All Forums | Penalty Box

To all gun owner advocates

...

Participants:

Posts: 109

rick3117

All-Star

Joined: Mar, 2006

Posts: 14715

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 9:34 PM ET #26

Stiln,

Sorry if I seemed combative, I am very passionate about this issue.

In the boondoggle following the AZ incident we have Senators (not guys at the local coffe spot) but SENATORS suggesting limits on FREE SPEECH, and the 2nd Amendment.

I just do not understand how the fear and knee jerk reactionaries in our society seem to gain all the steam towards changing our country.

I will never understand a man who would trade his freedom and constitutional rights for a little bit of perceived safety.

We have been granted such freedom and liberty in this country, and every day I see grown educated men trying to give it back. I will never understand that.

And it is maddening.

rick3117

All-Star

Joined: Mar, 2006

Posts: 14715

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 9:37 PM ET #27

Quote Originally Posted by rooster010:

i think it should be more difficult for an elderly person to obtain a drivers license than for any law abiding citizen to obtain a firearm

As the privilege to drive is a state's rights issue, and they set the standard, I am much more comfortable with this, then banning high capacity magazines.

kujayhwk

Captain

Joined: Sep, 2004

Posts: 7180

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 10:22 PM ET #28

Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:

As the privilege to drive is a state's rights issue, and they set the standard, I am much more comfortable with this, then banning high capacity magazines.

The only reason these 30 to 40 bullet magazines exist is to satisfy the Rambo-esque fantasies of America's gun nuts.

You expecting to encounter a dozen bad guys at your next firefight down at the strip mall, rick?

If Dirty Harry can get by with a 6 chamber cylinder, I think most gun owners ought to be able to squeeze by with the same.

But oh silly me....a 30 round magazine is de rigueur for today's fashion conscious gun nut....

atlheatholder

Captain

Joined: May, 2007

Posts: 5827

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 10:24 PM ET #29

Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:

But my point is this. Highly dense populations should have extremely strict laws concerning the purchasing of firearms, especially since there are many more police officers around to control these civilized areas.

In cities where there are hundreds and probably many more people per square block guns should not be in the hands of ordinary citizens not invovlved with the law, military and so on.

@heatholder

You have to elaborate more. Why is it bullshit?

1 - Your statement (in big, bold, italic red) is nothing less than frightening. Police controlling the civilized areas?!?! We won't get into that debate here, but what I'm getting at is that we don't need more government agencies policing us - we need zero agencies policing us.

2 - Your statement (in brown) is interesting and I'd love to hear your reason why population density should be a determining factor in whether or not "ordinary citizens" can have a gun.....do tell.....

3 - Government shouldn't be keeping tabs on the citizens is supposedly represents. They are not our parents, guardians, saviors - they are elected officials and nothing more. They make an enormous amount of laws that are not needed. I honestly believe government will never be efficient and they will always do more harm than good when it comes to freedom & liberty.

atlheatholder

Captain

Joined: May, 2007

Posts: 5827

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 10:26 PM ET #30

Quote Originally Posted by kujayhwk:

The only reason these 30 to 40 bullet magazines exist is to satisfy the Rambo-esque fantasies of America's gun nuts.

You expecting to encounter a dozen bad guys at your next firefight down at the strip mall, rick?

If Dirty Harry can get by with a 6 chamber cylinder, I think most gun owners ought to be able to squeeze by with the same.

But oh silly me....a 30 round magazine is de rigueur for today's fashion conscious gun nut....

A 30 round mag is efficient and shows preparedness.

Anent

Captain

Joined: Nov, 2007

Posts: 9124

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 10:32 PM ET #31

I'm not even looking for these, I swear, but I read about this earlier today. No kids involved, only a Denver Broncos running back.

