Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gun Hoarders  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3405 times:

I've read/heard several reports that say that an unintended side effect of the Newtown shootings is that gun affectionados are rushing out to buy assault rifles (quaintly called "modern sporting rifles" by Dick's Sporting Goods) and high capacity magazines (30 to 100 bullets), fearing a possible (if not likely) ban on such things in the near future.

One smaller gun shop owner was unable to resist the urge to call this a stimulus, sigh...

One person said they were trying to save for a down payment for a truck, but instead are buying guns. I don't see how a gun will help them get to work in the morning?

The fear is that there are proposals for banning assault rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 shots.

Very sad that these folks feel such a ban will be an imposition.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
129 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13115 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3384 times:

For several years since President Obama was first elected, there has been a surge of gun and bullet sales due to fears of a return of bans on certain classes of guns and bullets on the national level. Many believe so literaly in the 2nd Amendment that the government cannot limit gun sales and possession they want to be armed to 'keep the government in check'. That has been made even worse by the pressure from the Newtown school massacre. The Great Recession, the collaspe of the middle class and it's jobs, the 'Mayan Calander' cycle ending, increasing street crime violence in some areas (like Chicago), fewer cops, racism (especially with a President of African herritage), the failure to deal with illegal immigration, the illegal drug trade with it's violence, major weather/enviromental changes like major storms, failures to deal with the problem of mental illness, all have been factors too. Some shows on the cable channels have given attention to the 'prepper' movement and many of them horde guns and bulllets.

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3376 times:

This isn't new. As I've said before, the Obama administration has been the best thing the gun industry has seen for a long time. Every time someone anywhere said a thing about gun control, the NRA could act like Obama was about to take away everyone's guns (even though he hasn't done anything of the sort, and has in fact signed legislation allowing people to carry guns in more places), and there would be a run on gun stores as people panicked and decided they needed to buy everything they could right then and there. Rinse and repeat several months later. It lets the NRA look like they're doing their job, and it's obviously very good for the gun shops and manufacturers.

It is utterly ridiculous, but people buy things based on highly irrational urges all the time, and this is no different.

The difference this time is that a ban on the sort of weapons that were used in Newtown might actually happen (and particularly assault rifles). So I suppose it's justified for the first time in a while. But I really would question the priorities of someone who's been saving up for a truck but decides to get an assault rifle instead. And I would question the sanity of anyone who thinks that guns in general are going to be banned - nobody in any position of power has called for that.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinesudden From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4130 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3331 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
I don't see how a gun will help them get to work in the morning?

By taking out the other drivers during rush hour!?



When in doubt, flat out!
User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3321 times:

Surely if there is a ban on these weapons (which IMO should not be available to the public anyway, but that's not for this thread) then they'll be illegal once the ban comes in and anybody caught with one would be in violation of a Federal law (from what I gather?) which would be several years bending over in the showers for Bubba in a Supermax?

User currently offlineCaptCufflinks From UK - England, joined Dec 2012, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3306 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
I don't see how a gun will help them get to work in the morning?

Clearly you've never played 'Grand Theft Auto'

In all seriousness, though, I do tend to agree with ajd1992 - surely by banning the purchase of these guns, thereby making them illegal, you're making them illegal to keep also? Without banning the ownership and the purchase of the guns, there's no point doing one or the other, surely.


User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3303 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 1):
Many believe so literaly in the 2nd Amendment that the government cannot limit gun sales and possession they want to be armed to 'keep the government in check'.

I'm no legal scholar so all I can offer about the 'intent of the 2nd Amendment' is my personal opinion...on its face I find it illogical to assume that just because it made sense in the 1770s for members of the colonial militia - basically every able bodied male at that time - to maintain their service weapons (muskets) at home, it automatically makes sense that private citizens should be allowed to maintain military grade hardware at home in 2012. The world has changed...and the real analogy between 1775 and today would be for National Guard troops (ie the state militias) to keep their M-16s and M-240s with ammo under their beds, and nobody as yet has seen the sense in allowing that.

Either way, if you think you're going to stop government tyranny/opression with an assault rifle (30 shot magazines or not)...you're gonna have a bad time. It's nothing more than a wet dream for paranoid people.

The internet is the musket of the 21st century...indeed throughout history we have seen that the pen is indeed much mightier than the sword (or assault rifle as the case may be). The American Revolution succeeded due to the power of what people like Thomas Jefferson wrote, not the average citizen's freedom to own hunting weapons, or members of the militia to store their small arms at home. Had the French not fallen in love with the idea of liberty so beautifully articulated in Philadelphia (and with the idea of an easy way to poke the British in the eye) the Revolution would have just been a sad, failed colonial civil war.

So it is unbelievably ironic that those who immediately go into a hysterical circle jerk at the slightest mention of gun restrictions are more than happy to get into bed with the gun-loving 'Right' who would seek to limit our FIRST Amendment freedoms...particularly when it comes to the nexus of religion and government. Dont' even get me started on the FOURTH Amendment.

Edit: I recognize that Jefferson and others also wrote about the right to own weapons for personal defense...to me that is a separate issue that can/should be discussed on its own merits without being confounded by this 'government tyranny' bit.

[Edited 2012-12-20 05:57:46]

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3285 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 4):
Surely if there is a ban on these weapons (which IMO should not be available to the public anyway, but that's not for this thread) then they'll be illegal once the ban comes in

Sorry mate, no. Not peculiar to the USA, the law's the same pretty well everywhere. Any ban would not apply to weapons that are already owned - it could only apply to future purchases...........

I suppose that, in theory. Obama could try to get Congress to agree to 'retrospective' gun controls - forcing people to surrender their more dangerous weapons.. But he wouldn't succeed - for a start, it would cost too much in compensation. And, if he even tried, he'd probably face a re-run of the American Revolution - with the general public, as in 1775, at least as well armed as the local army......  

[Edited 2012-12-20 06:08:48]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3270 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
and, if he tried, he'd probsbly face a rer-run of the American Revolution - with the general public, as in 1775, at least as well armed as the local army......

The only result of that re-run would be a glut of one-owner pickup trucks on the used market.


User currently offlinesudden From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4130 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3270 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 7):
Another gun thread?
Beating a dead horse here.

It will last for about a week and then it dies out until the next shooting etc. etc. etc......................



When in doubt, flat out!
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3245 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
I've read/heard several reports that say that an unintended side effect of the Newtown shootings is that gun affectionados are rushing out to buy assault rifles (quaintly called "modern sporting rifles" by Dick's Sporting Goods) and high capacity magazines (30 to 100 bullets), fearing a possible (if not likely) ban on such things in the near future.

It's a legitimate concern considering Obama's voting record while a State Senator in Illinois. The wing of the Democratic Party that Obama represents do in fact want to ban guns. The community he supposedly 'organized' has the nation's most strict gun control and ironically has among the nation's highest murder rate - from guns.
The horrible event in Connecticut is the kind of event that politicians can take advantage of and use to push legislation they've always wanted to pass.
They're not all that concerned about stopping an event like this again, they're more concerned about 'control' and putting their name on a new law and make a name for themselves.

Quoting sudden (Reply 10):
It will last for about a week and then it dies out until the next shooting etc. etc. etc......................

...and sadly mental illness and how we treat it will continue to go under the radar.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3227 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 11):
they're more concerned about 'control' and putting their name on a new law and make a name for themselves.

I think that's a fair description of nearly all legislation these days. The only difference appears to be what they seek to control...


User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3220 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
Sorry mate, no. Not peculiar to the USA, the law's the same pretty well everywhere. Any ban would not apply to weapons that are already owned - it could only apply to future purchases...........

I suppose that, in theory. Obama could try to get Congress to agree to 'retrospective' gun controls - forcing people to surrender their more dangerous weapons.. But he wouldn't succeed - for a start, it would cost too much in compensation. And, if he even tried, he'd probably face a re-run of the American Revolution - with the general public, as in 1775, at least as well armed as the local army......  

They could make it a retrospective law so that it did apply, and give the public 3 months to hand in their weapons for a token amount up to so many guns. After that, treat it as a drugs situation - gather intel, raid houses who they believe still has weapons.

That, or just get a list of everybody who owns a gun (because they need a licence) and then pay them a visit and ask them "Do you mind awfully if we take your M16 off you, please?"

Guns are far too easily gotten in the USA. The whole "We need them for protection" wouldn't matter if they weren't so freely available in the first place. You're only protecting yourself from other gun owners.

[Edited 2012-12-20 06:45:52]

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3199 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
I suppose that, in theory. Obama could try to get Congress to agree to 'retrospective' gun controls - forcing people to surrender their more dangerous weapons..

It's been done before with taxes so of course it can be done with guns.

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 13):
You're only protecting yourself from other gun owners.

Not true at all.
In fact, a neighbor of mine back in San Francisco was able to stop two young punks that broke in his house. They had two metal pipes but luckily he had his gun ready and shot both of them in the legs disabling them until the police arrived.
Quite impressive for an 82 year old Korean War vet bound by a wheelchair.

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 13):
3 months to hand in their weapons for a token amount up to so many guns. After that, treat it as a drugs situation -

15 years ago in New Paltz, New York, people who turned in their guns got free therapy.  
Those who didn't turn in their guns, got free everything....



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3182 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 11):
...and sadly mental illness and how we treat it will continue to go under the radar.

Indeed. One crackpot hypothesis that I am harboring in my own twisted mind is that mental illness and the presence of certain kinds of weapons could be related.

In other words, you have your garden variety nutjob. Left to his devices he might cause X amount of harm...but add the allure of military grade hardware and you get the start of the kind of ideation that ends in a "rebel without a clue" shootout.

At the very least I wonder what the mental impact is of continued exposure to the instruments of human death...ie "assault weapons" which I acknowledge is largely a cosmetic distinction, and 'badass' semiautomatic pistols...as compared to say a more pedestrian hunting rifle or a snub nosed .38 six shooter that is good out to about 10 feet.

Do the tools inspire the performance of the job that they were created to do? I think so, sometimes. Ask the guy who just bought a new (fill in the blank). Suddenly he finds all kinds of uses for it. Likewise I wonder if certain weapons foster an unhealthy fascination with revenge and death in the minds of people already at risk.

With all the haggling over magazine capacities and muzzle velocities I don't hear anybody asking this question.


User currently offlinesudden From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 4130 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3182 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 11):

Fair enough, but I find this to be an evil circle. The debate gets fuled by another prick who shoots himself and who can not stand up for what he did.
So if you ask me ther guns is not the issue itself. But it's an easy way of expressing anger or whatever else is wrong with these people.



When in doubt, flat out!
User currently offlineluv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12110 posts, RR: 48
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3181 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 7):
Another gun thread?
Beating a dead horse here.



Sad but true. It ain't ever going to change. The sooner people realize it and accept the fact then they can move on. The NRA is to powerful an organization to allow any meaningful change or compromise to happen.



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3171 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 2):
It is utterly ridiculous, but people buy things based on highly irrational urges all the time, and this is no different.

They vote this way too.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3164 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 15):
Indeed. One crackpot hypothesis that I am harboring in my own twisted mind is that mental illness and the presence of certain kinds of weapons could be related.

In other words, you have your garden variety nutjob. Left to his devices he might cause X amount of harm...but add the allure of military grade hardware and you get the start of the kind of ideation that ends in a "rebel without a clue" shootout.

BINGO!
We have a winner! You are spot on and I've been saying the same thing in other discussions.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 15):
With all the haggling over magazine capacities and muzzle velocities I don't hear anybody asking this question.

I have but not at this site but I support what you are saying.
The person at fault in this case is the mother. It's unfortunate that she is no longer alive to answer some questions. It's been documented that she was aware of her son's mental illness and tried to get him put in some sort of institution. Knowing that, why on earth would she have these weapons in her home if she already knows her son is mentally ill?
She brought this upon herself and sadly her community paid a huge price for her neglect. Seems as though the lame-stream media will not assign fault to this lady.
Mentally ill people are already banned from owning guns and anyone with common sense would know not to have these weapons in a house with a crazy person.

[Edited 2012-12-20 07:31:37]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3159 times:

Quoting sudden (Reply 16):
Fair enough, but I find this to be an evil circle. The debate gets fuled by another prick who shoots himself and who can not stand up for what he did.
So if you ask me ther guns is not the issue itself. But it's an easy way of expressing anger or whatever else is wrong with these people.
Quoting luv2fly (Reply 17):
Sad but true. It ain't ever going to change. The sooner people realize it and accept the fact then they can move on. The NRA is to powerful an organization to allow any meaningful change or compromise to happen.

Seems like our politicians should just put the matter up to a referendum and give the people what they want.

