The Democrats have ever intention of taking our guns...

[DavidofColorado]

Here is a piece from their 2008 Democratic National Platform here in Denver...

"We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

Cite to read it yourself (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/2008%20Democratic%20Platform%20by%20Cmte%2008-13-08%20(2).pdf)

If you like your guns and would like to keep them this is something that you should look at because they will not stop legislating against them until they are all gone. Don't loose the momentum that we have gained by voting for the wrong candidate.

Liberal BS aside no one should take your rights away from you for any reason. Until the DNC gets it they will never get my vote again.

[schwagman]

They'll get my guns/precious when they pry them from my cold dead corpse!!!!!!!!!:cussing:

[zetaetatheta]

Damn wish I had known that before I voted for Obama.

[mtnairlover]

"We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

I'm confused David. What part of that statement says the Dems want to take away your guns?:dunno:

[TFOGGuys]

I'm confused David. What part of that statement says the Dems want to take away your guns?:dunno:

Chicago has a complete handgun ban, and Illinois is one of 2 states that deny citizens the right to concealed carry. This is the environment that Obama is accustomed to. Additionally, the Dems have a long history of trying to institute draconian controls on the 2nd amendment. (Pelosi, Clinton, Schumer, et al.).

[zetaetatheta]

Chicago has a complete handgun ban, and Illinois is one of 2 states that deny citizens the right to concealed carry. This is the environment that Obama is accustomed to. Additionally, the Dems have a long history of trying to institute draconian controls on the 2nd amendment. (Pelosi, Clinton, Schumer, et al.).
Exactly what did Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer, et al. do to curtail your right to bear arms? It is my understanding one person cannot change the constitution of the united states. I always understood it to go something like this: to pass an amemdment you must first gain the support of 2 out of 3 members of Congress and then 3/5ths of the state legislatures. Sounds like more right wing fear mongering, because they have no real issues to run on. Just hate and fear. Nothing but sour grapes.

[PhL0aTeR]

Exactly what did Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer, et al. do to curtail your right to bear arms?

clinton signed the brady bill, not a total ban but an infringement on the right to bear arms

[DavidofColorado]

I'm confused David. What part of that statement says the Dems want to take away your guns?:dunno:

Its just a lie. They can't remove the second amendment from the constitution like zeta said. But they sure can regulate it out of existance or the point where its so expensive and there is so much red tape that it might as well be banned for all the good it would do to try and enjoy it.

Just like boiling a frog it will jump out if you throw it in a pot of boiling water (full removal of the second amendment) but if you place the frog in the water and heat it slowly he will not try to leave and might enjoy it until it is boiled. (Slow erosion of the second amendment thru legislation and taxes).

[The Black Knight]

Here is a piece from their 2008 Democratic National Platform here in Denver...

"We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."



I'm confused David. What part of that statement says the Dems want to take away your guns?:dunno:

Those parts Cathy...

There is no gun show loophole, as they like to holler about. Fact is, if you're an FFL or Dealer and sell any weapon at a gun show, you are required by Federal Law to run a background check. What the gun-grabbers aren't telling you is that the "Private Sales" are not subject to run background checks(In many states). So they believe this is the so-called "Gun Show Loophole".

In Colorado for instance, you are not required to run a background check for a "private sale". Only Dealers and FFL holders need run background checks. Many other states have our same law.

Which brings me to another point about background checks. In many states the regular wait time for a gun purchase is 3 to 15 days(depending on the state)for background checks(I mean how long do you need to run someone's info, if it's all on computer??). Colorado and a few other states don't require waiting periods(As in DAYS). In Colorado the average wait time for your background check is 20 minutes. Once they run you through you're local Sheriff and CBI check, you're good to go. If Colorado and other states can get it done within an Hour, why can't other states do it as well? Reason?? they want to stall your purchase(as if they think you'll get bored and forget about it) and nothing more.

Lastly, the Assault Weapons Ban. Which is BS and a total infringement upon the Second Amendment. Most of the ignorant gun-grabbing politicians are too stupid to differentiate what an Assault Weapon really is. They believe it's anything "Black" or semi-auto. Assault weapons are primarily full auto weapons or incendiary shooting weapons.

However, in Colorado if I obtain my proper paperwork(Form 4, FFL if I choose to become a licensed dealer, it helps with getting the paperwork and any other forms I need), I can then legally purchase and own a "Full Automatic Weapon". It is however registered to your "County" and county alone. You must inform your local sheriff if you are going to transport the weapon outside your county. However, I can legally own full automatic weapons.. And I should be allowed to, just as anyone else who has a clean background.

That's the part where Dem's want to ban weapons. They think automatic weapons belong on the battlefield or in the military. I believe they fall under the Second Amendment and should be protected thereof. Obviously everything the military has the average citizen can't. Tanks, C4, missles and bombs. However, that's ordinance and explosives(something that does require a soft hand to operate).

[The Black Knight]

Damn wish I had known that before I voted for Obama.
Yeah you probably shouldn't have.


Exactly what did Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer, et al. do to curtail your right to bear arms? It is my understanding one person cannot change the constitution of the united states. I always understood it to go something like this: to pass an amemdment you must first gain the support of 2 out of 3 members of Congress and then 3/5ths of the state legislatures. Sounds like more right wing fear mongering, because they have no real issues to run on. Just hate and fear. Nothing but sour grapes.

And here's why:


WHO IS THE REAL BARACK OBAMA:

Is the real Barack Obama the man who said:

"I believe the Second Amendment means something. . . . There is an individual right to bear arms."— Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Feb. 16. 2008 (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=718635 (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=718635))


Or is it the man who voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry to continue?

Is the real Barack Obama the man who said:

"I am a strong believer of the Second Amendment," he said. "Nobody's going to take the guns of law-abiding Virginians away from them." Richmond Time Dispatch, Aug, 22, 2008 (http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news/politics.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-08-22-0153.html (http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news/politics.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-08-22-0153.html))


Or is it the man who has called for the renewal of the failed Clinton gun ban? Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm) and http://www.ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm)) Oct 21, 2004.


Is the real Barack Obama the man who said:

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms,"

Or is it the man who has said he categorically opposes your right to carry for self-defense?

Is the real Barack Obama the man who said:

“I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures.

Or is it the man who believes that “what works” in Chicago is a complete ban on handgun ownership?
Is the real Barack Obama the man who said:

"There is an individual right to bear arms. But it is subject to common sense regulation."—Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online, 2/15/08

Or is it the man who includes as “sensible regulation” prosecuting people who use a handgun in their own home in self-defense?


Is the real Barack Obama the man about which Gov. Schweitzer of Montana said:

“He ain't going to take your gun away. He ain't ever going to take your gun away.” Missoulian, August 13, 2008 (www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/08/13/news/local/news03.txt (http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/08/13/news/local/news03.txt))

Or is it the man who endorsed a complete ban on handguns?‑ Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 2008. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html))


And there is more. This is the real Barack Obama:

"I’m consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry."
Chicago Tribune, 4/27/04

"I think it’s a scandal that this president (Bush) did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban."
Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes, 10/21/04

"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers lobby."
The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, 2006

"I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country." (gun ownership and restrictions on guns)
Politico, 2/11/08

"I think that local jurisdictions have the capability to institute their own gun laws."
BaltimoreSun.com, 2/15/08

"There was a discussion today about a law that has just passed in California that allows micro-tracing of bullets that have been discharged in a crime so that they can immediately be traced," he said. "This is something that California has passed over the strong objections of the NRA…That's the kind of common sense gun law that gun owners as well as victims of gun violence can get behind."
Baltimore Sun.com Feb. 15, 2008
#

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?
A: I don't think that we can get that done.<---he later has gone on to say, due to not having enough votes in both houses to accomplish this.
2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

[zetaetatheta]

Those parts Cathy...

That's the part where Dem's want to ban weapons. They think automatic weapons belong on the battlefield or in the military. I believe they fall under the Second Amendment and should be protected thereof. Obviously everything the military has the average citizen can't. Tanks, C4, missles and bombs. However, that's ordinance and explosives(something that does require a soft hand to operate).
Why shouldn't we be able to have missiles, C4, bombs? I see no difference in them and fully automatic firearms. They are all intended to kill humans, lots of them. I can't understand for the life of me why the right doesn't want a woman to have the right to take a fetus (not child nor human) from her own body, but is all for weapons used to kill air breathing out of the womb human beings. Praise Jesus and pass the ammo!

[RyNo24]

Damn wish I had known that before I voted for Obama.

I think Obama is pushing early voting so much, because he knows the Kool-aid is starting to ware off...

[mtnairlover]

First...my question has not been answered. How do you get, "They're gonna take away our guns!":cry: out of "preserving 2nd amendment rights."?

Do you guys still have your guns?

Have you ever not been able to own guns?

Now, for some more details...

How do you define the word "loophole"? In your words, a private seller can go to a gun show and sell guns without requiring a background check. That, to me, is a loophole to getting around the background-check requirement.

Gun violence is so bad in some parts of our country that even the police strongly advocate for gun control.

"The International Association of Chiefs of Police issued a report Wednesday that calls for stronger gun laws and urges law enforcement agencies to better educate the public about gun violence and to form more partnerships with public health officials in preventing firearms-related deaths." http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/332417_guns20.html

"Gun Control" is not "taking away our precious guns!" It's "hopefully" keeping guns out of the hands of people who mean harm. It may not thwart every bad person, but some people believe in better checks on who should be allowed to own a gun. Unless you all have a history of violence...or maybe you're all a bunch'o nutballs in disguise...or maybe, you're all terrorists? I didn't think so. So, stop your whining, you will not lose your precious guns, dammit!!!

And sorry about the argument that Dems are "slowly gonna erode the 2nd amendment right"...I have an answer to that as well, but none of you will like it...so I'll stop here. One thing that I will say that has to do with that argument...I do not believe you will ever lose your rights to own a gun. It just won't happen. It's part of what makes America. But...big BUTT...I do not believe in leaving gun selling completely unchecked. Just like so many other things in life, scrutiny is well-placed in this instance.

[zetaetatheta]

I think Obama is pushing early voting so much, because he knows the Kool-aid is starting to ware off...
Wishful thinking on your part. Americans are fed up with the bullshit we have been fed under the Bush administration. I'm 53 years old and Republicans have never done anything that has ever helped me as a middle class American. Don't push tax cuts on me because someone will have to pay one day, my children, their children and on and on. Nothing
for the middle class, everything for the wealthy. Dems may push welfare for the poor, but Reps push welfare for corporations. Let them eat cake. BTW if the Brady bill was so bad, why didn't Bush when he had the house and senate repeal it? As far as that goes why didn't they drill offshore? Because the Bush's are in the sack with the Saudi's (the real perps of 911) and will take it up the ass from them because they profit on the backs of the middle class. So keep believing in fairy tales and that McCain and his ignorant bitch are what the majority of Americans want. I believe the republicans have pulled the three card monty trick on us to many times and not only will McCain lose he will have fractured your beloved party to a point they will never see power again, especially if they put that imbecile Palin at the top of their ticket. Change is coming brother....whether you like it or not!

[DavidofColorado]

Why shouldn't we be able to have missiles, C4, bombs? I see no difference in them and fully automatic firearms. They are all intended to kill humans, lots of them. I can't understand for the life of me why the right doesn't want a woman to have the right to take a fetus (not child nor human) from her own body, but is all for weapons used to kill air breathing out of the womb human beings. Praise Jesus and pass the ammo!

I think we should. Back when the second amendment was written common folks (if well financed) could have cannons and war ships for the defense of their own county. But we aren't talking about the natural evolution of those weapons we are talking about the double standard of banning a gun based on how it looks like the Assault Weapons Ban does from the group that complains about discrimination (real of made up) because of a persons skin color.
But all their pro second amendment smoke aside their real goal hasn't changed. They still want to ban them all.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the senate, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have..." Dianna Feinstein D. Senator and gun grabber extraordinaire.

The Brady bill made me spend way to much money on a lawyer to have my good name removed from some jackhole with the same name. Its not an answer to a problem just a new hurdle to over come and it goes nicely with the theory that they want to ban them all. But its a complete opposite of their line about protecting the second amendment. BTW the Brady Bunch has endorsed Obama for President. Unless you are wishfully thinking that it won't happen or are indefferent to it as long as you get "The One" I think that you need to look at what they are doing and not what they are saying.

Actions speak louder than words.

[DavidofColorado]

I think Obama is pushing early voting so much, because he knows the Kool-aid is starting to ware off...
True and with all the fraud out there that is going on for him he probably wants everyone to get more than one vote in.

But I hear that Mrs. Obama has a video out about hating whitty. That will get leaked before the election and won't look good if you happen to be white.

[zetaetatheta]

I think we should. Back when the second amendment was written common folks (if well financed) could have cannons and war ships for the defense of their own county. But we aren't talking about the natural evolution of those weapons we are talking about the double standard of banning a gun based on how it looks like the Assault Weapons Ban does from the group that complains about discrimination (real of made up) because of a persons skin color.
But all their pro second amendment smoke aside their real goal hasn't changed. They still want to ban them all.

"Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have..." Dianna Feinstein D. Senator and gun grabber extraordinaire.

The Obama administation will not appeal the 2nd amendment...and anyone that thinks they will, should go to Oregon and bunker up in a hole with the other right wing nuts up there. Oh, be sure to take your bible.

[The Black Knight]

Why shouldn't we be able to have missiles, C4, bombs? I see no difference in them and fully automatic firearms. They are all intended to kill humans, lots of them. I can't understand for the life of me why the right doesn't want a woman to have the right to take a fetus (not child nor human) from her own body, but is all for weapons used to kill air breathing out of the womb human beings. Praise Jesus and pass the ammo!

Ohhhhhh!! I see, so since I'm Christian I'm not allowed to partake in my countries own Bill of Rights. I guess, enjoying weapons for recreational use and using them as self-defense isn't an option for a Christian.

So by your reasoning, I'm not entitled to my First Amendment either(yeah freedom of speech is overrated and totally not something for Christians to partake in). Guess I can't exercise my Fourth Amendment and just let the government ransack my house and rummage through my vehicle. Guess I can't use the Fifth and Sixth Amendments either to not have to testify against myself, nor have due process or have a speedy trial by my peers.

Shall I keep going??

I seems you think that I'm not entitled to any of my Bill of Rights that were guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America. I guess that is a typical democratic elitist point of view... "Do as we say, not as we do, because what's good for us isn't good for you."

[DavidofColorado]

Wishful thinking on your part. Americans are fed up with the bullshit we have been fed under the Bush administration. I'm 53 years old and Republicans have never done anything that has ever helped me as a middle class American. Don't push tax cuts on me because someone will have to pay one day, my children, their children and on and on. Nothing
for the middle class, everything for the wealthy. Dems may push welfare for the poor, but Reps push welfare for corporations. Let them eat cake. BTW if the Brady bill was so bad, why didn't Bush when he had the house and senate repeal it? As far as that goes why didn't they drill offshore? Because the Bush's are in the sack with the Saudi's (the real perps of 911) and will take it up the ass from them because they profit on the backs of the middle class. So keep believing in fairy tales and that McCain and his ignorant bitch are what the majority of Americans want. I believe the republicans have pulled the three card monty trick on us to many times and not only will McCain lose he will have fractured your beloved party to a point they will never see power again, especially if they put that imbecile Palin at the top of their ticket. Change is coming brother....whether you like it or not!

Why do you talk like you are speaking for more people than yourself? Is that some variable absolute liberal bias that I am senseing there?

[Pandora-11]

:guns::guns::guns::guns:Zeta, I'm trying to figure out why you're so angry all the time. Now really, what have Christians ever done to you? I don't think guns are your issue.
Geez, lighten up and give a rational argument!

[DavidofColorado]

The Obama administation will not appeal the 2nd amendment...
No shit Sherlock. I think we discussed that earlier. And I don't think that he is actively planning that either. HE WILL, however, be plotting on how to make it harder for the average American to enjoy his rights. While using the smoke screen of criminals using the guns as the reason to get it passed.

and anyone that thinks they will, should go to Oregon and bunker up in a hole with the other right wing nuts up there. Oh, be sure to take your bible. Where are you going to hide when McCain and the MILF Palin get elected? Are you going to Canaduh with the Baldwins or going to San Fransisco to baricade yourself in a bathhouse like all the other liberal retards?
Don't forget your lube.:slappers:

[zetaetatheta]

Why do you talk like you are speaking for more people than yourself? Is that some variable absolute liberal bias that I am senseing there?
I am, mainly because I read and I believe in polls, just as McCain did when he was 1 point up a month ago--but we will see Nov 4th. I admit McCain has one last shot, he can get on his knees and beg folks to vote for him, he's groveled and pandered so much it shouldn't be to hard for him to do.

[DavidofColorado]

:guns::guns::guns::guns:Zeta, I'm trying to figure out why you're so angry all the time. Now really, what have Christians ever done to you? I don't think guns are your issue.
Geez, lighten up and give a rational argument!
He said that nobody is going to take his guns. (like he has any) so we should vote for someone that wants to take them. Arguing rationally is such a mine field for him.

[zetaetatheta]

:guns::guns::guns::guns:Zeta, I'm trying to figure out why you're so angry all the time. Now really, what have Christians ever done to you? I don't think guns are your issue.
Geez, lighten up and give a rational argument!
Not angry at all, really quite happy Bush is leaving very soon. Just never could understand so called Christians wanting to kill and breed hatred for those with differing views, ie. liberals. Guess I interpreted Jesus' teachings differently than Focus on the Family and their ilk.

[The Black Knight]

First...my question has not been answered. How do you get, "They're gonna take away our guns!":cry: out of "preserving 2nd amendment rights."?

Do you guys still have your guns? Yes

Have you ever not been able to own guns? Under the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, I would not have been able to purchase any kind of AR15 or AK47 or .50 BMG, so yes I would not been able to own those guns during that period of time.

Now, for some more details...

How do you define the word "loophole"? In your words, a private seller can go to a gun show and sell guns without requiring a background check. That, to me, is a loophole to getting around the background-check requirement. No, it's not a loophole because a Private Seller is no part of a sponsored Gun Show. Gun Shows are put on by sponsors and dealers attend them to display, try out and sell their weapons. A Private Seller can sell a gun at a gun show to a private buyer, just as easily as he would have if he put the gun for sale in the local For Sale ads paper. It's only a loophole if dealers are breaking the law, which they aren't. Because they know they are under watchful eye. You think the only ones at gun shows are patrons? Nope, undercover law enforcement is there as well.

Gun violence is so bad in some parts of our country that even the police strongly advocate for gun control. Yeah and that's a dumb idea, keeping law abiding residents/citizens from protecting themselves and families in these crime ridden cities. If you have 12 million people in New York and say 20000 cops, that's a pretty bad Cop to Person ratio. Law Enforcement is on the short end of the stick in this battle. Now if people were allowed to own and protect themselves in their own homes and cars, well then the number shifts dramtically and the cops now have a fighting stance and a front on the battle against crime.

Remember this, Cops are not sworn to protect you as a personal body guard. They neither are crime preventors. Crime Prevention starts with the average citizen. Cops can't be in all places at all the time, but you sure can be. This greatly forces the odds on the criminals.

"The International Association of Chiefs of Police issued a report Wednesday that calls for stronger gun laws and urges law enforcement agencies to better educate the public about gun violence and to form more partnerships with public health officials in preventing firearms-related deaths." http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/332417_guns20.html

"Gun Control" is not "taking away our precious guns!" It's "hopefully" keeping guns out of the hands of people who mean harm. It may not thwart every bad person, but some people believe in better checks on who should be allowed to own a gun. Unless you all have a history of violence...or maybe you're all a bunch'o nutballs in disguise...or maybe, you're all terrorists? I didn't think so. So, stop your whining, you will not lose your precious guns, dammit!!!
Here's an idea, you want to keep guns out of criminals hands?? Then go after the criminals and leave law abiding citizens alone. Cathy here's another epiphony for you. Gun Laws only affect law abiding citizens. It's because only law abiding citizens respect the law. Criminals by definition of their profession: break the law for a living.

So you think criminals give a damn about your gun laws??? If their whole purpose in life is break the law? I mean come on, we were born at night but not last night.

Only way to crack down on so called "illegal" guns is to stop them from entering into the country via the "black market" and drug and gun trafficing.

And sorry about the argument that Dems are "slowly gonna erode the 2nd amendment right"...I have an answer to that as well, but none of you will like it...so I'll stop here. One thing that I will say that has to do with that argument...I do not believe you will ever lose your rights to own a gun. It just won't happen. It's part of what makes America. But...big BUTT...I do not believe in leaving gun selling completely unchecked. Just like so many other things in life, scrutiny is well-placed in this instance.

Lastly,

well if you don't think it can't happen in America Cathy, just look at Australia and England. Both countries have instituted gun bans and confiscations or gun turn-ins. After these laws went into affect, the violent crime(crime with guns or weapons) sky-rocketed. Now the people of these countries are crying out to get their guns back. They're screwed now because they gave in to government brain wash BS. The government can't keep you safe, neither can your local law enforcement.

I heard a great quote from a recent movie. It's as follows:
"Most people respect the Badge, everyone respects the Gun."

[DavidofColorado]

I am, mainly because I read and I believe in polls, just as McCain did when he was 1 point up a month ago--but we will see Nov 4th. I admit McCain has one last shot, he can get on his knees and beg folks to vote for him, he's groveled and pandered so much it shouldn't be to hard for him to do.