Again, these stories are a pretty much daily, becoming harder to ignore.
https://www.comcast.net/articles/sports-nfl/20110118/Maroney.Arrested/

Anent

Captain

Joined: Nov, 2007

Posts: 9124

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 10:34 PM ET #32

Van Ross said that inside the Infiniti officers found three weapons - a .45-caliber handgun, a 9mm pistol and a .223 -caliber rifle - along with a substance believed to be marijuana. Five of the six people in the Infiniti were arrested and released pending application of warrants, Van Ross said.

Five other people were in the Yukon. One of them, a 28-year-old man, was arrested for being a felon in possession of a weapon.

rooster010

All-Star

Joined: Jun, 2007

Posts: 10911

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 10:43 PM ET #33

i agree, i cant believe people break the law

rick3117

All-Star

Joined: Mar, 2006

Posts: 14715

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 10:48 PM ET #34

Anent, you are describing criminals breaking the law. How will more laws stop this.

Every post you have made describes someone who is breaking existing statutes and gun laws, yet you believe that more regulations and statutes will stop it?

Either you are the most Naive person on Earth, or you are not talking about simple bans and superficial laws, you are talking about the out and out banning of firearms in the United States.

When you get down to it, you will find that most people that are for these nitpicking here and there regulations, statutes, and laws are just covering for a deep desire to ban personal ownership of firearms.

That is why it makes it hard for people like me, to agree on any legislation, no matter how good it might sound at the moment.

When you strip away the superficial rhetoric, and get down to it I think we all expose our true colors.

rick3117

All-Star

Joined: Mar, 2006

Posts: 14715

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 10:53 PM ET #35

Quote Originally Posted by kujayhwk:

The only reason these 30 to 40 bullet magazines exist is to satisfy the Rambo-esque fantasies of America's gun nuts.

You expecting to encounter a dozen bad guys at your next firefight down at the strip mall, rick?

If Dirty Harry can get by with a 6 chamber cylinder, I think most gun owners ought to be able to squeeze by with the same.

But oh silly me....a 30 round magazine is de rigueur for today's fashion conscious gun nut....

So don't be like Rambo, be like Dirty Harry?
That is all I got from your condescending bullshit post.

Anent

Captain

Joined: Nov, 2007

Posts: 9124

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 10:57 PM ET #36

Rick,

solid points and I know you're very adamant in your beliefs. I'm actually not disagreeing, just thought I'd post a few stories that anchor the other side. Current laws need to be enforced - yes. Agree completely. Only after that happens, can you look at legislating more laws to deal with these issues.

kujayhwk

Captain

Joined: Sep, 2004

Posts: 7180

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 11:02 PM ET #37

Link me to any article where Joe Citizen would have had a different outcome in a firefight if only he had 7 buttlets instead of 6. Or 11 bullets instead of 10.

Maybe if the wackjob in Tuscon only had 6 bullets available, there would be a lot less than 6 dead and 14 wounded people.

Fucking gun nuts that think they need the firepower of a small company of soldiers to feel safe in this country need their head's examined.

steveshane67

Veteran

Joined: Jan, 2010

Posts: 2062

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 11:03 PM ET #38

Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:

@rooster

Please provide page and line numbers to where this journal is refuting the my statement concerning less strict gun laws. Don't simply take an article from the harvard law review that has "gun laws" that you most likely through google and expect me to believe its refuting my points. That article from the looks of it did not examine specific state laws concerning firearms.

@steveshane

"i dont think there should be the gun show loop hole, and i cannot strongly disagree with the "proficiency" requirement. just bc you arent a good shot, doesnt mean you should not be allowed to own."

Elaborate my friend, no one on this fourm will know what "good shot means." bc? Do you mean "because?" Try and type with a little more effort especially since this is the politics section of the forum......

@rick3117

No need to insult people who disagree with your opinion. This article is of course not a good example. But my point is this. Highly dense populations should have extremely strict laws concerning the purchasing of firearms, especially since there are many more police officers around to control these civilized areas.