If the prevailing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is such, let anybody buy and carry whatever guns they want, wherever they want. Go back to the days of the Revolution or the Wild West. Everyone becomes responsible for their own safety and nobody gets to bitch the next time a bunch of people get gunned down.


User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1547 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3145 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 13):
They could make it a retrospective law so that it did apply, and give the public 3 months to hand in their weapons for a token amount up to so many guns. After that, treat it as a drugs situation - gather intel, raid houses who they believe still has weapons.

Not going to happen, as Civil War II would break out, ending in red vs blue states, which wouldn't be too long of a fight.

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 13):
Guns are far too easily gotten in the USA. The whole "We need them for protection" wouldn't matter if they weren't so freely available in the first place. You're only protecting yourself from other gun owners.

That's your opinion. Our constitution says otherwise. Thankfully, from the flag you fly, you have no say in the matter.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6816 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3138 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 2):
It is utterly ridiculous

Have you followed Fast & Furious?

It's still a scandal and one with blood on this adminstration's hands. Moreover, it's not unreasonable to assert that it was a very deliberate attempt by this POTUS to make a move to help further his own gun control power play.

Quoting luv2fly (Reply 17):
The NRA is to powerful an organization to allow any meaningful change or compromise to happen.

When it comes to Constitutional rights, there is no meaningful change or compromise needed.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3134 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 13):
They could make it a retrospective law so that it did apply, and give the public 3 months to hand in their weapons for a token amount up to so many guns.

Misunderstanding, ajd1992 pal......

I'm not saying thst Congress can't make 'possession of semi-automatic weapons with magazine capacities exceeding ten rounds' illegal. They could do it tomorrow.

All I'm saying is that any such policy would cost the US taxpayer billions - for the simple reason that those millions of gun owners bought those weapons 'in good faith - and are therefore entitled to claim compensation.

As it happens, more than half a century back, on 'National Service,' I qualified as a 'marksman' with the legendary 0.303 Lee-Enfield. My instructors pushed me to try to 'go on from there' using our 'issue' semi-automatic/full-automatic weapon of the time - the Sten Gun. Couldn't get on with that crude little weapon at all; I got the feeling that if i'd been firing that thing at a soccer match, I'd probably have killed half of the enemy, half of our guys, and most of the referees and linesmen as well..............

My endurng feeling is that - whatever the question is - firearms cannot possibly be the answer......

[Edited 2012-12-20 08:16:38]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3130 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 20):
Seems like our politicians should just put the matter up to a referendum and give the people what they want.

Connecticut voters have already passed restrictive gun laws in the past.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 20):
If the prevailing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is such, let anybody buy and carry whatever guns they want, wherever they want. Go back to the days of the Revolution or the Wild West. Everyone becomes responsible for their own safety and nobody gets to bitch the next time a bunch of people get gunned down.

In the 'Wild West', kids were not being shot at school, kids respected their parents, their were no violent video games and marijuana was still legal.
I wouldn't mind having this guy as our President.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iqktCdX0hs

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 21):
That's your opinion. Our constitution says otherwise. Thankfully, from the flag you fly, you have no say in the matter.

 splat 

[Edited 2012-12-20 07:55:51]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3144 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 14):
Not true at all.
In fact, a neighbor of mine back in San Francisco was able to stop two young punks that broke in his house. They had two metal pipes but luckily he had his gun ready and shot both of them in the legs disabling them until the police arrived.
Quite impressive for an 82 year old Korean War vet bound by a wheelchair.

OK, fair enough, but what about the rest of the world who don't have legalised guns? The fact he had a gun could have ended horribly for your neighbour if they'd wrestled the gun off him and killed him with it.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 21):
Not going to happen, as Civil War II would break out, ending in red vs blue states, which wouldn't be too long of a fight.
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 21):
That's your opinion. Our constitution says otherwise. Thankfully, from the flag you fly, you have no say in the matter.

Indeed, it is my opinion and I'm entitled to it, just as you're entitled to comment on why we DON'T have legalised guns (or at least, legal but VERY restricted).

Personally I think the constitution (well, the part about "thou shalt be able to own a gun to look tough but not know how to aim the thing") is based on a time that is so far removed now it's not relevant any more. It was ratified in 1788, which is just not the same society as we have now - the fact that it's so enshrined in US culture is part of the problem. People end up owning guns (because they can, the Constitution says so!) and never learn how to use the thing, or are so unhinged they end up doing what those kids did in Columbine, Virginia Tech, New Town, or if you want an example of a UK one - Dunblane. There have been 30+ school shootings in the US since Columbine, and nobody has really done anything to make guns more difficult to get hold of. Somebody needs to because the gun culture in the US is just out of control, to a point.


User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1547 posts, RR: 3
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3215 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 25):
There have been 30+ school shootings in the US since Columbine, and nobody has really done anything to make guns more difficult to get hold of. Somebody needs to because the gun culture in the US is just out of control, to a point.

So, tell me, how exactly is the AWB going to do anything. The last one went from 1994-2004, and last I checked, 1999 is between 1994 and 2004. So, if the AWB makes things safer, how did Columbine still manage to happen?

The real problem is two-fold. Mental health and lack of training on firearms. It's my belief that there should be some sort of basic firearms class in public education, just so that people understand how a weapon actually works and some very, very basic handling rules.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3212 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 25):
what about the rest of the world who don't have legalised guns?

Here in Thailand, gun laws are very strict and yet it's so easy to buy a gun here. They're sold openly in the markets here and no registration required. Just money is all they want.
Not even sure if there are any gun laws in The Philippines but I saw more guns there than in Texas.

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 25):
The fact he had a gun could have ended horribly for your neighbour if they'd wrestled the gun off him and killed him with it.

If the old man didn't have a gun, they could have beat him severely or killed him. Glad he had the chance to defend himself and he did.
The two punks were looking to break in a house where no one was home. They had knocked on my door pretending to be selling magazines to 'help the inner city kids'. Mind you it's 8:30PM and already dark since this was in November. They had knocked on my door and I wasn't expecting anyone so I didn't open the door, I just simply asked who was it. Just by the tone of their voice, I knew they were bullsh!t but I politely told them that I wasn't interested and they told to "f--k you" and they ran off. I had called the police. They arrived within 10 minutes. As I was explaining what happen to the two cops, they get a call about a break in around the corner. Come to find out, they were trying to find a house where no one was home. The old man in the wheelchair in his basement couldn't go up to answer the door but heard them break a window upstairs and managed to get inside his house. He got his pistol and when they entered the room where he was, he shot them both in the knee caps. He didn't kill them, just injured them badly enough to keep them immobile until the police arrived.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3206 times:

Quoting luv2fly (Reply 17):
The NRA is to powerful an organization to allow any meaningful change or compromise to happen.

Not this time. The NRA will either come along with sensible measures to reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who would do harm with them, or they will doom themselves to irrelevance. Because it will happen anyway.

Quoting slider (Reply 22):
When it comes to Constitutional rights, there is no meaningful change or compromise needed.

Thousands of dead bodies per year say otherwise.

Quoting slider (Reply 22):
Moreover, it's not unreasonable to assert that it was a very deliberate attempt by this POTUS to make a move to help further his own gun control power play.

If that were really true, it would have been done already. You're just getting into conspiracy theories.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3181 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 21):
Our constitution says otherwise.
Quoting slider (Reply 22):
When it comes to Constitutional rights, there is no meaningful change or compromise needed.

True, until the people decide - via Constitutional means - to amend the document, changing those rights based on the needs of today. Or until the duly appointed members of the Supreme Court decide a case otherwise.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 21):
Not going to happen, as Civil War II would break out, ending in red vs blue states, which wouldn't be too long of a fight.

Tough talk, but if gun rights change in the US via Constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision interpreting the Constitution, the military would be bound by oath to support and defend it. Good luck with your Bushmaster against an M-1A2 or A-10  
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 26):
So, tell me, how exactly is the AWB going to do anything. The last one went from 1994-2004, and last I checked, 1999 is between 1994 and 2004. So, if the AWB makes things safer, how did Columbine still manage to happen?

Per my other post, it may change the way people (especially those with personality deficiencies to begin with) look at weapons...as tools for hunting or self protection vice porn-like objects upon which to focus their paranoia or insecurity-driven obsessions.

Deny it all you like, but we ALL went to school with a few oddball kids who blatantly latched onto exotic weaponry for empowerment or as an outlet for the frustrations caused by their lack of acceptance/approval by the popular kids. These are the ones who are lashing out with assault weapons now. One Columbine doesn't invalidate the potential long-term benefit of ridding society of weapons designed specifically for killing large numbers of people. Even if the difference between AW and some hunting pieces is mainly cosmetic.It's about changing a culture that is obsessed with death and violence.

The better question might be, why would a citizen need an AW? In order to protect themself against intruders? In order to guard against 'government tyranny'? If citizens need AWs, why not belt-fed machine guns? If they need machine guns, why not anti-tank rockets (RPGs)? If they need RPGs, why not 155MM Howitzers? If you need a 155MM, why not nuclear weapons? You can quickly see that the rationale for allowing private citizens to own military-style weapons is open ended at the top. If you can justify something more capable of taking human life in quantity than a simple 5-shot bolt hunting rifle or small-capacity pistol (ie revolver), then there's no logical basis to stop at any subsequent higher level of killing power.That is, if you subscribe to the arguments put forth by people like the NRA...ie 1) Constitution says we're free to have whatever Arms we want without offering a reason and/or 2) we need them to oppose government tyranny, and look what weapons they have!

So, what do you think about private ownership of nuclear weapons?

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 26):
The real problem is two-fold. Mental health and lack of training on firearms. It's my belief that there should be some sort of basic firearms class in public education, just so that people understand how a weapon actually works and some very, very basic handling rules.

Agreed on this. Whatever the 'right' level of gun freedoms is in 2012 it should include these responsibilities.

Quoting slider (Reply 22):
Have you followed Fast & Furious?

It's still a scandal and one with blood on this adminstration's hands. Moreover, it's not unreasonable to assert that it was a very deliberate attempt by this POTUS to make a move to help further his own gun control power play.

I can see why it would piss me off, but why would you care? Guns aren't the problem, people are. Right? So AK-47s could literally be lying everywhere on the side of the road, it's up to people to make the right choices.

Pro-gun folks only care about Fast and Furious because it was a misstep by the Obama administration, and he is hostile to gun rights. So anything he does wrong must be exploited even if in the course of doing that their bedrock argument (guns aren't the real problem) is severely compromised.


User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3186 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 4):
then they'll be illegal once the ban comes in and anybody caught with one would be in violation of a Federal law (from what I gather?)

You start getting federal agents to come to everyone's home looking for guns and you will have 1000's of federal agents dead on the ground. There likely be 1000s of agents who would refuse and order to take the guns from millions of Americans.

There is also no way to know how many legal guns are even out there. I even have guns that have been in my family long enough that there is no paperwork trail on any of them. They were purchased long before background checks, purchase permits, FFL dealer record keeping laws. My bet there are millions of guns that fall into that group around the USA.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 8):
Sorry mate, no. Not peculiar to the USA, the law's the same pretty well everywhere. Any ban would not apply to weapons that are already owned - it could only apply to future purchases...........

That is true. That doesn't just include guns, but also ammunition. I have WWII era armor piercing rounds that would be illegal to purchase new today, but because they were manufactured before they were outlawed they are legal. Don't think because of their age they are unusable. I have shot all kinds of WWII era rounds and they all fired, except for some UK stuff.

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 13):
Do you mind awfully if we take your M16 off you, please?"

An M-16 is already illegal. If anyone wants to take any one of my 39 guns I better get paid. I have $1000s invested in firearms and many have gone up in value since I bought them. I even have additional insurance for my firearm collection.

Quoting luv2fly (Reply 17):
The NRA is to powerful an organization to allow any meaningful change or compromise to happen.

I'm one of the millions of contributors who keep it powerful.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 27):
Here in Thailand, gun laws are very strict and yet it's so easy to buy a gun here

What about the Philippines? I know there are a lot of guns there. I remember back in 1992 a teenager from Manila and another from New Zealand were visiting our house in St. Louis, Missouri. We were riding into the city when some punk kid tossed a brick at my dad's car. The kid from New Zealand was freaked out and the kid from Manila said "if that was at home it would have been a grenade". I'll never forget that.

Quoting Mir (Reply 28):
Thousands of dead bodies per year say otherwise.

Most of them are only killed by guns, but the reason for the shooting is the "victimless" crime of drugs. A vast majority of the shootings in Detroit and most other American cities involve the drug trade in some way.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3184 times:

I am so glad I ordered magazines for my AR build on Mondya, because on Tuesday the place I ordered them from had sold out. I will give a couple to my brother as birthday presents but I will keep the rest.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3170 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 30):
Most of them are only killed by guns, but the reason for the shooting is the "victimless" crime of drugs. A vast majority of the shootings in Detroit and most other American cities involve the drug trade in some way.