Or he could spend the money and beg people thru the mail like Obama is doing begging me to vote early, giving directions to the voting place and doing everything cept driving me there.

I'm begging. Don't fall for the BS pretty colored pipe dream that he dangleing in front of you. Your being had.

[Pandora-11]

ZETA Yep, Ok, you're not angry. Watch out for big bad F on Fam. I'm guessing maybe that you're gay? I realize that they don't seem to like that very well. Stand up for yourself and relax.

[mtnairlover]

Jason...laws are created to protect the innocent and punish the criminals. If there were no gun laws, then the criminals who find guns and use them in crimes would not be punished as harshly.

Same goes for any law out there. They are there to protect...not take away from law-abiding citizens, which is why you still have your guns.

[DavidofColorado]

Lastly,

well if you don't think it can't happen in America Cathy, just look at Australia and England. Both countries have instituted gun bans and confiscations or gun turn-ins. After these laws went into affect, the violent crime(crime with guns or weapons) sky-rocketed. Now the people of these countries are crying out to get their guns back. They're screwed now because they gave in to government brain wash BS. The government can't keep you safe, neither can your local law enforcement.

I heard a great quote from a recent movie. It's as follows:
"Most people respect the Badge, everyone respects the Gun."

The worst part is that those that didn't turn in there weapons can't even use them for defense because they are not supposed to have them and if they are they are charged for using a gun to protect themselves. A gun is the enemy here. The criminal just left while they are standing around pointing at the gun.

[zetaetatheta]

He said that nobody is going to take his guns. (like he has any) so we should vote for someone that wants to take them. Arguing rationally is such a mine field for him.
What's to argue? Just because we differ doesn't make your argument right and mine wrong. I made my point and it is logical and true, an amendment to the constitution is very difficult to achieve. BTW, I've owned guns all my life and always will--always.

[DavidofColorado]

ZETA Yep, Ok, you're not angry. Watch out for big bad F on Fam. I'm guessing maybe that you're gay? I realize that they don't seem to like that very well. Stand up for yourself and relax.

He not angry he just a bigot of people different than him.

What is the "big bad F on Fam" mean?

[DavidofColorado]

What's to argue? Just because we differ doesn't make your argument right and mine wrong. I made my point and it is logical and true, an amendment to the constitution is very difficult to achieve. BTW, I've owned guns all my life and always will--always.

Oh yeah what kinda guns do you own? What kinda killing bullet does it use?

[The Black Knight]

Jason...laws are created to protect the innocent and punish the criminals. If there were no gun laws, then the criminals who find guns and use them in crimes would not be punished as harshly.

Same goes for any law out there. They are there to protect...not take away from law-abiding citizens, which is why you still have your guns.

True, and I agree with you on the reason laws were created. However, if these laws are created to protect the innocent and punish the criminals. Why is it that the innocent get the short end of the stick and the criminals continue to break the law?

I mean seriously, how can a criminal break into someone's house, fall on a butcher knife and then sue because they got hurt in someone's house they weren't supposed to be in, in the first place? Not to mention sueing the homeowner but winning??

I still have my firearms because groups like the NRA and so forth are out there fighting to make sure legislation doesnt' make it through congress. Make no mistake Cathy, having our Second Amendment right still here is not because of Congress or a President. It's because of private organizations picking up the banner and fighting for the Amendment are the only reason we have this liberty.

[zetaetatheta]

ZETA Yep, Ok, you're not angry. Watch out for big bad F on Fam. I'm guessing maybe that you're gay? I realize that they don't seem to like that very well. Stand up for yourself and relax.
Are you gay and trying to hit on me? Sorry married with children and actually have an education--you might try it sometime, may enlighten you.

[The Black Knight]

The worst part is that those that didn't turn in there weapons can't even use them for defense because they are not supposed to have them and if they are they are charged for using a gun to protect themselves. A gun is the enemy here. The criminal just left while they are standing around pointing at the gun.

Exactly David, I remember reading about a British man a few years back who didn't turn in his Shotgun when the gun ban laws went into affect in England. Later he caught some intruders trying to break into his home. He quickly grabbed his shotgun, killed on of the intruders and the other(s) ran off.

After he did the right thing by calling the police. He was then arrested and sentenced to jail, for murder and having a weapon. All for defending his own home and family?

Now tell me Cathy, if that isn't the laws screwing the innocent??

[DavidofColorado]

Jason...laws are created to protect the innocent and punish the criminals. If there were no gun laws, then the criminals who find guns and use them in crimes would not be punished as harshly.

Same goes for any law out there. They are there to protect...not take away from law-abiding citizens, which is why you still have your guns.

I would like to believe that too. But I don't anymore and I have seen the light. The dems don't like guns or cars or corporations and even though they say they like the poor I don't think they like those people either. But when they say they do they can be very convincing. I have just seen them say "Do as I say not as I do." one to many times.

[The Black Knight]

Are you gay and trying to hit on me? Sorry married with children and actually have an education--you might try it sometime, may enlighten you.

I think she was asking if you were(not to be mean) but because of your disdain for Focus on the Family. I don't believe she was making fun of you man.

[Filo]

The whole "take the guns away" argument rings pretty hollow. It is the same argument used against helmet laws - they will keep eroding 'till there is nothing left. That is a pretty big crock o' crap. The "Democrats" don't have every intention of taking your guns. Some Democrats will have that intention, some won't. They are not a homogenous blob, just as the Republicans are not.

You guys want to sway the swing voter away from Obama? Try this (like McCain should have been doing the last month or two):

If Obama gets elected we will have a Democrat president. If the Senate race goes as expected, the Dems will have a filibuster proof 60 seats. If the Congressional race goes as expected, the Dems will have a big majority. One party control of the executive and legislative branches of our government should scare the crap out of you - Democrat or Republican. It has happened only twice since 1982 and great things failed to come from it.

But the Democrats aren't going to take your guns. Just like the Republicans aren't going to abolish abortion.

[Canuck]

You need to clam the Fuck down David and Pandora, or this thread is going in the Graveyard.

[Pandora-11]

Davidof Denver,
F on Fam means Focus on the Family. Zeta mentioned it.
(New poster and haven't figured out how to add the quote.)Duh, I need an education.
Zeta honey, the only thing you and I have in common is our Greek moniker.
Don't need to hit, but thank you.:leghump: Love ya!

[Filo]

well if you don't think it can't happen in America Cathy, just look at Australia and England. Both countries have instituted gun bans and confiscations or gun turn-ins. After these laws went into affect, the violent crime(crime with guns or weapons) sky-rocketed.

Citation please? I know London is having trouble with a rapidly rising knife-based violent crime wave, but London is not England, just like Chicago is not the US. As for Australia, I didn't know anyone lived there anymore :)

[zetaetatheta]

Oh yeah what kinda guns do you own? What kinda killing bullet does it use?
Winchester Classic 101, 20 ga., Remington youth 20 ga., Ruger 77 mrkII .243, Remington 700 25-06, Marlin 22 lever action, and Smith&Wesson Airweight 38 special. 25-06 is in Florida with my brother. That's it, but looking to buy a 270 or 308 for Colorado. Moved here from Mississippi.
My point is I have no fear in losing my guns and I am in favor of criminal backround checks.

[Pandora-11]

Sorry Canuck. I'll be good. Just having fun.

[The Black Knight]

The whole "take the guns away" argument rings pretty hollow. It is the same argument used against helmet laws - they will keep eroding 'till there is nothing left. That is a pretty big crock o' crap. The "Democrats" don't have every intention of taking your guns. Some Democrats will have that intention, some won't. They are not a homogenous blob, just as the Republicans are not.

You guys want to sway the swing voter away from Obama? Try this (like McCain should have been doing the last month or two):

If Obama gets elected we will have a Democrat president. If the Senate race goes as expected, the Dems will have a filibuster proof 60 seats. If the Congressional race goes as expected, the Dems will have a big majority. One party control of the executive and legislative branches of our government should scare the crap out of you - Democrat or Republican. It has happened only twice since 1982 and great things failed to come from it.

But the Democrats aren't going to take your guns. Just like the Republicans aren't going to abolish abortion.

I agree with you that not all Democrats are out to get guns. The Salazar's of Colorado have A ratings from the NRA. Buffie McFayden has a A+ rating from the NRA as well. Bill Richardson is a B rating I think. Just to name a few.

There are some Republicans that want to ban guns too, it's not just a Repub's vs. Dems thing. It's anti-gunners vs. pro-gunners. Republicans like Giuliani(regradless of what he says now), NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg(whom I disapprove of his very existence), Mitt Romney back gun-control for a time. And even up until recently McCain had a C+ rating with the NRA(not a great rating, but not an F rating like Hillary, Kennedy, Obama, Schumer, Feinsten and Pelosi have).

I agree with you as well, about having one party control the government. I think we need a good balanced mix of both. Checks and Balances anyone? But what I don't think we need are more and more gun-grabbers.

[zetaetatheta]

I think she was asking if you were(not to be mean) but because of your disdain for Focus on the Family. I don't believe she was making fun of you man.
So if you don't support Focus on the Family you are gay..oh how christian.

[zetaetatheta]

Davidof Denver,
F on Fam means Focus on the Family. Zeta mentioned it.
(New poster and haven't figured out how to add the quote.)Duh, I need an education.
Zeta honey, the only thing you and I have in common is our Greek moniker.
Don't need to hit, but thank you.:leghump: Love ya!
Ditto

[DavidofColorado]

Exactly David, I remember reading about a British man a few years back who didn't turn in his Shotgun when the gun ban laws went into affect in England. Later he caught some intruders trying to break into his home. He quickly grabbed his shotgun, killed on of the intruders and the other(s) ran off.

After he did the right thing by calling the police. He was then arrested and sentenced to jail, for murder and having a weapon. All for defending his own home and family?

Now tell me Cathy, if that isn't the laws screwing the innocent??

Doesn't it seem like a law is a pretty lousy deterrent to a criminal not concerned with following and law? I think, thru my own misfortune I might add, that being able to protect yourself and criminals at least knowing that you may be able to fight back is a better deterrent than any law. Being able to not have your life ruined afterwards is a big relief too. Just in case you have to defend yourself one day.


Its like reading the criminal the riot act.

"Because the authorities were required to read the proclamation that referred to the Riot Act before they could enforce it, the expression to read the riot act entered into common language as a phrase meaning "to reprimand severely", with the added sense of a stern warning. The phrase remains in everyday use in English. To this day many jurisdictions that have inherited the tradition of British Common Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Law) still employ statutes that require police or other executive agents to deliver a verbal warning, much like the Riot Act, before an unlawful public assembly may be forcibly dispersed. See, e.g., California Penal Code § 726 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=88421818710+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act

[Pandora-11]

Sorry Zeta. Love ya. :)Take some deep breaths. Let's talk guns.

[The Black Knight]

Citation please? I know London is having trouble with a rapidly rising knife-based violent crime wave, but London is not England, just like Chicago is not the US. As for Australia, I didn't know anyone lived there anymore :)

I'll have to dig it up but off the top of my head from what I remember. England did a total ban on all handguns and many rifles and shotguns. I know many shooting clubs and organizations were bummed because they can't participate in their activities anymore.

As for Australia being un-inhabited. Ah come on mate, with all the guppies and shelia's runnin around, with the Kiwi's to our West. We've got people that go walk about every now and then. HAHA!!

Mladin, Corser, Bayliss? HAHAHA!

[mtnairlover]

I would like to believe that too. But I don't anymore and I have seen the light. The dems don't like guns or cars or corporations and even though they say they like the poor I don't think they like those people either. But when they say they do they can be very convincing. I have just seen them say "Do as I say not as I do." one to many times.

Ya gotta expand on this idea, please. I want to know who, what and where? I plan on voting Dem and I find this a tad insulting to say the least. I've been poor. I was even the sole provider for the family at the ripe ol age of 17 when my Mom was out of work for several months. I do not have disdain for the poor. I also went shooting with you. I also own an American auto. Honestly, the "group everyone" approach is falling on deaf ears here pretty damn quick, David. Make up, or you will lose my patience and my respect.

[The Black Knight]

So if you don't support Focus on the Family you are gay..oh how christian.

NOOOOOOOO!!! that's not what she's saying and that's not what I was saying either(if you were trying to imply me.)

I think she mentioned it, because of your disdain for Focus on the Family. Because being anti-gay is one of the things they are known for. That's all man, nothing more to it.

[Pandora-11]

Thank you my White Knight.

[Pandora-11]

Oops, wait a minute! Zeta will think I'm hitting on you. I take it back.

[The Black Knight]

Winchester Classic 101, 20 ga., Remington youth 20 ga., Ruger 77 mrkII .243, Remington 700 25-06, Marlin 22 lever action, and Smith&Wesson Airweight 38 special. 25-06 is in Florida with my brother. That's it, but looking to buy a 270 or 308 for Colorado. Moved here from Mississippi.
My point is I have no fear in losing my guns and I am in favor of criminal backround checks.

Nice collection by the way.

I'm all for background checks as well. However, the ones we have now work just fine. I don't think though that some states need to take up to 15 days to run a background check, when "MY" own state can do it in 1 hour. What that tells me is it's nothing but deterrence, to keep someone from buying a gun.

[DavidofColorado]

Davidof Denver,
F on Fam means Focus on the Family. Zeta mentioned it.
(New poster and haven't figured out how to add the quote.)Duh, I need an education.
Zeta honey, the only thing you and I have in common is our Greek moniker.
Don't need to hit, but thank you.:leghump: Love ya!

David of Denver is suppose to be a user name that will let you know where I am and where I will be if you want to ride. You can call me David or Dave~ or the fucking right wing nut job like Cunuck does if you want to.


Cunnuck I will speak my mind thanks. But I will do you a favor and calm down on the insults and gay jokes for you. I get a little carried away and I am glad you said something early this time. Thanks man.:)

[The Black Knight]

Oops, wait a minute! Zeta will think I'm hitting on you. I take it back.

oh great, I just got DENIED!!! :lol:

[DavidofColorado]

Ya gotta expand on this idea, please. I want to know who, what and where? I plan on voting Dem and I find this a tad insulting to say the least. I've been poor. I was even the sole provider for the family at the ripe ol age of 17 when my Mom was out of work for several months. I do not have disdain for the poor. I also went shooting with you. I also own an American auto. Honestly, the "group everyone" approach is falling on deaf ears here pretty damn quick, David. Make up, or you will lose my patience and my respect.
How much time are you going to give me? I don't think I can get it together is a quick reply on a forum post? Its very esoteric of a subject. I talk like most people have gone thru the same stuff.

I feel you on the poor thing. I don't know any other way actually.

[Pandora-11]

No denial Black Knight. I have this thing going with someone named DanFZ1 on another thread.

How do I add the quote into my post?

[zetaetatheta]

[quote=The Black Knight;372619]NOOOOOOOO!!! that's not what she's saying and that's not what I was saying either(if you were trying to imply me.)

Sorry, thought it was a rip on anyone disagreeing with their position...Seriously people have free will and can and should be able to follow their beliefs as they see fit. I guess the hypocrisy gets under my skin, I know, I know, we are all imperfect. So, sorry if I offended anyone. I love everyone and respect all religions, Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Mormon, Wicken, etc al., even Buddhism (not really a religon). I just have a problem with legislating ethics. Coexistance is the way to go. I know this country will always be governed from the center--so peace out.

[mtnairlover]

How much time are you going to give me? I don't think I can get it together is a quick reply on a forum post? Its very esoteric of a subject. I talk like most people have gone thru the same stuff.

I feel you on the poor thing. I don't know any other way actually.

You need to get out more, David...and do it with an open heart and mind. Of course, what you perceive is completely up to you. Just remember that I haven't been exactly what you expected when you first started talking with me...and I am not the only one.

[zetaetatheta]

Nice collection by the way.

I'm all for background checks as well. However, the ones we have now work just fine. I don't think though that some states need to take up to 15 days to run a background check, when "MY" own state can do it in 1 hour. What that tells me is it's nothing but deterrence, to keep someone from buying a gun.
I've only had to wait 3 days, but only for handguns, never rifle or shotgun. Really doesn't make much sense, if someone is really pissed off a shotgun can reek havoc. I think the main hold up is psychological checks as these records are suppose to be secret, but of course they are not. With computers what they are, it should be instant, but all those in the info tech business know how everyone loves their own system. I know it from the military, where the Navy couldn't talk to the Army--yadda yadda. Hell we can't even get voting records straight, I would argue the most important database for our country.

[DavidofColorado]

You need to get out more, David...and do it with an open heart and mind. Of course, what you perceive is completely up to you. Just remember that I haven't been exactly what you expected when you first started talking with me...and I am not the only one.


What was I expecting when we first started talking? You impressed me with your open mind and I think that while shooting for fun or money wasn't your cup of tea I think you have a leg to stand on when you talked about it. But seemed a little scared of the weapons a little gun shy. Although your courage was something that should be on motivational posters.

But who else are you talking about me being wrong about?

Does this mean I don't have to write you an essay?:alien:

[The Black Knight]

No denial Black Knight. I have this thing going with someone named DanFZ1 on another thread.

How do I add the quote into my post?
well just as long as I'm not some fling HAHAHA!!

if you want to quote someone, just hit the "quote" button in their comment box. It's at the bottom. Also the "+" allows you to add more that one quote at a time.



I've only had to wait 3 days, but only for handguns, never rifle or shotgun. Really doesn't make much sense, if someone is really pissed off a shotgun can reek havoc. I think the main hold up is psychological checks as these records are suppose to be secret, but of course they are not. With computers what they are, it should be instant, but all those in the info tech business know how everyone loves their own system. I know it from the military, where the Navy couldn't talk to the Army--yadda yadda. Hell we can't even get voting records straight, I would argue the most important database for our country.

I guess only living in Colorado my whole life(I don't count the 10 months in Okalahoma as much), our gun laws are all I really know(I do know other states as well, it's more of a figure of speech).

Here in Colorado the average wait time is 20 minutes. I've waited as long as 5 hours, and as less as 15 minutes to purchase a firearm. Depends on the day really. If you go on the weekend when a gun show is in town(or in state) expect a longer wait. During the week is the prime time. Most of the time during the week when I've bought, I'm the only guy in the state on the list to get cleared. So it goes fast.

Which is why I mentioned that all background checks in all states should be the same. Everything is computer fed and the computers from all agencies talk to each other. If you've got a red flag on your record it will get kicked out and you'll get denied.

Like I say, if Colorado can do it in usually an hour or less, why can't California and New York? I know they probably have way more acces to multiple systems then we do(meaning more computers to run checks), so why can't they move as quick as us?

[Vitesse]

I thought the laws for waiting periods on buying guns was to help prevent crimes of passion? Is this just rumor? Either way, I'm glad CO doesn't have such a law. Seems to be pointless to me. If someone wants to obtain a gun to do something unlawful, they will find a way. However I do believe we should enforce background checks for all gun sales.

And just because this is such a fun thread, I'm posting a pic of 2 rifles I just finished building. Down with the assault weapons ban!! :doublefinger:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g23/boostedgs/Gun%20Stuff/CIMG0436_small.jpg

[mtnairlover]

What was I expecting when we first started talking? You impressed me with your open mind and I think that while shooting for fun or money wasn't your cup of tea I think you have a leg to stand on when you talked about it. But seemed a little scared of the weapons a little gun shy. Although your courage was something that should be on motivational posters.

But who else are you talking about me being wrong about?

Does this mean I don't have to write you an essay?:alien:

Nope, no essay. And I was not skeered of the guns. Just a tad weary of you my dear.;):lol::alien:

You are right about the "Not my cup o'tea." But, just cuz I don't like it, doesn't mean I want everyone to not like it, nor do I believe people should be kept from it. That statement isn't something you would expect, according to the way you have been speaking here, from a Democrat.

[MAZIN]

I thought the laws for waiting periods on buying guns was to help prevent crimes of passion? Is this just rumor? Either way, I'm glad CO doesn't have such a law. Seems to be pointless to me. If someone wants to obtain a gun to do something unlawful, they will find a way. However I do believe we should enforce background checks for all gun sales.

And just because this is such a fun thread, I'm posting a pic of 2 rifles I just finished building. Down with the assault weapons ban!! :doublefinger:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g23/boostedgs/Gun%20Stuff/CIMG0436_small.jpg
Ahh now I have been peeping at this thread but when you posted I just had to say you got some nice RRA's.

[The Black Knight]

I thought the laws for waiting periods on buying guns was to help prevent crimes of passion? Is this just rumor? Either way, I'm glad CO doesn't have such a law. Seems to be pointless to me. If someone wants to obtain a gun to do something unlawful, they will find a way. However I do believe we should enforce background checks for all gun sales.

And just because this is such a fun thread, I'm posting a pic of 2 rifles I just finished building. Down with the assault weapons ban!! :doublefinger:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g23/boostedgs/Gun%20Stuff/CIMG0436_small.jpg
Yeah I had heard about the crimes of passion reason as well. Although in some states if you commit a crimes of passion, you basically get off scott free. Somehow they chalk it up to being temporarily blinded by passion. Either way doesn't make sense. So if they keep some guy from buying a gun to blow his cheating wife away. Then he'll just go get a piece or rope, knife, baseball bat, tow chain, piano wire, chainsaw, rock or brick to commit the crime. HAHA it will happen, just depends on how creative one might get.

