to own a weapon that fires a couple hundred rounds a minute. None. "Because I want to" isn't good enough. That argument is one I'd expect to hear from a 5 year old child. So, if that's your argument then the Federal Government needs to assume the role of the adult in this equation and do what's best for the child, and simply say "No - Because I said so".

I know there are some of you who like to shoot automatic and semiautomatic weapons "for fun". I don't understand it, although I do think Dr. Freud could shed some insight if he were still around, but so be it. You don't need to own one of those weapons to fulfill that want or that need. As I have said in previous posts, let's equip a few gun ranges in each state, have the Feds operate and oversee them, and you can go there and rent and shoot as many high velocity rounds from an automatic or semi-automatic weapon as it takes to fulfill that need.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-12-26 18:37:31 and read 2495 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 29):
Too much freedom is taken away. There are plenty of (well trained) people who own such guns with no problems whatsoever. And allowing a crazy person to have a pistol is maybe only marginally better than them having an assault rifle. What happens when the next massacre takes place using a weapon with a fifteen round clip?

This is precisely the reason why the AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle should not be available to the general public.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
It is. That has to be the primary criteria when it comes to outlawing something: "Whose rights are being violated if it's allowed to continue." If the question is concerning shooting in public places, the answer is obvious. If the question is concerning the ownership of assault weapons, the answer is "nobody."

Whose rights are being violated? Uh, the rights of a person who would like to send their child to school and then have them come home.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: ltbewr
Posted 2012-12-26 18:57:32 and read 2489 times.

A daily newspaper based in the suburbs of New York City, in NY State (Winchester County and serving 2 adjacent counties), published the FOIL obtained public records including names and addresses of registered handgun owners in those counties and a lot of people are pissed ! Of course the gun owners, their families and property are at risk of someone trying to steal their guns, put them at risk of robbery, harassment, their covers blown. The area is the home of 100''s of top corporate, banking, financial services executives, media stars and celebs, rich people and their families and the disclosed information as to them if handgun owners could be used by anti-gun zealots, stalkers, paparazzi, nuts, disgruntled ex-employees, kidnapping, harassment, extortion or even murder. Some of those disclosed have in turn put the names and home addresses of the reports of these stories in fair revenge, putting them at risk too. Here is a link to an article on the newspaper's disclosures: http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/26/jou...%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D249935

This is a problem with stricter regulations on guns, including public record regulation, and conflicting rights we have to deal with here in the USA.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-26 19:27:29 and read 2483 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 50):
This is precisely the reason why the AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle should not be available to the general public.

Millions of people use them peacefully and legally each year.

Yes, we have a gun problem. I do admit that (to the disagreement with most of my friends.) Call us crazy, but it is a fun hobby. But can you honestly say that AR-15s can't be peacefully and legally owned? Can they not be regulated and registered rather than outright bans?

It's very difficult for many to care about gun rights... I do not blame you. You don't own these rifles, don't enjoy shooting them, and they can lead to many of these shootings... so what's it to you if they are completely banned? But it is still a right according to the Constitution, and more importantly 99.9% of these gun owners use them safely every year.

Can't we compromise instead of getting rid of them all?

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2012-12-26 19:34:49 and read 2482 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 52):
Call us crazy

Well, on this we agree.

You want to shoot an AR-15, or an AK-47 or a Browning M2 50 cal machine gun because you it's "fun", that's fine. Go to a range, rent one and shoot it til your heart's content. But you have absolutely no sensible need or logical reason to own one.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-26 19:45:12 and read 2474 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 53):
Well, on this we agree.

Classy.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 53):
But you have absolutely no sensible need or logical reason to own one.

There is no "need" for a lot of things. What kind of benchmark is that? What is the "need" for alcohol? Sure you can use it "safely and legally" but it kills a whole lot more people a year than firearms.

Guess arguing this out will change neither of our minds. Most people can agree that compromise is usually the best avenue, what is wrong with having people go through periodic background checks/psychiatric evalutation and safety classes before they can own these items, and have them safely locked up (and registered)? It would cut down crime indeed but it wouldn't take rights away

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-12-26 20:24:12 and read 2462 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 49):
We have to register our automobiles but that doesn't stop people from doing stupid things with them (driving drunk, driving recklessly, texting while driving, shaving while driving, ect...) that often have catastrophic results. It also doesn't stop those who legally can't operate an automobile for one reason or another from getting behind the wheel and driving.

But it does make it very easy for police to catch and punish those who do, since you can immediately see who owns what particular car. You can't do the same with guns, which makes the police's job harder. This article provides an interesting look at how ATF is handcuffed when it comes to enforcing not just new laws, but even the ones we already have on the books:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us...h=2404308F6214CA4B80648623B836F3BD

For example, under current laws the bureau is prohibited from creating a federal registry of gun transactions. So while detectives on television tap a serial number into a computer and instantly identify the buyer of a firearm, the reality could not be more different.

When law enforcement officers recover a gun and serial number, workers at the bureau’s National Tracing Center here — a windowless warehouse-style building on a narrow road outside town — begin making their way through a series of phone calls, asking first the manufacturer, then the wholesaler and finally the dealer to search their files to identify the buyer of the firearm.

About a third of the time, the process involves digging through records sent in by companies that have closed, in many cases searching by hand through cardboard boxes filled with computer printouts, hand-scrawled index cards or even water-stained sheets of paper.


If you let the government actively go after those who don't obey the gun laws, and deliver harsh penalties to them, you'd see gun violence drop. But in order to do that, you need to be able to keep track of where the guns are going.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 51):
A daily newspaper based in the suburbs of New York City, in NY State (Winchester County and serving 2 adjacent counties), published the FOIL obtained public records including names and addresses of registered handgun owners in those counties and a lot of people are pissed !

I'd be pissed too. That sort of stuff should stay private. But then again, I'm not sure whether you could do the same thing with who owns a car (and what type of car). If you can get information about one, it makes sense that you should be able to get information about another (if it were me, I'd say you shouldn't be able to get either).

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 51):
Of course the gun owners, their families and property are at risk of someone trying to steal their guns, put them at risk of robbery, harassment, their covers blown.

You could say the same about anything that they owned, not just guns. There might be a particular social stigma with guns at the moment, but that isn't really enough to justify special protections.

-Mir

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: seb146
Posted 2012-12-26 21:19:08 and read 2450 times.

I am just throwing this idea out there: Since the Second Amendment mentions a "well-regulated milita" and people seem to want and crave automatic weapons (I don't understand that, but bear with me) why not have people join a militia and register their guns and take safety courses? Pay a small fee to the militia and be regulated (it says so right in the Second Amendment)? People seem to crave automatic weapons so much, it seems like a good idea. They get to keep their automatic weapons, right?

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-26 21:31:23 and read 2448 times.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 56):
They get to keep their automatic weapons, right?

Kinda a pet peeve, but you are talking about semi-automatic weapons. Legal automatic weapons are rare and cost like $10,000 minimum even for crappy ones. With automatic weapons, when you pull the trigger it shoots until you let go of the trigger or you run out of rounds. Semi-autos require a trigger pull for each shot... versus pumping a shotgun, pulling a lever, or cycling a bolt.

About the militia thing, I think it would be kinda weird having militias, but I'm not against training people... in fact, I am very much for it.

My common trend is to allow most products offered today, but adding various "hoops" to jump through. Nothing to discourage anyone or financially scare them away, just ones to make sure people are safe and competent.

I believe that there is no such thing as a gun accident, for example. (Well, maybe there are some legitimate crazy cases) but 99% of "accidental shootings" are "NEGLIGENT shootings..." there is NO reason someone should be accidentally shot. Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot, even if there is a trigger lock on it and you checked the chamber a million times. Always assume it's loaded. I don't need to go through these measures in painful detail, you get the jist. These SIMPLE measures are ones you'd learn in any shooting 101 class and would save countless lives.

That is just one aspect I'd like to see implimented

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-12-26 21:55:20 and read 2446 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 57):
Kinda a pet peeve, but you are talking about semi-automatic weapons. Legal automatic weapons are rare and cost like $10,000 minimum even for crappy ones.

Except that you can buy an AR-15, which is supposed to be semi-automatic, and then buy a few accessories to make it automatic. So the term "automatic weapons" isn't really inaccurate.

-Mir

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: MD11Engineer
Posted 2012-12-27 01:50:15 and read 2432 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 58):
Except that you can buy an AR-15, which is supposed to be semi-automatic, and then buy a few accessories to make it automatic. So the term "automatic weapons" isn't really inaccurate.

-Mir

Nope. First, you cannot change a legal civilian semi auto AR-15 (and it´s clones) or a legal semi auto AK-47 clone easily into full auto configuration. The receivers (which is the critical part as per BATF regulations) have deliberately been manufactured as not to allow the replacement of the semi auto trigger parts with parts from the military full auto version.
It is not possible without machining and is an irreversible process, e.g. because you have to drill holes into the lower receiver. Also the military full auto trigger housings (which contain the full auto parts) are not interchangeable with their civilian semi auto counterparts due to different dimensions. Heckler & Koch do the same with their civilian and military versions e.g. of the G3 rifle.
The consequence of getting caught with an illegally modified AR-15in the US is ten years in federal prison plus a $100.000 fine for illegal possession and manufacturing of a machine gun.

Then there exists the option of "Intent to construct an illegal machine gun", which carries the same punishment. This means if you get caught having full auto AR-15 parts, a drawing and an AR-15 in your possession, even if you didn´t modify anything yet, you are in for the full prison term plus fine.

One example would be having a de-militarized Sten submachine gun (in which the receive has been torchcut into four pieces, but from which you can salvage the trigger unit, the barrel and thr breech block plus a few small parts), a steel pipe of 1 1/4" diametre and a drawing showing you where to make the cutouts in the steel pipe you are also in for constructive intent.

Jan

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-12-27 04:37:03 and read 2400 times.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 51):
This is a problem with stricter regulations on guns, including public record regulation, and conflicting rights we have to deal with here in the USA.

That incident is not a problem with stricter gun laws. That is a problem with laxed privacy laws. No matter what your stance on guns are we have to agree that legal gun owners should not have their names and addresses printed in the newspaper like they are some sort of pariah, this only makes noise that is counterproductive to the actual discussion.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 54):
There is no "need" for a lot of things. What kind of benchmark is that? What is the "need" for alcohol? Sure you can use it "safely and legally" but it kills a whole lot more people a year than firearms.

Alcohol was not designed as a killing machine in the same manner guns were designed to kill.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 49):

The mass killings are a small number of the gun deaths we have in the US. Most gun deaths are from illegal usage. In urban areas. A registry will certainly slow the flow of illegal guns into urban areas if every gun purchased had to be registered for to the buyer. If that gun gets bought by a straw buyer in Virginia then sold to the streets in Baltimore and is used illegally that straw buyer can be held accountable.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-12-27 07:52:13 and read 2381 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 54):
There is no "need" for a lot of things. What kind of benchmark is that? What is the "need" for alcohol? Sure you can use it "safely and legally" but it kills a whole lot more people a year than firearms.