They're still dead. I don't see how why they're dead should make much a difference.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3158 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 30):
There is also no way to know how many legal guns are even out there. I even have guns that have been in my family long enough that there is no paperwork trail on any of them. They were purchased long before background checks, purchase permits, FFL dealer record keeping laws. My bet there are millions of guns that fall into that group around the USA.

When government fears it's people, it's liberty. When people fear government, it's tyranny.






Quoting falstaff (Reply 30):
I have shot all kinds of WWII era rounds and they all fired, except for some UK stuff.

LOL!   
That explains a lot of things.....

Quoting falstaff (Reply 30):
An M-16 is already illegal.

That is a fine machine and very easy to use.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 30):
What about the Philippines?

I can ask some friends from there.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 30):
I remember back in 1992 a teenager from Manila and another from New Zealand were visiting our house in St. Louis, Missouri.

Did they spray paint the side of your car like they did to the Griswalds? 



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 13):
just get a list of everybody who owns a gun (because they need a licence) and then pay them a visit

Even keeping guns licensed gets the gun nuts in an uproar. They are okay with getting carded for just buying one tiny box of Sudafed or driving or buying beer but don't dare talk about government involvment with guns!

Sure there are factions of the Democratic party who want a complete and total ban on guns. But, they are a tiny, tiny minority. Mark my words: there will never ever be a complete and total ban on guns in the United States. Ever. I do not and will not ever own a gun, but I understand the practical uses for guns: food. What I don't understand are people who buy multiple semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Why? One should be enough, especially with as many rounds as those things hold.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3152 times:



Quoting Superfly (Reply 33):
That is a fine machine and very easy to use.

Pain in the ass to clean though, IMO.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 33):
When government fears it's people, it's liberty. When people fear government, it's tyranny.

LOL, well played.

But I'm thinking that if it took the USSR, UK, and USA five years to crush the Wermacht there's no way a bunch of amateurs with Mauser K98s would have prevented the Holocaust. Unless they assassinated Hitler, which would have been the right work for a hunting rifle anyway.

Specific to your quote, the problem today is not that the government doesn't fear the people, nor that people fear the government. The PEOPLE fear the PEOPLE, and are looking to their government for help.

[Edited 2012-12-20 09:24:32]

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3133 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 34):
They are okay with getting carded for just buying one tiny box of Sudafed or driving or buying beer but don't dare talk about government involvment with guns!

I don't agree with carding people for those products either.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 34):
Sure there are factions of the Democratic party who want a complete and total ban on guns. But, they are a tiny, tiny minority.

That tiny minority is in the White House. Just look beyond his nice smile and look at his voting record as a State Senator (the times he didn't vote 'present')
I'd say their concerns are warranted.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 35):
But I'm thinking that if it took the USSR, UK, and USA four years to crush the Wermacht there's no way a bunch of amateurs with Mauser K98s would have prevented the Holocaust.

I doubt Russia and all fmr USSR nations and the UK would get involved to help Obama dis-arm the American people.
Not sure if I'd call these gun owners "amateurs" considering many have military training and already work in law enforcement. Do you really think a Wyoming State Trooper or any other law enforcement would take orders from Obama and shoot his neighbor for possession of a firearm?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1547 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3124 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 35):
But I'm thinking that if it took the USSR, UK, and USA five years to crush the Wermacht there's no way a bunch of amateurs with Mauser K98s would have prevented the Holocaust. Unless they assassinated Hitler, which would have been the right work for a hunting rifle anyway.

How long has the US been in Afghanistan? How long were the Soviets there? The idea isn't to fight a full on war. Its hit and run guerrilla war. One day, you fight, the next, you blend in.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3119 times:

Not far from here is a great "gun store" called the Outpost Armory located on the Barrett Firearms property where Ronnie manufactures some of the most impressive military weapons available. The parking lot has been jam-packed from before opening to closing hours for days. regards...jack


all best; jack
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1547 posts, RR: 3
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3098 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 38):
Hey, on a slightly ubrelated topic, does anybody know the lead times for bushmaster at he moment? I need to call them and confirm my barrel and bolt for the AR I want to build was recieced

No idea. But judging by the amount (or lack thereof) parts in stores these days, I wouldn't want to be building one. AK's seem a little easier to get now, when compared to an AR.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3092 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mir (Reply 32):
They're still dead. I don't see how why they're dead should make much a difference.

It does. The cause of violence is the reason why people get killed. Guns don't kill anyone alone, it takes a person to operate it. I own 39 guns and I have no desire or reason to murder anyone. I know dozens of other gun collectors who have no desire to use guns against people.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 33):
When government fears it's people, it's liberty. When people fear government, it's tyranny.

I once saw a t-shirt that had Stalin and Hitler on it and read "the experts agree; gun control works".

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 35):
no way a bunch of amateurs with Mauser K98s would have prevented the Holocaust

The French resistance? The Partisans of the Soviet Union? These people weren't professional soldiers, but sure raised a lot of hell and helped the allies defeat the axis. Look at what happened to the USSR and to the Americans in Afghanistan. The US and Soviet armies were much better equipped and trained, but the unprofessional Afghans sure gave both the run around. The Continental Army that beat the British in the American Revolution was made up mostly of non professional soldiers and they whipped the professional British army.

The Philippine gorilla forces, which were made up of amateurs and professionals, who weren't all that well equipped pushed the Japanese from much of the islands before the US invaded.


Keep in mind what might have happened if the Jews were armed. How many do think would have gone down fighting? I Sure they might not have beat the German Army, but they would have put up a fight. I bet a lot of them would have rather died in a gun fight than being gassed to death. Look what happened in Prague.





Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 35):
The PEOPLE fear the PEOPLE, and are looking to their government for help.

Not everyone.... Millions fear the government. The government gives you freedom and the government can take it away. You may have a god given right to freedom, but an oppresive government can take it away.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 34):
automatic weapons

Buying legal automatics are VERY expensive and VERY VERY few people have them.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 34):
multiple semi-automatic
Quoting seb146 (Reply 34):
One should be enough

No it isn't... Depends on what you want to do. I have firearms from all the major combatants from WWII (except France, not yet anyway) and there are multiple semi automatics that make up that collection.

I also have semi autos that aren't historicaly important, but are just fun to shoot. My AKM-47 is fun to shoot, but is expensive to operate. My 50 shot 22 rifle is just as fun, but costs way less to shoot.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3090 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 41):
Keep in mind what might have happened if the Jews were armed.

  

Also worth mentioning, slavery in the US was able to last as long as it did because slaves were NOT allowed to own guns.
My elderly relatives can remember Ku Klutz Klan rides in the night when they were very young in Mississippi in the 1920s. Guns were their only defense because those southern sheriffs were not going to come to help blacks being terrorized by the Klan.

[Edited 2012-12-20 10:03:08]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3066 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 36):
I doubt Russia and all fmr USSR nations and the UK would get involved to help Obama dis-arm the American people.

You lost me there 'Fly. My point is that it took all those countries to take down the Wermacht. I doubted some armed German civilians could have taken them down.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 36):
Not sure if I'd call these gun owners "amateurs" considering many have military training and already work in law enforcement. Do you really think a Wyoming State Trooper or any other law enforcement would take orders from Obama and shoot his neighbor for possession of a firearm?

No, of course not. I really was just talking about how I disagree with the analogy being made by the picture...that somehow small arms in the hands of the German Jewish population (amateurs) would have stopped the Holocaust. Another thing worth mentioning is that I personally would not advocate for some sort of door to door roundup anyway...because I believe in the FOURTH Amendment too  
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 37):
How long has the US been in Afghanistan? How long were the Soviets there? The idea isn't to fight a full on war. Its hit and run guerrilla war. One day, you fight, the next, you blend in.

So you want people to be allowed to buy assault weapons so that they can fight a protracted guerilla war against their own government should that become necessary? What actions by the government would warrant starting a guerilla war? I've read some pretty kooky websites and the only issue that results in people even talking that way (or acting in the case of Waco or Ruby Ridge) is in fact the government trying to "take the guns"! So...you need guns in order to be ready to fight the government if they try to take your guns. Guns that you'll need in order to fight the government if they try to take your guns...talk about a self-licking ice cream cone!

Assuming there's some scenario under which starting a guerilla war makes sense, read my other post...do you want M-240s, anti-tank rockets, Stinger missles etc. to be legal too? That's what the Afghans have. Why stop at semiauto AR-15s or whatever, what's the magic there? Guerilla war or not, police/former military or not, an AR-15 isn't getting you shit unless the armed forces themselves turn against the Federal Government. And frankly, NONVIOLENT resistance is more likely to achieve that end than killing soldiers.

But what an AR-15 does provide is a hard-on if you're the kind of kook who is liable to shoot up movie theaters or schools in some kind of blaze of glory.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 43):
I really was just talking about how I disagree with the analogy being made by the picture...that somehow small arms in the hands of the German Jewish population (amateurs) would have stopped the Holocaust.

Ok, now I get what you're saying.

Speaking of that time in history, look who just made Time magazine Person Of The Year.....



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3871 posts, RR: 13
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3055 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 13):
They could make it a retrospective law so that it did apply, and give the public 3 months to hand in their weapons for a token amount up to so many guns. After that, treat it as a drugs situation - gather intel, raid houses who they believe still has weapons.
Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 13):
That, or just get a list of everybody who owns a gun (because they need a licence) and then pay them a visit and ask them "Do you mind awfully if we take your M16 off you, please?"

Wasn't this part of the plot line to the movie Red Dawn?

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 25):
(well, the part about "thou shalt be able to own a gun to look tough but not know how to aim the thing")

if you are going to quote the Constitution, at least quote it accurately. Otherwise it weakens any point you are trying to make because other users might perceive that you are mocking the U.S. Constitution, and focus on that aspect of your post instead of on the substance.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 42):
slavery in the US was able to last as long as it did because slaves were NOT allowed to own guns.

What people forget is that in the 60s, the Black Panthers were one of the groups pushing for greater access to guns.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3046 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 45):
What people forget is that in the 60s, the Black Panthers were one of the groups pushing for greater access to guns.

That is very true.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3036 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 41):
Also worth mentioning, slavery in the US was able to last as long as it did because slaves were NOT allowed to own guns.
My elderly relatives can remember Ku Klutz Klan rides in the night when they were very young in Mississippi in the 1920s. Guns were their only defense because those southern sheriffs were not going to come to help blacks being terrorized by the Klan.

Fair enough...I'm thinking your average .30-06 hunting rifle (or my personal favorite Winchester .30-30) gets you the same protection without the bizarro kook factor baggage and 30 round magazine that is so useful for a rampage.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 43):
Speaking of that time in history, look who just made Time magazine Person Of The Year.....

Was there any doubt who it would be? It was either him or something stupid like "The Terrorist"...


User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1547 posts, RR: 3
Reply 46, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3031 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 46):
Fair enough...I'm thinking your average .30-06 hunting rifle (or my personal favorite Winchester .30-30) gets you the same protection without the bizarro kook factor baggage and 30 round magazine that is so useful for a rampage.

Have you ever considered that people use these high capacity magazines for sport?

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 47, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3023 times:

Quoting sudden (Reply 10):
It will last for about a week and then it dies out until the next shooting etc. etc. etc......................

Normally, I'd feel the same way, but this time seems different.

Personally I see some amplifying factors:
> The string of relatively recent preceding massacres both here and in Norway
> The fact that children were the main target
> The fact that it happened near a major media center

Regarding the last point, to me one unspoken truth to me was that many of the previous shootings happened in places like Columbine, Aurora, etc and to many NY media types that's all "the wild west". This one is very close to home, in a kind of place a media type could picture themselves living if they aren't already.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
It's been documented that she was aware of her son's mental illness and tried to get him put in some sort of institution. Knowing that, why on earth would she have these weapons in her home if she already knows her son is mentally ill?

Totally agree.

Note that many jurisdictions have sensibly strict rules about how guns are to be stored.

Quoting slider (Reply 22):
Moreover, it's not unreasonable to assert that it was a very deliberate attempt by this POTUS to make a move to help further his own gun control power play.

Riight.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 26):
The real problem is two-fold. Mental health and lack of training on firearms.