As far as your pics of your guns are concerned, all I can say is:
BOING!!!!

very badass!! :up:

[DavidofColorado]

Winchester Classic 101, 20 ga., Remington youth 20 ga., Ruger 77 mrkII .243, Remington 700 25-06, Marlin 22 lever action, and Smith&Wesson Airweight 38 special. 25-06 is in Florida with my brother. That's it, but looking to buy a 270 or 308 for Colorado. Moved here from Mississippi.
My point is I have no fear in losing my guns and I am in favor of criminal backround checks.
Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier I was distracted by something shiny. :)
That is a nice collection. Very impressive and there is no to ways about it. And I think that you are right about them not taking your guns away too. And do you want to know why? None of those guns listed are on the scary black rifle list. Those are all nice and safe hunting weapons that they think you should own... now. But imagine if they get there way and they ban my collection of weapons; Mini 14, Bushmaster XM15, WASR10, 2x romanian g AK's (I call them blasty 1 and 2) HK-g3 .308, and a k98 mauser. All but one will be gone, because they are all on the new ban list that will be retro back to 1994~ maybe. The G3 is still banned from import but luckily its preban. And ironicly the only one that won't be on the list is the only one that is an actual Military rifle the k98 is a war trophy that my great uncle picked up in North Africa during WWII. But its a bolt action with no magazine sticking out the bottom so it looks like a normal hunting rifle. But what about when they get their way with my guns? Instead of mislabeling them as machine guns that shoot 600 rounds a minute they will just call yours sniper rifles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3kvn3kB534
Its a pretty easy switch in the media. All they have to do is get those brains working to come up with a sensational story about snipers and then yours are on the list too.
I think its worth defending now before its gone and I am doing for the children so they have something to shoot in the future.:crazy:

[DavidofColorado]

Nope, no essay. And I was not skeered of the guns. Just a tad weary of you my dear.;):lol::alien:

:scream2:What? Was it my mad skillz on the bike, my chizled rugged good looks, my unexplainable buldge? Or that fact that you wiped the f'n road with me while riding?
Remember when I told you that I was almost out of gas and you told me that you were going to keep going. I said "That's fine I just wanted to let you know so in a week when I still haven't shown up you can tell everyone my last known location.:spit:"That was funny. Good times, good times!


You are right about the "Not my cup o'tea." But, just cuz I don't like it, doesn't mean I want everyone to not like it, nor do I believe people should be kept from it. That statement isn't something you would expect, according to the way you have been speaking here, from a Democrat.

I know, my bad for lumping all democrats in like that. That is very one sided of me. But we are talking about one Democrat that has a history of doing those things. And a democrat that has a history of telling people what they want to hear. I think with a great majority of democrats in the house and senate we need a moderate in the Whitehouse, not someone that will sign any gun regulation that may come down the pipe.

[TFOGGuys]

Now, for some more details...

How do you define the word "loophole"? In your words, a private seller can go to a gun show and sell guns without requiring a background check. That, to me, is a loophole to getting around the background-check requirement.



Technically, the only sale not covered by a background check requirement is between 2 individuals in a private setting. Under law, a "gun show" is any gathering of more than 2 people for the purpose of buying or selling firearms. Thus, there is no "gun show" loophole. The gun control lobby wants to eliminate gun shows by portraying them as a free for all, rather than a convenient opportunity for vendors and buyers to get together in a PERFECTLY LEGAL business environment.

[zetaetatheta]

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier I was distracted by something shiny. :)
That is a nice collection. Very impressive and there is no to ways about it. And I think that you are right about them not taking your guns away too. And do you want to know why? None of those guns listed are on the scary black rifle list. Those are all nice and safe hunting weapons that they think you should own... now. But imagine if they get there way and they ban my collection of weapons; Mini 14, Bushmaster XM15, WASR10, 2x romanian g AK's (I call them blasty 1 and 2) HK-g3 .308, and a k98 mauser. All but one will be gone, because they are all on the new ban list that will be retro back to 1994~ maybe. The G3 is still banned from import but luckily its preban. And ironicly the only one that won't be on the list is the only one that is an actual Military rifle the k98 is a war trophy that my great uncle picked up in North Africa during WWII. But its a bolt action with no magazine sticking out the bottom so it looks like a normal hunting rifle. But what about when they get their way with my guns? Instead of mislabeling them as machine guns that shoot 600 rounds a minute they will just call yours sniper rifles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3kvn3kB534
Its a pretty easy switch in the media. All they have to do is get those brains working to come up with a sensational story about snipers and then yours are on the list too.
I think its worth defending now before its gone and I am doing for the children so they have something to shoot in the future.:crazy:
Yea, I have pretty safe guns; I do however, believe in the rights of those wanting to collect mil spec/grade weapons. I used to have an HK 40 cal w/14 round clip. Took it to a gun show after clip ban and had folks bidding for it. Wish I had never sold it. I do respect the right to own weapons, and do believe if someone wants to kill someone they can and will find a way. I know folks will point to Columbine and say what if those kids had automatic weapons, but the real question is why were the guns available to them in the first place and not secured. Guess there is no easy answers. We can't legislate responsibility or anti-stupidity; otherwise, parents would take control of their children's education. I personally do not care to own an assualt rifle, but I do like shooting them. Had several occasions in the Navy of firing 50cal off the stern--big rush, especially since ammo was free.
I still want that Browning lightweight 308 lever action.

[mtnairlover]

Technically, the only sale not covered by a background check requirement is between 2 individuals in a private setting. Under law, a "gun show" is any gathering of more than 2 people for the purpose of buying or selling firearms. Thus, there is no "gun show" loophole. The gun control lobby wants to eliminate gun shows by portraying them as a free for all, rather than a convenient opportunity for vendors and buyers to get together in a PERFECTLY LEGAL business environment.

Um, actually...

"The "Gun show loophole" is a term coined to describe the legal sale of firearms between private individuals at gun shows in states where this is legal. When these sales take place at a gun show, some perceive a "loophole" in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), although these laws have never applied to individual-to-individual sales of personal firearms. United States federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or who are in the business of selling firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and to perform checks prior to transferring a firearm, but there is an exemption for private sales by individuals who are "not engaged in the business" of selling firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales. Unlicensed private sellers are permitted by law to sell privately-owned guns at gun shows, or at private locations, in 24 states (as of 1998 )."

That's the way it is described.

[DavidofColorado]

Um, actually...

"The "Gun show loophole" is a term coined to describe the legal sale of firearms between private individuals at gun shows in states where this is legal. When these sales take place at a gun show, some perceive a "loophole" in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), although these laws have never applied to individual-to-individual sales of personal firearms. United States federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or who are in the business of selling firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and to perform checks prior to transferring a firearm, but there is an exemption for private sales by individuals who are "not engaged in the business" of selling firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales. Unlicensed private sellers are permitted by law to sell privately-owned guns at gun shows, or at private locations, in 24 states (as of 1998 )."

That's the way it is described.
Same thing as what he said mainly. All these new laws were written during the clinton years BTW. They wanted to add shotguns to the list of weapons that needed to be registered like a machine gun. They got the Striker 12 added but the Mossberg wasn't since they look different. But they can hold the same amount of shotgun shells.

In Colorado they have close the "Gunshow loophole" thanks to those 2 pukes in columbine. They also held up CCW for a year too since it was progun and was still to hot of a topic. Those 2 could have benifited from some real parenting.

[DavidofColorado]

Yea, I have pretty safe guns; I do however, believe in the rights of those wanting to collect mil spec/grade weapons. I used to have an HK 40 cal w/14 round clip. Took it to a gun show after clip ban and had folks bidding for it. Wish I had never sold it. I do respect the right to own weapons, and do believe if someone wants to kill someone they can and will find a way. I know folks will point to Columbine and say what if those kids had automatic weapons, but the real question is why were the guns available to them in the first place and not secured. Guess there is no easy answers. We can't legislate responsibility or anti-stupidity; otherwise, parents would take control of their children's education. I personally do not care to own an assualt rifle, but I do like shooting them. Had several occasions in the Navy of firing 50cal off the stern--big rush, especially since ammo was free.
I still want that Browning lightweight 308 lever action.

None of their guns were automatic. They had a pistol and a shotgun they made a lot of improvised explosives though. But no body is saying we should ban propane tanks.

Nice shooting a .50 is something I am going to have to do before I leave this cruel world.:hump:

[The Black Knight]

Um, actually...

"The "Gun show loophole" is a term coined to describe the legal sale of firearms between private individuals at gun shows in states where this is legal. When these sales take place at a gun show, some perceive a "loophole" in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), although these laws have never applied to individual-to-individual sales of personal firearms. United States federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or who are in the business of selling firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and to perform checks prior to transferring a firearm, but there is an exemption for private sales by individuals who are "not engaged in the business" of selling firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales. Unlicensed private sellers are permitted by law to sell privately-owned guns at gun shows, or at private locations, in 24 states (as of 1998 )."

That's the way it is described.

So therefore Cathy, if that's the way it's described. Then why the big fuss from anti-gunners and the rest of the groups? If it's o.k. by "LAW" for private sales, then technically there is no "loophole". A quick definition of loophole:
3. a means of escape or evasion; a means or opportunity of evading a rule, law, etc.:

However, since "Private Sellers" aren't technically under the FFL or Dealer laws, how can they then be breaking it? or in other words using it as a loophole?? If it's not breaking the law?

Look if NICS doesn't require(as with many states) a background check for "private sales", then there shouldn't be a debate about it.

A loophole would entail that dealers or FFL holders are somehow cheating the system. Yet they have a set of rules they must follow at gun shows, which just about all of them do follow. Yeah you might get a few rogue ones here and there. But remember obtaining your FFL is a thing you try and hang on to. You don't jeopardize it by making shady sales. So since the law in place only affects dealers or FFL holders, then private sellers are exempt from it, therefore not creating a "loophole", just bypassing it because they do not have to meet the requirements of that law.

You can't find a loophole in a law that is being exploited by individuals when they aren't under that law to begin with.

[DavidofColorado]

So they are calling something that is legal a "loophole"? That sounds fishy as hell? So doing anything currently legal that they don't like is a loophole? I guess we should start calling abortion a baby having loophole? Although I am pro-choice since I don't think crackwhores should be reproducing.

[AirAssault]

Didn't take the time to read every post, but if you believe the dems are going to try and take your guns you're a moron.

[mtnairlover]

So they are calling something that is legal a "loophole"? That sounds fishy as hell? So doing anything currently legal that they don't like is a loophole? I guess we should start calling abortion a baby having loophole? Although I am pro-choice since I don't think crackwhores should be reproducing.

David, you're not reading carefully.

If Joe, "The Private Seller" wanted to go to a gun show to sell his guns, he can do that legally. He can also sell to whomever he wants at a gun show. The loophole is when John, "The Criminal", goes to that same gun show to get a gun and he finds Joe "The Private Seller". Joe, "The Private Seller" does not have to (legally) put John, "The Criminal", through a background check. What some people like the Police Chiefs are trying to do is close that loophole so that even private sellers will be required to put potential purchasers of their guns through a background check if they sell at gun shows.

[puckstr]

None of their guns were automatic. They had a pistol and a shotgun they made a lot of improvised explosives though. But no body is saying we should ban propane tanks.

Nice shooting a .50 is something I am going to have to do before I leave this cruel world.:hump:

They also had a Hi-point Carbine ( semi-auto with 10 round Mag).

Wow gun Laws really stoped those two assholes from killing there classmates.

[Sortarican]

Fact check by CNN on one of the NRA commercials:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/23/fact-check-does-obama-want-to-ban-guns-and-rifles/

Is Obama pro-gun? No.
But he's not going to break into Dave's basement and steal his bb guns if you vote for him? No.

I've been a member of the NRA and I like the fact that they work to defend 2nd amendment rights.
But they get pretty extreme in their advacacy to say the least.
I like their firearm education and support of the various shooting sports, but the political side is a lobbying organization the same as any other.

Like most things the truth is usually somewhere between the two sides arguements.

I love firearms, ever since my first .22 all the way up to my latest restoration project 1894 and several M1 Garand rebuilds.
But let's face it, education, sensible limits (no guns on planes, in schools, in courts), and outright restriction of access by some people
(violent felons, juveniles, and the mentally impair (yes I mean you Dave:lol:), are neccessary.


Under the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, I would not have been able to purchase any kind of AR15 or AK47 or .50 BMG, so yes I would not been able to own those guns during that period of time.

Under the ban I was able to buy both pre and post ban AR15's.
(Though I think you're right that the BMG and the import of a lot of AK's were restricted.)
Please clarify your example.


Why do you talk like you are speaking for more people than yourself? Is that some variable absolute liberal bias that I am senseing there?

LOL,
Just wondering Dave. Did you actually type that with a striaght face?
Seriously, major kettle/pot action there man.


The whole "take the guns away" argument rings pretty hollow. ...- they will keep eroding 'till there is nothing left....

Great point. It's the ever popular "slippery slope arguement" whenever there's a perceived attack on civil rights.
Whether it used in the gun or abortion debate it's usually an argument that used to generates a quick emotional response (fear)
more than it is to truely inform people.
Arguments like that typically generate more heat than light.


well if you don't think it can't happen in America Cathy, just look at Australia and England. Both countries have instituted gun bans and confiscations or gun turn-ins...

Apples and Oranges BK.
Those countries never had gun rights written in as a cornerstone of their civilain right like the US does.
And I've found the stories of people being dragged off in the middle of the night or their olympic teams having to go to another country to practice because they can't use guns in their home country are usually urban legends.

[dirkterrell]

Apples and Oranges BK.
Those countries never had gun rights written in as a cornerstone of their civilain right like the US does.


1689, Bill of Rights passed by the Parliament of England:

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"

Dirk

[puckstr]

1689, Bill of Rights passed by the Parliament of England:

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"

Dirk


I love the caveat "as allowed by law"

Talk about a loophole

[TFOGGuys]

David, you're not reading carefully.

If Joe, "The Private Seller" wanted to go to a gun show to sell his guns, he can do that legally. He can also sell to whomever he wants at a gun show. The loophole is when John, "The Criminal", goes to that same gun show to get a gun and he finds Joe "The Private Seller". Joe, "The Private Seller" does not have to (legally) put John, "The Criminal", through a background check. What some people like the Police Chiefs are trying to do is close that loophole so that even private sellers will be required to put potential purchasers of their guns through a background check if they sell at gun shows.

Not under Colorado law....


12-26.1-101. Background checks at gun shows - penalty. (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=47976a31.2a7b16e4.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2712-26.1-101%27%5D)

(1) Before a gun show vendor transfers or attempts to transfer a firearm at a gun show, he or she shall:
(a) require that a background check, in accordance with section 24-33.5-424 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=COCODE&d=24-33.5-424&sid=47976a31.2a7b16e4.0.0#JD_24-335-424), C.R.S., be conducted of the prospective transferee; and
(b) obtain approval of a transfer from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation after a background check has been requested by a licensed gun dealer, in accordance with section 24-33.5-424 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=COCODE&d=24-33.5-424&sid=47976a31.2a7b16e4.0.0#JD_24-335-424), C.R.S.
(2) A gun show promoter shall arrange for the services of one or more licensed gun dealers on the premises of the gun show to obtain the background checks required by this article.
(3) If any part of a firearm transaction takes place at a gun show, no firearm shall be transferred unless a background check has been obtained by a licensed gun dealer.
(4) Any person violating the provisions of this section commits a class 1 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=COCODE&d=18-1.3-501&sid=47976a31.2a7b16e4.0.0#JD_18-13-501), C.R.S.

Source: Initiated 2000: Entire article added, effective March 31, 2001, proclamation of the Governor issued December 28, 2000. L. 2002: (4) amended, p. 1476, § 63, effective October 1.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2002 act amending subsection (4), see section 1 of chapter 318, Session Laws of Colorado 2002.

12-26.1-106. Definitions. (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=47976a31.2a7b16e4.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2712-26.1-106%27%5D)

As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) "Collection" means a trade, barter, or in-kind exchange for one or more firearms.

(2) "Firearm" means any handgun, automatic, revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges, or other explosive charges.

(3) "Gun show" means the entire premises provided for an event or function, including but not limited to parking areas for the event or function, that is sponsored to facilitate, in whole or in part, the purchase, sale, offer for sale, or collection of firearms at which:

(a) twenty-five or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, transfer, or exchange; or

(b) not less than three gun show vendors exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange firearms.

(4) "Gun show promoter" means a person who organizes or operates a gun show.

(5) "Gun show vendor" means any person who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges, any firearm at a gun show, regardless of whether the person arranges with a gun show promoter for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange any firearm.

(6) "Licensed gun dealer" means any person who is a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or dealer licensed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 923, as amended, as a federally licensed firearms dealer.

[dirkterrell]

I love the caveat "as allowed by law"

Talk about a loophole

Probably why the Founding Fathers worded the 2nd Amendment the way they did: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Dirk

[Rhino]

David, you're not reading carefully.

If Joe, "The Private Seller" wanted to go to a gun show to sell his guns, he can do that legally. He can also sell to whomever he wants at a gun show. The loophole is when John, "The Criminal", goes to that same gun show to get a gun and he finds Joe "The Private Seller". Joe, "The Private Seller" does not have to (legally) put John, "The Criminal", through a background check. What some people like the Police Chiefs are trying to do is close that loophole so that even private sellers will be required to put potential purchasers of their guns through a background check if they sell at gun shows.


They have signs posted that state to the effect "all firearms transfers on this property, including the parking lot must go through a background check". It can quickly be pointed out that the Wendy's across the street does not fall under that jurisdiction. A further problem is that, for example Columbine, at least one of the guns was made by the girlfriend of one of them. A "straw" purchase. Even if they did the background check on the girl, at the end of the day, the gun was in the bad guys' hands.

To say that Democrats want to take our guns serves only to immediately polarize this topic. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6257...Lots of R's there, huh? I'm not sure if the mods would allow "Shit Sucking Politicians are trying to ban guns" as a thread title though. David: We (gun owners) know... People like Zeta who only have the "Fudd" guns won't care. ...and you're scaring the Cathy's with your... enthusiasm?

To say this is "fear mongering", that too can be said of the first ban. It was titled as a "Crime Bill", even though most law enforcement were the ones quick to point out that so called "assault weapons" were a very minimal fraction of gun crimes. The politicians who fight so hard for it had very little idea of what they are talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
There have only been 2 crimes commited with "legal" fully automatics, and one was a cop. The bank shootout in Kali a few years back were illegally converted guns used by CRIMINALS.

For those who don't follow the issues, certain politicians have seemingly made it their goal to make it difficult to have the 2nd mean anything. They usually have a "D" by their name. For example: Hillary Clinton, Barak O, and Ted kennedy sat on the oversight committe for OSHA. Last year, they tried to push a new policy, declaring ammunition as "explosives" and pushing for extremely stringent limits on how retailers could store it. I.e. if there is a lightning storm within 10 miles, the store must be shut down. Do you think Walmart would continue to carry ammo? It was viewed as a very sneaky attempt at a backdoor ban of guns, by making it extremely hard to acquire ammunition. As BK pointed out, the NRA and other groups got the word out and OSHA delayed the ruling until it got more feedback.

One only needs to look to Obama's home turf to see the effects of "gun control". He was the one who pointed out that more people (Americans) died in Chicago than Iraq this year. Do you honestly believe it was a bunch of law abiding gun owners running around killing each other? The problem is the people. You can show a direct connection between active gun control against law abiding citizens and an increase in gun crimes by criminals in places like Chicago, D.C., etc.

As BK pointed out, you can still get full auto, etc. It has just become cost prohibitive with the laws. The very popular AR-15 can be had for $700+ A full auto M-16 is around $15k+, with only minor internal part differences. The cost increase is the artificial rarity of them due to the law. Check out Knob Creek on Youtube to see those who still "pay to play". You can still get a great many things, as long as you are willing to pay the "tax". Including a 20mm for less than a new R1, http://www.anzioironworks.com/20MM-TAKE-DOWN-RIFLE.htm (and you thought a .50 cal was badass!)

What should be troubling is the number of people who are arming up. Many expect disorder after the election regardless of who wins...refer to JSDude's thread. There are loud whispers, even on this forum (I think NN mentioned it first in the Obama tax thread), about a 2nd civil war. The sheer number of first timers who are buying guns has me worried. They have no experience, training, etc. For you non-gunners, think of giving a 16 y/o with no experience a 1000cc and no gear.


To this day, Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than all my guns combined.

[VFR]

I heard someone say "Why can't we have bombs and missiles and things like that"

Here is your answer why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

All terrorist do not live in Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Afganistan....Some are just doors down from you. Now give them their rights to said above items.

[puckstr]

I heard someone say "Why can't we have bombs and missiles and things like that"

Here is your answer why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

All terrorist do not live in Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Afganistan....Some are just doors down from you. Now give them their rights to said above items.

I prefer a bulldozer
http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4126256.html

Point is there are ways to destroy and kill when a person is motivated and LAWS will NEVER stop the ones that are hell-bent on destruction.

[TFOGGuys]

1689, Bill of Rights passed by the Parliament of England:

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"

Dirk

Well, that at least gives them the right to persecute and disenfranchise the Catholics, Jews, and Muslims.....

[VFR]

I prefer a bulldozer
http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4126256.html

Point is there are ways to destroy and kill when a person is motivated and LAWS will NEVER stop the ones that are hell-bent on destruction.

Agreed but that doesn't mean we should make them easier to get, and legal on top of that to have.