This is the apples and oranges comparison. When you pour a drink or open a bottle of beer, you aren't pouring for other people to kill them. You have a gun for only one reason, to kill something. Why else would you want a gun but to kill something. Oh it is fun to shoot at a range, that argument I will give you. I, myself have had my fare share of outings to go deer hunting, although it has been a few years, and it was on my cousin's farm where he needs to rid his land of deer to make any money farming. I don't see the need for an semi-automatic assault rifle or 50 round clip at home to hunt what? In Canada we can own an assault rifle but you cannot have anything more than a 5 round clip. It is not in our constitution, but there are alot of hunters in Canada that use long guns. We don't have near the number of deaths due to these weapons. I can't remember when the last murder using an assault rifle in Canada was, but our murder rate is up with handguns being used. I think this year where I come from in London, there have been 8-10 people killed but all sources, the majority are killed in domestic assaults using knives or manual strangulation. We have one of the highest murder rates per capita in London for the whole country, mainly due to the drug trade and gang activity, but comparing that to the US, it is nothing.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-27 08:22:27 and read 2367 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 49):
I'm having a hard time understanding and accepting the argument that registration is the answer, or even a partial answer to the number of firearm-related injuries and deaths we have in this country. We have to register our automobiles but that doesn't stop people from doing stupid things with them (driving drunk, driving recklessly, texting while driving, shaving while driving, ect...) that often have catastrophic results.

It is effective in the way that it prevents people from having guns legally if they do not meet the conditions of a license, which in turn requires the person that wants the gun to prove that they do meet the conditions of a license.

The NRA has done what it can to prevent governmental requirements that the prospective owner prove he is fit to own, arguing that the constitution gives individuals a right to own a gun, and your license be damned.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-27 08:22:37 and read 2366 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 58):
Except that you can buy an AR-15, which is supposed to be semi-automatic, and then buy a few accessories to make it automatic. So the term "automatic weapons" isn't really inaccurate.

Um no. It takes quite a bit more than that. How often do you even see that happen? I can't think of any case, I'm sure there are a *few* out there. You're probably thinking of the old school days when they had weapons like Tec-9s and MAC-10s that were very easily modifiable. The ATF (I think) banned those weapons and forced the manufacturers to modify it so it wasn't an open bolt system IIRC.

Trust me, there are plenty of gripes against guns in American. "Automatic conversions" just isn't one of them

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 60):
Alcohol was not designed as a killing machine in the same manner guns were designed to kill.

Are you telling me objects cannot have multiple uses?? How do you explain those professional target rifles? Their sole reason is target shooting. But I think this argument is kinda silly anyway... even if they are "designed to kill" millions and millions of Americans buy them not to kill and don't kill

Quoting brilondon (Reply 61):
You have a gun for only one reason, to kill something.

Really? Is that why I bought those? This statement is absolutely false

Quoting brilondon (Reply 61):
Why else would you want a gun but to kill something. Oh it is fun to shoot at a range, that argument I will give you.

You just answered your own question. Hey, I'm not for the status quo either, I want there to be changes. I just think the over cautious / foolish approach goes too far and strips people of too many rights

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: flipdewaf
Posted 2012-12-27 10:05:50 and read 2346 times.

air pistols and air rifles shoot at targets surely, target shooting is fun but does not require live rounds.

Fred

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-12-27 13:57:39 and read 2313 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 63):
You just answered your own question.

You did not include the rest of the quote and that is why the idiots at the NRA seem to think that everybody should be armed to the tee. I also said :

Quoting brilondon (Reply 61):
I don't see the need for an semi-automatic assault rifle or 50 round clip at home to hunt what?

I agree with you that it would be impracticable to up and make all guns illegal, but there has to be some safe guards so what happened in Connecticut, Colorado, Wisconsin, oh man I can remember all the mass shootings recently but if you need any more of an argument that would be it.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-27 17:31:27 and read 2273 times.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 41):
How can you say its "in his mind" when killings occur on such a regular, almost daily basis in the US ?

There are many places that are quite safe. I don't feel in danger whenever I'm in public, and I'm sure many other Americans don't either. Don't confuse fear of a threat with an actual threat.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 45):
Legal owners bring their weapons (along with flame throwers, vintage tanks, etc) to blow stuff up for fun. What's wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 46):
As for owning the fighter jet I'm sure there are tons of restrictions regarding its ownership as well.

Mostly in regards to cleansing it of military items. If the government wants to curb assault rifles they need to have the military buy new guns with the designs classified and covered the same way heavier weapons are. If gun manufacturers want to sell assault rifles to the public, they won't be able to do it by parlaying military designs themselves.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 49):
The statement that because we "can't get our hands on Adam Lanza" we want to take our frustration out on everyone who owns a gun like the one he used is ridiculous.

It's absolutely true. Too many Americans want to do something to make themselves feel better, even if that means stepping on the freedom of others.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 49):
"Because I want to" isn't good enough.

It absolutely is. If you deny that, then you deny the essence of freedom itself. Of course freedom seems a lot less important when it isn't yours.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 49):
So, if that's your argument then the Federal Government needs to assume the role of the adult in this equation and do what's best for the child, and simply say "No - Because I said so".

Except that Americans are adults and the government is not a parent. Government exists to allow people to do what they want as long as they don't violate anyone's rights, rather than keep people from doing what they want. Subscribing to your idea basically turns the foundations of America on its head. The Bill of Rights was a colossal mistake, because making a list of rights that are guaranteed implies that others are not guaranteed, which is becoming an issue more and more.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 49):
You don't need to own one of those weapons to fulfill that want or that need.

The cool thing about freedom is that you don't get to decide what people want or need. But you proved exactly what I was saying about bullying. You don't care to go shooting so nobody else should either. People who do apparently have psychological issues in your world.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 50):
Whose rights are being violated?

Absolutely nobody's.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 50):
Uh, the rights of a person who would like to send their child to school and then have them come home.

If you're standing in front of a school waving it around perhaps. But in your home where you keep it, having it with you at a shooting range or on a hunting trip harms exactly nobody, let alone kids in elementary schools.

Quoting Mir (Reply 55):
You could say the same about anything that they owned, not just guns. There might be a particular social stigma with guns at the moment, but that isn't really enough to justify special protections.

It doesn't justify lesser protections either.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 61):
I don't see the need for an semi-automatic assault rifle or 50 round clip at home to hunt what?

Neither do I. Others do, however, and I have no problem letting them have them since they aren't hurting me or anyone else with it. Unless of course they shoot me, but that's already illegal.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-12-27 17:31:53 and read 2274 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 25):
.223-caliber Bushmaster XM-15 rifle

The only question I have is where in the hell did he get this rifle? I am pretty sure his mother never had one and he had "friends" that supplied this gun to him or he stole it. He couldn't have gotten this (or the AR-15) legally. There is just no way, to me, that he could have gotten it legally.....

Quoting cmf (Reply 38):
Great, lets implement the German system. It more than covers what I feel is needed.

I think that is already covered under state and federal law. You have to sign an attached affidavit stating that you are qualified to purchase said firearm and accept penalties for lying on the form prior to purchasing, IIRC.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: Mir
Posted 2012-12-27 17:41:40 and read 2267 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 63):
Um no. It takes quite a bit more than that. How often do you even see that happen?

There's this one, which "simulates" automatic fire.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/slid...ns-ssar-15-bump-fire-device-ar-15/

Is it properly automatic? Perhaps not, but in that video it looks pretty damn close.

-Mir

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-27 19:31:28 and read 2256 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 65):
I agree with you that it would be impracticable to up and make all guns illegal, but there has to be some safe guards so what happened in Connecticut, Colorado, Wisconsin, oh man I can remember all the mass shootings recently but if you need any more of an argument that would be it.

I can see making these magazine more difficult to obtain. I wouldn't go as far as making a tax stamp but there exists a system in the US where you can have silenced weapons and short barreled rifles (SBRs) by registering them with local law enforcement. You'd think these items would be great for crime, but to my knowledge, I can't think of anytime a LEGAL silencer or SBR has been used in crime.

As with most of my posts and ideas, it allows law abiding gun owners to have these items yet it would cut crime down drastically. I'm sure if silencers or SBRs were easily obtainable you'd see them in crime more

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-27 19:40:21 and read 2256 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 68):
There's this one, which "simulates" automatic fire.

Oh that... I'm just waiting for the ATF to ban that. They allowed the devices that rapidly pulled the triggers for a short while then banned them

This product is new and I'd put money down that it will be banned soon.

Have yet to see it in crime, I hear it's not too accurate.

Sorry, I'll give you that, Mir. Physically modifying weapons are much harder than in the past. Again, I see it banned within a couple years

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2012-12-27 19:59:21 and read 2252 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 62):
It is effective in the way that it prevents people from having guns legally if they do not meet the conditions of a license, which in turn requires the person that wants the gun to prove that they do meet the conditions of a license.

The Newtown shooter didn't possess the firearm he used in that massacre legally. The two shooters at Columbine didn't possess the weapons they used legally and the majority of street homicides committed are done by people who don't legally possess the firearm they use.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2012-12-27 21:33:38 and read 2236 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
But you proved exactly what I was saying about bullying. You don't care to go shooting so nobody else should either. People who do apparently have psychological issues in your world.


You obviously have selective reading and/or memory skills. Several times now, both in this thread and the first one, I have acknowledged that, for whatever reason, some people like to shoot semiautomatic and automatic weapons "for fun". Not my thing, maybe because I have seen first hand more times than I care to remember, the effect these weapons of "fun" have on innocent victims, but so be it. My suggestion, which you have chosen not to acknowledge or address (perhaps because it's too sensible?) is to make these weapons of "fun" available at a select number of Federally owned and operated gun ranges throughout the country. And for those who get their kicks from firing a few thousand rounds from automatic or semiautomatic weapons, they can visit these ranges, rent their weapon(s) of choice, buy as many rounds as they see fit and blast away 'til their heart's content. When they're done, they sign the weapon(s) back in, their need to shoot these weapons for fun have been satisfied and away they go.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-27 21:53:35 and read 2234 times.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 72):
Several times now, both in this thread and the first one, I have acknowledged that, for whatever reason, some people like to shoot semiautomatic and automatic weapons "for fun".

You actually did one better. You acknowledged that there are such people, and then insinuated that they had issues.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 72):
Not my thing, maybe because I have seen first hand more times than I care to remember, the effect these weapons of "fun" have on innocent victims, but so be it.

Most of them have no such effects.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 72):
My suggestion, which you have chosen not to acknowledge or address (perhaps because it's too sensible?) is to make these weapons of "fun" available at a select number of Federally owned and operated gun ranges throughout the country.

It's not sensible. They own the gun, it's theirs. They should be able to transport it or have it on their property as they wish. That doesn't mean they should be able to take it everywhere, but your suggestion would be an infraction against the right to keep and bear arms. There isn't a good reason why the government should have a monopoly on gun ranges, or for that matter, why people should not be able to construct their own (subject to zoning laws) or hunt on their land.

And one last thing: if gun enthusiasts get government funded shooting ranges, I damn well better get a government funded race track. There's enough disused military bases around and a considerable number of people are hurt and killed street racing, so something must be done. Uncle Sam should build me a track.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-12-28 01:17:08 and read 2219 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 67):
I am pretty sure his mother never had one and he had "friends" that supplied this gun to him or he stole it.

Based on what?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/ny...m-recall-her-as-generous.html?_r=0

Quote:
Investigators have linked Ms. Lanza to five weapons: two powerful handguns, two traditional hunting rifles and a semiautomatic rifle that is similar to weapons used by troops in Afghanistan. Her son took the two handguns and the semiautomatic rifle to the school. Law enforcement officials said they believed the guns were acquired legally and were registered.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-28 01:31:20 and read 2218 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 67):
The only question I have is where in the hell did he get this rifle? I am pretty sure his mother never had one and he had "friends" that supplied this gun to him or he stole it.

Well, as reported the mother had it.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 67):
I think that is already covered under state and federal law.

US is nowhere near the German requirements.

Weapons must be unloaded and locked when carried in public.

You need to show need to carry loaded in public. Need is essentially being a security guard or having received real threats.

Inspections that you store properly at your home.

I do not expect the German system to be implemented in US. But I would have no objections if it was.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: D L X
Posted 2012-12-28 07:21:12 and read 2192 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
There are many places that are quite safe.