In a rural setting in Montana or Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, etc.... Go buy as many firearms as you'd like. Knock yourself out, go kill as manay bears, deers, geese, etc.... as you possibly can. But once you cross state lines and step on soil in places like California, NY, Illinois, NJ, CT, Delaware, MD, PA, Michigan, I believe Florida should ammend their laws. But that;s an entirely different argument. You must honor the laws of those states and if that means not being able to carry or even bring a hand gun across state lines then so be it. Because NYC certainly does not condone or honor out of state gun licences

In cities where there are hundreds and probably many more people per square block guns should not be in the hands of ordinary citizens not invovlved with the law, military and so on.

@heatholder

You have to elaborate more. Why is it bullshit?

youre joking right? how can you not know the phrase "[someones a] good shot"??? it means exactly what it says, that someone has good aim, aka they are "proficient" at the use of a firearm.

and im pretty sure bc was a common place abbr (thats abbreviation) for because starting around 1995 28k dial up modem AOL.

Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:

@rooster

@steveshane

"i dont think there should be the gun show loop hole, and i cannot strongly disagree with the "proficiency" requirement. just bc you arent a good shot, doesnt mean you should not be allowed to own."

@rick3117

In cities where there are hundreds and probably many more people per square block guns should not be in the hands of ordinary citizens not invovlved with the law, military and so on.

@heatholder

You have to elaborate more. Why is it bullshit?

rooster010

All-Star

Joined: Jun, 2007

Posts: 10911

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 11:06 PM ET #39

Quote Originally Posted by kujayhwk:

Link me to any article where Joe Citizen would have had a different outcome in a firefight if only he had 7 buttlets instead of 6. Or 11 bullets instead of 10.

Maybe if the wackjob in Tuscon only had 6 bullets available, there would be a lot less than 6 dead and 14 wounded people.

Fucking gun nuts that think they need the firepower of a small company of soldiers to feel safe in this country need their head's examined.

yeah maybe he should have used a bomb, then would could outlaw all bombs

rooster010

All-Star

Joined: Jun, 2007

Posts: 10911

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 11:10 PM ET #40

whackjobs are whackjobs

no amount of legislation will deter this

just as every person owning a firearm will not deter crime

rick3117

All-Star

Joined: Mar, 2006

Posts: 14715

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 11:10 PM ET #41

Honestly, I do not know why anyone would want a 30 rd. magazine for a handgun. To me it is unnecessary, and excessive.
But IF I were to say that we should regulate 30 rd. magazines for handguns, then we would also be regulating 30 round magazines for rifles.

It is literally the same path to banning AR-15's that they took in California.

-first high capacity magazines
-then certain styles of rifle
-then arbitrary laws about storage in your own home etc.

If we are playing in maybes Kuj, maybe if the Whack Job in AZ had the standard 11 rounds he would have aimed better.

steveshane67

Veteran

Joined: Jan, 2010

Posts: 2062

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 11:12 PM ET #42

stiln, just noticed your debate about gun ban crimes.

i had this discussion in one of the gifford threads with someone else.

in england, in the ~10 years after the gun ban, gun crimes increased almost steadily each year.

steveshane67

Veteran

Joined: Jan, 2010

Posts: 2062

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 11:17 PM ET #43

Quote Originally Posted by kujayhwk:

Link me to any article where Joe Citizen would have had a different outcome in a firefight if only he had 7 buttlets instead of 6. Or 11 bullets instead of 10.

Maybe if the wackjob in Tuscon only had 6 bullets available, there would be a lot less than 6 dead and 14 wounded people.

Fucking gun nuts that think they need the firepower of a small company of soldiers to feel safe in this country need their head's examined.

can you own more than 1 gun?

this is the single most logical reason why the whole clip debate is a moot point.

i agree that there really isnt an everyday need for a 30 rnd clip, but banning them does NOTHING to solve the problem. this would be like saying no napkins allowed at dinner, but you can use paper towels.

rick3117

All-Star

Joined: Mar, 2006

Posts: 14715

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 11:19 PM ET #44

Here are some frequently asked questions about the "assault weapons" ban in California.
Link

I put Assault Weapons in quotations because of the arbitrary and silly definitions that they came up with.
Read through them, and you will notice that every AR series rifle as well as AK series rifle is outlawed in that state.

and before you guys that have no idea what you are talking about chime in with your love for banning AK's

understand that you are banning the way a gun looks, not its firing ability.
Fully automatic "machine guns" are illegal in this country unless you get a very special permit (which is very invasive and hard to get).