Replace all the legal to own fertilizer with legal to own C-4. I believe the damage would have been much more extensive

[VFR]

I believe what David is trying to say is: If your a gun owner your chances of keeping things the same are with McCain

If guns aren't your thing then he's not addressing you. I just toned in because I saw the make C-4 and military based weapons available to everyone and thought that was the most retarded thing I have heard in awhile.

"Hey my dad has some C-4 and a det cord in the garage, want to see it?"

[Sortarican]

All terrorist do not live in Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Afganistan....DavidofDenver is just doors down from you....

^^^^Fixed it for you. :lol:


1689, "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"

Fook the Protestants!
(Sorry, you got my Irish up.)

Hell, they outlawed bagpipes for the love of God!


They have signs posted that state to the effect "all firearms transfers on this property, including the parking lot must go through a background check".....

Mad me laugh the first time I saw that they actually state no sneaking off the the parking lot to make a deal.

The only real loopholes that I've heard of relate to that in some states with 3 day waiting periods on handguns the gunshows are exempt.
The shows don't typically run long enough to allow an out of town seller or buyer to do any business Sat./Sun. if they're leaving on Mon.
And also if a firearm is considered to be an antique (historic) collectible I think many states allow direct sales.
'Cause really, who's gonna try to rob a 7-11 with a 1680's blunderbust?
(Well, besides David of Denver.)

[TFOGGuys]

Fook the Protestants!
(Sorry, you got my Irish up.)

Hell, they outlawed bagpipes for the protection of everyone's hearing!



Mad me laugh the first time I saw that they actually state no sneaking off the the parking lot to make a deal.

The only real loopholes that I've heard of relate to that in some states with 3 day waiting periods on handguns the gunshows are exempt.
The shows don't typically run long enough to allow an out of town seller or buyer to do any business Sat./Sun. if they're leaving on Mon.
And also if a firearm is considered to be an antique (historic) collectible I think many states allow direct sales.
'Cause really, who's gonna try to rob a 7-11 with a 1680's blunderbust?
(Well, besides David of Denver.)

Federal law governs sales of Relics and Curios as well. That Trapdoor Springfield is not likely to be used in a robbery.....

[Sortarican]

Federal law governs sales of Relics and Curios as well. That Trapdoor Springfield is not likely to be used in a robbery.....


I don't know.
If I wanted to mug a buffalo I think it'd be my weapon of choice.:lol:

But I'm pretty sure that even reproductions of historic/antique/curioi/relic firearms are not regulated to the same level as other firearms.
Hence why you can get blackpowder firearms mailorder without a background check.

[TFOGGuys]

I don't know.
If I wanted to seduce a buffalo I think it'd be my weapon of choice.:lol:
Fixed :shocked:

[Sortarican]

I don't know.
If I wanted to seduce a buffalo I think sex panther cologne would be my weapon of choice.


Fixed :shocked:
:lol:
Fixed your fix.

[DavidofColorado]

David, you're not reading carefully.

If Joe, "The Private Seller" wanted to go to a gun show to sell his guns, he can do that legally. He can also sell to whomever he wants at a gun show. The loophole is when John, "The Criminal", goes to that same gun show to get a gun and he finds Joe "The Private Seller". Joe, "The Private Seller" does not have to (legally) put John, "The Criminal", through a background check. What some people like the Police Chiefs are trying to do is close that loophole so that even private sellers will be required to put potential purchasers of their guns through a background check if they sell at gun shows.

I know all about the gun laws. I read gun laws for fun and horror. In Colorado every firearm for sale at a gunshow or initiated there has to go thru a proper background check thru a licensed FFL dealer. The law states 3 or more people getting together to buy or sell a gun is a gun show! They charge a small fee to run your check for you, you fill out the form 4470 that is 3 forms except the last page which ironicly talks about the reduction of paperwork act. They run your name and tell the voice over the phone what kind of gun you are buying and the serial number (which doesn't make sense since they aren't suppose to keep those records past 24 hours anyway unless they are making a backdoor registration) the computers around the world start clicking away those real to real computers start spinning, morse code is sent to spy's in the middle east and a computer calls your grandma to ask if you have been a good boy... or whatever they do? They they come back and you either get a check mark next to your name that says you have been approved to practice your constitutional rights or they get a denied signal and you are blocked from exerciseing your rights. The gun dealer pulls your gun away in case you grab and run and writes a series of numbers on another form tell you if you want to practice your rights you have to prove your inocense by mailing off this form. Which also means you have to get a lawyer drive all over town 3 times stand in endless lines pay a nickle for every form they print out and take it to court. And that gun that you wanted when you were 21 you may get when you are 27 instead. Why? The buerocratic nature of the beast and the gun regulations that have been put in for your safety have made it this way. While criminals would have just stolen a gun long before then. Which makes up a larger percentage of blackmarket guns then gunshows. People are made to wait 6 years to frustrate you until you are to old and feble to remember what you wanted to get a gun for self defense in the first place. OK rant over.
Yeah a private sale between people is outside of the Federal powers to regulate interstate comerce. It is upto an individalal state to regulate that but the gun grabbers think that is just to much work to go State by State to regulate private sales they said things like what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. They want to cover the whole country in one big gun regulation that will never get removed. And its a great way to get a backdoor registration in case they want a voluntary turn in program. But that could never happen here, I am just being paranoid, that has never happened anywhere else. Right?

And people selling guns to each other with in the law doesn't scare me one bit. I on occation buy a gun or 2 that way and I save a butt load of money doing it that way. When you don't have alot of money but an expensive gun habbit it makes sense to do it that way. Information is power.

[TFOGGuys]

http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/Sex_Panther/sex_panther__5_.jpg

[puckstr]

60% of the time it works every time

[TFOGGuys]

take directly from Handgun Control Inc.'s website:

News Release
Jim And Sarah Brady, Brady Campaign
Endorse Barack Obama And Joe Biden
For Immediate Release:
10-13-2008

Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/images/bca-logo.gif
Washington, D.C. - Sarah and Jim Brady and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence with its network of Million Mom March Chapters endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President and Senator Joseph Biden for Vice President today, and urged Americans to vote for them.

Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign, issued the following statement on behalf of the organization and the Bradys:

"Senators Barack Obama and Joseph Biden know that we make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons in this country. They know that our weak gun laws have too many loopholes, which lead to over 30,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries from guns every year.

"Senators Obama and Biden know that we can reduce those deaths and injuries from guns by strengthening our Brady background check system, getting military-style assault weapons off our streets, and giving law enforcement more tools to stop the trafficking of illegal guns.

"Fortunately, the candidates most favored by the gun lobby were rejected by the voters during the primaries. The gun lobby has lambasted Senator John McCain for being a leader on gun violence prevention issues in the past. In 2000 and 2001, he introduced legislation, gave floor speeches, and appeared in television ads to close the gun show loophole. In 2004, he gave floor speeches supporting access to crime gun trace data, requiring gun dealer inventories, and retaining background check records. Back then, Senator McCain was a "maverick", willing to take on the gun lobby.

"But now, Senator McCain has stopped talking about these issues and, instead, has pandered to the gun lobby whose opinions he once disdained. His erratic approach to gun violence prevention leads to our concern about whether a President McCain would remember and follow the leadership shown by Senator McCain in 2000 and 2004 and take steps to help reduce gun violence.

"The difference between the two tickets is clearest with regard to assault weapons. Senator Obama made his position clear in his acceptance speech in Denver when he said "the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals." And Senator Biden helped get a ban on assault weapons passed in 1994 and fought for its renewal in 2004.

"Senator McCain, however, opposed the assault weapon ban in 1994 and voted against its renewal in 2004. McCain's running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, told ABC's Charles Gibson that she also opposed a ban on assault weapons, saying that they were part of her "culture".

"The Obama-Biden ticket understands that the rights of law-abiding gun owners can co-exist with the reasonable restrictions which the U.S. Supreme Court recognized as "presumptively lawful" in its recent Second Amendment decision finding a general gun ban unconstitutional. As Justice Scalia stated, there is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purposes." Senator McCain once understood this concept but that "straight talk" is now silent.

"The Obama-Biden ticket will work with law enforcement, gun violence victims, and ordinary citizens who want to do more to protect themselves, their families, and their communities by making it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons.

"Along with Sarah and Jim, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters strongly endorses the Obama-Biden ticket and encourages our supporters to vote for them on November 4, 2008."

[VFR]

TFO....

All this shows is when in need (also known as lobbiest dollars) anyone is willing to change their views on a matter. It says Mr. McCain once preached everything against guns now he is for them. What (if not the dollars) brought about this change?

Also, this doesn't make McCain look all that good it's more for Obama because anyone who has lost someone to gun violence and reads this might make it a reason to vote against McCain. It seems all issues can go both ways

[DavidofColorado]

take directly from Handgun Control Inc.'s website:

News Release
Jim And Sarah Brady, Brady Campaign
Endorse Barack Obama And Joe Biden
For Immediate Release:
10-13-2008

Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/images/bca-logo.gif
Washington, D.C. - Sarah and Jim Brady and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence with its network of Million Mom March Chapters endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President and Senator Joseph Biden for Vice President today, and urged Americans to vote for them.

Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign, issued the following statement on behalf of the organization and the Bradys:

"Senators Barack Obama and Joseph Biden know that we make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons in this country. They know that our weak gun laws have too many loopholes, which lead to over 30,000 deaths and 70,000 injuries from guns every year.

"Senators Obama and Biden know that we can reduce those deaths and injuries from guns by strengthening our Brady background check system, getting military-style assault weapons off our streets, and giving law enforcement more tools to stop the trafficking of illegal guns.

"Fortunately, the candidates most favored by the gun lobby were rejected by the voters during the primaries. The gun lobby has lambasted Senator John McCain for being a leader on gun violence prevention issues in the past. In 2000 and 2001, he introduced legislation, gave floor speeches, and appeared in television ads to close the gun show loophole. In 2004, he gave floor speeches supporting access to crime gun trace data, requiring gun dealer inventories, and retaining background check records. Back then, Senator McCain was a "maverick", willing to take on the gun lobby.

"But now, Senator McCain has stopped talking about these issues and, instead, has pandered to the gun lobby whose opinions he once disdained. His erratic approach to gun violence prevention leads to our concern about whether a President McCain would remember and follow the leadership shown by Senator McCain in 2000 and 2004 and take steps to help reduce gun violence.

"The difference between the two tickets is clearest with regard to assault weapons. Senator Obama made his position clear in his acceptance speech in Denver when he said "the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals." And Senator Biden helped get a ban on assault weapons passed in 1994 and fought for its renewal in 2004.

"Senator McCain, however, opposed the assault weapon ban in 1994 and voted against its renewal in 2004. McCain's running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, told ABC's Charles Gibson that she also opposed a ban on assault weapons, saying that they were part of her "culture".

"The Obama-Biden ticket understands that the rights of law-abiding gun owners can co-exist with the reasonable restrictions which the U.S. Supreme Court recognized as "presumptively lawful" in its recent Second Amendment decision finding a general gun ban unconstitutional. As Justice Scalia stated, there is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purposes." Senator McCain once understood this concept but that "straight talk" is now silent.

"The Obama-Biden ticket will work with law enforcement, gun violence victims, and ordinary citizens who want to do more to protect themselves, their families, and their communities by making it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons.

"Along with Sarah and Jim, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters strongly endorses the Obama-Biden ticket and encourages our supporters to vote for them on November 4, 2008."

Loosely worded that sounds like they won't stop until every gun owner is made to pay for the crimes of a criminal misusing a gun. I would have never thought that McCain was to warm and fuzzy for the Brady Bunch.:shocked:
This article is well written and very persuasive. Even better than Sortoricans spin on his happy reeducation camps for adults. But I think they are missing their calling they should be scarying children with fiction like this. Oh wait they did with their online video game about finding a gun. I failed that game so many times because the gun was the only thing in the room worth playing with. All I wanted to do was clean it for the owner... since I was rifleing thru his room any way I figured I might as well do him a solid!

[DavidofColorado]

TFO....

All this shows is when in need (also known as lobbiest dollars) anyone is willing to change their views on a matter. It says Mr. McCain once preached everything against guns now he is for them. What (if not the dollars) brought about this change?

Also, this doesn't make McCain look all that good it's more for Obama because anyone who has lost someone to gun violence and reads this might make it a reason to vote against McCain. It seems all issues can go both ways

Anyone that has lost someone to a gun is blaming the wrong thing. I personally would rather blame the motherfucker that did it instead on and inanimate object like a gun or his shoes. But like Archie Bunker once said when asked how he feels about all the people killed with guns? He said "Would it make you feel better little girl if they were pushed out a window?"

[TFOGGuys]

I never said Mc was a good choice, nor will I say that Sen. Obama is the worst choice. In a perfect world, the candidates would offer us a choice between good, better, and best, instead of bad, worse, and worst. I will make my choices based on a number of issues, including this one, because it is at the root of our ability to control our "representatives". On average, the Dems are more inclined to be anti-gun, pro government then the Reps, alothough there are exceptions on both sides of the aisle.

[VFR]

Anyone that has lost someone to a gun is blaming the wrong thing. I personally would rather blame the motherfucker that did it instead on and inanimate object like a gun or his shoes. But like Archie Bunker once said when asked how he feels about all the people killed with guns? He said "Would it make you feel better little girl if they were pushed out a window?"

Right.....

But think of that mother, father, brother, etc that it happened to. All they think is if they wouldn't have had that gun they might still be here. What your saying is totally right cause it could have easily have been a knife or bat (knife/bat control, anyone? anyone?) but we live in a world where not only who killed them but how they was killed comes into play.

In the military you shoot a civilian (BIG NEWS), drop a bomb on them collateral damage.

[dirkterrell]

Senator Obama made his position clear in his acceptance speech in Denver when he said "the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals." And Senator Biden helped get a ban on assault weapons passed in 1994 and fought for its renewal in 2004.


I've always been baffled by the response of people on the "ban guns" side to crimes committed with a gun. If someone intentionally plows down people in a market with a car, they say the guy is a criminal and should be punished. If someone stabs someone with a knife, same response. If someone bashes someone else's head in with a brick, same response. But all of a sudden when it's done with a gun, it's "we need to ban guns." You never hear people yelling about banning cars, knives, bricks, baseball bats, etc. The problem is not guns. It's not "assault weapons." The problem is criminals and the problem is exacerbated when you disarm the law-abiding citizens.

Dirk

[VFR]

I never said Mc was a good choice, nor will I say that Sen. Obama is the worst choice. In a perfect world, the candidates would offer us a choice between good, better, and best, instead of bad, worse, and worst. I will make my choices based on a number of issues, including this one, because it is at the root of our ability to control our "representatives". On average, the Dems are more inclined to be anti-gun, pro government then the Reps, alothough there are exceptions on both sides of the aisle.


And I never said you saide he was a bad/good choice....lol

I was just stating that your post could be looked at in both directions.

[puckstr]

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
--Thomas Jefferson

[TFOGGuys]

I've always been baffled by the response of people on the "ban guns" side to crimes committed with a gun. If someone intentionally plows down people in a market with a car, they say the guy is a criminal and should be punished. If someone stabs someone with a knife, same response. If someone bashes someone else's head in with a brick, same response. But all of a sudden when it's done with a gun, it's "we need to ban guns." You never hear people yelling about banning cars, knives, bricks, baseball bats, etc. The problem is not guns. It's not "assault weapons." The problem is criminals and the problem is exacerbated when you disarm the law-abiding citizens.

Dirk

Right. About 50,000 people are killed in auto accidents every year, with hundreds of thousands more injured, so why not ban cars? How many people every year could we save from drowning if we banned water (except for "reasonably regulated 3 ounce bottles')? And hundreds of thousands are killed by medical mistakes, so let's ban the practice of medicine!

Prohibition worked perfectly for alcohol, right?

I feel better now.

/rant

[Rhino]

Right.....

But think of that mother, father, brother, etc that it happened to. All they think is if they wouldn't have had that gun they might still be here.


Guess there's a reason you skipped Daughter?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&p%20r=goog-sl

[VFR]

Guess there's a reason you skipped Daughter?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&p%20r=goog-sl

See Etc !!!!!

But for those that can't put 2 and 2 together........daughter, grandma, grandpa, cousin, foster parent, play cousin, family pet, cousin twice removed, uncle, aunt, craig and em, bobby, whitney, uncle fester, malibu barbie, jethro, uncle luke, sister soldier, pappa smurf, lady, the tramp, snow white, the seven dwarfs (can be named on request), queen latifah, king arthur, queen of the stone age, Prince Albert, any of the Keebler elves, or just use ETC.....

[TFOGGuys]

See Etc !!!!!

any of the Keebler elves.....


I hate fuckin elves :sniper:

[DavidofColorado]

Fact check by CNN on one of the NRA commercials:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/23/fact-check-does-obama-want-to-ban-guns-and-rifles/
That whole article was malarky. Biden is maybe a gun owner but since he co authered the original (and failed) Clinton Gun Ban I think he wants to be the only one. But the article was fact checked by the same people that did an story about how assault weapons make bigger holes than non assault weapons. Even though they shoot the same ammo. WTF?


Is Obama pro-gun? No.
But he's not going to break into Dave's basement and steal his bb guns if you vote for him? No. He won't do it because an out right ban isn't in the cards for him. An erosion is though.


I've been a member of the NRA and I like the fact that they work to defend 2nd amendment rights.
But they get pretty extreme in their advacacy to say the least.
I like their firearm education and support of the various shooting sports, but the political side is a lobbying organization the same as any other.I fear the Greeks even though they bring gifts. I pro gun usually ends with something very different.


Like most things the truth is usually somewhere between the two sides arguements.

I love firearms, ever since my first .22 all the way up to my latest restoration project 1894 and several M1 Garand rebuilds.
But let's face it, education, sensible limits (no guns on planes, in schools, in courts), and outright restriction of access by some people
(violent felons, juveniles, and the mentally impair (yes I mean you Dave:lol:), are neccessary. It always ends with my guns getting taken.




Under the ban I was able to buy both pre and post ban AR15's.
(Though I think you're right that the BMG and the import of a lot of AK's were restricted.)
Please clarify your example.
Before the ban they didn't know shit about guns. So they opened up a gun magazine and abitraraly picked scary looking guns and added their names to a list of guns to ban. They listed them not by how they shoot but by how they looked. (e.g. Baynet lug, flash hider {or even the threads to mount a flash hider} pistol grip, folding or telescoping stocks) all of these features were cosmetic and didn't change how the gun shoots which was still one round per trigger pull (not automatic). So all of these guns were listed as bad and only the good police could have them (military use real machine guns so it wouldn't even apply to them) every one that was made before the ban was artificially jacked up in price because you could have these features and the guns made after the ban to be legal couldn't have the offending features. But that all went away when the ban expired and it wasn't renewed because it was a total failure. They aren't as stupid as I am and letting it die. They learned their lesson and have added a whole new list of things that were legal before the ban just to chip away at it and in turn make most every semiauto rifle illegal. John Kerry voted for the new ban and then received a gun as a present for a photo op and it was a gun that would have been banned under the new law. He didn't go on a shooting spree with it and he didn't run away when he saw it. He did make a huge mistake in doing it.


LOL,
Just wondering Dave. Did you actually type that with a striaght face?
Seriously, major kettle/pot action there man.
No way I never am serious when I find a sensational sack of lies. I am just so happy to find one of my own<---- joke.



Apples and Oranges BK.
[white font use your imagination-->]Those countries never had gun rights written in as a cornerstone of their civilain right like the US does.
And I've found the stories of people being dragged off in the middle of the night or their olympic teams having to go to another country to practice because they can't use guns in their home country are usually urban legends.
Its true. England's own has to go to France to shoot a gun.

[white font use your imagination-->]Its not a privilege to be granted or taken away by some POS politician trying to make a name for themselves. Its a human right to self defense.

And if you don't think that people get drug off in the night because the criminals are more afraid of a cop than a unarmed little old lady you should go to one of the country's that banned guns like Africa. Its so popular in county's where human life is considered not precious but a renewable resource like China (Go Communizm) that its state funded.
Have you heard anything from that guy that stood in front of the peaceful truth tanks in Tenimon Square?

[VFR]

I hate fuckin elves :sniper:

You sir, are racial profiling.

[puckstr]

Have you heard anything from that guy that stood in front of the peaceful truth tanks in Tenimon Square?


He made quite an impression

[Sortarican]

..... Even better than Sortoricans spin on his happy reeducation camps for adults...

Oh don't you worry Dave, just for you I'll make sure it won't be happy.


.... But like Archie Bunker once said.....

Dude, you realize that Archie Bunker's character was written specifically to parody the most
bigoted, closed minded, ignorant examples of American society, right?

At least quote Thomas Jefferson, Hell even George Jefferson, if you're trying to get your point across.

[DavidofColorado]

I never said Mc was a good choice, nor will I say that Sen. Obama is the worst choice. In a perfect world, the candidates would offer us a choice between good, better, and best, instead of bad, worse, and worst. I will make my choices based on a number of issues, including this one, because it is at the root of our ability to control our "representatives". On average, the Dems are more inclined to be anti-gun, pro government then the Reps, alothough there are exceptions on both sides of the aisle.
+1 truer words have never been spoken. Now I got reply to that even classier post that shows how bad of a writer I am.

[TFOGGuys]

You sir, are racial profiling.
...and the French!

[DavidofColorado]

Oh don't you worry Dave, just for you I'll make sure it won't be happy.