Quite safe... like Newtown, Connecticut.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 71):
The Newtown shooter didn't possess the firearm he used in that massacre legally. The two shooters at Columbine didn't possess the weapons they used legally and the majority of street homicides committed are done by people who don't legally possess the firearm they use.

Sort of. If I understand correctly, the guns in both of those events were obtained legally... just not by the shooter. A condition of licensure could be that if a gun licensed to you is used to commit a criminal act, the licensee is liable also, in similar ways that a car owner is liable if he lets a friend drive his car and he commits a crime with it.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BN747
Posted 2012-12-28 07:55:31 and read 2182 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
The cool thing about freedom is that you don't get to decide what people want or need. But you proved exactly what I was saying about bullying. You don't care to go shooting so nobody else should either.

Yep, time for shooting for fun ..to be micromanaged.

I used to like to, for fun...slap women on the ass every night I was storming the clubs, today...that is considered sexual assault and you will go to jail. Bullies used to like 'punching your lights out'...for fun. There is happening far less now .. than ever before!

Why?

Because, Society is demanding change...change in certain 'freedoms'. Freedom is not always free...it usually cost someone, something.

In a gun happy society it is time to reign in 'the fun'... yes, a few knuckleheads have ruined it for the rest of you, but the welfare and Public Safety MUST come 1st NOW.

My fun was curbed when I could no longer go inside Terminals and shoot airliners 'for fun'

...because of 'Public Safety'

My fun was curbed when I could no longer stand by any fence or roadway I pleased and shoot 'landing and departing' jetliners.

...because of 'Public Safety'

..now it is Fun Shooters turn, because of Public Safety, crippling restrictions must be put into effect, select Federal Shooting ranges is a great idea and necessity. Society is in a constant state of change..this is one of them.

Like blowing shit to hell for fun? Time to register up...or find a new 'for fun hobby'...that one just became history.




Now for you guys who have the 'well no one is gonna get me in my home.. or if someone breaks into my home, I'm gonna..." types...

3 COPS SHOT IN NEW JERSEY POLICE STATION
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...r-township-shooting_n_2375299.html


....any of this getting thru to you Clint Eastwood, John Wayne wannabees???

These cops were not sleep like you'd be... if someone broke into your home! And guess what? They all had their firearms closer to their trigger fingers than you ever could and still got blasted.

More Guns...solve nothing. I can't believe some delusional thinkers were actually buying into ' guns in schools' - guns in a police station? Shootings can still occur.

Bottomline...if someone wants you, they're gonna get you. Your having a gun 'somewhere' is most likely NOT going to help you.

BN747

[Edited 2012-12-28 07:58:46]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: roswell41
Posted 2012-12-28 08:15:31 and read 2174 times.

You can't take pictures of airliners? You equate that to gun rights? Get real, these aren't even comparable. One is a right and one is something you are doing loitering at airports. Nothing is going to change in regards to firearms in the US. Turn on the TV, Newtown isn't even on the news anymore. With that, public support for government interference in firearm ownership will wane as such is the attention span of the average American. Every day with no action by the Feds is one day closer to the next election and one day more for emotion to subside.

P.S., I wish you weren't hassled at the airport. You could actually help airport security but the powers at be don't realize that.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-28 08:27:37 and read 2166 times.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 78):
Nothing is going to change in regards to firearms in the US.

Time will tell. I think you're wrong. Ironically, I think the NRA "solution" is what tipped the scale.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 78):
Turn on the TV, Newtown isn't even on the news anymore.

It was on my local news this morning.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BN747
Posted 2012-12-28 08:41:49 and read 2162 times.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 78):
You can't take pictures of airliners? You equate that to gun rights? Get real, these aren't even comparable.

They are very comparable.

Both are mainly recreational activities and Public Safety was used to crush one...and now Public Safety is front n' center on the other.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 78):
Turn on the TV, Newtown isn't even on the news anymore.

Really??? That tragedy is THAT dismissive to you...just like that, outta sight...outta mind?
Think about what you said and how crass and callous it comes across.

I don't think you've grasp how horrific and far-reaching this is.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 78):

P.S., I wish you weren't hassled at the airport. You could actually help airport security but the powers at be don't realize that.

Thankfully, some airports/police have stepped up and embraced this concept...officially!

BN747

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: roswell41
Posted 2012-12-28 08:51:43 and read 2158 times.

I realize my comments are cynical, but that is the reality of how things are done in D.C. these days. Diane Feinstein's proposed law has nothing to do with helping prevent future Newtowns. It's a gross overreach. These type of politicians wait for these type of tragedies to further their idealogical agendas. That is truly crass and cynical. Let's reconvene in a few months. I predict gridlock and no action in D.C. NY or CT may pass new state laws, but I predict no legislative action in D.C. The Fiscal Cliff and the holidays has really worked against the anti-gun politicians this time.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-12-28 10:10:34 and read 2143 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 75):
US is nowhere near the German requirements.

I never said anything of the sort. I was referring to this:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 33):
The German gun law automatically excludes people from owning guns:
- who are below the age of 18
- have a criminal record
- have mental health issues
- or have other issues which make them unreliable to follow the laws and regulations, e.g. being drug addicts or alcoholics, having a history of violence etc.

We already have this requirement in the U.S. and proof is on the form that you fill out at the gun dealership prior to purchasing a firearm. This is already law on the State level as well as the Federal level. If you don't believe me, then go to any gun dealership (Cabela's or Bass Pro or whatever suits your fancy) and ask them for a firearm purchase form. Believe me, it is on there.

I never cited German law, MD11Engineer did.

Quoting cmf (Reply 75):

Weapons must be unloaded and locked when carried in public.

I don't know how you lock a weapon if you are carrying it on your person, but as far as having it unloaded on your person, Nevada has this law, IIRC.

Quoting cmf (Reply 75):
You need to show need to carry loaded in public. Need is essentially being a security guard or having received real threats.

I disagree. Ain't gonna happen.

Quoting cmf (Reply 75):
Inspections that you store properly at your home.

That won't fare well with the law abiding gun owners nor the NRA. No one wants inspectors in their home, documenting their guns and the amount of guns they have and the types of ammo they own. That makes them a prime target for thieves and unwanted attention. I wouldn't want a target that says "Hey, I own guns! And I got a bunch of them!" placed on my door by the Feds. No way. The beauty of privacy is keeping the Feds and the State out of my stuff since I don't use guns in an illegal fashion. I don't trust them with some "gun ownership/registration database" since that can be hacked easily by criminals and then splattered all over the internet for all to see. That would not end well and gunfights would ensue.

Do you really want that??

Quoting D L X (Reply 76):
If I understand correctly, the guns in both of those events were obtained legally... just not by the shooter.

That is what I thought originally. So, with this in mind, this tells me that even though the guns were obtained legally by his mother, the 20 year old shooter (who was an adult, NOT a child... an adult) still got them illegally and was never his to begin with. In other words, he had "stolen" them from his mother and used them on her, then on the school children. I'll classify this as stolen guns.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 78):
You can't take pictures of airliners? You equate that to gun rights? Get real, these aren't even comparable.

       Couldn't have said it better than I could

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 81):
Let's reconvene in a few months.

Agreed. Lets give it a year, actually and see where we are at then. I'm willing to bet that nothing will be solved by then. Remember, both sides of the aisle in D.C. are both Pro-Second Amendment folks. Getting anything done is going to be difficult. Right now, Congress is focused on the Fiscal Cliff at the moment. I think their hands are tied at the moment on that.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-28 10:51:43 and read 2133 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 75):
I do not expect the German system to be implemented in US.

Requiring one to waive one right to exercise another isn't going to cut it.

Quoting D L X (Reply 76):
Quite safe... like Newtown, Connecticut.

Talking about America like it's all a war zone is disingenuous. If you feel like it it, that's your issue.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 77):
I used to like to, for fun...slap women on the ass every night I was storming the clubs, today...that is considered sexual assault and you will go to jail. Bullies used to like 'punching your lights out'...for fun. There is happening far less now .. than ever before!

Why?

Because both of those things infringe on the rights of others. Specifically, the rights of the strippers and the people being punched. Shooting at a range infringes on nobody's rights.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 77):
Because, Society is demanding change...change in certain 'freedoms'. Freedom is not always free...it usually cost someone, something.

It's a lot easier to make someone else pay to make you feel better, isn't it?

Quoting BN747 (Reply 77):
In a gun happy society it is time to reign in 'the fun'... yes, a few knuckleheads have ruined it for the rest of you, but the welfare and Public Safety MUST come 1st NOW.

You're willing to curtail the rights of many other people because of the, actually rather unlikely, possibility that someone will attempt to infringe on one of yours. Unless you can clearly demonstrate a likelihood that it will happen (owning a gun isn't good enough) you shouldn't get to infringe on the rights of gun owners.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 77):
crippling restrictions must be put into effect, select Federal Shooting ranges is a great idea and necessity. Society is in a constant state of change..this is one of them.

Isn't it more fun when you get to be the bully?

[Edited 2012-12-28 10:52:07]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BN747
Posted 2012-12-28 11:14:05 and read 2121 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
Because both of those things infringe on the rights of others. Specifically, the rights of the strippers and the people being punched. Shooting at a range infringes on nobody's rights.

The carelessness of TOO MANY gunowners are infringing on TOO MANY INNOCENT people - to their DEATHS....period.

Is that clear enough?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 77):
Because, Society is demanding change...change in certain 'freedoms'. Freedom is not always free...it usually cost someone, something.

It's a lot easier to make someone else pay to make you feel better, isn't it?

Yep..and the Civil Rights Era success cost racist Americans their 'rights' to exert their majority status, it shrunk their 'way of life', reshaped it. Freedom became Freedom for all...not just some. Safety for all (or as many as possible - more guns counters that aim clearly - see Police Station Shooting if you're still stuck in denial)...not just some.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 77):
In a gun happy society it is time to reign in 'the fun'... yes, a few knuckleheads have ruined it for the rest of you, but the welfare and Public Safety MUST come 1st NOW.

You're willing to curtail the rights of many other people because of the, actually rather unlikely, possibility that someone will attempt to infringe on one of yours

Unlike yourself, I'm not thinking about me, I'm pretty far from the chance of anything like many of these heinous shootings... but too many innocent Americans are not, too many innocent children are not. And to minimize their exposure to this kind of senseless violence..yes, I'll infringe on your rights in heartbeat! Infringing on your gun rights won't kill you..whereas extreme examples of your gun rights has killed too many of them. Enough already.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
Unless you can clearly demonstrate a likelihood that it will happen (owning a gun isn't good enough) you shouldn't get to infringe on the rights of gun owners.

As these shootings mount up an take their toll, expect change....it will come and it won't be pretty, 1 more Newton, 2 more Newtons, 3 more Newtons...no, this Society hasn't completely lost it's senses..it will change things up and your gun rights will pay the price.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 77):
crippling restrictions must be put into effect, select Federal Shooting ranges is a great idea and necessity. Society is in a constant state of change..this is one of them.

Isn't it more fun when you get to be the bully?

Now I understand why Southerners call it the War of Aggression, they felt were bullied from their rights to bully slaves... yep, change sucks. But lives will be saved.

BN747

[Edited 2012-12-28 11:24:02]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-12-28 11:22:41 and read 2115 times.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 84):
The carelessness of TOO MANY gunowners are infringing on TOO MANY INNOCENT people - to their DEATHS....period.

Wait.... are we talking about law abiding gun owners or the criminals who get their guns through illegal means (IE: stolen)? Two totally different things here, BN747.

So essentially, you're saying that the law abiding gun owners are also criminals as well...just because they own guns? Are you that naive?