We are talking about capacity and the superficial "look" of a firearm.

rick3117

All-Star

Joined: Mar, 2006

Posts: 14715

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 11:22 PM ET #45

Quote Originally Posted by steveshane67:

can you own more than 1 gun?

this is the single most logical reason why the whole clip debate is a moot point.

i agree that there really isnt an everyday need for a 30 rnd clip, but banning them does NOTHING to solve the problem. this would be like saying no napkins allowed at dinner, but you can use paper towels.

You are not discussing the finer points of regulation with someone who is knowledgeable about the subject.

you are talking to someone who wants to ban guns period, because he does not have any, nor does he want any, he would feel safer if it was illegal to get them.

kujayhwk

Captain

Joined: Sep, 2004

Posts: 7180

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 11:35 PM ET #46

Oh really rick?

Must be nice being so fucking omnipotent you know what I know and what I own.

I live in Colorado and yes I hunt in Colorado and go deer hunting with mates every year that I am not traveling abroad during the season. I also go quail hunting in Nebraska when I have the opportunity.

So don't fucking act like you know what I think or do, or am not knowledgable about the subject. I was shooting guns before you were born son.

There is no fucking need on God's green Earth to be able to shoot 30 bullets without reloading.

So tell me more about what I know and what I want to ban Nostrodamus.

rick3117

All-Star

Joined: Mar, 2006

Posts: 14715

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 11:37 PM ET #47

P.S.

Any idiot with 2 magazines, a hacksaw, and welding ability, has the ability to make a high capacity magazine.

It is literally a few pieces of metal and a spring, as long as the top of the magazine keeps it's integrity @ the locking mechanism there is little standing in the way of making these.

I suppose you want to outlaw springs too?

Or maybe welding materials?

Or maybe we should all have our trigger fingers clipped at birth, and create a new digitus impudicus?

rick3117

All-Star

Joined: Mar, 2006

Posts: 14715

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 11:41 PM ET #48

Quote Originally Posted by kujayhwk:

Oh really rick?

Must be nice being so fucking omnipotent you know what I know and what I own.

So don't fucking act like you know what I think or do, or am not knowledgable about the subject. I was shooting guns before you were born son.

There is no fucking need on God's green Earth to be able to shoot 30 bullets without reloading.

So tell me more about what I know and what I want to ban Nostrodamus.

I made the mistake of profiling you based on your vitriol for my right to own a certain type of firearm.

For that I apologize. I couldn't be more sorry.

rick3117

All-Star

Joined: Mar, 2006

Posts: 14715

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 11:48 PM ET #49

Having a shotgun with a sling could make it possible to carry numerous weapons into a massacre if that was your objective.
Should we outlaw slings?
Should we limit the number of weapons a person could own?
What about the caliber?
Should anyone own a .50 cal?
Should anyone be allowed to have a concealed carry?

How frightened are we as a country?

When will we stop punishing law abiding citizens for the acts of the criminally insane?

When will we stop begging for more legislation and rules to protect us from these shadows that always seem looming, fed by fear mongering politicians and the 24 hr scare cycle?

Tune in at twelve to see what common household item could kill your kids.

rick3117

All-Star

Joined: Mar, 2006

Posts: 14715

Posted: Jan. 18, 2011 - 11:49 PM ET #50

When will guys like Kuj in their infinite wisdom stop deciding what other people should be allowed to own.

Or say,

Or do?

All Forums | Penalty Box

To all gun owner advocates

Hot Forum Topics