Dude, you realize that Archie Bunker's character was written specifically to parody the most
bigoted, closed minded, ignorant examples of American society, right?

At least quote Thomas Jefferson, Hell even George Jefferson, if you're trying to get your point across.
I'm already unhappy. A friend borrowed my MC battery charger and its been so long that he forgot that it was mine and said I could borrow it back.

Archie Bunker, while bigoted did let the occasional nugget of truth out. But there is that viable absolute again. Life is a gray area even Barry Obama has some good points. He can read a teleprompter!! See you try it. Say something nice?

[VFR]

...and the French!

pfffft.....Who doesn't

No red flag material there


lol

[TFOGGuys]

http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine/bester/250/images/bullbugs800.jpg

[DavidofColorado]

They have signs posted that state to the effect "all firearms transfers on this property, including the parking lot must go through a background check". It can quickly be pointed out that the Wendy's across the street does not fall under that jurisdiction. A further problem is that, for example Columbine, at least one of the guns was made by the girlfriend of one of them. A "straw" purchase. Even if they did the background check on the girl, at the end of the day, the gun was in the bad guys' hands.

To say that Democrats want to take our guns serves only to immediately polarize this topic. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6257...Lots of R's there, huh? I'm not sure if the mods would allow "Shit Sucking Politicians are trying to ban guns" as a thread title though. David: We (gun owners) know... People like Zeta who only have the "Fudd" guns won't care. ...and you're scaring the Cathy's with your... enthusiasm?

To say this is "fear mongering", that too can be said of the first ban. It was titled as a "Crime Bill", even though most law enforcement were the ones quick to point out that so called "assault weapons" were a very minimal fraction of gun crimes. The politicians who fight so hard for it had very little idea of what they are talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
There have only been 2 crimes commited with "legal" fully automatics, and one was a cop. The bank shootout in Kali a few years back were illegally converted guns used by CRIMINALS.

For those who don't follow the issues, certain politicians have seemingly made it their goal to make it difficult to have the 2nd mean anything. They usually have a "D" by their name. For example: Hillary Clinton, Barak O, and Ted kennedy sat on the oversight committe for OSHA. Last year, they tried to push a new policy, declaring ammunition as "explosives" and pushing for extremely stringent limits on how retailers could store it. I.e. if there is a lightning storm within 10 miles, the store must be shut down. Do you think Walmart would continue to carry ammo? It was viewed as a very sneaky attempt at a backdoor ban of guns, by making it extremely hard to acquire ammunition. As BK pointed out, the NRA and other groups got the word out and OSHA delayed the ruling until it got more feedback.

One only needs to look to Obama's home turf to see the effects of "gun control". He was the one who pointed out that more people (Americans) died in Chicago than Iraq this year. Do you honestly believe it was a bunch of law abiding gun owners running around killing each other? The problem is the people. You can show a direct connection between active gun control against law abiding citizens and an increase in gun crimes by criminals in places like Chicago, D.C., etc.

As BK pointed out, you can still get full auto, etc. It has just become cost prohibitive with the laws. The very popular AR-15 can be had for $700+ A full auto M-16 is around $15k+, with only minor internal part differences. The cost increase is the artificial rarity of them due to the law. Check out Knob Creek on Youtube to see those who still "pay to play". You can still get a great many things, as long as you are willing to pay the "tax". Including a 20mm for less than a new R1, http://www.anzioironworks.com/20MM-TAKE-DOWN-RIFLE.htm (and you thought a .50 cal was badass!)

What should be troubling is the number of people who are arming up. Many expect disorder after the election regardless of who wins...refer to JSDude's thread. There are loud whispers, even on this forum (I think NN mentioned it first in the Obama tax thread), about a 2nd civil war. The sheer number of first timers who are buying guns has me worried. They have no experience, training, etc. For you non-gunners, think of giving a 16 y/o with no experience a 1000cc and no gear.


To this day, Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than all my guns combined.

Very thoughtful and well written. You stated your facts and argument in an elegant and straight forward manner without insults or hyperbole. Thanks.

No joke or snap at the end like I usually do. Good work.:applause::up:

[DavidofColorado]

pfffft.....Who doesn't

No red flag material there


lol
If we are talking about the French wouldn't that be white flag material?

[VFR]

If we are talking about the French wouldn't that be white flag material?

LMFAO...

to shay sir, to shay

[puckstr]

At least quote Thomas Jefferson, Hell even George Jefferson, if you're trying to get your point across.


Here ya go Jeff.. Some Thomas J and some not




"You cannot invade the mainland United
States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto



Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.
-Benjamin Franklin


“The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting, and I know I’m not going to make very many friends saying this, but it’s about our right, all of our right to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there.”
Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, appearing before Representative Charles Schumer’s committee hearings on the assault weapons ban



“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison


“The fundamental force behind the Second Amendment is to empower the people and give them the greatest measure of authority over the tyranny of runaway government.”
U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer, 2002


"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
Jesus, Luke 22:36 :)


“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
Thomas Jefferson, 1787



"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."


Thomas Jefferson


"Gun control has cleared the way for seven major genocides since 1915, in which governments gone bad murdered 56,000,000 persons, including millions of children."
-Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership


"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."
-- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
--Thomas Jefferson

:shocked:"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
--George Washington:shocked:


"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."
-- Mohandas Gandhi, An Autobiography, pg 446


"These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, that a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to Liberty than street criminals or foreign spies."
-Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor



Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave. - Andrew Fletcher 1698

[TFOGGuys]

:applause:

[puckstr]

This one I really like

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny;
when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
--Thomas Jefferson

[Mental]

And if you don't think that people get drug off in the night because the criminals are more afraid of a cop than a unarmed little old lady you should go to one of the country's that banned guns like Africa. Its so popular in county's where human life is considered not precious but a renewable resource like China (Go Communizm) that its state funded.
Have you heard anything from that guy that stood in front of the peaceful truth tanks in Tenimon Square?

I was in Africa, first its a contenient, not a country. Secondly, if they have banned guns where I was, they suck at it, becuase everyone has one and its like the wild wild west. Thats a lame aurgument. Its not the presense or absense of guns, its a social norm that human life has less value in parts of the world and certianly parts of that continent.

[DavidofColorado]

I was in Africa, first its a contenient, not a country. Secondly, if they have banned guns where I was, they suck at it, becuase everyone has one and its like the wild wild west. Thats a lame aurgument. Its not the presense or absense of guns, its a social norm that human life has less value in parts of the world and certianly parts of that continent.
I couldn't think of the country in that continent that I was thinking of so I just said Africa. My bad. But in that movie Lord of War they tried to show that genocide happens when the bad Diamond toting guys have guns they can kill a camp of unarmed people. But I would like to see them try and kill them so easily if there was one person there with a gun, trained and willing to use it in defense of themselves would those killers be so brasin? I think they would get their undisciplined asses shot off.
" if they have banned guns where I was, they suck at it," That part made me laugh.

[Snowman]

So what I’m reading here is that the conservative consensus is…

“The government will not interfere with the right of any citizen to purchase any gun at any time from any one?”

So a 14-year-old gang member just out of juvie can walk into a gun show and purchase fully automatic weapon by law without any questions asked even from the person he is buying the guns from? That can’t be what you guys are advocating?

When you check an ID for age, that can be considered gun regulation.
When you check for a criminal record, that can be considered gun regulation.
When you check for basic knowledge so that the kid doesn’t load the gun and accidentally blow the person next to him foot off, that can be considered gun regulation.

No matter what, there has to be rules in place in order to purchase weapons just for the simple safety of the two people involved in purchasing them if nothing else.

So we (left-winger tree huger types) are would like to ask you (right-winger gun owner types) What are the acceptable limits for the purchase of a gun?

[DavidofColorado]

So what I’m reading here is that the conservative consensus is…

“The government will not interfere with the right of any citizen to purchase any gun at any time from any one?”

So a 14-year-old gang member just out of juvie can walk into a gun show and purchase fully automatic weapon by law without any questions asked even from the person he is buying the guns from? That can’t be what you guys are advocating?

When you check an ID for age, that can be considered gun regulation.
When you check for a criminal record, that can be considered gun regulation.
When you check for basic knowledge so that the kid doesn’t load the gun and accidentally blow the person next to him foot off, that can be considered gun regulation.

No matter what, there has to be rules in place in order to purchase weapons just for the simple safety of the two people involved in purchasing them if nothing else.

So we (left-winger tree huger types) are would like to ask you (right-winger gun owner types) What are the acceptable limits for the purchase of a gun?
I would say that education is the only true deterrent to a gun accident. But I would not what new regs we could put against a constitutional right... but what regs that are out now have worked and which ones need to be removed. That might help us get somewhere were everyone can look at the fine print and be happy they are doing something progressive.

All that patriotic stuff must have been hard for some to read so I brought a blanket for you.
http://www.carryabigsticker.com/

[TFOGGuys]

Reasonable regulations:

18 year minimum age

No felony record or finding of incompetence

No crimes of violence in the last 5 years

Must prove legal status in the US

Beyond that, the seller has discretion to refuse to sell to anyone for any reason.

[Devaclis]

If you are legally able to vote and serve our country in a military capacity, you should be GIVEN a gun. It should be your right to refuse it.

[Sortarican]

If you are legally able to vote and serve our country in a military capacity, you should be GIVEN a gun. It should be your right to refuse it.

Speaking with several acquantances from (mainly northern and eastern) European countries it is kinda like that.
But they also have manditory military service (most with civilian service options available) and THEN they keep a military grade assualt weapon in the closet in case of invasion.


One of my favs (for Vance and Randall):
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." V for Vendetta

[DavidofColorado]

I think that we have made some headway here!!

[DanFZ1]

No denial Black Knight. I have this thing going with someone named DanFZ1 on another thread.

How do I add the quote into my post?

You click the quote button honey bunny.:)

[Snowman]

Reasonable regulations:

18 year minimum age

No felony record or finding of incompetence

No crimes of violence in the last 5 years

Must prove legal status in the US

Beyond that, the seller has discretion to refuse to sell to anyone for any reason.How do you intend on verifiying this information?

I mean from face value this gentleman fits your requirements.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20081027/capt.ca22899002de46eba48c72e1f0724755.skinhead_plo t_ny118.jpg (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Daniel-Democratic-presidential-candidate-MySpace-court-records/photo//081027/480/ca22899002de46eba48c72e1f0724755//s:/ap/20081027/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot;_ylt=AvYDPVSI.vrGP2sdBwMCHUhh24cA)

Are you sure you would you not have any misgivings about selling weapons to this individual with only the qualifiers you have listed above?

[TFOGGuys]

How do you intend on verifiying this information?

I mean from face value this gentleman fits your requirements.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20081027/capt.ca22899002de46eba48c72e1f0724755.skinhead_plo t_ny118.jpg (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Daniel-Democratic-presidential-candidate-MySpace-court-records/photo//081027/480/ca22899002de46eba48c72e1f0724755//s:/ap/20081027/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot;_ylt=AvYDPVSI.vrGP2sdBwMCHUhh24cA)

Are you sure you would you not have any misgivings about selling weapons to this individual with only the qualifiers you have listed above?


I'd qualify that under "seller's discretion". I personally wouldn't sell this individual a firearm. Probably wouldn't cross the street to piss on him if he were on fire. Not expecting a chanukah card from him, either.

Verifying legal status should be easy: Show a government issued Driver's License from any state. No driver's licenses issued without verifiable proof of legal residency(certified birth certificate, naturalization paperwork, US Passport, Resident alien card, etc.).

[DavidofColorado]

How do you intend on verifiying this information?

I mean from face value this gentleman fits your requirements.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20081027/capt.ca22899002de46eba48c72e1f0724755.skinhead_plo t_ny118.jpg (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Daniel-Democratic-presidential-candidate-MySpace-court-records/photo//081027/480/ca22899002de46eba48c72e1f0724755//s:/ap/20081027/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot;_ylt=AvYDPVSI.vrGP2sdBwMCHUhh24cA)

Are you sure you would you not have any misgivings about selling weapons to this individual with only the qualifiers you have listed above?

If he is saying something like "That bitch! I'm going to get her good now." I might not. But from the looks of it he already has a gun. I beat up a guy that looked like that on my B-day once.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

How do you intend on verifiying this information?

I mean from face value this gentleman fits your requirements.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20081027/capt.ca22899002de46eba48c72e1f0724755.skinhead_plo t_ny118.jpg (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Daniel-Democratic-presidential-candidate-MySpace-court-records/photo//081027/480/ca22899002de46eba48c72e1f0724755//s:/ap/20081027/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot;_ylt=AvYDPVSI.vrGP2sdBwMCHUhh24cA)

Are you sure you would you not have any misgivings about selling weapons to this individual with only the qualifiers you have listed above?
What's wrong with this guy? Would you rather sell to a black or mexican gang-banger with gang-tats? would that make it ok? It all comes down to seller's discretion. I wouldn't sell to ANYONE who told me he was going to USE the gun to kill anyone, but who am I (or YOU, or anyone else) to say one tattoo means someone is any more predisposed to violence than another?

[Snowman]

Here is what he was planing on doing with his guns. Assassination plot targeting Obama disrupted (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081027/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot)

Yes, he has this gun and was planning on stealing more by knocking over a gun shop. However with your criteria he wouldn’t have had to. He could walk in and just purchase them, if not from you, then someone else.

No matter what regulations you impose someone like this will always be able to get their hands on weapons they need to do the things they are planning. The more regulations and checks you have prevents more actions like these.

However if you outlaw all guns you will have the same effect as prohibition did on alcohol. Only the criminals will have guns.

Relaxing the existing rules increases the chance of his success, and too much would do the same.

So this is where you have to ask yourself, what level of casualties are you comfortable with to find a balance we can all accept.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Here is what he was planing on doing with his guns. Assassination plot targeting Obama disrupted (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081027/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot)

Yes, he has this gun and was planning on stealing more by knocking over a gun shop. However with your criteria he wouldn’t have had to. He could walk in and just purchase them, if not from you, then someone else.

No matter what regulations you impose someone like this will always be able to get their hands on weapons they need to do the things they are planning. The more regulations and checks you have prevents more actions like these.

However if you outlaw all guns you will have the same effect as prohibition did on alcohol. Only the criminals will have guns.

Relaxing the existing rules increases the chance of his success, and too much would do the same.

So this is where you have to ask yourself, what level of casualties are you comfortable with to find a balance we can all accept.
If I KNEW that's what he was going to do with the potential gun sale, I'd turn him in myself. But, I wouldn't discriminate against him simply based on his looks or tattoo.

[Snowman]

If I KNEW that's what he was going to do with the potential gun sale, I'd turn him in myself. But, I wouldn't discriminate against him simply based on his looks or tattoo.
How could you know?
The only way is to have more information about him, right. Which means more regulations than was stated by TFOGGuys.

However at some point you would have too many regulations and this guy would find other ways of getting what he was wanting, knocking over a gun shop in this case.

Ether way and no matter what laws are in place they will always be casualties with guns that this society would have to accept. You will never have 0 casualties.

What level are you comfortable with?

[The Black Knight]

I've been a member of the NRA and I like the fact that they work to defend 2nd amendment rights.
But they get pretty extreme in their advacacy to say the least.
I like their firearm education and support of the various shooting sports, but the political side is a lobbying organization the same as any other.

Like most things the truth is usually somewhere between the two sides arguements.

Under the ban I was able to buy both pre and post ban AR15's.
(Though I think you're right that the BMG and the import of a lot of AK's were restricted.)
Please clarify your example.

Well as far as I know most of the AR15's were restricted in magazine capacity(30 round mags were illegal, I have several M16 mags that say "for law enforcement and military use only") which magazines with those markings are post ban mags.

If I understand correctly as well on AR15's you could buy already manufactured AR's but none were allowed to be manufactured and sold as "NEW" to the public. So yes of course you were bought your AR's under the ban, however they were probably pre-ban weapons already made and o.k'd for sale to the public. But again, it was my understanding and I'll have to go and read it again, that "NEW" AR15's were banned.

As far as BMG's and AK47's those two go without saying. I mean a .50 BMG @15000lbs of muzzel energy. The stats alone would warrant it being banned by the gun grabbers. AK47's(the most durable semi or full auto weapon). Not to mention it is made abroad so the importation of new AK's is what the Weapons Ban was about.

Apples and Oranges BK.
Those countries never had gun rights written in as a cornerstone of their civilain right like the US does.
And I've found the stories of people being dragged off in the middle of the night or their olympic teams having to go to another country to practice because they can't use guns in their home country are usually urban legends.

As Dirk already pointed out, England did way back in the 1600's. It was up until recently they and Austalia banned weapons.

I hope my explanation on the Weapons Ban was clreared up for you. If not I have this:

(Yep I always wanted to use this one you. HAHA) :)

[TFOGGuys]

How could you know?


However at some point you would have too many regulations and this guy would find other ways of getting what he was wanting, knocking over a gun shop in this case.



What level are you comfortable with?

Regulations are only as meaningful as the public respect for them. If this individual (who could be a Zen Monk in disguise, for all I know) is willing to kill or rob someone to obtain his weapon, do you really think that more regulation would stop him? And if he's stupid enough to try to rob a gun shop, then most likely Darwin will take care of the problem. In most gun shops, a large portion of the staff are not only carrying, they are well trained (independent shops).

[Snowman]

Regulations are only as meaningful as the public respect for them. If this individual (who could be a Zen Monk in disguise, for all I know) is willing to kill or rob someone to obtain his weapon, do you really think that more regulation would stop him? And if he's stupid enough to try to rob a gun shop, then most likely Darwin will take care of the problem. In most gun shops, a large portion of the staff are not only carrying, they are well trained (independent shops).
Well in this case you have answered your own question.

The current regulations are significant enough for this individual to believe he couldn’t just purchase what he wanted. And as you said, his plan to knock over a gun shop could have solved our problem with him right there.

My point is if you have too little or too much regulation you will begin to increase the body count. You will always have a body count no matter what, however there is a level of regulations vs rights that will give you the lowest possible number.

[DavidofColorado]

Here is what he was planing on doing with his guns. Assassination plot targeting Obama disrupted (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081027/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot)

Yes, he has this gun and was planning on stealing more by knocking over a gun shop. However with your criteria he wouldn’t have had to. He could walk in and just purchase them, if not from you, then someone else.

No matter what regulations you impose someone like this will always be able to get their hands on weapons they need to do the things they are planning. The more regulations and checks you have prevents more actions like these.

However if you outlaw all guns you will have the same effect as prohibition did on alcohol. Only the criminals will have guns.

Relaxing the existing rules increases the chance of his success, and too much would do the same.

So this is where you have to ask yourself, what level of casualties are you comfortable with to find a balance we can all accept.

Well they seem to be in jail according to the story and they are prevented from knocking over anything but the book cart. The system worked and the thousands of frustrating laws out there to harrass gun owners had nothing to do with stopping them either. I don't follow your point that we should make it harder for law abiding people to get guns because of this guy?

He would have a hell of a time trying to knock over a gun store with that gun. He might get a few shots of but it would jam and he would be shot according.

[MAZIN]

Thats a Fn Fal SAR 48, 308 20rnd mags. Had one and miss it, wont speculate because belguim made one but that looks like the springfield armory model...Its not the israeli model (they have the woof furniture.

[Snowman]

Well they seem to be in jail according to the story and they are prevented from knocking over anything but the book cart. The system worked and the thousands of frustrating laws out there to harrass gun owners had nothing to do with stopping them either. I don't follow your point that we should make it harder for law abiding people to get guns because of this guy?

He would have a hell of a time trying to knock over a gun store with that gun. He might get a few shots of but it would jam and he would be shot according.My point is simple.

The regulations given by TFOGGuys is far less than what we currently have now.

What we currently have in place as you have mentioned, prevented this guy from attaining the guns he wanted legally.

So I make the contention that fewer laws will not make us any safer and the point that too many laws will cause the same issue.

Seems to me applying the same rules for gun shops to gun shows isn’t as bad an idea as people are making it out to be here.

[DavidofColorado]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20081027/capt.ca22899002de46eba48c72e1f0724755.skinhead_plo t_ny118.jpg (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Daniel-Democratic-presidential-candidate-MySpace-court-records/photo//081027/480/ca22899002de46eba48c72e1f0724755//s:/ap/20081027/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot;_ylt=AvYDPVSI.vrGP2sdBwMCHUhh24cA)




I don't think so. I respectfully disagree. Its a Century Arms g3 knock off. Semi auto only 308 with a muzzle brake and a cheap scope. I know I have one.

[MAZIN]

eh I'll give that one too ya (cetme)

[DanFZ1]

I was paying my NRA dues when I was still in High School. After 10 years went by I was sure that pinko commie leftists (a.k.a Democrats) were not endangering the 2nd Amendment. :)

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the NRA's political leadership is total bullshit?

http://www.huntersandshooters.com/index.php

There are other organizations for gun owners yuh know. Yet the NRA would have you believe that nobody but them, can save you now.

Here is a list of the Democrats fighting to take your guns away, along with a list of Republicans fighting to keep them.

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

As a registered Republican who voted for Reagan in 1981 (when I was 18 years old), I am here to tell you that John McCain is a flip flopping closet socialist who will say anything to get elected because he is a desperate (and bitter) little man, and I do not for one minute believe that the Democrats in Congress want to take your guns away.

It is galling to hear Republican voters smear the reputation of men who are Democrats in office who have served this country when so few Republican politicians have ever bothered to join the military.