And the abundant supply of guns.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 29):
Good luck with your Bushmaster against an M-1A2 or A-10

Seems the insurrectionists don't have an answer for that one.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 29):
Deny it all you like, but we ALL went to school with a few oddball kids who blatantly latched onto exotic weaponry for empowerment or as an outlet for the frustrations caused by their lack of acceptance/approval by the popular kids. These are the ones who are lashing out with assault weapons now.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. Some less popular kids find themselves once they get into a different environment. Some very popular kids find out that high school was the peak of their popularity and get bitter if not disturbed and end up committing crimes to try to get attention. My high school class had just such a kid.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 30):
You start getting federal agents to come to everyone's home looking for guns and you will have 1000's of federal agents dead on the ground.

What an absurd statement. Law enforcement already has procedures that are well known, ones that I'm sure you are aware of. No one is saying that federal agents will be coming to your home looking for guns.

I think gun supporters throw up such absurd strawman statements so they can then use them as justification for having ridiculous amounts of firepower.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 30):
An M-16 is already illegal. If anyone wants to take any one of my 39 guns I better get paid.

I hope there is a national gun buy-back program.

It already happens on a local basis:

Here's a program that just happened to be on Saturday:

Quote:

In exchange for $200 in cash, Oakland officers collected 300 guns, while San Francisco police collected 290 guns during Saturday's holiday gun buyback program, Watson, an Oakland police spokeswoman said Sunday.

The buyback, announced earlier this month, was the largest exchange of cash for guns that the city of Oakland had ever held, Watson said.

Ref: http://news.yahoo.com/police-collect...ndreds-guns-buyback-155534229.html

Quoting Superfly (Reply 33):
When government fears it's people, it's liberty. When people fear government, it's tyranny.

Spoken like a true insurrectionist.

While gun nuts live out their insurrectionist fantasies/paranoias that they insist they are entitled to, the bodies are piling up, and the rest of us are getting sick of it.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 34):
Even keeping guns licensed gets the gun nuts in an uproar. They are okay with getting carded for just buying one tiny box of Sudafed or driving or buying beer but don't dare talk about government involvment with guns!

Actually a large majority of gun owners are in favor of screening all gun purchasers.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 34):
Sure there are factions of the Democratic party who want a complete and total ban on guns. But, they are a tiny, tiny minority. Mark my words: there will never ever be a complete and total ban on guns in the United States. Ever. I do not and will not ever own a gun, but I understand the practical uses for guns: food.

And other jurisdictions have found ways to support the legitimate and sensible ownership of guns such things as hunting, marksmanship and self-protection without having the murder rates we in the US have.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 48, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3001 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 40):
The cause of violence is the reason why people get killed.

The reason why people get killed is because they were shot.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 40):
Guns don't kill anyone alone, it takes a person to operate it.

It takes a person with a gun. You can't argue that there isn't a lower probability of someone killing their target if they had to make do with a knife instead of using a gun.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 40):
I own 39 guns and I have no desire or reason to murder anyone.

Register your guns and keep and use them responsibly and I don't care how many of them you have.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 47):
Have you ever considered that people use these high capacity magazines for sport?

People use a lot of things for fun that are regulated - I'm not sure why high capacity magazines are automatically different.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 49, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3003 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 46):
Was there any doubt who it would be?

not at all. Time is has become a "Obama Love" publication so why not give him the honor. Newsweek lost all objectivity during the '08 campaign and I canceled my subscription because it lacked substance. Look what happened to Newsweek; Time won't be far behind.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 47):
Have you ever considered that people use these high capacity magazines for sport?

I do. Lots of people like to shoot high capacity mags because they can. I don't like the magazines over 30 rounds because they get too heavy to be fun. I do have a 50 round mag for a 22, but those don't weigh much.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 42):
NONVIOLENT resistance is more likely to achieve that end than killing soldiers.

Non violence doesn't always work. A lot more governments have fallen due to armed conflict than to peaceful demonstrations. Even when the USSR fell it wasn't all peace and love; I recall some violence, including a government office building being fired on by artillery.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1547 posts, RR: 3
Reply 50, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3004 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 49):
People use a lot of things for fun that are regulated - I'm not sure why high capacity magazines are automatically different.

Because they are REGULATED, not banned. There is a big difference there. How many people would be screaming if we banned a specific type of car that was typically used for sport?

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 51, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2970 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Do the Constitution say anything about ammunition?

Guns are a "right" - but is ammunition a right?

Problem solved!



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineluv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12110 posts, RR: 48
Reply 52, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2957 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mir (Reply 27):
Quoting luv2fly (Reply 17):
The NRA is to powerful an organization to allow any meaningful change or compromise to happen.

Not this time. The NRA will either come along with sensible measures to reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who would do harm with them, or they will doom themselves to irrelevance. Because it will happen anyway.

Sorry they will fight tooth and nail to prevent any change of any kind.

Quoting Mir (Reply 27):
Quoting slider (Reply 22):
When it comes to Constitutional rights, there is no meaningful change or compromise needed.

Thousands of dead bodies per year say otherwise.

Sorry kids died though guns laws will never change. I for one wish they would and support any viable change though I am smart enough to accept the fact that nothing will ever change.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 29):
Quoting luv2fly (Reply 17):
The NRA is to powerful an organization to allow any meaningful change or compromise to happen.

I'm one of the millions of contributors who keep it powerful.

This is why!



You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 53, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2956 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 48):
Spoken like a true insurrectionist.

Damn right!  
Quoting falstaff (Reply 50):
Newsweek lost all objectivity during the '08 campaign and I canceled my subscription because it lacked substance. Look what happened to Newsweek; Time won't be far behind.

True but I do have some respect for Newsweek for the cover of their May 2012 issue.  



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 54, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2929 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mt99 (Reply 52):
Do the Constitution say anything about ammunition?

It doesn't need to. The two are one and the same. It is like when people say "the second amendment only means the army can have guns".... What country has ever had to write down that its armed forces are allowed to use guns?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 48):
It already happens on a local basis:

Doesn't do squat. Every time there is something like that in Detroit the reports say that most of the guns were antiques, broken, or illegal to begin with. Considering that $200 would be the beginning price for a few of my guns I wouldn't sell them at a substantial loss.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 48):
While gun nuts live out their insurrectionist fantasies/paranoias that they insist they are entitled to, the bodies are piling up, and the rest of us are getting sick of it.

The street thugs that commit most of the murders in this country in the name of the gang/drug trade are far from right wing gun nuts.

Quoting Mir (Reply 49):
It takes a person with a gun. You can't argue that there isn't a lower probability of someone killing their target if they had to make do with a knife instead of using a gun.

It happens. A guy in metro Detroit is on trial right now for killing is dad with a bat. Another couple is on trial for cutting the throat of an elderly woman. There was a stabbing inside an car factory this year too. A woman was mowed down by a car last weekend in the area. People get murdered all the time with and without guns. Take away guns and the killing won't stop, it probably get more brutal.

How about the college killing in Wyoming a few weeks back; done with a bow.

Quoting Mir (Reply 49):
The reason why people get killed is because they were shot.

Why were they shot? In Detroit we have an issue with firebombs... Are they random? no; they are retaliation for gang/drug related actions. Same with guns. Most murderers don't drive around killing random people, they go after a specific person or persons.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 48):
Law enforcement already has procedures that are well known, ones that I'm sure you are aware of. No one is saying that federal agents will be coming to your home looking for guns.

If people wanted to ban guns completely and make all of them illegal how would they go about collecting them. I doubt too many people would just march into the police station and hand them over.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 54):
True but I do have some respect for Newsweek for the cover of their May 2012 issue

That was a good cover.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 55, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2919 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 55):
It happens. A guy in metro Detroit is on trial right now for killing is dad with a bat. Another couple is on trial for cutting the throat of an elderly woman. There was a stabbing inside an car factory this year too. A woman was mowed down by a car last weekend in the area. People get murdered all the time with and without guns. Take away guns and the killing won't stop, it probably get more brutal.

How about the college killing in Wyoming a few weeks back; done with a bow.

...and let's not forget the horrific murder of Ki-Suck Han that was pushed in the subway tracks in New York city.
Should we ban public transportation?
I'm shocked that this was in the news for only 1 day.




Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 56, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2904 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 50):
Non violence doesn't always work. A lot more governments have fallen due to armed conflict than to peaceful demonstrations. Even when the USSR fell it wasn't all peace and love; I recall some violence, including a government office building being fired on by artillery.

Absolutely, but if we're talking about the US population rising up against unconstitutional action and trying to get the US military to come to their side, I don't think they're going to get there by shooting at them. I know I wouldn't be too sympathetic to anybody participating in an armed rebellion in the US, whereas millions of people resisting peacefully would be very compelling. I would not be likely to fire on American citizens in any case, but definitely not if they were unarmed.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 47):
Have you ever considered that people use these high capacity magazines for sport?

Ok, then sportsmen ought to be leading the charge on this issue. The approach of "F off, we have a right to own these" isn't going to cut it indefinitely. Especially when it gets mixed in with the home defense and insurrection rationales which are IMO logically inconsistent for the reasons I've already listed.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 48):
Not sure what point you are trying to make.

Just that there seems to be a psychological aspect to military hardware as evidenced by its recurring use in these pointless massacres, all out of proportion to the actual capability of the weapons themselves.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 57, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2903 times:

Fix the real problem, mental health!

I am a weapons collector and trust me, it is a great hobby!

When a get a chance i think i will run up a tread about a lot of the myths and misconceptions that anti-gun people are using to demonize the devices and tgeir owners.

And in the past week i have seen a lot!



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 58, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2882 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting L-188 (Reply 58):
Fix the real problem, mental health!

How? Obamacare? Universal Health Care?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 59, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2874 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 59):
How? Obamacare? Universal Health Care?

Reopen the mental institutions that were shut down 30+ years ago.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 60, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2867 times:

Correct superfly

The film, "One Flew Over the Cookoo's Best" did so much damage to mebral health care.

Not saying condituons in that wra where goid in those hospitals but they threw the baby out with the bathwater



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 61, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2864 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 56):
and let's not forget the horrific murder of Ki-Suck Han that was pushed in the subway tracks in New York city.
Should we ban public transportation?

Lots of Americans are killed by drunk drivers so I guess we should also ban the use of alcohol.

I find it funny how lefties want to ban guns, but usually stand up for drugs which are the cause behind most of the violent street crimes in the USA.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 62, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2859 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 61):

That is correct. It was a trend started by California governor Edmund (Pat) Brown and continued by governor Ronald Reagan. The left were screaming that it was inhumane to have crazy people locked up and there was a possibility that some of those people were actually normal like in that movie's case. The conservatives were screaming government waste.
So crazy people were left to roam the streets and blend in with society.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 63, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2849 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 55):
the second amendment only means the army can have guns

Agree, that is just plain inaccurate.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 64, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2843 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 49):
It takes a person with a gun. You can't argue that there isn't a lower probability of someone killing their target if they had to make do with a knife instead of using a gun.

Indeed, there are many different ways to commit murder, from a baseball bat to an arrow to pushing someone in front of a train.

However, as you point out, a person with an automatic and/or semi-automatic weapon is a much more efficient mass murderer.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 51):
Because they are REGULATED, not banned. There is a big difference there. How many people would be screaming if we banned a specific type of car that was typically used for sport?

Such a car does not regularly kill people not involved in motor sport.

Quoting luv2fly (Reply 53):
Sorry they will fight tooth and nail to prevent any change of any kind.

Indeed, and do everything they can to change the subject, as we see here.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 55):
Doesn't do squat.

It sets a clear direction, and in time, it can change things.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 55):
Every time there is something like that in Detroit the reports say that most of the guns were antiques, broken, or illegal to begin with. Considering that $200 would be the beginning price for a few of my guns I wouldn't sell them at a substantial loss.

There are others who would, and in time, you might change your mind too.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 55):
If people wanted to ban guns completely and make all of them illegal how would they go about collecting them.

Another absurd statement. No one is talking about banning guns completely. That narrative is false, yet gun advocates almost immediately draw a straight line from any attempt to have reasonable gun control to the federales coming and forcibly taking their guns away. Total absurdity, yet one that happens to energize gun owners by playing to their paranoias, thus is popular with a certain large US rifle association. They've created this Pavlovian response to any talk of gun control, and it's time for people to wake up and come to their senses.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 65, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2829 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 60):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 59):
How? Obamacare? Universal Health Care?

Reopen the mental institutions that were shut down 30+ years ago.

And pay from them how?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 66, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2827 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 66):
And pay from them how?

The same way they were paid for 30+ years ago - through tax dollars. I have no problem with subsidizing mental institutions they way they used to be.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6664 posts, RR: 11
Reply 67, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2804 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 7):
Sorry mate, no. Not peculiar to the USA, the law's the same pretty well everywhere. Any ban would not apply to weapons that are already owned - it could only apply to future purchases...........