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-28 11:30:47 and read 2110 times.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 84):
The carelessness of TOO MANY gunowners are infringing on TOO MANY INNOCENT people - to their DEATHS....period

Then feel free to prosecute careless gun owners.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 84):
Yep..and the Civil Rights Era success cost racist Americans their 'rights' to exert their majority status, it shrunk their 'way of life', reshaped it.

Americans do not, and never did have, the right to treat others as second class, for the very reason that it violates the rights of those being discriminated against. But, since you brought it up, why is it okay for people exert majority status to take guns away but not to vilify being black?

Quoting BN747 (Reply 84):
Unlike yourself, I'm not thinking about me,

No, you're thinking of messing with other people.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 84):
I'll infringe on your rights in heartbeat! Infringing on your gun rights won't kill you..if extreme examples of your gun rights has killed too many of them.

See, that's the problem. You're all too happy to reduce the freedom of others to make yourself feel better. And let's be clear, that's what this is. You can't get Adam Lanza, but you can get people with guns like the one he used, so that will have to suffice. It didn't matter until a bunch of kids in a suburb got killed. Gangs and street crime never really mattered before, despite making up the vast majority of gun killings.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 84):
Now I understand why Southerners call it the War of Aggression, they felt were bullied from their rights to bully slaves... yep, change sucks.

No person ever had the right to own slaves. You cannot own a slave without infringing upon the rights of the slave. You can own a gun without infringing on the rights of anyone, and indeed many people do exactly that. The gun control faction have turned into bullies, vilifying those who own and use guns lawfully in an attempt to make themselves feel in control of a tragic situation.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BN747
Posted 2012-12-28 11:41:12 and read 2108 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 85):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 84):
The carelessness of TOO MANY gunowners are infringing on TOO MANY INNOCENT people - to their DEATHS....period.

Wait.... are we talking about law abiding gun owners or the criminals who get their guns through illegal means (IE: stolen)? Two totally different things here, BN747.

So essentially, you're saying that the law abiding gun owners are also criminals as well...just because they own guns? Are you that naive?

The Federal Gov't infringed on virtually all of our rights after 9/11 ... after 3000+ people were killed in a single blow.

..if 3000 Americans were killed in a single Klebold/Harris style successful assault... how naive are you to think that American gov't would not do as it did with 9/11 about guns?

We are allowing numbers to dictate our actions. Accumulatively, the number of senseless gundeaths each year eclipses the 9/11 deaths by a mile each and every year and growing. But we tell ourselves 'it's not so bad'..because it's spread out over the course of 365 days. but we actually experience multiple miniature 9/11s throughout every single year - in situations that can be prevented better and easier than 9/11. But we don't.


If a pitbull escapes and kills your kid or grandma, there's no way you're going to be just miffed at the dog... you're going to want the owners head 'because you warned him many of times this could happen.' Well now, many of us are warning many of you that no matter how 'responsible you think you are...' a situation will present itself and prove you wrong and a dead body will be on the end of it.

The 1st step is Assault weapons ban... if the body count continues, more will certainly come. I've said it before, either you people decide a course of action..or someone will do it for you. This cannot continue as 'business usual'.

There's nothing naive about it...naivety mixed with ignorance is standing there acting like there's nothing that can be done.

BN747

[Edited 2012-12-28 12:01:13]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-12-28 11:43:26 and read 2105 times.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 87):

Please answer my questions:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 85):
are we talking about law abiding gun owners or the criminals who get their guns through illegal means (IE: stolen)?


and also this:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 85):
So essentially, you're saying that the law abiding gun owners are also criminals as well...just because they own guns?

Quit dodging questions, BN747.

[Edited 2012-12-28 11:46:47]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BN747
Posted 2012-12-28 11:53:48 and read 2098 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 84):
The carelessness of TOO MANY gunowners are infringing on TOO MANY INNOCENT people - to their DEATHS....period

Then feel free to prosecute careless gun owners.

To much of delayed reaction, it's time for proactive preventative measures..long overdue.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):

Americans do not, and never did have, the right to treat others as second class, f

They sure did..there were actual slave laws as well as prescribed punishments. And slaves were human beings.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):

Quoting BN747 (Reply 84):
Unlike yourself, I'm not thinking about me,

No, you're thinking of messing with other people.

Again, again, again, and again. Enough with this.



Correct, particularly those who standby and watch innocents die when something could be done.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
You're all too happy to reduce the freedom of others to make yourself feel better. And let's be clear, that's what this is. You can't get Adam Lanza

No, but you can reduce the chances of the next Adam Lanza, who was preceded by how many ??? Because we took your advice and did NOTHING.

And I'd rather me 'feeling better' with less school shootings , mall shootings, office shootings THAN me feeling bad about them as I do now while you happily polish your glock feeling indifferent. I'd rather you miss your Glock than some parent miss their 6 year old. Yeah, I'd feel better.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
It didn't matter until a bunch of kids in a suburb got killed.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Gangs and street crime never really mattered before, despite making up the vast majority of gun killings.

And the fact is they kill each other mostly...something the public and police have no problem with.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 84):
Now I understand why Southerners call it the War of Aggression, they felt were bullied from their rights to bully slaves... yep, change sucks.

No person ever had the right to own slaves.

Well you don't know the Old Testament, various world histories nor American History.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
The gun control faction have turned into bullies, vilifying those who own and use guns lawfully in an attempt to make themselves feel in control of a tragic situation.

You've adapted well to the Tax Man Bully hopefully he's softened you up for the Gun Man Bully...get ready, he's coming because you have failed to police yourselves.

BN747

[Edited 2012-12-28 11:58:12]

[Edited 2012-12-28 12:42:56]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BN747
Posted 2012-12-28 11:56:13 and read 2096 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 88):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 87):

Please answer my questions:


Quit dodging questions, BN747.

AirframeAS, your questions are answered very clearly and concisely in my replies. See the pitbull analogy..I paired that perfectly with a gun owner.

BN747

[Edited 2012-12-28 11:56:42]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: itsjustme
Posted 2012-12-28 11:57:35 and read 2098 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 73):
It's not sensible. They own the gun, it's theirs. They should be able to transport it or have it on their property as they wish. That doesn't mean they should be able to take it everywhere, but your suggestion would be an infraction against the right to keep and bear arms

As I and a few others have reminded you, several Supreme Court justices have stated the 2nd Amendment has limitations and doesn't give someone the right to bear any weapon of their choosing. But, you're right and they're wrong - yes, I forgot that little nugget.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
You're willing to curtail the rights of many other people because of the, actually rather unlikely, possibility that someone will attempt to infringe on one of yours

Yes, just as it was "rather unlikely" that someone would storm Sandy Hook elementary school and infringe on the rights of 20 six year olds. And just as it was "rather unlikely" that two Columbine High School seniors would infringe on the rights of 33 of their classmates. And just as it was "rather unlikely" that someone would storm a shopping mall in Portland and infringe on the rights of several shoppers. What's it going to take before you stop being so willing to play the odds at someone else's expense?

Quoting D L X (Reply 76):
Sort of. If I understand correctly, the guns in both of those events were obtained legally... just not by the shooter. A condition of licensure could be that if a gun licensed to you is used to commit a criminal act, the licensee is liable also, in similar ways that a car owner is liable if he lets a friend drive his car and he commits a crime with it

I believe you are correct, in that the weapons used were legally owned, just not by the shooters. Same applies to the Portland shooter who stole the AR-15 he used in that incident. The Aurora shooter, however legally purchased and owned the weapons he used in that incident.

I like the idea of the owner of the weapon used in a crime sharing culpability. I'd take it a step further and levy the same mandatory prison sentence on the owner of the firearm used, just as we do with the person who actually commits the crime. But regardless of who we hold responsible, the common denominator in the vast majority of these incidents is one or more, legally owned semiautomatic weapons were used. Take that weapon out of the equation and a significant number of those victims would be alive today.

[Edited 2012-12-28 11:58:17]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: roswell41
Posted 2012-12-28 11:59:39 and read 2094 times.

BN747 is clearly expressing an extreme, emotionally driven opinion. Thankfully for us freedom loving, 2nd Amendment supporters, it is people like him calling for gun control. The vast majority of Americans view his opinion and those of the likes of Diane Feinstein as being way outside the mainstream and extreme. Gun control advocates are in many ways there own worst enemies. They always try to go for it all anytime there is a tragedy. The outcome will be to our benefit: stalemate. Freedom WILL prevail.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-12-28 12:07:09 and read 2086 times.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 90):
AirframeAS, your questions are answered very clearly and concisely in my replies.

No, they are not. Not even remotely close. You cannot even answer a question in a straight forward manner even with a simple yes or no. Speaks volumes. I think you are here just trolling.

But since you cannot answer simple questions, I will guess what your view are to show you how you come off as. Just let me know if I am right or wrong:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 85):
are we talking about law abiding gun owners or the criminals who get their guns through illegal means (IE: stolen)?

We are talking about everyone who possess guns. Every human on earth who possess a gun is evil and promote hatred and violence. There is no such thing as a gun law abiding citizen. They are all criminals.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 85):
So essentially, you're saying that the law abiding gun owners are also criminals as well...just because they own guns?

If you own a gun, whether for sport or just an fanatic collector, you are an outright criminal and should be thrown in prison.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 89):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):

Quoting BN747 (Reply 84):
Unlike yourself, I'm not thinking about me,

No, you're thinking of messing with other people.

Again, again, again, and again. Enough with this.

But this is how you are coming off as..... You made your own bed here. Again, I think you're just trolling on this thread.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BN747
Posted 2012-12-28 12:17:48 and read 2078 times.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 92):
BN747 is clearly expressing an extreme, emotionally driven opinion. Thankfully for us freedom loving, 2nd Amendment supporters, it is people like him calling for gun control. The vast majority of Americans view his opinion and those of the likes of Diane Feinstein as being way outside the mainstream and extreme. Gun control advocates are in many ways there own worst enemies. They always try to go for it all anytime there is a tragedy. The outcome will be to our benefit: stalemate. Freedom WILL prevail.

Well, that's rather incomplete... add the rest..

"The outcome will be to our benefit: stalemate and more dead innocent people as we watch and eat popcorn. Freedom and stifled ignorance WILL "

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 93):
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 85):
are we talking about law abiding gun owners or the criminals who get their guns through illegal means (IE: stolen)?

We are talking about everyone who possess guns. Every human on earth who possess a gun is evil and promote hatred and violence. There is no such thing as a gun law abiding citizen. They are all criminals.

Your question being rather extreme but more pointed now does warrant this specific response.

First, it would be idea to rid the planet of all guns. But no one believes that to be possible...and I do have a reply which I have shared many times and either you've forgotten it, chose to ignore it, disagree or whatever..

But before I give you my answer again... I want to to speak directly to this.

What in your mind is the best way to combat these growing senseless killings..what do think will really reduce this growing dangerous phenomena? Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant.. or do you not see this as a problem to be concerned about?

I do remember you saying 'don't call on you if a guy without a helmet is in a motorcycle crash'..so that sort of prepares me for your answer may be on this.

I'm personally shocked you've come this far .. in the last thread you said you'd refuse read anything else I wrote and yet here we are...

You want an answer...just tell us, how do we stop this? Or at least minimize it.

BN747

[Edited 2012-12-28 12:21:15]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2012-12-28 12:20:20 and read 2073 times.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 84):
The carelessness of TOO MANY gunowners are infringing on TOO MANY INNOCENT people - to their DEATHS....period.

Is that clear enough?

No, it is not... for the simple fact that "too many" is an abstract phrase with no clear definition. After all, you often hear "one is too many", right?

