http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/assault-weapons-ban-lacks-democratic-votes-to-pass-senate.html
Beyond not having enough Dem votes, Harry Ried would never allow it to come to a vote anyway. He has an A rating with the NRA.
It's a racist measure anyhow.
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/251809_430452697023215_776944740_n.jpg)
I see the law would grandfather in existing guns. All this talk of a ban has unwittingly placed just about all available inventory of guns which would be banned from sale or transfer into the hands and safes of gun owners. So all this talk from the left has increased the number in circulation moreso than if they simply had looked at the Newtown shooting as a mental health issue in the first place. The gun manufacturers and dealers are no doubt pleased about all the talk of gun bans.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2013, 01:11:04 PM
The gun manufacturers and dealers are no doubt pleased about all the talk of gun bans.
I'm sure that is true every time. I've seen it used in advertising and church bulletins.
I stopped in at Bass Pro Shops this evening on the way home and bought a 30 round magazine for my Ruger Mini 14. Just be-cause. Just because some ignorant Chicago political hack has the nerve to TRY to tell me that he knows better than I, how to live my life! (Oh!!...did I leave out "arrogant, self-righteous, hypocritical political hack".... sorry!)
Also, gotta keep up the appearances of being a cantankerous old fart. What would my kids and grandkids say if I let them down like that!! CAN NOT disappoint the heirs!!
Probably won't ever use it, but at least I have it in case of Zombies!! Or wild hog hunting!!! Hmmm....maybe I will use it....
Quote from: Gaspar on January 25, 2013, 12:30:19 PM
Beyond not having enough Dem votes, Harry Ried would never allow it to come to a vote anyway. He has an A rating with the NRA.
I've been trying to tell you - Harry ain't nearly what Hannity/Limbaugh/Murdoch try to paint him as....ya gotta look at it from a broader perspective. He is THE prime mover in getting it legal to carry in National Parks, Forests, etc. Think nuance!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 25, 2013, 07:37:03 PM
I stopped in at Bass Pro Shops this evening on the way home and bought a 30 round magazine for my Ruger Mini 14. Just be-cause. Just because some ignorant Chicago political hack has the nerve to TRY to tell me that he knows better than I, how to live my life! (Oh!!...did I leave out "arrogant, self-righteous, hypocritical political hack".... sorry!)
Also, gotta keep up the appearances of being a cantankerous old fart. What would my kids and grandkids say if I let them down like that!! CAN NOT disappoint the heirs!!
Probably won't ever use it, but at least I have it in case of Zombies!! Or wild hog hunting!!! Hmmm....maybe I will use it....
What brand did you buy? You have to be careful, some of the aftermarket mini-14 mags really suck. I went through a few until I found one that worked right. Nothing worse than stove-piping a round or getting a jam with a live round.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2013, 10:55:48 PM
What brand did you buy? You have to be careful, some of the aftermarket mini-14 mags really suck. I went through a few until I found one that worked right. Nothing worse than stove-piping a round or getting a jam with a live round.
cough *promag* cough
Worse aftermarket mags ever.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2013, 10:55:48 PM
What brand did you buy? You have to be careful, some of the aftermarket mini-14 mags really suck. I went through a few until I found one that worked right. Nothing worse than stove-piping a round or getting a jam with a live round.
Yeah, I know. ProMag. I figure that I will give it a try and just keep taking them back 'till I get one that works. Have read a lot of reviews about them. Seems really mixed on Mini 14. But I have some for the 1911 and have never had a glitch with any of them, so who knows....
Will buy Ruger when the commotion dies down, but now, I see them for $80. Not interested. Not real sure it is Ruger making them...seems like in the 70's they were outsourced with their brand on it....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 26, 2013, 10:33:26 AM
Yeah, I know. ProMag. I figure that I will give it a try and just keep taking them back 'till I get one that works. Have read a lot of reviews about them. Seems really mixed on Mini 14. But I have some for the 1911 and have never had a glitch with any of them, so who knows....
Will buy Ruger when the commotion dies down, but now, I see them for $80. Not interested. Not real sure it is Ruger making them...seems like in the 70's they were outsourced with their brand on it....
Best one I found was at Dong's. Nickel plating started to peel on it right away but it was the first one that worked like it should. Minor cosmetic irritation ;)
MC and I went to the Green Country Home & Garden Show this morning. I couldn't believe the line for the gun show at Centennial Hall. Why wait an hour in line only to find out ammo is either out of stock or grossly over-priced, and that there are no "black guns" to be bought for a reasonable price right now? The gun dealers have got to be loving all the gun ban hysteria right now. Someone I talked to this morning said .223 is now selling for more than $1.00 a round. Absolutely ludicrous.
Expand your mind beyond ridiculous caricatures of anyone you may not agree with on a given issue.
Make sure you have "ammo"companies in your portfolio.
Do you belong to the NRA? And do you think that they actually represent the beliefs of the majority of gun owners?
Why do you refuse to direct this discussion towards comprehensive background checks? 90%+ in America want background checks. Do you?
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/578456_522058334492100_1310960577_n.jpg)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 25, 2013, 07:37:03 PM
Also, gotta keep up the appearances of being a cantankerous old fart.