There are many more freedoms that can be taken from you. Many of which have already begun to disappear during the Bush Administration, but I don't see anybody exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to save us from the tyranny of government. Even the A.I.P. decides to be political about things instead using their gun collections to solve the problem.

Be the change you want to see in the world. ~ Ghandi

ARE YOU LIVING IN THE CONSTITUTION FREE ZONE?
If you really think you should use your gun collection to save Americans from Tyranny, then what are you waiting for? Based on the litmus test provided by all of our founding fathers that you quote, I'd say you fan boys are a little late to the party. :turtle:

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/cfz_map/Image-Map.gif

[DavidofColorado]

My point is simple.

The regulations given by TFOGGuys is far less than what we currently have now.

What we currently have in place as you have mentioned, prevented this guy from attaining the guns he wanted legally.

So I make the contention that fewer laws will not make us any safer and the point that too many laws will cause the same issue.

Seems to me applying the same rules for gun shops to gun shows isn’t as bad an idea as people are making it out to be here.

Would you let the same restrictions be placed on something like abortion or computers? I don't think that guns are the problem and I don't think that making them harder to get is the right path to follow, because when things keep going wrong the crazies out there that make the laws are worse than the crazies misuseing them and they will make the laws worse because of it. But the crazies that make the laws are still crazies because they keep trying to solve a problem by going about it the same old way and hoping for a different result. Crazy neo nazi types will not keep trying to get guns if they can't get them in a store they will find someother way like stealing them if they just don't do that in the first place. :alien:

[DavidofColorado]

I was paying my NRA dues when I was still in High School. After 10 years went by I was sure that pinko commie leftists (a.k.a Democrats) were not endangering the 2nd Amendment. :)

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the NRA's political leadership is total bullshit?

http://www.huntersandshooters.com/index.php

There are other organizations for gun owners yuh know. Yet the NRA would have you believe that nobody but them, can save you now.

Hunters and shooters ass has been discredited as a fake pro gun group ran by the democrats that want all the guns. Don't buy it.

[DanFZ1]

I would say that education is the only true deterrent to a gun accident./ (http://www.carryabigsticker.com/)

Agree.

The only way you can be a responsible gun owner is to be a responsible citizen and that requires one hell of an education. As with anything that is inherently dangerous like guns, aircraft and motorcycles, its the training that makes all the difference. General Aviation has better safety stats. than cagers because getting your license is more involved than just learning how to parallel park. Additionally, if you want to get good at handling a gun, aircraft or a motorcycle (or a woman), Hi Pandora-11, I know your out there, watching, trembling with the anticipation of our first sip of warm Courvassie; then what it takes men (and boys) is practice, practice, practice.

Never be afriad to get your knee down and stick it up the inside. :hump:

[DanFZ1]

Hunters and shooters ass has been discredited as a fake pro gun group ran by the democrats that want all the guns. Don't buy it.

You mean like that leftist rag (sarcasm) the Huffington Post?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-feldman/the-nras-double-standard_b_133136.html

"There is, however, a double standard at play. Let me provide one example: If Barack Obama announced he was bringing Andrew Cuomo, the former Secretary of HUD who fancied himself the point-man of Bill Clinton's "anti-gun crusade" into his administration, the NRA's leadership would come unglued. Yet, when John McCain suggested he'd appoint that same Andrew Cuomo to a senior position in his administration, not a peep!"

Or the folks over at: http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

Or how about the "liberals" *gasp* over at the libertarian Hyer Standard: http://hyerstandard.com/bob-barr-takes-mccain-to-task-over-his-gun-control-flip-flop/

"and that is John McCain is once again reversing on a stance that he subsequently held for the last 10 years. And this folks isn’t the first issue he has done this with, it’s actually part of a list that seemingly grows by the day."

Don't worry Dave, Democrats like to shoot things too.

What I want to know is:

Why is there no 2nd Amendment for motorcycles?

Or women? Women are dangerous. I mean sure, they don't start wars and commit violent crimes but it's what they do to your MIND, man.

Jack Nicholson: Do you think God knew what He was doing when He created woman? Huh? No shit. I really wanna know. Or do you think it was another one of His minor mistakes like tidal waves, earthquakes, FLOODS? You think women are like that? S'matter? You don't think God makes mistakes? Of course He does. We ALL make mistakes. Of course, when WE make mistakes they call it evil. When GOD makes mistakes, they call it... nature. So whaddya think? Women... a mistake... or DID HE DO IT TO US ON PURPOSE? :banghead:

[dirkterrell]

As a registered Republican who voted for Reagan in 1981 (when I was 18 years old), I am here to tell you that John McCain is a flip flopping closet socialist who will say anything to get elected because he is a desperate (and bitter) little man,


And Obama is better?



and I do not for one minute believe that the Democrats in Congress want to take your guns away.


Good for you. I'm not so confident of that myself.



It is galling to hear Republican voters smear the reputation of men who are Democrats in office who have served this country when so few Republican politicians have ever bothered to join the military.


Not sure what that has to do with the discussion at hand but this page has a recently updated list of veterans serving in the House:
http://grunt.space.swri.edu/housevet.htm

I count 54 Republicans and 43 Democrats. One has no affiliation listed. On his list of Senate vets, there are 16 Republicans and 14 Democrats of 30 total.

http://grunt.space.swri.edu/senatevet.htm

Dirk

[Pandora-11]

DANFZ1 says: "What I want to know is:

Why is there no 2nd Amendment for motorcycles?

Or women? Women are dangerous. I mean sure, they don't start wars and commit violent crimes but it's what they do to your MIND, man.

Jack Nicholson: Do you think God knew what He was doing when He created woman? Huh? No shit. I really wanna know. Or do you think it was another one of His minor mistakes like tidal waves, earthquakes, FLOODS? You think women are like that? S'matter? You don't think God makes mistakes? Of course He does. We ALL make mistakes. Of course, when WE make mistakes they call it evil. When GOD makes mistakes, they call it... nature. So whaddya think? Women... a mistake... or DID HE DO IT TO US ON PURPOSE? :banghead:[/quote]


Oh no DanFZ1, sounds like you didn't have a very good day.:( Women on the hot seat with you, huh? Leon Phelps would never be like this. More cognac for you!:drool:

[Pandora-11]

I'm high-jacking the thread again and risk being cussed at by a Canadian or demeaned by a Greek letter guy.

[DanFZ1]

And Obama is better?



Good for you. I'm not so confident of that myself.



Not sure what that has to do with the discussion at hand but this page has a recently updated list of veterans serving in the House:
http://grunt.space.swri.edu/housevet.htm

I count 54 Republicans and 43 Democrats. One has no affiliation listed. On his list of Senate vets, there are 16 Republicans and 14 Democrats of 30 total.

http://grunt.space.swri.edu/senatevet.htm

Dirk

Obama is much better, but that would be a separate thread. Your list of who has served shows that Democrats, as a party, are hawks just as much as Republicans. The military industrial complex knows no left or right. Either your in, or your out. The same goes with gun control. Of course, no law governs the actions of an inanimate object. Gun control laws are really people control laws. I believe that the number of men returning from Iraq who are running for office indicates that this next congress will be no push over when it comes to gun control. I just get tired of hearing the pinko-commie-liberal bullshit label applied to former military men who serve in congress just because they're not down on their knees before the almighty NRA political lobby. :bow:

The 2nd Amendment is doing just fine. It's never been better. I'm a little more concerned with the rest of them. Also a seperate thread.
:siesta:

[DanFZ1]

I'm high-jacking the thread again and risk being cussed at by a Canadian or demeaned by a Greek letter guy.

Here, just do this. After they have written the Canadian version of War and Peace on a Motorcycle Forum, do nothing more than quote them, and then post this emoticon. They love it. :canuck:

[dirkterrell]

Obama is much better, but that would be a separate thread.


I meant specifically in terms of gun rights, which would be quite relevant to this thread.



Your list of who has served shows that Democrats, as a party, are hawks just as much as Republicans.

It also shows that your claim that "so few Republican politicians have ever bothered to join the military." is demonstrably false.

Dirk

[DanFZ1]

DANFZ1 says: "What I want to know is:

Why is there no 2nd Amendment for motorcycles?

Or women? Women are dangerous. I mean sure, they don't start wars and commit violent crimes but it's what they do to your MIND, man.

Jack Nicholson: Do you think God knew what He was doing when He created woman? Huh? No shit. I really wanna know. Or do you think it was another one of His minor mistakes like tidal waves, earthquakes, FLOODS? You think women are like that? S'matter? You don't think God makes mistakes? Of course He does. We ALL make mistakes. Of course, when WE make mistakes they call it evil. When GOD makes mistakes, they call it... nature. So whaddya think? Women... a mistake... or DID HE DO IT TO US ON PURPOSE? :banghead:


Oh no DanFZ1, sounds like you didn't have a very good day.:( Women on the hot seat with you, huh? Leon Phelps would never be like this. More cognac for you!:drool:[/quote]

No baby, I'm good. In fact, right now I'm channeling Barry White:

Girl, all I know
Is every time you’re here
I feel the change
Somethin’ moves
I scream your name
Look what you got me doin’

Darling, I
Can’t get enough of your love, babe
Girl, I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t know why
I can’t get enough of your love, babe, oh, no, babe
:yes:

[DanFZ1]

It also shows that your claim that "so few Republican politicians have ever bothered to join the military." is demonstrably false. Dirk
Prominent Republicans


Representative Patrick McHenry, R-NC - did not serve (http://mchenry.house.gov/Biography/).
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY - did not serve (http://mcconnell.senate.gov/biography.htm) (1 (http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=M000355))
Senate Assistant Minority Leader Trent Lott (http://www.bartcop.com/0305cunn.jpg), R-MI - avoided the draft, did not serve (http://lott.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=About.Biography).
Senate Republican Conference Chairman Jon Kyl, R-AZ - did not serve. (http://kyl.senate.gov/constit_center/about.cfm)
Senate Republican Conference Vice Chair John Cornyn, R-TX - did not serve. (http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=15375)
National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair John Ensign, R-NV - did not serve (http://ensign.senate.gov/about/about_index.htm).
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-OH - did not serve (http://johnboehner.house.gov/bio.asp).
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-MO - did not serve (http://www.blunt.house.gov/About.aspx?Section=5).
House Republican Conerence Chair Adam Putnam, R-FL - did not serve (http://www.adamputnam.house.gov/pages/about.htm).
House Republican Policy Committee Thaddeus McCotter, R-MI - did not serve (http://mccotter.house.gov/HoR/MI11/About+Thaddeus/).
National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Tom Cole, R-OK - did not serve (http://www.house.gov/cole/bio.htm).
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani - did not serve (http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/bio.html).
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney - did not serve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Early_life_and_education) in the military but did serve the Mormon Church on a 30-month mission to France.
Former Senator Fred Thompson - did not serve (http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Fred_Thompson#Military_Service).
Senator John McCain - McCain's naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. SERVED
Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve (http://www.house.gov/hastert/features/bio.htm).
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve (http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=A000217).
Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay (http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/1999-01-07/columns2.html/1/index.html) - avoided the draft, did not serve (http://tomdelay.house.gov/biography.htm) (1 (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/players/delay/)). "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself."
Former House Majority Whip Roy Blunt - did not serve (http://www.blunt.house.gov/about.asp)
Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - did not serve.
Rick Santorum, R-PA, formerly third ranking Republican in the Senate - did not serve. (http://santorum.senate.gov/webbio.html) (1 (http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S000059))
George Felix Allen, former Republican Senator from Virginia - a supporter of Nixon and the Vietnam war, did not serve. (1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Allen_%28politician%29))
Former Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld - served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. (http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html) (1 (http://histclo.hispeed.com/bio/r/ib/bio-rum.html)). SERVED
GW Bush - decided that a six-year Nat'l Guard commitment really means four years (http://www.cis.net/%7Ecoldfeet/grounded.gif). Still says that he's "been to war (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-1476301,00.html)." Huh?
VP Cheney - several deferments (1 (http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2002/poycheney2.html), 2 (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/bush_advisers_cheney.html)), the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service") (1 (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/GOPCVN_profile_cheney.html))
Former Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - did not serve (1 (http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2001/05/18/fp11s3-csm.shtml), 2 (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20011219.shtml)); received seven deferments to teach business ed at SW Missouri State
Jeb Bush, Florida Governor - did not serve (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/FL/G/jeb.bush.html). (1 (http://www.myflorida.com/myflorida/government/learn/jebbush.html)) http://www.awolbush.com/images/werent-soldiers.jpg
Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve (1 (http://stockholm.usembassy.gov/cabbio/rove.html)),
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve (1 (http://www.usembassy-amman.org.jo/wwwhgbio.htm), 2 (http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=36))
Former President Ronald Reagan - due to poor eyesight, served in a noncombat role (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/wwii/rr.htm) making movies for the Army in southern California during WWII.
"B-1" Bob Dornan - avoided Korean War combat duty by enrolling in college acting classes (Orange County Weekly article (http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/97/06/politics-moxley.php)). Enlisted only after the fighting was over in Korea.
Phil Gramm - avoided the draft, did not serve, four (?) student deferments



Congressman Ron Paul - active duty flight surgeon from 1963-65; Air National Guard from 1965-68. (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Military_service_and_medical_career))SERV ED
Former Senator Bob Dole - an honorable man. SERVED http://www.bobdole.org/bio/wwII.php
Chuck Hagel - two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam. SERVED http://www.senate.gov/~hagel/Information/bio.htm (http://www.senate.gov/%7Ehagel/Information/bio.htm)
Duke Cunningham - nominated for the Medal of Honor, received the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, fifteen Air Medals, the Purple Heart, and several other decorations Recently entered plea bargain on felony charges of bribery, etc. etc. SERVED
Senator Jeff Sessions U.S. Army Reserves (http://sessions.senate.gov/pages/bio.htm), 1973-1986 SERVED
General Colin Powell. What are we to make of Powell? SERVED
Representative Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), served (http://gilchrest.house.gov/bio.asp) in USMC in Vietnam; wounded in action. SERVED

[DanFZ1]

I meant specifically in terms of gun rights, which would be quite relevant to this thread.

Dirk

Yes, you are absolutely right. :) That actually would be relevant. :siesta:

~ hit the jump ~ http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2008/10/15/obama_mccain_guns.html

I used to run a trap line up until the time I turned 16, and then found I had better things to do with my evenings. ;-)

I have an old Quackenbush, a single shot hammer locking Savage .410, two Western Field bolt actions 12 & 20 ga. that Granpa (RIP) ordered through the Sears catalog back in the fifties and .22 pistol, and a bolt action Rem. 22-250 with a Browning scope. Hardly the stuff of a Revolutionary. :siesta:

Still, because I believe in "Good old fashioned Yankee Ingenuity" I feel that Americans should be allowed to own and experiment with un-licensed nuclear reactors if they can actually fit one in their garage.

So, you see, there really is no political platform for me. I am a party of one, ...but there are so many of us.

I was born in simpler times, when there were fewer people to hit, and only candy asses wore blaze orange. We have all learned to accept the fact that as gun owners, being responsible consists of more than just being able to hit what your shooting at. So gun laws do not scare me. We just need to make sure we have laws that are sensible and fair because, the reality of the situation is, guns are never going away. :siesta:

Even Joe Biden owns a Beretta.

[dirkterrell]

Prominent Republicans


And what is this list supposed to prove? It says nothing about your claim that "so few Republican politicians have ever bothered to join the military." There are more Republicans than Democrats in Congress that are veterans. Not that I think there is any statistically significant conclusion that could be drawn from the numbers about Democrats versus Republicans in terms of military service. I am merely pointing out that your claim is false.

I'm still curious why you think Obama is a better choice with regard to gun rights.

Dirk

[Canuck]

Here, just do this. After they have written the Canadian version of War and Peace on a Motorcycle Forum, do nothing more than quote them, and then post this emoticon. They love it. :canuck:

:king:

[dirkterrell]

Yes, you are absolutely right. :) That actually would be relevant. :siesta:

~ hit the jump ~ http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2008/10/15/obama_mccain_guns.html


So.... why do you think Obama is better vis a vis gun rights?



I used to run a trap line up until the time I turned 16, and then found I had better things to do with my evenings. ;-)

I have an old Quackenbush, a single shot hammer locking Savage .410, two Western Field bolt actions 12 & 20 ga. that Granpa (RIP) ordered through the Sears catalog back in the fifties and .22 pistol, and a bolt action Rem. 22-250 with a Browning scope. Hardly the stuff of a Revolutionary. :siesta:

Still, because I believe in "Good old fashioned Yankee Ingenuity" I feel that Americans should be allowed to own and experiment with un-licensed nuclear reactors if they can actually fit one in their garage.


I'm beginning to understand why you seem to like Obama so much.

Dirk

[DanFZ1]

And what is this list supposed to prove? It says nothing about your claim that "so few Republican politicians have ever bothered to join the military." There are more Republicans than Democrats in Congress that are veterans. Not that I think there is any statistically significant conclusion that could be drawn from the numbers about Democrats versus Republicans in terms of military service. I am merely pointing out that your claim is false.

I'm still curious why you think Obama is a better choice with regard to gun rights.

Dirk

"Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richar..._b_133136.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-feldman/the-nras-double-standard_b_133136.html)

"There is, however, a double standard at play. Let me provide one example: If Barack Obama announced he was bringing Andrew Cuomo, the former Secretary of HUD who fancied himself the point-man of Bill Clinton's "anti-gun crusade" into his administration, the NRA's leadership would come unglued. Yet, when John McCain suggested he'd appoint that same Andrew Cuomo to a senior position in his administration, not a peep!"

http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

Or how about the "liberals" *gasp* over at the libertarian Hyer Standard: http://hyerstandard.com/bob-barr-tak...rol-flip-flop/ (http://hyerstandard.com/bob-barr-takes-mccain-to-task-over-his-gun-control-flip-flop/)

"and that is John McCain is once again reversing on a stance that he subsequently held for the last 10 years. And this folks isn’t the first issue he has done this with, it’s actually part of a list that seemingly grows by the day."

I think it's also worth noting that having a clean, healthy environment to actually GO hunting in is a great idea. The Bush Administration has a lousy record regarding environmental issues and, John McCain's record is mixed. (Like most of John McCains voting record.) Obama is the Greener candidate, and none of those gun toting Democrats in Congress are trying to take my guns away.

[DavidofColorado]

Agree.

The only way you can be a responsible gun owner is to be a responsible citizen and that requires one hell of an education. As with anything that is inherently dangerous like guns, aircraft and motorcycles, its the training that makes all the difference. General Aviation has better safety stats. than cagers because getting your license is more involved than just learning how to parallel park. Additionally, if you want to get good at handling a gun, aircraft or a motorcycle (or a woman), Hi Pandora-11, I know your out there, watching, trembling with the anticipation of our first sip of warm Courvassie; then what it takes men (and boys) is practice, practice, practice.

Never be afriad to get your knee down and stick it up the inside. :hump:
I didn't say that. My 4 year old nephew followed instructions for gun safety and was shooting a .22 by his sixth summer. Its not rocket surgery!

[DanFZ1]

I didn't say that. My 4 year old nephew followed instructions for gun safety and was shooting a .22 by his sixth summer. Its not rocket surgery!

I know. You said education is important. I agree. That's not a misquote that you've higlighted. It's my own sentence, but I am agreeing.

To be a responsible gun owner, You have to be a responsible adult. That doesn't happen without training, and lots of it. Constantly practicing to be a good shot is important. But, Decision making with a loaded gun in your in hand requires training and a mature attitude.

I was blasting away with a .410 shotgun when I was 7. I can still feel the bruises just thinking about it. There were no gun safety classes until I was in 4-H. I had started going to horse shows, so I also took 4-H gun safety. That was over 30 years ago. What I had were an older brother and a father that either wanted me to die at an early age or just figured that it's not Rocket Science.

What we are talking about is laws effecting Gun Owners. Your nephew (or anybody for that matter) is not a responsible adult until they actually are old enough to be an adult, and can conduct themselves accordingly, when they are unsupervised, heavily armed, and know how to act when they are on somebody else's property. ...bare minimum...

Now think about being a gun owner with children. (The ultimate test of the responsible gun owner.) How are you going to keep a handgun out the reach of not only your children, but neighborhood children who come over to play and don't know any better while your out going for a ride? How do you teach your children the lessons of life while your out hunting? You can hit a target just by throwing darts at a dart board in bar. Hitting a target is just the beginning. You, as an adult must provide the reasoning half (the missing half) of your adolescent childrens mind, when it comes to driving, sportbikes, not getting girls pregnant, and making proper decisions when carrying a firearm.

That is what I consider to be an education. :alien:

[DanFZ1]

And what is this list supposed to prove? It says nothing about your claim that "so few Republican politicians have ever bothered to join the military." There are more Republicans than Democrats in Congress that are veterans. Not that I think there is any statistically significant conclusion that could be drawn from the numbers about Democrats versus Republicans in terms of military service. I am merely pointing out that your claim is false.