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-12-28 12:20:43 and read 2073 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 93):

Just ignore... there are plenty of sensible people on this thread from both sides.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 91):
I like the idea of the owner of the weapon used in a crime sharing culpability. I'd take it a step further and levy the same mandatory prison sentence on the owner of the firearm used, just as we do with the person who actually commits the crime. But regardless of who we hold responsible, the common denominator in the vast majority of these incidents is one or more, legally owned semiautomatic weapons were used. Take that weapon out of the equation and a significant number of those victims would be alive today.

I do agree that gun owners MUST be responsible with their weapons... but I wouldn't go as far as charge them for murder. Not sure if that is what you're implying.

Also, I'd make exceptions like being held up and having your gun taken or some hardcore criminals that have torches burning through mega-secure safes and getting to the guns

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-12-28 12:22:28 and read 2072 times.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 94):
What in your mind is the best way to combat these growing senseless killings..what do think will really reduce this growing dangerous phenomena? Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant.. or do you not see this as a problem to be concerned about?

You want an answer to this? Then you answer my questions first since I asked first. Fair is fair. You cannot have it one way then switch to the other. Fair is fair: Answer mine, then I'll answer yours as honest as I can.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 94):
in the last thread you said you'd refuse read anything else I wrote and yet here we are...

That is not what I said...... go back and read that again in the last thread.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 94):
You want an answer...just tell us, how do we stop this? Or at least minimize it.

Again, answer my questions first then I'll answer yours. Fair is fair.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: roswell41
Posted 2012-12-28 12:23:32 and read 2075 times.

Although this sounds callous, statistically these mass shootings should not be a major concern to people. You are more likely to be struck by lightening or killed by a drunk driver. And by more likely, I mean by orders of magnitude more likely. Someone on another thread published the statistics.

It's much like people scared of dying in a plane crash: not a rational fear. Are these things scary: yes. Are they worth being scared of: no.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: ER757
Posted 2012-12-28 12:29:34 and read 2058 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
Americans do not, and never did have, the right to treat others as second class,

You should read up on US history. I believe a few Native Americans and Blacks might disagree with your statement

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BN747
Posted 2012-12-28 12:32:24 and read 2055 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 96):
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 93):

Just ignore...

You know what they say about personalities of cheap shot artist...

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 97):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 94):
You want an answer...just tell us, how do we stop this? Or at least minimize it.

Again, answer my questions first then I'll answer yours. Fair is fair.

AirframeAS, if you played fair, I'd honor your request..but you directly disrespected me in thread #1, had you not done that, I'd oblige you. But you've shown not to be worthy of my respect in that regard...if you'd like me to take you seriously and answer, it is you that must climb the hill this time.

BN747

[Edited 2012-12-28 12:40:34]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-12-28 12:39:40 and read 2051 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
Mostly in regards to cleansing it of military items. If the government wants to curb assault rifles they need to have the military buy new guns with the designs classified and covered the same way heavier weapons are. If gun manufacturers want to sell assault rifles to the public, they won't be able to do it by parlaying military designs themselves.

Well the problem with that is the gun manufacturing companies make far more money in the civilian market then they do in the military market. That is why companies like baretta pushed to get their guns sold to the US military so that they can THEN get to the civilian market.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-12-28 12:55:05 and read 2041 times.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 100):
...if you'd like me to take you seriously and answer, it is you that must climb the hill this time.

You offered to answer my questions after I answered yours.....especially when I asked you first... that doesn't sound very fair at all. That is a simple bait and switch. If you cannot engage in a civil & meaningful conversation, then don't. If you have nothing nice to say, then don't say it at all.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 100):
AirframeAS, if you played fair, I'd honor your request..but you directly disrespected me in thread #1

I have played fair the entire time. And how was I disrespectful to you in the first thread?    You disrespected me and my fellow gun owners by infringing on our rights to bear and own arms as if your rights are being violated. What rights, if I may ask, are being violated anyway? The answer to that is none.

You, sir, are crying over spilt milk here. Your posts just goes to show you are trolling, no less than that.

[Edited 2012-12-28 12:56:49]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-12-28 13:01:29 and read 2036 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 82):
I never cited German law, MD11Engineer did.

You quoted me stating I would be fine implementing the German system.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 82):
I don't know how you lock a weapon if you are carrying it on your person, but as far as having it unloaded on your person, Nevada has this law, IIRC.

You do not carry it on you. You carry it in a locked container.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 82):
I disagree. Ain't gonna happen.

I saw several people state that about Obama getting reelected...

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 82):
Do you really want that??

I want that people start storing weapons properly. Seems inspections is what it will take.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 98):
these mass shootings should not be a major concern

Twenty times as many are killed in accidents per year as was killed in Newtown. Twenty times that in total. That should be the major concern.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BN747
Posted 2012-12-28 13:02:39 and read 2035 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 102):
I have played fair the entire time. And how was I disrespectful to you in the first thread? You disrespected me and my fellow gun owners by infringing on our rights to bear and own arms as if your rights are being violated. What rights, if I may ask, are being violated anyway? The answer to that is none.

You, sir, are crying over spilt milk here. Your posts just goes to show you are trolling, no less than that.

And on that note...

..have a nice day, the weather's nice here in SoCal, hope it is where you are as well.

BN747

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-28 13:09:06 and read 2031 times.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 89):
To much of delayed reaction, it's time for proactive preventative measures..long overdue.

Then do background checks and require registration. To simply brand every American as a potential criminal is unconscionable.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 89):
They sure did..there were actual slave laws as well as prescribed punishments. And slaves were human beings.

You pointed to the changes in those laws and civil rights as an example of how gun rights should change. I explained exactly why civil rights laws changed and why it was a good thing. You cannot have laws that codify the deprivation of rights from others, like slavery or Jim Crow laws. Why did segregation get struck down? Because those measures infringe on the rights of people. Owning a gun, however, does not infringe on the rights of anyone.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 89):
Again, again, again, and again. Enough with this.

It's totally true. You're jumping up and down trying to end certain freedoms for certain people, who are not yourself, as a knee jerk reaction to make yourself feel in control.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 89):
And I'd rather me 'feeling better' with less school shootings , mall shootings, office shootings THAN me feeling bad about them as I do now

Then you and other gun control proponents should stop pretending that the measures you advocate are anything other than a selfish, after the fact psychological band aid to help you feel better. And you're willing to torpedo the freedom of others to do it, regardless of whether or not those other people have ever done anything wrong.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 89):
I do now while you happily polish your glock feeling indifferent.

I don't feel indifferent. I do acknowledge that two wrongs do not make a right, but I don't need to do something rather than nothing to make me feel a little bit better. I can accept that a sad situation is just that and that there may be no answers.

And for what it's worth, I do not own a gun. I've never seriously considered owning a gun and haven't shot anything more powerful than a paintball gun.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 89):
Well you don't know the Old Testament, various world histories nor American History.

But that's all changed, and it changed because people realized it was wrong. The whole created equal thing, you know. That's why those laws changed: it was a codified violation of people's rights. Gun ownership is not any of that.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 89):
You've adapted well to the Tax Man Bully hopefully he's softened you up for the Gun Man Bully...get ready, he's coming because you have failed to police yourselves.

The government need money to function. The functions have gotten out of control, but that's another discussion.

You cannot seriously be advocating for tyranny of the majority. Just because most people think it's a good idea, it must be right, right? You'd better be careful if you want to go down that road.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 91):
But, you're right and they're wrong - yes, I forgot that little nugget.

   Precisely.

Quoting itsjustme (Reply 91):
What's it going to take before you stop being so willing to play the odds at someone else's expense?

Nothing. I'm not willing to force others to concede some of their rights because of what might, but probably won't, happen when there is no specific reason to believe that they are likely to commit a crime. Can gun owners do awful things? Yes. Do gun owners do awful things? Very rarely. If you are going to build a case for someone as being likely to shoot up an elementary school, the case better be more than "he owns a gun."

Quoting ER757 (Reply 99):
You should read up on US history. I believe a few Native Americans and Blacks might disagree with your statement

Those laws all changed because they were infringing on the rights of others. That's where the "Jim Crow laws changed, so can gun laws" case breaks down. One was a law that gave people the rights they always should have had, the other will take away rights from people who have done nothing to lose them.

In elementary school it was the fat kid or the kid with glasses. Then people grew up and now it's the gun owners.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 101):
That is why companies like baretta pushed to get their guns sold to the US military so that they can THEN get to the civilian market.

If the military changed their process as far as design control they could stop that. It wouldn't keep guns away from civilians, but it alters the business case. If you don't want people to have military hardware, that can be done without harming freedom.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: ER757
Posted 2012-12-28 13:15:08 and read 2028 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 105):
Those laws all changed because they were infringing on the rights of others.

Yes that is correct, but the point I was making referred to your earlier statement that said:
Americans do not, and never did have, the right to treat others as second class which is undeniably false.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-12-28 13:16:04 and read 2028 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 86):
No person ever had the right to own slaves. You cannot own a slave without infringing upon the rights of the slave.

Dread scott ruling removed the rights of the slaves.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-28 13:24:02 and read 2027 times.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 106):
Yes that is correct, but the point I was making referred to your earlier statement that said:
Americans do not, and never did have, the right to treat others as second class which is undeniably false.

Only if you don't believe in natural rights.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 107):
Dread scott ruling removed the rights of the slaves.

Again, simply saying that someone doesn't have rights does not make it so. You're proving why the Bill of Rights is such a screw up.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BN747
Posted 2012-12-28 16:30:51 and read 2001 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 105):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 89):
To much of delayed reaction, it's time for proactive preventative measures..long overdue.

Then do background checks and require registration. To simply brand every American as a potential criminal is unconscionable.

And yet it's real.

Every American is considered a terrorist..try traveling and see.

But I agree, Registration is now a must but it and background checks is not enough. More is needed.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 105):

Quoting BN747 (Reply 89):
They sure did..there were actual slave laws as well as prescribed punishments. And slaves were human beings.

You pointed to the changes in those laws and civil rights as an example of how gun rights should change. I explained exactly why civil rights laws changed and why it was a good thing. You cannot have laws that codify the deprivation of rights from others, like slavery or Jim Crow laws. Why did segregation get struck down? Because those measures infringe on the rights of people. Owning a gun, however, does not infringe on the rights of anyone.

Owning a gun does not infringe on the rights everyone..but it is a potential threat to every life within reach of it...and that is a lot of reach.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 105):

Quoting BN747 (Reply 89):
Again, again, again, and again. Enough with this.

It's totally true. You're jumping up and down trying to end certain freedoms for certain people, who are not yourself, as a knee jerk reaction to make yourself feel in control.

Feeling in control has nothing to do with it..it is a desire to advance our society in one direction or another. Either feel you must contribute in some fashion..or leave it others.

We stay as we are..and the shootings or mini-9/11s as I have dubbed them ...grow and grow..

We start removing weapons we start diminishing the number of occurrences (that's common sense)..simple math,
the more guns ...the more gun deaths, the less guns the less gun deaths. I really can't see how anyone can argue that.

Now bring in the 2nd Amendment Rights... just like the 1st Amendment, there needs to be restrictions - we all know certain speech will get your ass canned. So speech is not 'free' at all.

If Jefferson and crew could foresee Newton and Columbine they would have deep-sixed the 2nd as you know it (today). And were it not there, many would have nothing to argue about. The 2nd Amendment is not a natural law like gravity...it is a manmade construct meant to be changed with changing times. A few months back I asked a friend from Beirut about growing up there as a kid, 'what about the police?' was my question.. his answer: There are no police per se, it's like a block by block, district by district loosely knitted militia where things are 'worked out' to settle grievances and disputes. If we were living like that??? I'd have a small arsenal. But we are light years from that and our aim is continue moving from that direction..not towards it.

Again just like the once legal owning of people - now illegal. If violence escalates as IT IS DOING...something must be done to stop it. Making silly arguments is not stopping it nor doing anything about it.