Many weapons and military equipment were legal to buy at some point and are now banned here. You can keep them but you have to make them unusable. That includes tanks.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 36):
How long has the US been in Afghanistan? How long were the Soviets there? The idea isn't to fight a full on war. Its hit and run guerrilla war. One day, you fight, the next, you blend in.

Well, you can see right now in Syria that without serious firepower (the kind you definitely can't buy legally in the US except if you're blackwater) it's not that easy.

In the 21st century bullets don't seem to be the most useful of weapons, give me rockets/missiles or at least mortars or plastic or even just grenades. Can you buy grenades in the US ?

In Afghanistan we're in foreign territory but if the military had to defend itself on its own soil I'd guess some pretty innovative stuff would be used, making guns even more irrelevant.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 55):
What country has ever had to write down that its armed forces are allowed to use guns?

What country sees a modification to its constitution made centuries ago as gospel ?

Quoting falstaff (Reply 62):
I find it funny how lefties want to ban guns, but usually stand up for drugs which are the cause behind most of the violent street crimes in the USA.

The violence linked to drugs comes from the illegal nature of the drugs. You don't see gangs shooting at each other over beer.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 68, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2789 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 68):
Many weapons and military equipment were legal to buy at some point and are now banned here. You can keep them but you have to make them unusable. That includes tanks.

You're in France. All your tanks and weapons were unusable 72 years ago!   

Quoting Aesma (Reply 68):
Can you buy grenades in the US ?

No but you can in Cambodia.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 69, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2782 times:

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 12):
That, or just get a list of everybody who owns a gun (because they need a licence) and then pay them a visit and ask them "Do you mind awfully if we take your M16 off you, please?"

There is no gun ownership database. Just because one has a license dies not always mean they own a weapon. Your idea is quite silly as it wouldn't work. There is no gun registry list in existence anywhere here in the U.S.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 70, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2711 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
The old man in the wheelchair in his basement couldn't go up to answer the door but heard them break a window upstairs and managed to get inside his house. He got his pistol and when they entered the room where he was, he shot them both in the knee caps. He didn't kill them, just injured them badly enough to keep them immobile until the police arrived.

It's too bad he didn't shoot them in their gonads ! ( Still a shattered knee cap is enough to get your attention.......)


That story reminded me of something that happened to a friend of mine in Cincinnati, back in the 60's; This fellow, George McDuffy was a 9th grade biology teacher at Mt. Washington Jr. High School, and was also a very avid amateur herpetologist; he had hundreds of snakes of all kinds in his basement, and used to trade rattlesnakes and copper heads with other "herps" all over the world, who would send him all kinds of venomous species from Africa and Asia. Anyway, one day he was going down Columbia Parkway, (which follows alongside the Ohio River just east of downtown Cincy ); he came to a red light at the intersection of Torrance Ave, and pulls up and stops for the light. Just as he stopped, these two young black guys come up to his car, jerk the door open, and hop in the from seat, telling George, "we gonna ride downtown with you"; as it happened, George had 2 or 3 timber rattlesnakes in a snake bag, lying on the front floor; one guy says...."whatca got inna bag, man ?" George nonchalantly answers, "oh, just some rattlesnakes";

You'd have to know George McDuffy to appreciate this story, as he was about the mildest mannered person I've ever met, and having rattlesnakes in a bag in his car was as common-place as having a pair of sunglasses on his sun visor; and if the "perps" had politely asked, I'm sure he would have invited them to ride downtown with him;

Anyway, when George calmly says "rattlesnakes", one "perp" says, "oh yeah, rattlesnake my ass ! At the same time, he picked the bag up, unties the string around the top, and proceeds to stick his hand down into the bag ! Just as the light turned green, the right front door flew open, and both "perps" go flying up the hillside that runs along Columbia Parkway ! That hillside would be a challenge for a mountain goat, it's so steep, and Geoge said both "perps" were still running when they reached the top of the hill ! At this point, the light is green, everyone is honking their horns for George to move, and now he has this 4 ft rattlesnake crawling around the floor of his car !

After a few minutes he gets the snake back in the bag, and continues on his way; about two hours later, after he had returned home, the phone rings, and it's the Cincinnat PD; (not sure how they got George's number); anyway, the cop says, "hey, we have this punk up at Generl Hospital, who claims he was bitten by a rattlesnake"; George calmly says, "well, I couldn't tell if the snake bit him or not, but I had quite a traffic jam, trying to get him back into the snake bag".............So then the cop asks, "hey, are you the guy over at Mt Washing Jr. High that has the 7 ft alligator crawling around in the class room ?" ( every cop in eastern Cincannati knew about the teacher at Mt. Washington that kept the big alligator in his class room, as he spent half his time picking up all of the "road-kill" squirrels and possums to take to school to feed the alligator.)

When the cop finds out who he's talking to, he asks, ........."hey, do you by chance happen to have any rattlesnake antivenin" ? So now, after all of the B.S. George has already been though because of the snake getting loose, dealing with a dozen pissed off drivers, ............now he has to run all the way to General Hospital to take the antivenin to the hospital, (for the damned perp that just car-jacked him !)

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 71, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2697 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 58):
Fix the real problem, mental health!

The real problem with guns and people with mental problems is that irresponsible gun owners let people with mental problems get their guns.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 58):
When a get a chance i think i will run up a tread about a lot of the myths and misconceptions that anti-gun people are using to demonize the devices and tgeir owners.

Maybe you can include the myths and misconceptions of both sides...


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13115 posts, RR: 12
Reply 72, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2554 times:

I wonder too if some 'gun hoarders' are just getting as many guns as possible now so if stricter gun purchasing guns go into effect, they can resell them at a significant profit later on. If a 'Bushmaster' is about $800 now and stricter gun law go into effect, the price of one could by in the $1000's in a year or less to domestic buyers.

User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1364 posts, RR: 3
Reply 73, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2543 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 41):

Also worth mentioning, slavery in the US was able to last as long as it did because slaves were NOT allowed to own guns.

That and that it was a constitutional issue as well. But at the time certain human beings had a right to own other human beings, and this was protected by law.

This is not the same issue, but the whole "well we got a right to this" crowd needs to understand that if enough people feel otherwise, that can and will be changed as it has been in the past.

I agree that we should always be watchful of our gov't. But simply being able to posses small arms does nothing to that end. This is the federal gov't we're talking about, not the Sheriff of Notingham and his band of drunken idiots. If they really want to ruin your life, or even take it, toting around an AR-15 won't change that. Forget for the moment that they have all manner of superior weaponry at their disposal.

How about the power of a court order? The patriot act, for example, allows for your assets to be frozen, wages to be halted and about a dozen other things to effectively shut your life off, and all without any semblance of due process. Instead of trying to deal with the very real threat to liberty and freedom that that represents, the NRA and their friends at in congress want you to worry about what will happen if they (the gov't I mean) take away your ability to wield what amounts to a pea-shooter in the face of a Freight Train.

I'm sorry, but if we're really concerned about liberty and such, I have to say our priorities are pretty backwards on this one.

The next "civil war" in this country won't be fought on a battle field between armies, but in a court room between lawyers and lobbyists.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 41):
Ku Klutz Klan

I saw what you did there. Well Played my friend, well played.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 51):

Because they are REGULATED, not banned. There is a big difference there. How many people would be screaming if we banned a specific type of car that was typically used for sport?

Right. The thing is, if there were enough safety issues with that vehicle, or type, then yes, it should come to that. And you are correct, there would be a lot of resistance. That's just how we (and I suspect a lot of nations) are.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 74, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2516 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 77):
This is not the same issue, but the whole "well we got a right to this" crowd needs to understand that if enough people feel otherwise, that can and will be changed as it has been in the past.

Yep. The Constitution is a living document. An old, crotchety one that is very wise, right nearly all the time, and necessarily slow to change...but a living document nonetheless.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 77):
The next "civil war" in this country won't be fought on a battle field between armies, but in a court room between lawyers and lobbyists.

And bloggers are today's Minutemen.

[Edited 2012-12-21 05:10:37]

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8544 posts, RR: 2
Reply 75, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2509 times:

We can construe ownership of these weapons as a direct threat against the public. It is a statement saying, "I am planning to kill a huge number of people."

High capacity magazines and assault rifles should be banned.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12567 posts, RR: 46
Reply 76, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2504 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting falstaff (Reply 55):
Take away guns and the killing won't stop

No, it won't. But making guns harder to get and harder to own just makes the killing more difficult and might reduce the US murder rate to something approaching that of most civilised countries where guns are not available to the general public.

Given the pro-gun lobby's stance that "guns don't kill people", why is the murder rate in America four times that of the UK?

Why does a primary school teacher living in a sleepy town in CT need three powerful hand guns and a semi-automatic rifle?



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 77, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2487 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 80):
We can construe ownership of these weapons as a direct threat against the public. It is a statement saying, "I am planning to kill a huge number of people."

High capacity magazines and assault rifles should be banned.

Indeed. Gun fans seem to understand why the government strictly controls access to tanks, artillery, and even grenades and bazookas but doesn't seem to understand why assault rifles and high capacity magazines fall into that same space.

Personally, I think Newtown is a tipping point. It's just one more event in a long string of events that add up to a situation that the public at large finds unacceptable.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 76):
I wonder too if some 'gun hoarders' are just getting as many guns as possible now so if stricter gun purchasing guns go into effect, they can resell them at a significant profit later on. If a 'Bushmaster' is about $800 now and stricter gun law go into effect, the price of one could by in the $1000's in a year or less to domestic buyers.

I'm sure that's an element of what is going on. If nothing else, it'll give them something to barter with.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 78, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2392 times:

It is getting nuts out there for getting parts.

I got magazines ordered on Monday and Tuesday and I am glad. By wendsday the retailer was sold out.

It is getting nuts out there. I never got a chance to check and see if my bolt and barrel got ordered. But bushmaster now is posting on their website the have a four to six month backlog for lowers and uppers,

Too bad I am not loaded with cash at the moment....I would love to be able to invest into a lot of AR parts right now.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7913 posts, RR: 51
Reply 79, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2388 times:

Well, count me in on trying to get what I want before the ban goes into effect. I don't care what yall say, I've been trained with rifles, use them only recreationally, don't even kill bugs when I really don't have to, don't buy the whole US government is going to turn on us so we need guns*, and I would never kill authorities if my guns became outlawed**

That being said, I'm for several gun control measures, and I totally see why they'd want some of these semi-autos banned. Well, I guess it's now or never for me to get them. I want 2 different AK style weapons, just for fun, and they are almost ALL sold out... the 2 I want I can't even find on the internet... I can confirmed there is a crazy gun buying spree going on. Feel free to respond to me or PM me why I want these. No, I don't "need" them, I just have fun with them recreationally

*Although I don't go down that road (find it a little crazy,) no one is implying a bunch of guys with AR-15s will be able to take down A-10s... they are obviously talking about an insurgency. If there was a foreign invasion or the US government becomes EXTREMELY tyrannical all of the sudden (for some reason,) I could see there being enough of an insurgency like we see in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Of course, that could be solved with total war and massacring everyone, but that makes the situation even more far fetched IMO

**There is no way they'd retroactively ban any weapons... even with the automatic weapons ban, they grandfathered in the automatic weapons already in. These are extremely expensive, and they aren't ever used in crime (I think 1 case in the past few decades, talking legal autos here)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSmittyOne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 80, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 91):

Too bad I am not loaded with cash at the moment....I would love to be able to invest into a lot of AR parts right now.

Totally aside from this discussion, I'm curious why you'd need to stock up...do you get to shoot enough that you anticipate going through several sets of receivers/barrels in your lifetime? I thought those things were designed with a LOT of shooting in mind?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 92):
I could see there being enough of an insurgency like we see in Iraq and Afghanistan today.

It just occurred to me...if there ever was a real insurgency here, we'd be flush with FULLY AUTO weapons streaming in from all over the world, wouldn't we? Every country that enjoys dicking with the USA and every arms dealer and his brother would be smuggling them through our Swiss cheese borders (just like Afghanistan, Syria or any other conflict I can think of...)!


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 81, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2366 times:

Investment Smitty. After 1994 per-ban magazines went up considerably in price and continued to do so until that stupid ban ended in2004. So if y it had them before the ban they could be sold at a considerable profit afterword.

I am shocked even the .50 Beowulf uppers seem to be sold out. that cartidge makes the ad a legitimate bear defense weapon.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 82, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2291 times:

Even better news...I must have found the only gun shop in the state that still had AR15 uppers in stock....yes I lightened their inventory.

Now I just need a barrel, bolt and carrier, charging handle, upper parts kit.