Dirk

My discontent with the Republican tactic of insinuating that Democrats are leftist and that Democrats are unpatriotic has been brewing for some time now. Back in 2004 the Republican spew was becoming increasingly militaristic at a time when so many Prominent Republican politicians were being so belligerent towards so-called "liberal" Democrats.

as of November 2005, <=={ notice the date }

Democrats:

29 out of 31 Democrats have served this country in the US military


Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-'47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V Purple Hearts.
John Edwards: did not serve.
Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-1953.
Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
Chuck Robb: Vietnam
Howell Heflin: Silver Star
George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received 311.
Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
Wesley Clark: U.S. Army, 1966-2000, West Point, Vietnam, Purple Heart, Silver Star. Retired 4-star general.
John Dingell: WWII vet
John Conyers: Army 1950-57, Korea

Republicans:

10 out of 40 Republicans have served this country in the US military



Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
Tom Delay: did not serve.
House Whiip Roy Blunt: did not serve.
Bill Frist: did not serve.
Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
George Pataki: did not serve.
Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
Rick Santorum: did not serve.
Trent Lott: did not serve.
Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
Jeb Bush: did not serve.
Karl Rove: did not serve.
Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
Vin Weber: did not serve.
Richard Perle: did not serve.
Douglas Feith: did not serve.
Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
Richard Shelby: did not serve.
Jon Kyl: did not serve.
Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
Christopher Cox: did not serve.
Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as aviator and flight instructor.
George W. Bush: six-year Nat'l Guard commitment (in four).
Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role
Gerald Ford: Navy, WWII
Phil Gramm: did not serve.
John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
Bob Dole: an honorable veteran.
Chuck Hagel: two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Duke Cunningham: nominated for Medal of Honor, Navy Cross, Silver Stars, Air Medals, Purple Hearts.
Jeff Sessions: Army Reserves, 1973-1986
JC Watts: did not serve.
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
G.H.W. Bush: Pilot in WWII. Shot down by the Japanese.
Tom Ridge: Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam.
Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
Clarence Thomas: did not serve

Pundits & Preachers



Sean Hannity: did not serve.
Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
Michael Savage: did not serve.
George Will: did not serve.
Chris Matthews: did not serve.
Paul Gigot: did not serve.
Bill Bennett: did not serve.
Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
Bill Kristol: did not serve.
Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
Michael Medved: did not serve.



It is not my intention to question other peoples patriotism. I am pointing out that questioning other peoples patriotism is what Republicans who did not serve seem to be doing quite a lot of. It sickens me even more when the charge is being leveled AT people who ACTUALLY HAVE SERVED.

Your numbers are more? current now than Nov. 2005. But the Prominent Republicans that get the air time as opposed to everybody else are still out there. They are still denigrating people who HAVE served their country, based solely on the fact that they belong to the Democratic party. I believe it is time the Republican party stopped wrapping themselves in the flag, and stopped playing the "If you disagree with me, I'm going to accuse you of being un-American." card. The Republican politicians who engage in this kind of behaviour are hypocrites.

Yet, as Republicans, we are just sooo automatically American that we can even belong to a successionist splinter group like the A.I.P. and still get the nomination for V.P.

:bow:

[DavidofColorado]

I know. You said education is important. I agree. That's not a misquote that you've higlighted. It's my own sentence, but I am agreeing.

To be a responsible gun owner, You have to be a responsible adult. That doesn't happen without training, and lots of it. Constantly practicing to be a good shot is important. But, Decision making with a loaded gun in your in hand requires training and a mature attitude.

I was blasting away with a .410 shotgun when I was 7. I can still feel the bruises just thinking about it. There were no gun safety classes until I was in 4-H. I had started going to horse shows, so I also took 4-H gun safety. That was over 30 years ago. What I had were an older brother and a father that either wanted me to die at an early age or just figured that it's not Rocket Science.

What we are talking about is laws effecting Gun Owners. Your nephew (or anybody for that matter) is not a responsible adult until they actually are old enough to be an adult, and can conduct themselves accordingly, when they are unsupervised, heavily armed, and know how to act when they are on somebody else's property. ...bare minimum...

Now think about being a gun owner with children. (The ultimate test of the responsible gun owner.) How are you going to keep a handgun out the reach of not only your children, but neighborhood children who come over to play and don't know any better while your out going for a ride? How do you teach your children the lessons of life while your out hunting? You can hit a target just by throwing darts at a dart board in bar. Hitting a target is just the beginning. You, as an adult must provide the reasoning half (the missing half) of your adolescent childrens mind, when it comes to driving, sportbikes, not getting girls pregnant, and making proper decisions when carrying a firearm.

That is what I consider to be an education. :alien:
I don't turn it into a crusible either. They are just kids and just like telling them to not take their clothes off and run around the house. I told them that guns are not toys and that they should follow the rules of not touching them unless handed one and only excepting it at the range. I didn't need to drill muzzle velocities into their head just safety and I do feel safe having the guns around when they are here. I don't lock them up anymore than I usually do. A gun safe is pretty good. But I taught them Eddie Eagles (NRA shill) stop, don't touch and get an adult if they find a gun and it has worked. It shows a level of maturity on their parts that I reward with letting them shoot the guns later. And as far as them shooting worth a shit? Well I am not worried about that now since safety is my biggest worry when I am letting them shoot. They can shoot around the can all they want to. My nephew gets real excited when he is empty and hands the gun back because sometimes he hits it.

When we go camping we can't be around him all the time although we are watching him and ready to swoop in we have to teach him that the fire is hot and not to play with it the chainsaw is sharp and the booze is for the adults. I feel that if I don't take the time to talk to him or anyone about it I would be failing as an adult because how else will they know? That is the mission of parents or gaurdians IMHO to prepare them to be adults them selves. Not to smother them or scold them with out them knowing why.

Start if off slow and make sure they get you. Aside from loosing the remote to my TV I have no worries about leaving my nephew alone for a minute. There is a benifit to helping them young too. They can help you with things without acting like a spoiled brat.

I will stop now because I think I know why child psychology books are so thick. It takes alot of pages to all these thoughts out and getting them in order.

[DanFZ1]

I don't turn it into a crusible either. They are just kids and just like telling them to not take their clothes off and run around the house. I told them that guns are not toys and that they should follow the rules of not touching them unless handed one and only excepting it at the range. I didn't need to drill muzzle velocities into their head just safety and I do feel safe having the guns around when they are here. I don't lock them up anymore than I usually do. A gun safe is pretty good. But I taught them Eddie Eagles (NRA shill) stop, don't touch and get an adult if they find a gun and it has worked. It shows a level of maturity on their parts that I reward with letting them shoot the guns later. And as far as them shooting worth a shit? Well I am not worried about that now since safety is my biggest worry when I am letting them shoot. They can shoot around the can all they want to. My nephew gets real excited when he is empty and hands the gun back because sometimes he hits it.

When we go camping we can't be around him all the time although we are watching him and ready to swoop in we have to teach him that the fire is hot and not to play with it the chainsaw is sharp and the booze is for the adults. I feel that if I don't take the time to talk to him or anyone about it I would be failing as an adult because how else will they know? That is the mission of parents or gaurdians IMHO to prepare them to be adults them selves. Not to smother them or scold them with out them knowing why.

Start if off slow and make sure they get you. Aside from loosing the remote to my TV I have no worries about leaving my nephew alone for a minute. There is a benifit to helping them young too. They can help you with things without acting like a spoiled brat.

I will stop now because I think I know why child psychology books are so thick. It takes alot of pages to all these thoughts out and getting them in order.

:applause: Well Said.

[Snowman]

So what I’m hearing now is that there should be a level of provable knowledge for those you wants to purchase a weapon?

[dirkterrell]

"Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richar..._b_133136.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-feldman/the-nras-double-standard_b_133136.html)

"There is, however, a double standard at play. Let me provide one example: If Barack Obama announced he was bringing Andrew Cuomo, the former Secretary of HUD who fancied himself the point-man of Bill Clinton's "anti-gun crusade" into his administration, the NRA's leadership would come unglued. Yet, when John McCain suggested he'd appoint that same Andrew Cuomo to a senior position in his administration, not a peep!"

http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

Or how about the "liberals" *gasp* over at the libertarian Hyer Standard: http://hyerstandard.com/bob-barr-tak...rol-flip-flop/ (http://hyerstandard.com/bob-barr-takes-mccain-to-task-over-his-gun-control-flip-flop/)

"and that is John McCain is once again reversing on a stance that he subsequently held for the last 10 years. And this folks isn’t the first issue he has done this with, it’s actually part of a list that seemingly grows by the day."


Once again, you have failed to answer the specific question, much like Obama when asked if he thought the DC gun ban was constitutional. What does McCain's saying that he'd appoint Cuomo as chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Comission have to do with Obama's position on gun rights? Since you seem to be unable to answer questions, I'll tell you: nothing.



I think it's also worth noting that having a clean, healthy environment to actually GO hunting in is a great idea. The Bush Administration has a lousy record regarding environmental issues and, John McCain's record is mixed. (Like most of John McCains voting record.) Obama is the Greener candidate, and none of those gun toting Democrats in Congress are trying to take my guns away.

Once again, you are evading the question and trying to deflect. I didn't say anything about hunting or environmental issues.

Dirk

[Filo]

Slightly off topic, but I figure all you self proclaimed gun nuts would enjoy this book (no sarcasm intended)

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/American-Rifle/Alexander-Rose/e/9780553805178/?itm=1

As the title implies, it is mainly about rifles, so if you are a hand gun kind of person, it doesn't have much to offer.


OK, back to bickering.

[BlueDevil]

Perhaps Im missing something but we are a nation of Democracy, where we get to vote on these issues. I dont recall voting for anything taking away my gun in this election (already voted) mmm Guns wont go away regardless of which candidate you choose. There are to many gun toting, rights protecting, Constitution loving people in this nation still and it would never pass. Though there are enough supporters to get it to a vote, there arent enough people to pass it. (Hell even people who dont own guns and dont think anyone should wont vote to take away the right to own one if you want...

[dirkterrell]

As a registered Republican who voted for Reagan in 1981 (when I was 18 years old)


My discontent with the Republican tactic of insinuating that Democrats are leftist and that Democrats are unpatriotic has been brewing for some time now.


So, what you're saying is that you have flip-flopped, like McCain?



Back in 2004 the Republican spew was becoming increasingly militaristic at a time when so many Prominent Republican politicians were being so belligerent towards so-called "liberal" Democrats.

as of November 2005, <=={ notice the date }


Close enough.



Democrats:

29 out of 31 Democrats have served this country in the US military
Republicans:

10 out of 40 Republicans have served this country in the US military


I'm sure you're smart enough to know that such lists suffer from a serious selection effect. I could just as easily make the lists:

Republicans:


John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross
G.H.W. Bush: Pilot in WWII. Shot down by the Japanese.

Democrats:



Bill Clinton, did not serve
John Edwards, did not serve

and claim that 2 out of 2 Republicans and 0 out of 2 Democrats served. Your claim was "so few Republican politicians have ever bothered to join the military." Now, there are several ways to test that claim. You could check every single Republican's background or, as is customary when such a thing is impractical, you take a representative sub-sample and draw a statistical conclusion from it (much like political polling). My sub-sample was current members of Congress. Yours is apparently some hand-picked subset designed to make people draw the wrong conclusions. You employ the very technique you decry. I agree with you that any insinuation that the Democrats are somehow "less patriotic" is revolting and I disagree strongly with it. If I didn't, when I found that more Republicans in Congress had served, I would have claimed it was proof. But I know enough about statistics to know that such a conclusion would be flawed, just as your attempt to manipulate the sub-sample is flawed.




Your numbers are more? current now than Nov. 2005. But the Prominent Republicans that get the air time as opposed to everybody else are still out there.


Define prominent. Is Obama prominent?



Yet, as Republicans, we are just sooo automatically American that we can even belong to a successionist splinter group like the A.I.P. and still get the nomination for V.P.


Who was a member of A.I.P.? Not Palin:


Officials of the AIP said Gov. Palin was once a member, but the McCain campaign -- providing what it says is complete voter registration documentation -- says Palin has been according to official records a lifelong Republican.

A day after making its assertions, on Tuesday evening, AIP chair Lynette Clark acknowledged she was mistaken and that Gov. Palin was never a member.
Source here (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/another-aip-off.html).

Dirk

[TFOGGuys]

Perhaps Im missing something but we are a nation of Democracy, where we get to vote on these issues. I dont recall voting for anything taking away my gun in this election (already voted) mmm Guns wont go away regardless of which candidate you choose. There are to many gun toting, rights protecting, Constitution loving people in this nation still and it would never pass. Though there are enough supporters to get it to a vote, there arent enough people to pass it. (Hell even people who dont own guns and dont think anyone should wont vote to take away the right to own one if you want...

I wish I were as confident as you. The Brady bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act) took away many of the rights that gun owners took for granted before it was shoved through Congress. Same goes for the poorly named Firearm Owners Protection Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act)
and the Assault weapons ban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban) . I'm all for reasonable regulation (much like purchase requirements for an automobile), but our rights are being limited and regulated out of existence.

[Pandora-11]

Hey Honey Bee DanFZ1, You're staying up WAY too late. 2:00 AM?

[DavidofColorado]

So what I’m hearing now is that there should be a level of provable knowledge for those you wants to purchase a weapon?
Its not a new idea. But its not up to the state to decide. Parenting or mentoring is where it should come from.
Asking gun owners for advice is the best thing to do because they are usually knowledgeable and willing to help.
And they are so polite too.

[Snowman]

Its not a new idea. But its not up to the state to decide. Parenting or mentoring is where it should come from.
Asking gun owners for advice is the best thing to do because they are usually knowledgeable and willing to help.
And they are so polite too.
Why shouldn’t be up to the state to decide? They have the right to regulate every other type of machinery out there. You can’t operate a forklift without certification.

And as for mentoring how does the average citizen know this level of education is up to par without some form of certification? I know I can’t teach anyone how to handle a gun because I know nothing about them. But under you criteria I could make something up that sounds good and you wouldn’t have a problem with it.

[DavidofColorado]

I wish I were as confident as you. The Brady bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act) took away many of the rights that gun owners took for granted before it was shoved through Congress. Same goes for the poorly named Firearm Owners Protection Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act)
and the Assault weapons ban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban) . I'm all for reasonable regulation (much like purchase requirements for an automobile), but our rights are being limited and regulated out of existence.

You have just listed the 3 biggest BS gun laws that have ever came out except one. But you have proved my point that its the Democrats want my guns since they are the majority in all of these laws.

[dirkterrell]

Why shouldn’t be up to the state to decide? They have the right to regulate every other type of machinery out there. You can’t operate a forklift without certification.


Self-defense is a basic human right that is not granted by a government. It is a right that must be defended against the powers of government. Just ask the Brits about that. Driving a forklift is not.

Dirk

[Snowman]

Self-defense is a basic human right that is not granted by a government. It is a right that must be defended against the powers of government. Just ask the Brits about that. Driving a forklift is not.

DirkSo why can't I landmine my front yard?

[DavidofColorado]

Why shouldn’t be up to the state to decide? They have the right to regulate every other type of machinery out there. You can’t operate a forklift without certification.

Actually you can. I have opperated a folk lift many times and they are similar to each other but they are different too and I have never been certified on them.


And as for mentoring how does the average citizen know this level of education is up to par without some form of certification? I know I can’t teach anyone how to handle a gun because I know nothing about them. But under you criteria I could make something up that sounds good and you wouldn’t have a problem with it.
There are classes available and plentiful. That is what I would suggest if you don't have a competent mentor to show you how to use a gun properly. But there is no shortage of those either.

Do you want to go shooting sometime?

[zetaetatheta]

So why can't I landmine my front yard?

Because it isn't the civilized thing to do. BTW would you happen to have any Grey Poupon?

[VFR]

So why can't I landmine my front yard?

Your not certified.........











LMAO

[TFOGGuys]

Self-defense is a basic human right that is not granted by a government. It is a right that must be defended against the powers of government. Just ask the Brits about that. Driving a forklift is not.

Dirk


I seem to remember us fighting a war in about 1776 over this issue (as well as others). :idea:

I absolutely agree....the government does not grant rights, it grants privileges. I think that many times we forget that our representatives work for us, not the reverse. If we do not select quality people for the job, then we deserve what we get. Vote, Dammit!

[zetaetatheta]

So why can't I landmine my front yard?

It would be hard to get a Guatemalan to mow it for $5.00

[TFOGGuys]

So why can't I landmine my front yard?

YOU can't....I can....er... :nuke:

[DavidofColorado]

So why can't I landmine my front yard?
+1 Although I think a metal storm security system is a better idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx_9_RgMPCE

[Snowman]

Actually you can. I have opperated a folk lift many times and they are similar to each other but they are different too and I have never been certified on them.I’m sure OSHA would like a word with you.


There are classes available and plentiful. That is what I would suggest if you don't have a competent mentor to show you how to use a gun properly. But there is no shortage of those either.I'm sure there are, but how do I know what they are teaching is adequate, your word?

If I wanted my warehouse crew to learn Forklift Operations I would want the instructor to be certified in some manner. How should learning about fire arms be any different.

The military has a whole list of certifications and training that recruits have to go through before they are handed a gun. Why not have the military level certification for anyone else. You want a full automatic weapon, go through an equivalent certified course that any infantry person has to.

For those that have been in the military think of it this way…
You are in a gun shop wanting to buy a rifle. The guy next to you wants the same rifle. Wouldn’t you want that guy to have the same level of knowledge about that gun as you do?


Do you want to go shooting sometime?No thanks. I have no intention of ever learning anything about fire arms.


It would be hard to get a Guatemalan to mow it for $5.00Yes, I would have to pay him at least a $20.00. I see your draw back.


Because it isn't the civilized thing to do. BTW would you happen to have any Grey Poupon?If it keeps the snooty people off my lawn I’ll go barbarian.

[DavidofColorado]

YOU can't....I can....er... :nuke:

I know what you mean Jim. I think its best not to answer loaded questions like that when they don't care about the right answer. Just like the skinhead question.

[DavidofColorado]

I’m sure OSHA would like a word with you.

I'm sure there are, but how do I know what they are teaching is adequate, your word?

If I wanted my warehouse crew to learn Forklift Operations I would want the instructor to be certified in some manner. How should learning about fire arms be any different.

Apples and Oranges. But if you want to teach gun owners about folklift safety and vise versa I'm sure they are as interchangeable as you think so go for it I will get my lawnchair out and watch.


The military has a whole list of certifications and training that recruits have to go through before they are handed a gun. Why not have the military level certification for anyone else. You want a full automatic weapon, go through an equivalent certified course that any infantry person has to.
What does the military have to do with a private citizen owning a gun? And at the end of the day they still have to turn their guns in and have the ammo counted. So much for all that training if they can't be trust with a firearm off duty. I guess that has something to do with the Governement not trusting its peeons with guns. And you want that transefered to the private sector?



No thanks. I have no intention of ever learning anything about fire arms.
Well STFU about other people wanting to and how they go about doing it. Are you skeered?


If it keeps the snooty people off my lawn I’ll go barbarian.
Like those that preach about gun safety but have no intention of knowing anything about themselves? I see how you might want to stay away from those people.

[dirkterrell]

So why can't I landmine my front yard?

I don't know. Why can't you?

Dirk

[TFOGGuys]

I don't know. Why can't you?

Dirk

Lack of landmines? :dunno:

Just have to look on the internet for a supplier......

[Snowman]

Well STFU about other people wanting to and how they go about doing it. Are you skeered?

Like those that preach about gun safety but have no intention of knowing anything about themselves? I see how you might want to stay away from those people.
1. I have never said anything about taking people’s guns away. In fact I made that quite clear I do not believe we would be safer from ether our government or a more realistic threat, the gang banger down the street if guns were outlawed.

2. I have said that if you want a gun you should have the knowledge to safety use, store and maintain your gun. Or is it the consensus that anyone old enough should be able to up pick a loaded weapon and point it where ever they think its funny?

3. And as someone who has no intension of ever wanting a gun, I want something saying you know how to safety use, store and maintain your weapon.

And as for my rights on speaking my views on gun control, I believe the only reason for the second amendment is to protect my rights under the first.

Or do you wish to debt me on that as well?

[Snowman]

I don't know. Why can't you?

Dirk
My point.
If you can prove to me that you can safely handle landmines why shouldn’t there be some way do doing so? But you’ll have to prove it.

[dirkterrell]

And as for my rights on speaking my views on gun control, I believe the only reason for the second amendment is to protect my rights under the first.


Maybe the government should also decide who has shown the "knowledge to safely use" their mouth when speaking in public?

Dirk

[Snowman]

Maybe the government should also decide who has shown the "knowledge to safely use" their mouth when speaking in public?

DirkNow where is the fun in that? :)

And as for your point…
Why is that certain citizens of a country who values freedom to the point of advocating going to war against its own government would deny that very freedom to others?

Maybe you should start by reading from the top of the bill of rights.

[dirkterrell]

My point.
If you can prove to me that you can safely handle landmines why shouldn’t there be some way do doing so? But you’ll have to prove it.

Who gets to decide? Or should we take the more traditional approach of not infringing on people's freedoms but holding them responsible when and if they infringe on the rights of others?

Dirk

[dirkterrell]

Now where is the fun in that? :)

And as for your point…
Why is that certain citizens of a country who values freedom to the point of advocating going to war against its own government would deny that very freedom to others?

Maybe you should start by reading from the top of the bill of rights.

I think you entirely missed my point, which was dripping with sarcasm. :) If the government gets to decide who is qualified to enjoy their second amendment rights, why shouldn't they get to decide who gets to enjoy their first amendment (or any) rights? They shouldn't. And that is my point.

Dirk

[TFOGGuys]

Who gets to decide? Or should we take the more traditional approach of not infringing on people's freedoms but holding them responsible when and if they infringe on the rights of others?