Back to 'feeling good about it'...each of us or one of 3 types of people.

1) Those who strive for a better advancing society.
2) Those who could careless and just roll with the flow and make up opinions as they go.
3) ...and finally those who thrive off anarchy and degrees of it.

Many gun people fall into that last category. When I've had a gun in hands, I naturally thought about what it could do, I could do to someone. I thought about the picture my dad showed us as kids of a dead Vietnamese soldier...did he kill him? I don't know, he was always vague about it. But back to me every time I shot all the weapons I shot. Sure, I had fleeting thoughts about being James Bond, Clint Eastwood, saving someone's life, offing someone I didn't like. Everyone who has held or fired a weapon has held similar thoughts - what you could actually with this 'easy force' you held in your hand. And some have actually convinced themselves they need it to sleep at night.

But hosting an attitude of aiming for a continued advancing society clearly identifies those who more than likely contribute to the betterment of the human condition. They other two do not.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 105):

Quoting BN747 (Reply 89):
And I'd rather me 'feeling better' with less school shootings , mall shootings, office shootings THAN me feeling bad about them as I do now

Then you and other gun control proponents should stop pretending that the measures you advocate are anything other than a selfish, after the fact psychological band aid to help you feel better

Okay, here you go again with this errant misfire of thinking 'people want to feel better' about something. I don't what is missing from your life to simply understand that within a certain number of years of one's life span..violence starts becoming extremely irritating. Globally, much of cannot be controlled as we are not rulers of each and every nation..but within the borders where we have direct palpable influence it's very clear (to me anyway) that when you know better - and still allow ignorance to persist - something is seriously wrong with your thought process. The worst humans in my back are not the ignorant, but the one's who are smart enough to know better and still do stupid shit over and over again expecting a different result.

If you or anyone else is not pained by the ills society 'can do something about', something is seriously wrong among the neuro-impulses flying about in the grey matter. In a case like this, rights take a back seat ..period. Just as it would if a fast striking deadly plague struck the nation - my rights, your rights? Gone. It make you 10 Newtons, 100 or a 1000 Newtons but some number ... you too will come to appoint where you recognize something drastic must be sone to change course..I cannot be any clearer than that.

But this feel good trip you're on or you think you're on to..requires that you must then feel the opposite. You must then feel bad if the shootings ended. I mean every action has an equal and opposite reaction. But from what I'm seeing you have an axe to grind against those who want less guns and less violence and you've no problem with laws stripped after 9/11 (1st amendment) but are passionate about this one about guns. I'm not a gun owner..so no, a total gun ban doesn't hurt me...and it would make me feel better. Let me say the opposite.."More guns on the streets makes me feel better..." ...ummm no, to me that simply defies common sense with every fiber of my existence.

So does more guns in the mix make you feel better? Or are you indifferent by the belief this is a right you find absolute and nothing most breach it and thus it saddens you.

But shelf the 'feel good as if you're doing something nonsense... I'm not doing anything. Congress will do whatever they're gonna do when the number/methods of these deaths brings too much for them to bear - and it's already happening..I have NEVER seen so many GOP politicians come out and say "enough..it's time to restrict this" or completely change their stance on this issue! That has just never happened after any shooting....this one is certainly tilting the balance. If it happens again with so many young people...mark my words, watch what these people will do, and gun owners are not going to like it one bit. Neither will you 'adamant rights' types.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 105):

Quoting BN747 (Reply 89):
Well you don't know the Old Testament, various world histories nor American History.

But that's all changed, and it changed because people realized it was wrong. The whole created equal thing, you know. That's why those laws changed: it was a codified violation of people's rights. Gun ownership is not any of that.

That is totally false on all counts.

If 'the people' could have voted on Civil Rights, separate water fountains would be occurring right about now. It took a brave few people to die, get beaten and suffer..it took a 'grossing out' on a massive scale for 'law makers' to take action..not 'the people'. "The People" at the time hated Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Mohammed Alit at the time equally Britons hated Ghandi .. all were considered 'trouble makers' in the most politest terms. Today, they are revered as heroes. But it certainly wasn't the case then.



BN747

[Edited 2012-12-28 17:27:40]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-28 17:38:32 and read 1985 times.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
Every American is considered a terrorist..try traveling and see.

And it's considered a travesty. The TSA is extremely disliked, people hate airport security, and complain endlessly about restrictions on liquids, etc. But, when it's somebody else, there's no problem restricting guns. Giving up freedom is no big deal when it's not yours.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
Owning a gun does not infringe on the rights everyone

It doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
Feeling in control has nothing to do with it..it is a desire to advance our society in one direct or another.

Yes it does. Something awful happens and people start looking for answers. Never mind that they might be the wrong answers, people need answers to make sense of tragedy.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
Now bring in the 2nd Amendment Rights... just like the 1st Amendment, there needs to be restriction - we all know certain speech will get your ass canned.

There are already restrictions. You can own a gun, but you cannot use it to threaten or shoot at people. It's really that simple, and unless I have strong reason to believe you'll do either of those things, I can't violate your right to own a weapon.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
If Jefferson and crew could foresee Newton and Columbine they would have deep-sixed the 2nd as you know it.

Nobody knows that. But, if you're going to deep six the second because Jefferson didn't foresee semiautomatic weapons, then you don't get to use the fourth to protect electronic communications. I expect you to have no problems handing over email or phone conversations to the NSA, if that's your stance.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
Back to 'feeling good about it'...each of us or one of 3 types of people.

You forgot the fourth. The people who know that you cannot legislate bad people out of society and excessive attempts to do so will only hurt the rest.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
1) Those who strive for a better advancing society.

You mean their idea of a better society. And such people are willing to step on whomever they have to in order to do it. Either get on board or you're in trouble. So, since you brought it up, besides gun owners, what other groups of people are untermenschen in your better, advanced society?

I want nothing to do with those people. They are the bullies.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
Many gun people fall into that last category.

Even if they are, what difference does it make to you? What do they do to you that violates your rights? Don't tell me about what one of them someday, maybe if they feel like it, might do. What do they actually do to you that makes them wrong and should give you the right to dictate their personal choices?

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
Everyone who has held or fired a weapon has held similar thoughts - what you could actually with this 'easy force' you held in your hand. And some have actually convinced themselves they need it to sleep at night.

Shouldn't you be off doing something more useful if you have the incredible, never before seen, other worldly insight to know what so many people think and feel? And you know what dead people think about things that they never knew about during their lifetimes too! Just think of all the good you could do with that skill.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
But hosting an attitude of aiming for a continued advancing society clearly identifies those who more than likely contribute to the betterment of the human condition. They other two do not.

So we're either with you, or we're against you.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
Okay, here you go again with this errant misfire of thinking 'people want to feel better' about something.

Except there's nothing errant about it. It's a perfectly human reaction, there's nothing wrong with it, except when people, well intentioned as they may be, act on it and it costs others their rights.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
If you or anyone else is not pained by the ills society 'can do something about', something is seriously wrong among the neuro-impulses flying about in the grey matter.

It's not a lack of pain, but there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that it's not okay to crap on other people who don't deserve it. None of them have shot up elementary schools or movie theaters. It's natural to want to lash out, but a big part of what separates me from Adam Lanza is the understanding that it's not a good thing to do.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
In a case like this, rights take a back seat ..period.

That attitude is what will destroy the very society you want to make. You don't actually want a free society. You just want a society where everyone is free to think and act as you do. You want a world of yes men where rights can take a back seat since nobody will need them. You're calling for the end of America.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
But this feel good trip you're on or you think you're on to..requires that you must then feel the opposite.

There's nothing to feel good about when twenty kids get shot. But it's important to understand that that does not give me, you, or anyone else license to curtail the rights of others because we think it will make us feel better or not feel bad again. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
But from what I'm seeing you have an axe to grind against those who want less guns and less violence and you've no problem with laws stripped after 9/11 (1st amendment) but are passionate about this one about guns.

I'm not passionate about guns, having never shot one. I don't need the right to bear arms, it doesn't interest me. There isn't one moment of my life where I wished I'd had a gun on me. For that matter I don't really need freedom of speech either, since I don't say anything that particularly needs protection. But rights and freedom are important. That's worth being passionate about.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
So does more guns in the mix make you feel better?

No. I'm not worried about burglary or street crime nor am I worried about having to repulse a foreign invasion or corrupt government. Having a gun won't make me safer, and it really doesn't interest me that much as a hobby.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
But shelf the 'feel good as if you're doing something nonsense... I'm not doing anything. Congress will do whatever they're gonna do when the number/methods of these deaths brings too much for them to bear - and it's already happening..I have NEVER seen so many GOP politicians come out and say "enough..it's time to restrict this" or completely change their stance on this issue!

Depending on what exactly they're advocating, they may be completely wrong.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
If 'the people' could have voted on Civil Rights, separate water fountains would be occurring right about now. It took a brave few people to die, get beaten and suffer..it took a 'grossing out' on a massive scale for 'law makers' to take action..not 'the people'.

I never said how many people. Jim Crow laws took away rights and they were struck down for that reason: it violated the natural rights of people. Gun laws should be limited for the same reason.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2012-12-28 17:52:55 and read 1978 times.

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 98):
Although this sounds callous, statistically these mass shootings should not be a major concern to people. You are more likely to be struck by lightening or killed by a drunk driver. And by more likely, I mean by orders of magnitude more likely. Someone on another thread published the statistics.

It's much like people scared of dying in a plane crash: not a rational fear. Are these things scary: yes. Are they worth being scared of: no.

Statistically, no. Socially a concern? Yes. It's not so much something to be scared of, but something to really get to the bottom of. People snap everywhere, but moreso in America than other places by the numbers. Gun control quite frankly has nothing to do with it. The existence of guns themselves, and the ease with which they permit carrying out unspeakable acts are secondary to the fact that there's something about postmodern American life that is making people snap often enough that it's no longer a rare headline. That's the real issue from where I'm sitting.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BN747
Posted 2012-12-28 18:57:21 and read 1959 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
Feeling in control has nothing to do with it..it is a desire to advance our society in one direct or another.

Yes it does. Something awful happens and people start looking for answers. Never mind that they might be the wrong answers, people need answers to make sense of tragedy.

Well I'm sorry you lumped me in with that crowd because where I sit..this is squarely one of those..."who didn't see that coming" catgories. Feelings got nothing to do with it in that respect. It's like getting you're teen his first car..of course he's gonna drive like a model citizen when you're present...not spycam him when he knows you're not around. It's expected.

Flawed Humans (that be us) + guns = disasters..plenty of them, what's body count now? Ticker anyone?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
Every American is considered a terrorist..try traveling and see.

And it's considered a travesty. The TSA is extremely disliked,

Uh huh..and you'll find A.netters who 'feel safe' and praise them for everyone who hates them..the avg travelling public is even more clueless. Saying the same 'it's travesty...' will be repeated if this keeps up...patience has limits.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):

There are already restrictions. You can own a gun, but you cannot use it to threaten or shoot at people. It's really that simple, and unless I have strong reason to believe you'll do either of those things, I can't violate your right to own a weapon.

Uh huh...and none of that is working...next!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
If Jefferson and crew could foresee Newton and Columbine they would have deep-sixed the 2nd as you know it.

Nobody knows that. But, if you're going to deep six the second because Jefferson didn't foresee semiautomatic weapons,

Complete the sentence as in Jefferson didn't see American school children slaughtered by automatic weapons...
Don't stop at the weaponry, address their usage on the public.