Anyway visited about three gun shops today, just about all the AR stuff is sold out and they where all doing heavy business in their other firearms. Semi-auto pistols are also moving briskly to put it mildly.

Yup they sold be a new CZ rifle in .223. Bolt action but the same caliber as the AR.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 83, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2219 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 92):
I want 2 different AK style weapons, just for fun, and they are almost ALL sold out... the 2 I want I can't even find on the internet...
Quoting L-188 (Reply 96):
Yup they sold be a new CZ rifle in .223. Bolt action but the same caliber as the AR.

Just as a matter of interest, guys, how does gun licensing work in the USA?

I was taught to shoot by my father (a 'rifleman' in both world wars), using an air-rifle. Later the army introduced me to the Lee-Enfield and the Sten (and even the M1 Garand, a couple of times), and later still I made a hobby of target-shooting with 0.22s. Even for a 0.22, you had to go to the police station and be interviewed before you were licensed to buy one; and you had to prove that you were a bona fide member of a club. They'd have been even more careful if I'd wanted to buy any full-bore weapon.

Does the USA have any such system? Or can you all literally buy any sort of gun you like, and any number of them you like - up to and including semi-automatics with 30-round mags - and get a licence by return of post?

Seems to me that some sort of licensing system like the British and Commonwealth one - involving a police interview - would go a long way towards lessening the risk of incidents like this latest one. The police aren't everyone's cup of tea - but most of them do at least have direct experience of dealing with crims and nutcases, and can recognise them a mile off.

My guess is that if the guy who pulled off this latest (utterly hideous) tragedy had had to stand at the counter and be questioned by a couple of experienced cops (as to why he wanted that sort of weapon, and what clubs he was a member of) he'd probably never have got a licence enabling him to buy one?

Oddly enough, I don't see any such system conflicting with the Second Amendment. That specifically says that any militia should be 'well-regulated' - and all the police would be doing would be complying with that, and 'well-regulating' people who wanted to buy guns?

[Edited 2012-12-22 05:22:34]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 84, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2185 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 98):
Just as a matter of interest, guys, how does gun licensing work in the USA?

In my home state:

Quote:

Q: What do I have to do to buy a gun in New Hampshire?

A: Go to a gun store, a gun show, or a private party selling a gun, and give them money.

If you buy a gun from a Federal Firearms Licensee (“FFL”) — that is, from a gun dealer/gun store, including from a licensed dealer at a gun show — federal laws apply to the purchase; in particular, you must be at least 18 years old to buy a rifle or shotgun from an FFL, and at least 21 years old to buy a handgun. (The age 21 restriction applies only to handgun purchases from FFLs, not from private parties, by the way. Age restrictions are further discussed in an appendix to this article.) Of course by law you can’t possess a gun if you’re a “prohibited person” — meaning someone who’s been convicted of a felony, or who’s been convicted of a misdemeanor “crime of domestic violence,” or who falls into certain other categories as well. (“Prohibited persons” are further discussed in another appendix to this article.) The FFL will conduct an “instant background check” by telephone to verify that you are not a “prohibited person.”

By federal law, you can buy a rifle or shotgun from an FFL in a state other than your state of residence and take possession of it immediately — "cash and carry." You can buy a handgun from an FFL out of state, but that FFL must ship it to an FFL in New Hampshire, where you can pick it up after filling out the same federal paperwork that applies to an in-state purchase.

New Hampshire residents can buy guns from other New Hampshire residents without government involvement. (See the next question, however.) You may not buy any gun from an out-of-state private party (non-FFL) without going through FFLs at both ends.

So if you use a FFL the process is just based on weeding out felons, domestic violence offenders and those convicted of drugs offenses. Seemingly alcohol is distinct from drugs. If you avoid a FFL (ie buy a gun from someone who is not a FFL) no restrictions apply. There is no concept of a gun license that I'm aware of. Guns get tracked only after they are used in crime and/or reported stolen. Gun owners are not licensed per se, unless they want to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 98):
My guess is that if the guy who pulled off this latest (utterly hideous) tragedy had had to stand at the counter and be questioned by a couple of experienced cops (as to why he wanted that sort of weapon, and what clubs he was a member of) he'd probably never have got a licence enabling him to buy one?

In the US, such a procedure would not pass muster. I'm sure sooner rather than later someone would feel they were denied a gun improperly, and a case would go to the Supreme Court, who would almost certainly decide the procedure was too arbitrary in light of the Second Amendment, especially if that court had Anton Scalia as a member.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1547 posts, RR: 3
Reply 85, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2184 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 98):
Does the USA have any such system? Or can you all literally buy any sort of gun you like, and any number of them you like - up to and including semi-automatics with 30-round mags - and get a licence by return of post?

License? You go to the gun shop, they call you into NICS (National Instant Criminal Backgroup Check system), if nothing comes back, you are good to go. Depending on the state, you may have to wait a day or so, for the waiting period, or you could walk out right then with the gun.

The only thing you need a license for, is a concealed carry permit, which I'm not familiar enough to speak to.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2874 posts, RR: 8
Reply 86, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2187 times:

Quoting sudden (Reply 9):
It will last for about a week and then it dies out until the next shooting etc. etc. etc......................

A week, try 1 day !

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 20):
That's your opinion. Our constitution says otherwise. Thankfully, from the flag you fly, you have no say in the matter.

Oh well, go on living with your head in the sand, while the rest of the world laughs at you all, bickering over such an obvious solution to the problem.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 25):
It's my belief that there should be some sort of basic firearms class in public education, just so that people understand how a weapon actually works and some very, very basic handling rules.

You mean to say that doesn't already happen before you can get a gun license... Simply crazy.

Tell me, when you go for a drivers license, do you have to sit a test at all, or do you just apply for it over the counter and drive off into the never never ?

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 47):
Have you ever considered that people use these high capacity magazines for sport?

And don't forget to mention, killing "people" and lots of e'mm



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1364 posts, RR: 3
Reply 87, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2176 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 101):

Oh well, go on living with your head in the sand, while the rest of the world laughs at you all, bickering over such an obvious solution to the problem.

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only that sees a lot of these objections as some surreal Monty-Python sketch...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 88, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2165 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 99):
In the US, such a procedure would not pass muster. I'm sure sooner rather than later someone would feel they were denied a gun improperly, and a case would go to the Supreme Court, who would almost certainly decide the procedure was too arbitrary in light of the Second Amendment, especially if that court had Anton Scalia as a member.

I know and love the United States, Revelation, and have family there. And I earnestly hope (and believe) that this latest massacre - or the next two or three - will finally force US politicians to do what the US public at large wants; take serious action on the growing problem of gun massacres.

There's nothing stopping Congress doing so. The very wording of the Second Amendment, all those years ago, makes that clear. Forgive me for the profanity - but 'how on Earth' can that bastard shooting so many innocent kids be construed as having anything to do with a 'well-regulated militia'?

"Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.

"For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon."



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 89, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2149 times:

Sorry, link won't post. Quote is from 'The New Yorker.'


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 90, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2130 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 101):
Tell me, when you go for a drivers license, do you have to sit a test at all, or do you just apply for it over the counter and drive off into the never never ?

Don't forget that both the car and driver need to renew every year or two. Gun owners? They'll be fine. Why bother them? That would infrenge on their rights! We can't ask gun owners to register every year or two. Says the NRA.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 91, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2128 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 99):
If you avoid a FFL (ie buy a gun from someone who is not a FFL) no restrictions apply.

The fact that this remains the case is insanity. It needs to change.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8544 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2102 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 98):
My guess is that if the guy who pulled off this latest (utterly hideous) tragedy had had to stand at the counter and be questioned by a couple of experienced cops (as to why he wanted that sort of weapon, and what clubs he was a member of) he'd probably never have got a licence enabling him to buy one?

He probably would not have. Tragically, in 2008 the Supreme Court created a new item in case law that no longer links the collective people's right to bear arms to membership in a well-regulated militia. So the true constitutional weight opposing gun control (the right of an individual to bear firearms for any business or pleasure) dates to 2008.

The archaic notion at the time the 2nd Amendment was written - that "the people" can mount an armed resistance to "government tyranny," or would require guns to resist an invasion from another state or country -- are both ludicrous, and would indicate major psychosis in today's world. And people who are psychotic should not own guns.

My final thought is that the Supreme Court cannot "strike down" parts of the Constitution such as the words "well-regulated militia." So, even in light of the 2008 ruling, there is hope they can have a different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in the future.

[Edited 2012-12-22 11:00:42]

User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5648 posts, RR: 6
Reply 93, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2090 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 100):

The only thing you need a license for, is a concealed carry permit,

Not in Arizona  
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 103):
Forgive me for the profanity - but 'how on Earth' can that bastard shooting so many innocent kids be construed as having anything to do with a 'well-regulated militia'?

We also had a "bastard" that shot innocent children in Afghanistan. Should we also take the guns away from the military?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 107):

The archaic notion at the time the 2nd Amendment was written - that "the people" can mount an armed resistance to "government tyranny," or would require guns to resist an invasion from another state or country -- are both ludicrous, and would indicate major psychosis in today's world. And people who are psychotic should not own guns.

LOL. Psychotic? The Taliban doesn't think it's psychotic, nor did the Sunni insurgents in Iraq. "The people" can do whatever they please, if they're motivated enough.

Just because someone doesn't share your opinion, doesn't make them mentally unstable. For example, you would get offended if I claimed that people who want to ban guns have an unreasonable fear of guns, and hence are psychotic as they think guns are out to get them, and people who are psychotic should not be making decisions on what everyone else can and can't do.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8544 posts, RR: 2
Reply 94, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2079 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 108):
Just because someone doesn't share your opinion, doesn't make them mentally unstable.

I mean, you are right that the Taliban has guns and can resist the US Army, and that's very interesting. But, my angle is that Lincoln won the Civil War, and Obama would do it again if he had to. Federal control of US territory is complete. If people look at the law enforcement and national guard resources that exist, and still believe they can defeat the DHS or national guard in a gun battle, I think that person is probably not well. But, I wouldn't want to hurt their feelings, of course.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 95, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2063 times:

On good news my magazine order arrived in the
Mail today.

Goid thing i ordered them when i did because theyvwhere sold out the next day.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5648 posts, RR: 6
Reply 96, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2061 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 109):
But, my angle is that Lincoln won the Civil War

        

You can't compare Lincoln with Obama or any President in recent memory.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 109):
Federal control of US territory is complete.

Except for the parts in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas where there are literally signs posted warning people not to venture into, because drug cartels control the area.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 109):
If people look at the law enforcement and national guard resources that exist, and still believe they can defeat the DHS or national guard in a gun battle

You're assuming those "resources" (especially from the Guard) would support taking arms against civilians, which I can assure you the vast majority (>90%) would refuse such an order.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 109):
I think that person is probably not well.

So now you're a military strategist as well as a psychologist?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7410 posts, RR: 5
Reply 97, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2056 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 93):
Totally aside from this discussion, I'm curious why you'd need to stock up...do you get to shoot enough that you anticipate going through several sets of receivers/barrels in your lifetime? I thought those things were designed with a LOT of shooting in mind?

Bear in mind that this guys stated that a 2 cent per bullet tax would cost him about 50,000 dollars per year, he's obviously using a hell of a lot of bullets.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 94):
that cartidge makes the ad a legitimate bear defense weapon.

How many people need a bear defence weapon?


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 98, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2051 times:

Actually kiwi I was referencing his suggest of a $1200 annual fee per firearm when I said he would cost me fifty grand a year with that stupid idea.

A while back I started collecting bold action rifles from WWII and have built up a pretty decent collection. Btw not one of those weapons cost anywhere close to what his proposed tax would be.

And Kiwi, I live in Alaska. The answer is most of the people here. In fact about three years ago we had three people mauled here in anchorage in about a one month period. One of the occurred two-three clicks from my house. If you do any sort of hiking you really should be packing an appropriate weapon.

And before people start mentioning bear spray, it has been so miss-used over the years that bears have coned to learn that spicy food tastes good to.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7410 posts, RR: 5
Reply 99, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2013 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 113):
The answer is most of the people here.

Maybe they shouldn't go where the bears live.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 100, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1951 times:

Kind of defeats one of the big reasons for living up here.

Also I would have no issue going after a bison or moose with that same caliber.

And those two animals I would describe as tasty



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 101, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1949 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 115):
And those two animals I would describe as tasty

I have never had moose, but bison is not stellar. I would eat it, for sure. Just not exotic. I love deer, though! But, why does one need an automatic weapon to take out one deer? Where is the sport in that? And, how can one get any meat out of a deer that has been vaporized by 100 (or more) rounds?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 102, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1953 times:

Farm raised or wild...there is a difference.