Dirk

You're beginning to sound dangerously libertarian there, Dirk. Allow people to do what they please as long as they don't harm others, or infringe on others' rights to do the same? Actually hold people responsible for the consequences of their bad decisions? What are ya, crazy?

/sarcasm

[Snowman]

Who gets to decide? Or should we take the more traditional approach of not infringing on people's freedoms but holding them responsible when and if they infringe on the rights of others?

DirkLast time I checked this was a democracy.
You know, what you need your guns to defend if our government tries to take away those rights.

(However, after this last administration you may have a point.)

[JustSomeDude]

2. I have said that if you want a gun you should have the knowledge to safety use, store and maintain your gun. Or is it the consensus that anyone old enough should be able to up pick a loaded weapon and point it where ever they think its funny?

The 2nd Ammendment serves one purpose and one purpose only: to provide the People a means to protect themselves from tyrannical government. The consensus at one time agreed that a "militia" was comprised of every able-bodied male. Perhaps at that time people understood the responsibilities required of them in a system of self-governance better than people do today. If a drawback of the People's right to bear arms as a means to defend against tyranny means we have assholes who choose to use guns irresponsibly, so be it. Just because people choose to live complacent lives and turn over the responsibility of self-governance to those in Washington, does not give them the right to legislate their ideas of gun rights onto me.


3. And as someone who has no intension of ever wanting a gun, I want something saying you know how to safety use, store and maintain your weapon.

Sure... Limit one's ability to protect themselves from tyranny as a veiled attempt at improving "public safety". That makes a lot of sense. Limiting the ability of a responsible and vigilant People to obtain firearms, limits the freedom of that People.


And as for my rights on speaking my views on gun control, I believe the only reason for the second amendment is to protect my rights under the first.

You can believe whatever you want. The fact is the framers knew that sometimes, in simple terms, you need to shoot at government, and protect the ability of the People to do so... regardless of how unpleasant the idea may seem in "safe" or complacent times.

[dirkterrell]

Last time I checked this was a democracy.


Better check Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution again.

Dirk

[dirkterrell]

You're beginning to sound dangerously libertarian there, Dirk. Allow people to do what they please as long as they don't harm others, or infringe on others' rights to do the same? Actually hold people responsible for the consequences of their bad decisions? What are ya, crazy?

/sarcasm

Yeah, as crazy as some guys a while back with names like Jefferson, Washington, and Madison who said crazy shit like "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

/sarcasm

Dirk

[JustSomeDude]

Better check Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution again.

Dirk


Cripes. Why do people continually throw around the term "democracy" in this country?! :banghead:

Indoctrination by the left... gotta love it.

[Snowman]

The 2nd Ammendment serves one purpose and one purpose only: to provide the People a means to protect themselves from tyrannical government. The consensus at one time agreed that a "militia" was comprised of every able-bodied male. Perhaps at that time people understood the responsibilities required of them in a system of self-governance better than people do today. If a drawback of the People's right to bear arms as a means to defend against tyranny means we have assholes who choose to use guns irresponsibly, so be it. Just because people choose to live complacent lives and turn over the responsibility of self-governance to those in Washington, does not give them the right to legislate their ideas of gun rights onto me.

Sure... Limit one's ability to protect themselves from tyranny as a veiled attempt at improving "public safety". That makes a lot of sense. Limiting the ability of a responsible and vigilant People to obtain firearms, limits the freedom of that People.

You can believe whatever you want. The fact is the framers knew that sometimes, in simple terms, you need to shoot at government, and protect the ability of the People to do so... regardless of how unpleasant the idea may seem in "safe" or complacent times.
(Note: See response above…) As you can see I agree with you.

However how in anyway does certification have anything to do with taking away your guns? Where are you getting this idea? I’m not advocating anything of the sort.

I just want to know that if you buy a gun you will not blow the person standing next to you foot off. Why? because I might be that guy. And as that I might possibly be that guy I believe I have the right (it’s called the first amendment) to express my concerns on your ability not to shoot my foot off.

I mean what is it really?

It can’t be you’re jonesing to paint your face up and hide out in your attic waiting for the National Guard to march down the street do you can go out in some blaze of glory? And if this does happen, do you really think you would have a chance?

And as for defending against tyranny, “The Framers [of the Constitution] knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.” Hugo Black

[dirkterrell]

However how in anyway does certification have anything to do with taking away your guns? Where are you getting this idea? I’m not advocating anything of the sort.


If the government has the right to certify, they have the right not to certify. Look at the history of gun control in the UK and Australia for an example of how that goes. It was all "common sense" and "reasonable" at the time. Now someone in England who shoots and wounds/kills people invading his home is thrown in jail. Here are examples of the absurdity that develops when people's rights to self-defense are slowly eroded:



In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.
In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.
In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted 5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.

Source here (http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html).

Dirk

[TFOGGuys]

Why not require a license to vote? To prevent some damn fool from doing something stupid?

Prior restraint is not a valid legal principle in this country, and placing hurdles in the gun purchase process is much like restricting voting to those who are qualified. IMO, if you are qualified to vote (legal resident, no felony convictions, a citizen of this country,etc.) then the government should not place any undue restrictions on your ability to acquire and keep firearms. If, and only if, that person demonstrates an inability to safely own and utilize those weapons, should the government step in. What's next? Do we have the government issue "child raising licenses" based on a person's demonstrating adequate parenting skills? Who gets to decide? In my humble opinion, a bad parent can do a helluva lot more damage to society than any nutbag with a gun.

[jbnwc]

I've got one for you - If I were a felon(and I could easily be :) ) and couldn't buy a gun from a dealer then "gun control" has worked right? Not quite

I have a friend who has purchased and sold former POLICE ISSUE handguns that he purchased from a police officer under the table. Big Brother has no idea who has these guns, only that they once were issued to XYZ police officer.

Gun control is an ILLUSION. If they try to ban handguns or "assault" rifles, criminals will still be able to get them and do whatever the heck they want to with them. The only people that obey "gun control" laws are people who are already law abiding citizens.

Speaking of rifles, I've always wanted an AK47. Is there any way to legally acquire one right now? I have some rabbits in my back yard that need to be terminated.

[Snowman]

If the government has the right to certify, they have the right not to certify. Look at the history of gun control in the UK and Australia for an example of how that goes. It was all "common sense" and "reasonable" at the time. Now someone in England who shoots and wounds/kills people invading his home is thrown in jail. Here are examples of the absurdity that develops when people's rights to self-defense are slowly eroded:



Dirk
If you believe our government has reached that point, why are you not defending those rights with your guns? I mean that’s the whole reason for them in the first place, right? The people’s protection against our government taking away those rights. So come on you all preach the word but don’t follow the message?

[rforsythe]

Gun control is an ILLUSION. If they try to ban handguns or "assault" rifles, criminals will still be able to get them and do whatever the heck they want to with them. The only people that obey "gun control" laws are people who are already law abiding citizens.

Airport security is an illusion as well, but the teeming masses scream "something must be done" and so it is, no matter how stupid it is.


Speaking of rifles, I've always wanted an AK47. Is there any way to legally acquire one right now? I have some rabbits in my back yard that need to be terminated.

There's nothing (aside from felony convictions?) stopping you from getting one. They're quite cheap in fact.

[JustSomeDude]

And as for defending against tyranny, “The Framers [of the Constitution] knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.” Hugo Black

Funny that the framers had to use guns to beat the British, and not billboards. Amusing point, but it is pointless indeed. Yelling at the Nazis really worked for the Jews too. :dunno:

Honestly, Snow, I understand your argument regarding "safe" gun sales, but I disagree with it and find it limits freedom more than it supports it. Yes, you are right, I could also be the one to snap tomorrow and blow a half-dozen strangers away, the problem is - you don't know that, and no one does. We don't implement subjective laws in an attempt to make ourselves feel better. I mean, this is the heart of the matter: "feel good" legislation that accomplishes absolutely nothing except making people like yourself feel good about it.

And as for your scenario with the National Guard marching down the street, you are blindly assuming all members of the National Guard, Army, or what have you, will blindly stand behind a tyrannical government, and that no members would side with the people in the event a true revolution occurs.

Do you pass a test to buy alcohol? Baseball bats? Kitchen cutlery? Plastic bags? Gasoline? C'mon... subjective legislation such as those you propose just for guns do nothing but limit freedoms of responsible citizens while providing a poor man's security blanket of "safety" for those who find it comforting.

[jbnwc]

Snowman, are you certified to take part in this discussion?

[dirkterrell]

If you believe our government has reached that point, why are you not defending those rights with your guns?

Nice but futile attempt at deflection. Where did I say that we had reached that point? In the UK and Australia they have. I suspect that Obama and his colleagues would certainly like to push us in that direction. I am one of many trying to provide a voice about the pitfalls of doing so.

Dirk

[Sortarican]

Perhaps Im missing something but we are a nation of Democracy, where we get to vote on these issues. ...

Last time I checked this was a democracy.

Nope. We're a Representative Republic.
You vote for the guy who will then votes on the issue.


...Parenting or mentoring is where it should come from. Asking gun owners for advice is the best thing to do because they are usually knowledgeable and willing to help....

Great resource, especially for anyone with kids that they would like trained in the safe and responsible handling of firearms:
Civilian Marksmanship Program http://www.odcmp.com/services/programs/AnnualReportHistory&Mission.pdf

My father was a DI of firearms training on Paris Island in the Marine Corp.
Even before we were old enough to hold up a .22 he already started training us in firearm safety and it stuck with us.
I highly recommend that parents get their children some sort of firearm saftey instruction even if they never plan to let them shoot.
Sometime, somewhere, every kid will be exposed to a gun, and a little knowledge is better than complete ignorance.

Or send them to one of my Marxist Youth Training Seminars:
9913


Why shouldn’t be up to the state to decide? They have the right to regulate every other type of machinery out there..

Self-defense is a basic human right that is not granted by a government. It is a right that must be defended against the powers of government...

Exactly,
Restrictions to constitutionally garuanteed rights, whoever minor or seemingly innocent, tend to get people very nervous.
(Though everyone except the conspiracy nuts seem to have just glazed right over the Patriot Act and it's illegal aspects.)


So why can't I landmine my front yard?

Indisciminent weapon. Most of the wold is trying to ban their use.

Now some claymores wired to a manual detonation switch on the other hand, I see no reason I shouldn't be able to have those.

[jbnwc]

Airport security is an illusion as well, but the teeming masses scream "something must be done" and so it is, no matter how stupid it is.



Those bastards took my 4 oz bottle of contact solution! :scream1:

[Sortarican]

Those bastards took my 4 oz bottle of contact solution! :scream1:

If you wear contacts...the terrorists win.

[jbnwc]

Now some claymores wired to a manual detonation switch on the other hand, I see no reason I shouldn't be able to have those.

Great - so now I actually have to sit by the window and MANUALLY take out my neighbor's dog crapping in my yard??!! What a waste of good technology.

[Snowman]

Snowman, are you certified to take part in this discussion?Of course, just as certified as you are to buy a gun.



Who are you again? Oh that's right it doesn't matter.... :)

[jbnwc]

Snow - I have what they call a firearms safety permit. I took two weeks worth of classes to be 'certified' to purchase a firearm or hunting license. Everyone has to as far as I know.

[TFOGGuys]

Those bastards took my 4 oz bottle of contact solution! :scream1:

Security Theater (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security)

[TFOGGuys]

Snow - I have what they call a firearms safety permit. I took two weeks worth of classes to be 'certified' to purchase a firearm or hunting license. Everyone has to as far as I know.

Required for a hunting license in Colorado, not to purchase a firearm or ammunition

[Filo]

Yes, you are right, I could also be the one to snap tomorrow and blow a half-dozen strangers away, the problem is - you don't know that, and no one does.


Actually, we do know that, given your posts... Now where the hell did I put the Homeland Security Hotline number... :)



Do you pass a test to buy alcohol? Baseball bats? Kitchen cutlery? Plastic bags? Gasoline? C'mon... subjective legislation such as those you propose just for guns do nothing but limit freedoms of responsible citizens while providing a poor man's security blanket of "safety" for those who find it comforting.

I read (again, in the Economist) that a response to all the youth knife violence that is gripping England is a call for banning the sales of kitchen knives. That should add a little fuel to your fire. The ironic thing is I look at that legislation and think it is stupid and won't work, but I am not against regulating certain types of guns. I guess it is because I see a kitchen knife (which I use daily) as more useful than an assault rifle (which I have fired only a few times). Talk about hypocrisy. Great, now I am arguing with myself on a public forum...

[jbnwc]

I don't think people who don't know anything about firearms should have any say in what happens with firearms. Snow, you said you don't even want to know anything about firearms, so IMO, you and the people in your situation should not have any says as to what happens with them.

I also believe that people who know nothing about the political candidates should have no say in who wins.

If you aren't willing to learn the basics, you really can't offer anything reasonable to the conversation. no offense.

[jbnwc]

Required for a hunting license in Colorado, not to purchase a firearm or ammunition


Good to know - since I have no idea where the heck my permit is.

[Snowman]

Snow - I have what they call a firearms safety permit. I took two weeks worth of classes to be 'certified' to purchase a firearm or hunting license. Everyone has to as far as I know.
See, bingo, that’s all I wanted…
I can now trust the in the fact that I can stand next to you and that you know enough not to shoot my foot off. How hard it this?

I mean is having at least a firearms safety permit grounds for overthrowing the government?

[Snowman]

I don't think people who don't know anything about firearms should have any say in what happens with firearms. Snow, you said you don't even want to know anything about firearms, so IMO, you and the people in your situation should not have any says as to what happens with them.

I also believe that people who know nothing about the political candidates should have no say in who wins.

If you aren't willing to learn the basics, you really can't offer anything reasonable to the conversation. no offense.
What communist country do you live in?

[TFOGGuys]

What communist country do you live in?
People's Republic of Boulder? :dunno:

[jbnwc]

I read (again, in the Economist) that a response to all the youth knife violence that is gripping England is a call for banning the sales of kitchen knives. That should add a little fuel to your fire. The ironic thing is I look at that legislation and think it is stupid and won't work, but I am not against regulating certain types of guns. I guess it is because I see a kitchen knife (which I use daily) as more useful than an assault rifle (which I have fired only a few times). Talk about hypocrisy. Great, now I am arguing with myself on a public forum...


Ban Cutco!! Those tomato slicing criminals need to be locked up.

[Devaclis]

I don't think people who don't know anything about firearms should have any say in what happens with firearms. Snow, you said you don't even want to know anything about firearms, so IMO, you and the people in your situation should not have any says as to what happens with them.

I also believe that people who know nothing about the political candidates should have no say in who wins.

If you aren't willing to learn the basics, you really can't offer anything reasonable to the conversation. no offense.

I do not like this train of thought.

Do you know how to repair a broken crank in your car? If not should you still be allowed to drive one?

Know how to wire the electrical system in your house? Still be able to turn on a light?

Whether instruction is given or taken, the RIGHT should always remain. You should ALWAYS have the choice. No, this way of thinking is dangerous and wrong, IMO.

[jbnwc]

What communist country do you live in?

I don't think we should take away your right to talk about guns, but I do think that people should be able to self-regulate if they don't know what the heck they are talking about.

You don't see me arguing with Dirk about astrophysics.

[Devaclis]

I don't think we should take away your right to talk about guns, but I do think that people should be able to self-regulate if they don't know what the heck they are talking about.

You don't see me arguing with Dirk about astrophysics.

Psh, Dirk knows NOTHING of astrophysics. He is a leg man.

[DavidofColorado]

Nope.

I would let Jeff teach my kids how to shoot if I was incapable and braindead. But I would have him search for Marxist pamphlets first.

[rforsythe]

Required for a hunting license in Colorado, not to purchase a firearm or ammunition

+1. To buy a firearm you need only pass a background check, where they run you through the CBI database among other things. No training required, no waiting period, etc.

It's what you DO with the gun that requires various levels of certification (hunting, concealed carry, and so on). Just like you can technically buy a car without any verification, but if you drive it you need a license.


I don't think people who don't know anything about firearms should have any say in what happens with firearms. Snow, you said you don't even want to know anything about firearms, so IMO, you and the people in your situation should not have any says as to what happens with them.

I also believe that people who know nothing about the political candidates should have no say in who wins.

If you aren't willing to learn the basics, you really can't offer anything reasonable to the conversation. no offense.

I think as a citizen of the United States, the ability to shoot a gun really has little bearing on one's literal right to engage in discussion on, and make decisions surrounding the use of firearms. Maybe he has some deep seated fear of them that precludes his learning how to operate one, I don't know. I may not agree with his points (and I may just the same) but I absolutely stand by his right to offer his opinion on the subject, because that's what being American is all about.

His points may carry more credence if he were to be well educated on the history, use, operation, storage, transportation, purchase, etc of firearms, maybe not, but either way he has just as much right as an American citizen to discuss it as you or I.

[jbnwc]

I do not like this train of thought.

Do you know how to repair a broken crank in your car? If not should you still be allowed to drive one?

Know how to wire the electrical system in your house? Still be able to turn on a light?

Whether instruction is given or taken, the RIGHT should always remain. You should ALWAYS have the choice. No, this way of thinking is dangerous and wrong, IMO.


I don't like where that is going, either - that's kindof extreme.

Let me restate - I feel like I can talk about light switches because I have a lot of experience with them. However, I will not enter into an argument about elecrical systems with my brother, who is an electrical engineer.

Heck, I don't know how to take apart my guns, but I know enough to know how to work and clean them.

I don't know every detail about my bikes, but I know enough to do some basic maintenance and repairs.

If you don't know ANYTHING about the topic, wouldn't you be best to stay out of it?

[rforsythe]

I don't think people who don't know anything about firearms should have any say in what happens with firearms. Snow, you said you don't even want to know anything about firearms, so IMO, you and the people in your situation should not have any says as to what happens with them.

But then...


I don't think we should take away your right to talk about guns

:dunno:

Not trying to bag on ya dude, but these do sort of contradict each other.

[Devaclis]

I don't like where that is going, either - that's kindof extreme.

Let me restate - I feel like I can talk about light switches because I have a lot of experience with them. However, I will not enter into an argument about elecrical systems with my brother, who is an electrical engineer.

Heck, I don't know how to take apart my guns, but I know enough to know how to work and clean them.

I don't know every detail about my bikes, but I know enough to do some basic maintenance and repairs.

If you don't know ANYTHING about the topic, wouldn't you be best to stay out of it?


How do you learn about guns, cars, or electrical systems without talking to people who know a lot about them?

Do you shoot a gun and harm someone? Install an electrical system and burn your family up? Drive a car and wreck it? Communication is how we transmit ideas and knowledge. Hell, that is basically the definition of communication. It is why free speech is protected here in America.

[DavidofColorado]

Requiring certification for a firearm is a slippery slope, because it won't work and when it doesn't work the only thing to do is admit it didn't work and remove it or make it stricter. And I don't see to many gun grabbers admitting they are wrong.

We have to remember that freedom is not just something others give us: it’s something that we sometimes have to defend individually.

[Snowman]

I don't think we should take away your right to talk about guns, but I do think that people should be able to self-regulate if they don't know what the heck they are talking about.

You don't see me arguing with Dirk about astrophysics.
I’m not talk about guns, I’m talking about how the 2nd amendment should be applied to the way guns are purchased. (Or is the translation of this thread being too subverted by whatever totalitarian mindset it’s being filtered through?)

Given that I live in a nation where you have the right to own one I think that gives me more than enough information to discuss the subject and express my views and concerns.


And BTW I wouldn’t go there with those astrophysics things with Dirk ether. He’s probably one of those commy string theorists.

[jbnwc]

ok, chill guys. I didn't say we should take away Snow's RIGHT to talk about guns, but if he doesn't know anything about them, how can anything he says be taken with any creedance? (again- no offense, Snowman. I'm sure you have plenty of valid input about karting.)

[jbnwc]

How do you learn about guns, cars, or electrical systems without talking to people who know a lot about them?

Do you shoot a gun and harm someone? Install an electrical system and burn your family up? Drive a car and wreck it? Communication is how we transmit ideas and knowledge. Hell, that is basically the definition of communication. It is why free speech is protected here in America.

He said he has no interest in learning about guns.

Questions about a topic are one thing. You can learn without arguing. Blind arguments are simply for aggravating older sisters.

[Devaclis]

Werd, I call it trolling :)

[rforsythe]

It's one thing to know the parts of a gun, how to shoot a gun, etc. which we all agree Snowman doesn't have dick for knowledge on. However it's entirely another to know about the constitution, how gun law fits into society, and so on, and I believe that he does enough to discuss it and has every ability to do so.

[DavidofColorado]

I don't understand why he insists on disagreeing with us though. If there is a one group that he should trust its us. We have no reason to lie to you snowman.

[jbnwc]

This is all probably coming from the same side of me who doesn't like poeple who don't know 2 cents about bikes regulating bikes. They don't have to be a biker, but you gotta know at least SOMETHING about what you are talking about.

We are all free to discuss whatever we want to here, but some of us probably shouldn't because if we don't know what we are talking about, at the very least we look like idiots. Think about all the newbies that come on here and get jumped on because they are giving attitude about stuff they have no idea about.

[jbnwc]

I don't understand why he insists on disagreeing with us though. If there is a one group that he should trust its us. We have no reason to lie to you snowman.


Amen - I might not agree with you, Snow, but if someone comes to infringe on your rights, me and my AK will be there to defend them for you.