Jefferson and all men of his day were far far more humble and modest than me like J. Robert Oppenheimer.. no one can argue that, after his bomb was dropped and he expressed his anguish...you do know what happened to him right? It is by no means any stretch to accurately guess Jefferson, Washington, Paine, any of their reactions to school gun slaughter. You simply would not have the second amendment as you know it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
Back to 'feeling good about it'...each of us or one of 3 types of people.

You forgot the fourth. The people who know that you cannot legislate bad people out of society and excessive attempts to do so will only hurt the rest.

There is no fourth, #2 covered those, they are simply the people who have no ideas about anything and like I said...they just go with the direction of the wind. See 9/11 aftermath (TSA).

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
1) Those who strive for a better advancing society.

You mean their idea of a better society. And such people are willing to step on whomever they have to in order to do it. Either get on board or you're in trouble. So, since you brought it up, besides gun owners, what other groups of people are untermenschen in your better, advanced society?

I want nothing to do with those people. They are the bullies.

I have no idea what you're talking about but people like JFK, RFK, MLK, Ghandi, Mandela to Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc are champions of change for the betterment of the human condition. Only you would call them bullies. but most paid with their life bringing about unrivaled societal change.
You want no associations with the types and wish to label them bullies....that's on you.

There's always Hitler, Joseph McCarthy, Hoover, Reagan and plenty false heroes to contribute your brand of good.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
Many gun people fall into that last category.

Even if they are, what difference does it make to you? What do they do to you that violates your rights?

Theres about 20+ families in Newton, CT I'd dare you to leave the internet shield and say that to their face. It more than violated their rights.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
What do they actually do to you that makes them wrong and should give you the right to dictate their personal choices?

They advocate a continuation of the status quo ..as body counts rise...that's what. I was uncomfortable with non-Americans calling us warmongers (rightfully so) and I'm uncomfortable now with the label on a gun crazy society (rightfully so). Yes, I want to see it changed...it cannot hurt.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
Everyone who has held or fired a weapon has held similar thoughts - what you could actually with this 'easy force' you held in your hand. And some have actually convinced themselves they need it to sleep at night.

Shouldn't you be off doing something more useful if you have the incredible, never before seen, other worldly insight to know what so many people think and feel?

There's nothing insightful and worldly about expressing what we all experience in similar situations. I could ask you shouldn't you be doing something else besides your well known marathon post exchanges here, but it doesn't bother me..that's your thing, you like going round and round on any and almost every subject in all threads and that's great you have stamina and free time to do it... but I won't because it's clearly something you enjoy and it doesn't harm anyone. Maybe takes up all your time but you have that right.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
And you know what dead people think about things that they never knew about during their lifetimes too! Just think of all the good you could do with that skill.

But 'worldly insight'..? Don't be facetious, my sharing what is no question a shared common experience with weapons is no different than my expressing sexual pursuits, relationship advice, travel experiences, industry insights..all common encounters sure to be matched by many. No need to be snide about my sharing that particular one.

As mention above, all your post go look at them all in just a single year..you know everything about everything ..at least think you do... if such a skill exist as you say...you've out qualified me by a cosmic mile.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):

Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
But hosting an attitude of aiming for a continued advancing society clearly identifies those who more than likely contribute to the betterment of the human condition. They other two do not.

So we're either with you, or we're against you.

???? .... as you said...you can stand by..do nothing. Wait for others to lead the way.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
Okay, here you go again with this errant misfire of thinking 'people want to feel better' about something.

Except there's nothing errant about it. It's a perfectly human reaction, there's nothing wrong with it, except when people, well intentioned as they may be, act on it and it costs others their rights.

Cost rights....Cost lives. That is one right that is greatly outmatched. Lives come first.

But again, that human reaction you expressed is clearly anchored in those who do not learn from past mistakes. People who do learn, draw a conclusion pretty much angled towards a different result, Those who advocate 'stay the course' as tragedies mount are worse than spontaneous reactionaries you loathe.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
If you or anyone else is not pained by the ills society 'can do something about', something is seriously wrong among the neuro-impulses flying about in the grey matter.

It's not a lack of pain, but there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that it's not okay to crap on other people who don't deserve it. None of them have shot up elementary schools or movie theaters

True, but when issues of such weighty magnitudes demand action, be it Wall Street Reforms, Tax Reforms, Reagan's shutting all federal psychiatric funding...someone gets' crapped on, left out, screwed and tattoed. The world is not fair... you should know that. Again. it's not fair to treat all of us as terrorists, when I bitched about that..I got slammed to 'go with the flow'. It's unfair spotters get chased from airports...someone always, ALWAYS has to lose with such grand changes...it's not going to stop now because you wish it so.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
In a case like this, rights take a back seat ..period.

That attitude is what will destroy the very society you want to make. You don't actually want a free society. You just want a society where everyone is free to think and act as you do. You want a world of yes men where rights can take a back seat since nobody will need them. You're calling for the end of America.

Calm yourself, like Singapore and many other nations...we'll be fine.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
But this feel good trip you're on or you think you're on to..requires that you must then feel the opposite.

There's nothing to feel good about when twenty kids get shot. But it's important to understand that that does not give me, you, or anyone else license to curtail the rights of others because we think it will make us feel better or not feel bad again. Two wrongs don't make a right.

It's come down to two wrongs don't make a right?

Jeez, well..then I'm back to asking how many gun deaths are acceptable for you to realizes those rights must be infringed?

100, 000 gun deaths a year?
500,000 gun deaths a year?
2 million gun deaths a year?
6 million gun deaths a year?
100 million gun deaths a year?

...OR are you saying no number can persuade you?

..it's fine if you do...some guy with a well stocked arsenal somewhere is rooting for you.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
But from what I'm seeing you have an axe to grind against those who want less guns and less violence and you've no problem with laws stripped after 9/11 (1st amendment) but are passionate about this one about guns.

I'm not passionate about guns, having never shot one. I don't need the right to bear arms, it doesn't interest me. There isn't one moment of my life where I wished I'd had a gun on me. For that matter I don't really need freedom of speech either, since I don't say anything that particularly needs protection. But rights and freedom are important. That's worth being passionate about.

Oh so it;s the rights then..

... ok, so then we're back man made social constructs. Again this isn't a natural law like the standard model of physics...but something we've conjured up. So to that I say look at a man made no-gun law nation..where less guns exploded into the numbers of random shootings matching America... name just one. Don't try to drag in the drug cartel thing...I'm way to ready for that.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
So does more guns in the mix make you feel better?

No. I'm not worried about burglary or street crime nor am I worried about having to repulse a foreign invasion or corrupt government.

The foreign invasion now has to intergallactic, the corrupt government is already here. A tyrannical gov't...well that ship has sailed too...because they have predator drones = game over, they win, No matter how guns you have..you can't fight that.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
have NEVER seen so many GOP politicians come out and say "enough..it's time to restrict this" or completely change their stance on this issue!

Depending on what exactly they're advocating, they may be completely wrong.

It may be wrong, it may just work...but it's reaching that number where it's absolutely the height of stupidity to do nothing at all.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 109):
If 'the people' could have voted on Civil Rights, separate water fountains would be occurring right about now. It took a brave few people to die, get beaten and suffer..it took a 'grossing out' on a massive scale for 'law makers' to take action..not 'the people'.

I never said how many people. Jim Crow laws took away rights and they were struck down for that reason: it violated the natural rights of people. Gun laws should be limited for the same reason.

How you said it (or meant it) makes all the difference in the world. And Jim Crow Laws were not unilaterally shutdown. Natural laws and Gun Rights are two different things. We recognize that as a human being, you've a right to treated as one, a right to sustain and provide for yourself. Gun rights are like the right to own and drive a auto and such rights can be revoked when deemed a gross threat to society, the NRA is mindlessly leading many down that path... they need some intellect in their Brain ranks to come up with a more sound direction.

BN747

[Edited 2012-12-28 19:09:09]

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-28 20:03:51 and read 1941 times.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
It's like getting you're teen his first car..of course he's gonna drive like a model citizen when you're present...not spycam him when he knows you're not around.

And yet people keep giving teens cars.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
Uh huh..and you'll find A.netters who 'feel safe' and praise them for everyone who hates them..the avg travelling public is even more clueless. Saying the same 'it's travesty...' will be repeated if this keeps up...patience has limits.

So you feel awful about being treated as a terrorist, forced to remove your shoes, and being scanned every time you fly yet you have no problem treating all gun owners as being just a bad day away from killing twenty kids?



Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
It is by no means any stretch to accurately guess Jefferson, Washington, Paine, any of their reactions to school gun slaughter.

It is indeed easy to guess the reactions of pretty much anyone when it comes to slaughtering children in schools. The reaction to a group of citizens seeking to restrict the freedoms of others as a, likely futile, response is very different.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
Only you would call them bullies. but most paid with their life bringing about unrivaled societal change.

They were fighting to give rights to people who were denied them. Martin Luther King wanted black people to be able to sit where they please on the bus, not kick white people off the bus. And, unless I missed something, Steve Jobs never told me I couldn't buy an Android phone and Bill Gates never tried to pass a law banning iPods.

There's trying to make the world better, and then there's being a dictator trying to bend everyone into his view of better. I'm sure Hitler was trying to work for the advancement of Germany, but we all saw how that turned out. You might fancy yourself as someone of the same mindset of MLK, but you're really much more like Joe McCarthy. He wanted to make America better and that outing and getting rid of Communists. You want to make America better than that means outing and getting rid of gun owners.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
There's nothing insightful and worldly about expressing what we all experience in similar situations.

I'd be curious as to what you think qualifies you to speak to the feelings and intentions of all gun enthusiasts.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
No need to be snide about my sharing that particular one.

How can I not be snide when you claim to be the potentially greatest mind reader the world has ever known? Thomas Jefferson and the guy at the gun store. That's a very broad range.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
.... as you said...you can stand by..do nothing. Wait for others to lead the way

I have no desire to lead or be led down that path. It's a very bad route to go and I want no part of it.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
Cost rights....Cost lives. That is one right that is greatly outmatched. Lives come first.

There are a great many people, many of whom had a flag draped on their casket, who would disagree strongly.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
But again, that human reaction you expressed is clearly anchored in those who do not learn from past mistakes.

That is not what this is. It's the realization that doing something for the sake of doing something is pointless. It's the realization that some solutions cause problems even worse than those they seek to solve.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
Calm yourself, like Singapore and many other nations...we'll be fine.

Of course. We'll all be fine if we just listen to you and do as you say. You'll mold us into a perfect utopian society whether we like it or not.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
Theres about 20+ families in Newton, CT I'd dare you to leave the internet shield and say that to their face. It more than violated their rights.

I'd say that to anyone. A qualified gun owner possessing a gun violates nobody's rights.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
The foreign invasion now has to intergallactic, the corrupt government is already here. A tyrannical gov't...well that ship has sailed too...because they have predator drones = game over, they win, No matter how guns you have..you can't fight that.

The Taliban would disagree with that, however I tend to agree with you hence I don't own an arsenal of my own and have no intention of getting one. That doesn't mean people who do want one shouldn't be allowed to do so unless there is some specific reason to believe they will use it for the purpose of violating others' rights.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
un rights are like the right to own and drive a auto and such rights can be revoked when deemed a gross threat to society,

The gross threat to society is not the guns themselves but the people who wield them. Preventing gun violence is a worthy goal, but blanket policies that infringe on the rights of gun owners are not a good way to do it.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BN747
Posted 2012-12-28 21:06:01 and read 1929 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):


Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
There's nothing insightful and worldly about expressing what we all experience in similar situations.

I'd be curious as to what you think qualifies you to speak to the feelings and intentions of all gun enthusiasts.

Dead wrong!

I was expressing what we all feel/think when hold and shot a weapon the very first time...very few people think of basket weaving or sketching out a unicorn with crayons. It's called common frames of reference.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
So you feel awful about being treated as a terrorist, forced to remove your shoes, and being scanned every time you fly yet you have no problem treating all gun owners as being just a bad day away from killing twenty kids?