My dad shoot one back in 1979, it was a younger one so it pretty tender and then on top of that my mom slow cooked it.

We fed for years on that animal.

As far as the automatic weapon. I said that it was usable, not my first choice. My dad took his with a.338 Winchester magnum, I think that I might go up to a .375 H&H just because the recoil isn't as sharp as the .338.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 103, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1949 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 117):
Farm raised or wild...there is a difference.

I don't know much about guns. I do know that, when I was growing up, our neighbor was an employee of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. We also had some members of our church who we would buy a deer tag and they would get one for us. All I know is wild deer and bass are yummy!! I don't know about farm raised. From what I saw, they would use manual guns. I don't know the correct term, but they would not use semi-automatic or automatic guns to get our deer. And the meat was tasty! And it helped us through the winter. This is where my "liberal" opinions differ from "liberal" opinions that are alleged to be heard on MSNBC and huffpo.com and the like.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 104, posted (1 year 9 months 2 days ago) and read 1942 times:

Probably bolt, lever or slide action.

Most of my hunting rifles are bolt action. I do have a m100 winchester that is a semi auto, in .308 winchester, which the military 7.62 NATO round. I would be shocked if that rifle is less than forty years old, more likely it is around fifty. I am of the same opinion as the writer Jack Oconner. It kicks like a mule.

There are old timers who do a lot of hunting with Garads, which was the US service rifle in WWII. They make special three and five round clips for it for use in states that have three and five round hunting restrictions. There are a few more centerfire rifle semi-autos designed for hunting but as a general rule they are more expensive.

Semi-autos are much more common as rimfires when used for hunting. Also they are reasonably common as shotguns for waterfowl. But there you do have a requirement to get your three rounds out in the time he birds are overhead



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7410 posts, RR: 5
Reply 105, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 113):
Actually kiwi I was referencing his suggest of a $1200 annual fee per firearm when I said he would cost me fifty grand a year with that stupid idea.

A while back I started collecting bold action rifles from WWII and have built up a pretty decent collection. Btw not one of those weapons cost anywhere close to what his proposed tax would be.

What I don't get is why folks have no problem registering there motorvehicles, even collectors who own dozens of cars register all the ones that they want to drive on the roads, plus they require a license to drive, if they sell the car they transfer the ownership and registration to the new owner, no biggie, so what is the difference between registering all active firearms, if you sell a firearm like selling a car you transfer the ownership to the new owner. If people don't want to register there weapons they either get them deactivated or hand them over for destruction.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 106, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1881 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 101):
Oh well, go on living with your head in the sand, while the rest of the world laughs at you all, bickering over such an obvious solution to the problem.

Why so many with American flags call for no comments by those with other flags... Is that a fence around the sandbox?

Quoting Mir (Reply 106):
The fact that this remains the case is insanity. It needs to change.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 108):
We also had a "bastard" that shot innocent children in Afghanistan. Should we also take the guns away from the military?

If we can't control the use by military personnel then how can we let other people have guns? Your argument is for removing guns. I do not want to go that far.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 120):
so what is the difference between registering all active firearms

Responsibility. Gun owners (not all but many enough) do not want that weapons can be traced back to them in case they are used for something they shouldn't have been.

To justify it they have the amazing argument of that if government know where guns are it can remove them when there is a need for defense per the second amendment. Sounds good to those who want an argument. That hand weapons would be useless against someone who manages to remove 300 million or so weapons without them being used per the 2nd amendment protection...


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 107, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 101):
while the rest of the world laughs at you all



..but I though electing Obama was supposed to make the world love us.   
Apparently not.

Quoting cmf (Reply 121):
Why so many with American flags call for no comments by those with other flags... Is that a fence around the sandbox?




No one is calling for "no comment" as you stated. They're just saying their opinion doesn't matter which it doesn't. The Constitution doesn't apply in their countries. I wouldn't expect them to comprehend anyway.

Quoting cmf (Reply 121):
Responsibility. Gun owners (not all but many enough) do not want that weapons can be traced back to them in case they are used for something they shouldn't have been.



Wrong. Most guns used in crimes are purchased illegally.
Legal gun owners don't go out shooting people and holding up stores. Do you really think the NRA is advocating gang violence?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 108, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1850 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Superfly (Reply 122):
Do you really think the NRA is advocating gang violence?

I have been to several NRA national meetings (the convention) and you see NO street thugs, no people that look like junkies, no criminal element at all. In fact the number of police and military people attending the show are numerous. You always hear anti gun people around the convention talk about all the evil people inside, but the show flow is filled with the nicest people you would ever want to meet.

I took my mom to the NRA convention in 2012 and she was surprised how nice it was and she enjoyed it and she isn't even into guns. We went out for lunch and the waiter said he was glad the NRA convention was back in St. Louis. The waiter said the NRA members were some of the nicest convention goers he has met and they were by far the biggest tippers.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 109, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1847 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 123):
I have been to several NRA national meetings (the convention) and you see NO street thugs, no people that look like junkies, no criminal element at all.



Next time I'm in the States, I want to attend an NRA meet.
Another important factor that the anti-gun crowd conveniently ignores is that 78 out of 80 people that are killed in the US by guns are killed by criminals that have committed violent crimes before. They've been let out of their cages by corrupt judges and prosecutors that know that recidivism is out of control, know that they'll commit their crimes again and let them walk through plea bargains, early release, parole and various programs.
The District of Columbia has very few legal registered gun owners, very strict gun control laws and yet there is a high rate of crime. Utah has a very high rate of legal owners, lenient gun control laws and very low rate of crime.
Interesting.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1364 posts, RR: 3
Reply 110, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1835 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 111):

You're assuming those "resources" (especially from the Guard) would support taking arms against civilians, which I can assure you the vast majority (>90%) would refuse such an order.

It happened before. There was all manner of violence perpetrated against civilians and POWs during the civil war. Our social policies have changed a lot since then, but human nature hasn't. It's not an empty expression that War brings out Monsters. I think believing such a figure is foolish.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 117):
We fed for years on that animal.

I'm assuming you froze a large part of it then. Did it cook up well after years?

Quoting L-188 (Reply 117):
As far as the automatic weapon. I said that it was usable, not my first choice.

Wouldn't be mine either. After about three rounds or so in full auto, accuracy degrades awfully.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 119):
There are old timers who do a lot of hunting with Garads,

Do you mean Garand? Never heard of a Garad before. If so, I can sort of see that. It's a semi-automatic rifle, right?

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 120):

What I don't get is why folks have no problem registering there motorvehicles, even collectors who own dozens of cars register all the ones that they want to drive on the roads, plus they require a license to drive, if they sell the car they transfer the ownership and registration to the new owner, no biggie, so what is the difference between registering all active firearms, if you sell a firearm like selling a car you transfer the ownership to the new owner.

Right. There is no reason on earth that owing a firearm shouldn't have at least double the liability of a car, in both legal and civil terms.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 124):
The District of Columbia has very few legal registered gun owners, very strict gun control laws and yet there is a high rate of crime.

It's not really the same as Utah though. A lot of DC's problems in this regard can be placed to PG county. There are a lot violence related issues there and it's not as though the border between it and DC is at all monitored.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 111, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1813 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 125):
It's not really the same as Utah though. A lot of DC's problems in this regard can be placed to PG county. There are a lot violence related issues there and it's not as though the border between it and DC is at all monitored.

Ok, Maryland? They also have very strict gun laws and so does the state of New York. Yet crime is so high.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7410 posts, RR: 5
Reply 112, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1799 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 121):
Responsibility. Gun owners (not all but many enough) do not want that weapons can be traced back to them in case they are used for something they shouldn't have been.

Same deal with cars, they can be used for all sorts of dastardly purposes

Quoting Superfly (Reply 122):
..but I though electing Obama was supposed to make the world love us.
Apparently not.

The rest of the world were pretty happy when he was first elected and even happier hat he was re-elected.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 113, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1790 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 126):
Ok, Maryland? They also have very strict gun laws and so does the state of New York. Yet crime is so high.

Because people can just saunter over to a neighboring state with looser gun laws and buy anything they please. Just like with alcohol and porn, in some cases. When I lived in Southern Oregon, we would routinely drive 45 minutes south to Yreka, California because the Oregon State Liquor stores closed way too early and didn't have the selection that Raley's or Liquor Barn has. Same with guns.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 114, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1787 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 129):



So please explain why states with the highest rate of registered gun owners have the lowest crime?
Explain why states with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest crime?

[Edited 2012-12-23 11:08:06]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineNZ1 From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 2266 posts, RR: 25
Reply 115, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1739 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Hi Everyone,

Yet again, another gun thread that has started to deteriorate.

Please consider this a final warning to keep your posts civil and on topic. We are all for healthy debate on a wide range of topics, including guns and gun control, but it is entirely over to you as to whether this thread stays open to allow such debate, or is closed because members cannot think before they hit the post button.

Regards

NZ1
Forum Moderator


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 116, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1730 times:

I happen to think that the run on guns represents some of the absolute best of America. A large portion of the country is clamoring for tighter gun control, particularly keeping assault weapons out of private hands. Yet those who like such things simply don't give a fuck and go out to get the guns they want while there isn't a thing the gun control crowd can do about it. That's what freedom is all about: not owning guns, but rather doing whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's rights even if a huge chunk of the country hates it.


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 117, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1729 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 122):
Wrong. Most guns used in crimes are purchased illegally.

Most guns come from legal sources. Only 10 - 15% are stolen.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 122):
Do you really think the NRA is advocating gang violence?

Out of line. I have never claimed anything such.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 124):
Another important factor that the anti-gun crowd conveniently ignores is that 78 out of 80 people that are killed in the US by guns are killed by criminals that have committed violent crimes before

Never seen that statistics before. What else did it say? What's the source?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 130):
So please explain why states with the highest rate of registered gun owners have the lowest crime?
Explain why states with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest crime?

I ran a simple report using CB data for crime, sadly 2006 data, and Brady campaign for state gun law restrictions. 1 is the least restrictive. D.C. isn't rated but I gave it position 51. If several states had same Brady rating I gave them same position.

StateCrime (1 lowest)Law (1 least restrictive
District of Columbia151
South Carolina230
Tennessee330
Nevada423
Florida511
.........
South Dakota4713
New Hampshire4825
Vermont4925
North Dakota505
Maine5127


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 118, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1679 times:

Yeah I meant garand.

I'm telling you based on his spell checker, Steve jobs dropped out of college because of his spelling.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 119, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day ago) and read 1638 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 114):
So please explain why states with the highest rate of registered gun owners have the lowest crime?
Explain why states with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest crime?

I see this meme thrown around, but I have not seen any link to any agency backing it up. Oregon is pretty lax on gun control, but people are still shot. Idaho is lax on gun control but people are still shot. I could sit here and argue that states with the fewest trees have the highest suicide rates therefore, we need more trees.

Just because responsible gun owners own guns does not have any corrilation to murder rates by gun. Criminals will get guns no matter the gun laws. One has nothing at all to do with the other. NRA, IMO, is fighting a losing battle.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 120, posted (1 year 9 months 11 hours ago) and read 1578 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 27):
Not this time. The NRA will either come along with sensible measures to reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who would do harm with them, or they will doom themselves to irrelevance. Because it will happen anyway.

Don't hold your breath, Mir ! If you think a few "rants" on here are going to make the NRA "irrelevant", I have a large bridge in Brooklyn that you may be interested in ?

Quoting Mir (Reply 27):
Thousands of dead bodies per year say otherwise.

Please see below to see how "irrelevant" that statement is.................


Every time a shooting happens in this country, a handful of “armchair experts” rise to propose that guns are the reason for the violence. If it weren’t for guns, our schools would be safer. If it weren’t for guns, you could go to the movies without fear. If it weren’t for guns, you could go Christmas shopping without looking over your shoulder...

The fact of the matter is that more laws and more control don’t equal more safety and security. If you need proof, just look at Chicago.

Chicago is the poster child for gun control, yet since 2001, 2,000 troops have died in Afghanistan while 5,000 people have been murdered in Chicago. Chicago’s homicide rate is four times greater than New York, and twice that of Los Angeles. Good intentions have yielded bad results in Chicago, and it’s time to face the facts: Criminals and psychotic individuals don’t obey “no guns” signs or gun control laws.

It might be a cliche amongst gun owners, but arguing that guns cause murders is very much like arguing that spoons make people fat, or cars make drunk driving possible.

So if taking guns out of the hands of responsibly armed citizens isn't the answer, then what is? After 9/11, massive steps were taken to harden-up cockpit doors, and we instituted the air marshal program to train and arm pilots. If anyone attempted to break through the cockpit door, they would be met by a hail of gunfire. After Columbine, why wasn't a similar program put in place to harden-up schools and train and arm teachers and administrators in tactical defense? The chilling fact remains that the Newtown murderer had no trouble breaking through the school's glass doors...