Every day planes aren't hijacked and flown into buildings..BUT everyday innocent people are shot by wrong headed humans HUGE difference you keep avoiding.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
It's like getting you're teen his first car..of course he's gonna drive like a model citizen when you're present...not spycam him when he knows you're not around.

And yet people keep giving teens cars.

Focus, it's about human conduct..when teens start intentionally running people over, you have a point.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
Only you would call them bullies. but most paid with their life bringing about unrivaled societal change.

They were fighting to give rights to people who were denied them. Martin Luther King wanted black people to be able to sit where they please on the bus, not kick white people off the bus

Really..that's best you can do????

Civil Rights .. not a strong grip eh?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
And, unless I missed something, Steve Jobs never told me I couldn't buy an Android phone and Bill Gates never tried to pass a law banning iPods.

With their wealth they could also be the bullies you claim they are.

Think broader... try to get beyond the toys ..

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
You might fancy yourself as someone of the same mindset of MLK, but you're really much more like Joe McCarthy. He wanted to make America better and that outing and getting rid of Communists. You want to make America better than that means outing and getting rid of gun owners.

Is that the direction your novice psychoanalysis leads you?

Thanks like missing a bulls-eye from a foot a way I'm soooooo... a Malcolm X man, but being a little light in the Civil Rights field I see your gross misinterpretation.


So now you equated the Gun owners with the communist...well that'd be alot easier to deal with.

Take my 'commie' from my cold dead hands!!!!

Back too guns, killing machines...yes Humans are not respectful enough for what they are. If they were...we would not be discussing this. So yes, they must be restricted.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
I'm sure Hitler was trying to work for the advancement of Germany, but we all saw how that turned out.

Don't toss out such explosive half thought out analogies without completion...advancement at the cost of ----------fill in the blank----

Guns for all at the expense of ---fill in the blank---

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
No need to be snide about my sharing that particular one.

How can I not be snide when you claim to be the potentially greatest mind reader the world has ever known? Thomas Jefferson and the guy at the gun store. That's a very broad range.

Do you not experience life outside A.net??? Trust me ZERO mind reading is required to related the very thoughts 'other people' have amid similar experiences..sorry this such a foreign concept for you.
Every experience a football basketball championship with a crowd?
You think you're unique in your thoughts upon viewing a corpse at a morgue?
You're only to experience a 1st crush? 1st heartbreak? First time gun experience are no difference..

You can have the last word here as I know that's your turn on, because you just continue with the unbridled silliness. 'Mind Reading' to understand common experiences...ground breaking there fella.

Try putting your similar 'passion for rights' into some form of 'passion for life'..real life. You may discover people share much more than ever imagined.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
.... as you said...you can stand by..do nothing. Wait for others to lead the way

I have no desire to lead or be led down that path. It's a very bad route to go and I want no part of it.

You said it..not me. Keep doing nothing but forming opinions, but as much as you hate the label. you are indeed a follower.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
Cost rights....Cost lives. That is one right that is greatly outmatched. Lives come first.

There are a great many people, many of whom had a flag draped on their casket, who would disagree strongly.

Ah, so now you're the mind reader now! Dude, make up your mind...and you proclaimed only I knew what the dead thought...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
But again, that human reaction you expressed is clearly anchored in those who do not learn from past mistakes.

That is not what this is. It's the realization that doing something for the sake of doing something is pointless. It's the realization that some solutions cause problems even worse than those they seek to solve.

An enforced 'less guns on the street' is pointless. I see...
The only problem disclosed by your very own admission is 'your passion of rights'.. so your passion will suffer an blow to it's ego. Again, if we could get back every senseless life lost for rid of guns...YES, their lives trump YOUR RIGHTS.

There's nothing wrong with living like we're Singaporeans.

They are doing just fine without their Gun Rights. Trust me...you will not choke on your passion. You will survive.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
Calm yourself, like Singapore and many other nations...we'll be fine.

Of course. We'll all be fine if we just listen to you and do as you say. You'll mold us into a perfect utopian society whether we like it or not.

...meh..!

Or less 'Stupid Gun Death Society.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):

Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
Theres about 20+ families in Newton, CT I'd dare you to leave the internet shield and say that to their face. It more than violated their rights.


I'd say that to anyone. A qualified gun owner possessing a gun violates nobody's rights.

I know you think you're brave and tough and all that...but no you wouldn't.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
The foreign invasion now has to intergallactic, the corrupt government is already here. A tyrannical gov't...well that ship has sailed too...because they have predator drones = game over, they win, No matter how guns you have..you can't fight that.

The Taliban would disagree with that,

Oh please...if the US wanted .. it could wipe the Taliban from the face of the Earth. Sanity, is the only obstacle here..not Taliban resilience...trust me.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
Quoting BN747 (Reply 112):
un rights are like the right to own and drive a auto and such rights can be revoked when deemed a gross threat to society,

The gross threat to society is not the guns themselves but the people who wield them.

The old false and bogus, guns don't kill people, people do argument.

No, just like your car..when you get behind the wheel..it and you are one, just like a gun... it is a combination that forms and enhanced YOU. With the car now, you get where you're going faster or you use it as a weapon and kill people. A gun plus a person can now kill more people faster than he every could by his own hands.. if that silly analogy held any truth then a you'd have say 'a tae kown do' black belt ..ummm his belt kills people,, um no his hands kill people...but not him. Wait his hands and feet are lethal, like a gun. So when you grasp a gun.. it becomes a part of you and you it because you are now directing it's usage, driving it with your intention.
The two take on new properties versus being separate items.

There's not a case where a gun all by itself killed anyone. A human was behind every killing...so it is indeed 'people with guns kill other people'


The floor is yours, I don't have your kind of time to banter back and forth as you enjoy, but I'm sure A.net loves the business, but my point is made .. as is yours and I'm out. Let the New Year Celebrations begin...and less gun firings please.

BN747

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: YVRLTN
Posted 2012-12-28 21:32:30 and read 1920 times.

I really dont get why there have to be extreme "sides" in so many social issues in the USA. Complete ban. Complete right to own enough weapons to take over the White House. Why no willingness to find some middle ground or compromise?

What the NRA really needs to work on is increasing awareness that responsibility comes with rights.

If we look at the recent sad cases, in most of them gun owners / traders somewhere down the chain were not as responsible as they could / should have been.

Mental health and crime are huge issues which are not going to ever go away they are so deep rooted and have taken decades to get to the point they are at now. So meanwhile people who are not mentally ill and not criminals need to use common sense and be responsible. That does not by any means remove peoples responsibility to address mental health when they see it in their family or acquaintances either, though it is a very delicate subject for non professionals to tackle. All these things need to work TOGETHER to make an improvment to an obvious problem which clealry wont go away by maintaining the status quo.

However, if people can not self police, then maybe some assistance is required from the state, in the same principle as road blocks. They have to check the innocent people too to find the baddies.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-12-28 21:36:09 and read 1925 times.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 114):
I was expressing what we all feel/think when hold and shot a weapon the very first time...very few people think of basket weaving or sketching out a unicorn with crayons.

So you're saying that you know the feelings of everyone who ever shot a gun. One, how is this not a ridiculous claim on par with Pat Roberson leg pressing a ton and secondly, does this feeling depend on the type of gun?

Quoting BN747 (Reply 114):
Every day planes aren't hijacked and flown into buildings..BUT everyday innocent people are shot by wrong headed humans HUGE difference you keep avoiding.

There are also far more guns than planes. You aren't going to win this one because you're wrong. You're more than happy to give up a little bit of someone else's freedom but can't stand seeing any of your own slip away. You're a hypocrite.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 114):
Civil Rights .. not a strong grip eh?

Civil rights was about restoring rights people should have had all along. Your fight is about taking away rights.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 114):
Thanks like missing a bulls-eye from a foot a way I'm soooooo... a Malcolm X man, but being a little light in the Civil Rights field I see your gross misinterpretation.

I figured Joe McCarthy was a more apt comparison seeing as you brought him up and, as much as I hate Communism myself, what he did was wrong. Just like what you want to do is wrong. You're on a witch hunt. And, to be fair, you might find some witches but not without sweeping up many others who aren't.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 114):
Don't toss out such explosive half thought out analogies without completion...advancement at the cost of ----------fill in the blank----

Well, there's the problem isn't it. Just like how you're willing to take away guns at the expense of freedom, a price that is too high.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 114):
'Mind Reading' to understand common experiences...ground breaking there fella.

If you were even a fraction of the brilliant person you believe yourself to be, you'd understand that even common experiences are often not common at all. The devil is in the details. And likewise, people are not all the same. They don't think the same, don't act the same, don't hold the same values, and so on. So to presume that two people doing the same activity are having the same thoughts and feelings says a lot about how you think and your fantasy of a gun free, conformist society.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 114):
Ah, so now you're the mind reader now! Dude, make up your mind...and you proclaimed only I knew what the dead thought...

That's not interpreting thoughts, that's interpreting actions. The actions of many people over many years. Seems you are one of the few that does not value freedom.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 114):
Again, if we could get back every senseless life lost for rid of guns...YES, their lives trump YOUR RIGHTS.

It wasn't my rights that cost them their lives. It was the actions of those who pulled the trigger. It is their fault, you don't get to assign blame to anyone who's ever held a gun.

If you commit a crime against me, I don't get to punish your family. I don't get to punish the people from your church. I don't get to punish your teachers. And I don't get to punish people who have the same hobby as you.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 114):
I know you think you're brave and tough and all that...but no you wouldn't.

I absolutely would. It would be very simple. What happened was sad and I'm sorry for their loss and understand their anger and sadness, but that doesn't make it okay for them to take it out on innocent gun enthusiasts. They didn't pull the trigger, they broke no laws. Restricting their freedom based on this incident is wrong and won't do a thing to bring their loved ones back.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 114):
There's not a case where a gun all by itself killed anyone.

Exactly, the difference between the gun that is used in a massacre and the gun that sits safely in a cabinet between hunting trips is not in the magazine size or caliber. It's not in the grip or in the sights either. The difference lies in the person wielding it. Logic dictates looking at that in order to lessen the former without restricting or impeding the latter.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-12-29 02:46:17 and read 1906 times.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 115):
What the NRA really needs to work on is increasing awareness that responsibility comes with rights.



That at one point was one of the NRA's core missions. They were up until the early 60s a supporter of gun laws. Then there was a change in leadership and the new mantra of any gun control was the first step in a total ban. Sure there are people that want a total ban, but everyone knows that's unrealistic. What needs to happen though is consistent laws across the nation so that we don't have 1 place with pretty much a ban an a neighboring place that has almost no restrictions. That is stupid and does nothing. Also a registry so that the amount of illegal firearms in the US can begin to decline. People generally don't commit gun crimes with legally acquired weapons. If all guns are registered to their owner there will be no more straw purchases that allow guns to be bought legally then get sold into the black market. Special permits for people that want semi-automatic weapons and I don't think the large round magazines should be banned but it shouldn't be unreasonable to have to provide reasoning to aquire those tools. Mandatory training for all licence holders and refresher training on a reasonably recurrent basis. I don't think any of my suggestions are unreasonable.

Topic: RE: NRA "Big Announcement" Statement... Really? #2
Username: SA7700
Posted 2012-12-29 07:12:26 and read 1885 times.

This thread has run its course with particular members choosing to trade personal insults instead of debating the topic at hand. Any posts added after the thread lock will be removed for housekeeping purposes only.

Please do not start a follow-up thread on this particular topic without the express consent of the moderators.

Thanks for your co-operation.

Regards,

SA7700


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/