I have no doubt that there are many people who would be outraged by the idea of our schools having responsibly armed personnel protecting our kids, but my response to them would be the same as Concealed Carry Report writer John Caile’s response:

“…these same people who barely raise an eyebrow at the idea of armored car guards carrying guns to protect bags of cash, suddenly go apoplectic over the prospect of teachers carrying guns to protect young children. If that’s not misplaced priorities, I don’t know what is.”

Violent criminals and psychopaths aren’t going away, and no law will prevent them from committing murder in the future. Maybe if all of you "armchair experts" were to put your heads together, you could figure out the reasons for people in Chicago being so violent and and shooting so many people, while the entire population of the State of Indiana, ( which, geographically speaking, makes Chicago look pretty "dinky"), yet all of the people in the whole state of Indiana commit a tiny fraction of the murders that are committed just in Chicago, (where "gun control" is the order of the day.) If you would reflect on these facts, it would go a long way towards answering all of the hundreds of questions all of you "non-gun nuts" have been asking each other. ( Don't worry though, I won't be holding my breath ! )

So.......how many "sky-jacking's" have we seen since cockpit doors have been "hardened" ? Maybe if you spent a bit more time yelling for stricter access to kindergartens and schools, and less time making ridiculous online posts about "why you advocate stricter gun control" you might actually accomplish something. And just remember............."gun control" is about 500 times as "strict" in Chicago as it is in Indiana where I live, yet Chicago STILL continues to have a murder rate that is 100 times higher than the whole state of Indiana.

One other FACT that all of the "armchair experts" keep continuing to ignore..............you become hysterical when 20 children are murdered at the same time, in there same place, ONLY because there are guns involved; yet, on the SAME DAY, nation-wide, there are DOZENS more children murdered, abused, burned alive in house fires because of some idiot adult's complete lack of common sense,............not to mention all of the little children who fall out of multi-story windows because of a lack of supervision by adults.............which all adds up to MANY MORE innocent children losing their lives, yet where are all of the "headlines" ? where is all of the "outrage" ? where are all of the cries for "stricter this & that laws" to keep all of these terrible things from happening ? The answer to that is of course..........there are MANY, MANY people who A. hate guns, B. wouldn't HAVE a gun if you gave them one, C. are NOT ALLOWED to own guns, because of where they live, and therefore, D. are just jealous as hell of the people in THIS COUNTRY who ARE ALLOWED to own guns, and therefore want to take OUR guns AWAY from US ! (Except, it aint gonna happen !) ( so don't hold your breath !)

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12567 posts, RR: 46
Reply 121, posted (1 year 9 months 7 hours ago) and read 1542 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Geezer (Reply 121):
burned alive in house fires because of some idiot adult's complete lack of common sense,............not to mention all of the little children who fall out of multi-story windows because of a lack of supervision by adults.............which all adds up to MANY MORE innocent children losing their lives, yet where are all of the "headlines" ? where is all of the "outrage" ?

Those would be what we would call accidents. Mostly tragic, some undoubtedly involving negligence or stupidity. The MAJOR difference is, I doubt any of those adults INTENDED to kill kids. Unlike Adam Lanza.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 121):
there are MANY, MANY people who A. hate guns, B. wouldn't HAVE a gun if you gave them one, C. are NOT ALLOWED to own guns, because of where they live, and therefore, D. are just jealous as hell of the people in THIS COUNTRY who ARE ALLOWED to own guns, and therefore want to take OUR guns AWAY from US ! (Except, it aint gonna happen !) ( so don't hold your breath !)

Nice rant, now sit down before you blow a fuse.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7913 posts, RR: 51
Reply 122, posted (1 year 9 months 7 hours ago) and read 1527 times:

Quoting Geezer (Reply 121):

Look, I'm on your "side," I own 9 guns. VERY FEW people want total gun bans... the only people I've seen mentioning it are ironically, right wing folk here. People are just legitimately concerns guns cause...

What are our answers? We are failing to offer any solutions besides "arm everyone" and "let's magically round up all mentally ill people..."



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 123, posted (1 year 9 months 5 hours ago) and read 1505 times:

I see the statistics on each state ranked and whatever but what about kids shooting kids? Kids who get ahold of their parents legitimate weapon and accidentally shoot someone?

If we are going to round up all the crazys (that happened one other time. How did that work out?) I really don't see a problem with responsible gun owners registering their guns every year and proving they know how, where, and when to safely use guns. What's wrong with that? Well, NRA would probably say it violates the Second Amendment. We have to register our cars every year and prove to our state of residence it is safe, why not with guns?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 124, posted (1 year 9 months 5 hours ago) and read 1499 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 125):
Kids who get ahold of their parents legitimate weapon

Kids or adults, it is irresponsible owners when people access their weapons without approval.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 125):
If we are going to round up all the crazys (that happened one other time. How did that work out?)

It is only a small part of the problem but it is a "feel good" to explain it by claiming it is only because they are mentally ill.
Reality is that it is often easy to find clues after the fact but very difficult before.


User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 125, posted (1 year 9 months 4 hours ago) and read 1487 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 125):
I really don't see a problem with responsible gun owners registering their guns every year and proving they know how, where, and when to safely use guns. What's wrong with that? Well, NRA would probably say it violates the Second Amendment. We have to register our cars every year and prove to our state of residence it is safe, why not with guns?

You get some people who would love to see that registration fee very high, which would restrict the legal ownership of firearms to the wealthy.

Last year the governor of Michigan talked about raising the car registration rate by $120 a year, which would triple the cost for some cars (including one of mine). The citizens flipped out and it went nowhere and minority groups complained that it was unfairly hurting the poor. If you start charging a large fee to register a gun the same thing would happen.

Don't think the gun issue is a "red and blue" state issue. Michigan is a Blue state and we love our guns.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 126, posted (1 year 9 months 2 hours ago) and read 1472 times:

AirframeAS, she was actually down in Port Heiden.

She was jogging with her earphones in so she never heard the wolfs coming. Not that they make a racket when they are hunting.

Cmf. There was a school shoot in arkansas twenty years ago that was one of the ones cited when the original assault weapon bad took effect. The two kids (the where fifth or sixth grade) got their weapons by cutting the door off their grandfathers gun safe with a welding torch.

How was the grandfather not storing his weapons safely?



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 127, posted (1 year 9 months 1 hour ago) and read 1467 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 124):
What are our answers? We are failing to offer any solutions besides "arm everyone" and "let's magically round up all mentally ill people..."

Apparently you didn't take the time to read my post...........

Quoting Geezer (Reply 121):
So if taking guns out of the hands of responsibly armed citizens isn't the answer, then what is? After 9/11, massive steps were taken to harden-up cockpit doors, and we instituted the air marshal program to train and arm pilots. If anyone attempted to break through the cockpit door, they would be met by a hail of gunfire. After Columbine, why wasn't a similar program put in place to harden-up schools and train and arm teachers and administrators in tactical defense? The chilling fact remains that the Newtown murderer had no trouble breaking through the school's glass doors...

What no one on this thread has bothered to mention so far is..........this WHOLE issue is NOT about "how can we protect our children from harm ?".........it's ALL about "how can we get MORE gun control laws, and get all those "terrible guns" away from all of those "conservative gun-nuts" ?

When you are faced with a "problem", you determine what's causing the problem, them taking the necessary steps to alleviate the problem; but then you sometimes create yet another "problem", attempting to solve the FIRST problem;

Can any one around here remember "not so long ago", when every day you listened to TV or picked up a newspaper, you heard about yet another airliner had been "hi-jacked" ? Apparently some genius in Washington figured out, "maybe we had better not let people with guns, knives, bombs, clubs, spears, acid, and "other" dangerous things get ON airliners in the first place ! So several steps are taken.........all cock-pit doors were "strengthened / hardened", and TSA was created to "check" people and luggage before they got on the planes; BTW.......how many "skyjackings" have you read about lately ? Yet we seem to have a thread-a-week about how every one HATES TSA !

So what does all of this have to do with gun control ? Quite a bit, actually; at the very least, the "gubmint" that some people seem to always want "more of", suddenly seems to start finding fault with "solutions" that HAVE worked, and want to keep right on and on, screaming and yelling about "we want MORE gun control", cause we're tired of all these nut-jobs shooting all these people (and little children); but unfortunately, your "solution" for alleviating the problem WON"T WORK ! Let's face it.......we ALL know WHO wants more gun control, and the unfortunate random, individual acts of violence are merely "taken advantage of" by the "side" who ultimately wants to get ALL weapons out of the hands of "civilians"; (and any one who still thinks this is ONLY about "a few more laws" to get rid of a "certain kind of guns" is either asleep, or is just not very "aware" .............( which is about as "strong" as I can put it, lest I be "excommunicated".)

Many people have pointed out, we live in a violent world, and violence ALWAYS has consequences, sooner or later, (mostly sooner), yet no one wants to "hear about" where much of the violence is coming from, and they also are completely unwilling to "give up" anything to help eliminate it; they just want to find a likely scape-goat, and in this case, anyone who has a gun is the scape-goat they're looking for ! Something I'm not at all familiar with........maybe KiwiRob can help us here.........not all that many guns in "civilian hands" in Norway, if I'm not mistaken ? Yet a "peaceful Norwegian" goes out of control, and shoots dozens and dozens of people ? ( So much for "rigid" Norwegian gun control !)


And no, no one is advocating "magically rounding up" all mentally ill people either; let's face it......that wouldn't be "politically correct", now would it ? ( and we ALL know who worries so much about everything being "PC" all of the time, now don't we ?

You know, when you read replies from people on a forum, day in, day out, after not too many days it's rather easy to determine "who wants what"; and when 80 or 85% of the respondents all seem to "want" basically the same thing, it's probably a "fools errand" trying to point anything out, unless it "jives" with the prevailing POV......... ( "The chilling fact remains that the Newtown murderer had no trouble breaking through the school's glass doors" )........( no one dwells on anything that doesn't "jive" with THEIR POV.....) See what I mean ?

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 128, posted (1 year 9 months ago) and read 1457 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 128):
You get some people who would love to see that registration fee very high, which would restrict the legal ownership of firearms to the wealthy.

Washington state had a similar problem in reverse. They were charging extreme amounts for car registration, so, by initiative, that fee was lowered and turned into an every year registration instead of every other year. The rich complained about it at first, but everyone is okay with it now.

I am not saying charge tens of thousands of dollars every year per gun. That would be stupid. There should be a fee every year per gun. And make it reasonable. I have no problem with that. I think you would find many people don't have a problem with that.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 130):
When you are faced with a "problem", you determine what's causing the problem, them taking the necessary steps to alleviate the problem; but then you sometimes create yet another "problem", attempting to solve the FIRST problem;

I find it offensive this issue comes up when an elementery school in Connecticut is shot up. This same issue was not debated so hotly after Clackamas Mall shooting in Portland OR or after Virginia Tech or after Aurora or after Pennsylvania or after the firefighters in Rochester NY and the list goes on....



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinen318ea From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 129, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1452 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 131):
I am not saying charge tens of thousands of dollars every year per gun. That would be stupid. There should be a fee every year per gun. And make it reasonable. I have no problem with that. I think you would find many people don't have a problem with that.

That is discriminatory against the poorest people to protect themselves. Expensive guns and fees are out of the reach of some who can least afford it. Our Politicians that can't balance or live within their budgets are going to determine a "reasonable fee?"


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Another Example Why US Gun Mentality Doesn't Work posted Fri Sep 28 2012 20:58:54 by cmf
R.I.P: Top Gun Director Tony Scott posted Mon Aug 20 2012 08:17:30 by Mortyman
Why Not Gun Control posted Sat Aug 11 2012 00:24:10 by GEEZER
Should The U.S. Start A Gun Control Policy? posted Sun Jan 9 2011 17:59:35 by flyorski
Top Gun 2? posted Tue Nov 2 2010 22:00:22 by Max Q
Top Gun 2/Top Gun Sequel posted Sat Oct 23 2010 20:46:52 by ORDFan
Howard's Gun Legacy - 200 Lives Saved A Year posted Sun Aug 29 2010 22:08:55 by TheCommodore
This Is Why Having A Gun Is/can Be Useful posted Sat Jul 17 2010 13:02:58 by KPDX
Supreme Court Rules On Chicago Gun Laws! posted Mon Jun 28 2010 20:03:48 by FlyASAGuy2005
Iraq Gun Video Leaker: Arrested posted Mon Jun 7 2010 15:35:52 by UH60FtRucker