Don't worry. We haven't forgotten.... :P
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 26, 2013, 07:27:30 PM
Why do you refuse to direct this discussion towards comprehensive background checks? 90%+ in America want background checks. Do you?
I thought I agreed with you... Until I realized I would have to get a background check done to give a .22 to my son. Or If my mother called me worried about break-ins and I loaned her a pistol. Heck, I wouls have to get a background check done to loan my pastor a gun for dove season.
There are private transfer situations that just don't need gov't intervention.
Quote from: TeeDub on January 27, 2013, 06:03:13 AM
I thought I agreed with you... Until I realized I would have to get a background check done to give a .22 to my son. Or If my mother called me wiorried about break-ins and I loaned her a pistol. Heck, I wouls have to get a background check done to loan my pastor a gun for dove season.
There are private transfer situations that just don't need gov't intervention.
i am certain you never speed...you pay every dime of taxes due... and you never have told a lie
A Navy friend had a sticker on his car with a picture of Smokey the Bear holding a rifle. Under that the words were: I support the right to arm bears.
I cannot understand why anyone would object to the right to bare arms. :D
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 27, 2013, 11:41:21 AM
I cannot understand why anyone would object to the right to bare arms. :D
Don't go all "Sleeveless in Seattle" on us.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 27, 2013, 04:10:34 PM
Don't go all "Sleeveless in Seattle" on us.
Not much danger of that.
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 26, 2013, 07:27:30 PM
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/578456_522058334492100_1310960577_n.jpg)
Dumbest straw man ever. Figures given the source.
Bwahahaha....
Quote
Asked in a magazine interview whether he had ever fired a gun, Mr Obama said he did so with guests at the president's rural retreat.
"Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time," he said. "And I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9830016/Barack-Obama-I-go-shooting-all-the-time.html
We've all seen this.
(http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/600b09201e1.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on January 27, 2013, 07:21:47 PM
Bwahahaha....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9830016/Barack-Obama-I-go-shooting-all-the-time.html
We've all seen this.
Guido, look at the racist comments under the article you posted. You are known by the company you keep.
Do you fear background checks?
In our times it is not the gun control that is alarming it is like Owasso arming their officers with military guns. These guns are for long range killing up to two miles. It should never have come where our protectors become our potential killers.
Quote from: guido911 on January 27, 2013, 07:21:47 PM
We've all seen this.
(http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/600b09201e1.jpg)
Looks like the seat is too low.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 27, 2013, 09:58:25 PM
Looks like the seat is too low.
No. It's the IQ that's too low...especially in College Station and too many related dumb zones.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/22215_10151243376684067_1381502953_n.jpg)
The ridiculous gets ridiculouser.
NYPD Commissioner brandishes an "assault handgun."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/kelly_the_piece_keeper_IUlCTr3YodkRPsPCtRPYOM
I'm willing to bet not a single crime in NY was ever perpetrated with a gun like this. Ever!
(http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2013/01/28/news/web_photos/28.1n004.guns.C--300x300.jpg)
"Is that a gun in your pocket or are you glad to see me?"
Quote from: Gaspar on January 28, 2013, 02:09:31 PM
The ridiculous gets ridiculouser.
NYPD Commissioner brandishes an "assault handgun."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/kelly_the_piece_keeper_IUlCTr3YodkRPsPCtRPYOM
I'm willing to bet not a single crime in NY was ever perpetrated with a gun like this. Ever!
(http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2013/01/28/news/web_photos/28.1n004.guns.C--300x300.jpg)
"Is that a gun in your pocket or are you glad to see me?"
You have an issue with preventative law?
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 28, 2013, 02:26:00 PM
You have an issue with preventative law?
If citizens were allowed to own handguns or even carry in NYC, perhaps the response time for 911 would be a bit more acceptable. It's slightly more difficult to rape a woman with a gun.
Unless of course they are really going to start enforcing "preventative law" and arrest some "future criminals."
(http://www.badscience.net/wp-content/uploads/20060727-minority_report_gestural_ui.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on January 28, 2013, 02:34:38 PM
If citizens were allowed to own handguns or even carry in NYC, perhaps the response time for 911 would be a bit more acceptable. It's slightly more difficult to rape a woman with a gun.
Unless of course they are really going to start enforcing "preventative law" and arrest some "future criminals."
(http://www.badscience.net/wp-content/uploads/20060727-minority_report_gestural_ui.jpg)
They sure use the no smoking law to the hilt...strict enforcement. Why not weapons of mass destruction?
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 28, 2013, 02:38:03 PM
They sure use the no smoking law to the hilt...strict enforcement. Why not weapons of mass destruction?
Criminals still smoke in New York, there are just more of them now.
As one famous New Yorker once Said:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Gravano.jpg)
Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins. – Sammy "The Bull" Gravano
Admitted to 19 murders.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 28, 2013, 02:46:34 PM
Criminals still smoke in New York, there are just more of them now.
As one famous New Yorker once Said:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Gravano.jpg)
Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins. – Sammy "The Bull" Gravano
Admitted to 19 murders.
Funny how you ignore victims and go straight to penetraters.
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 28, 2013, 02:52:41 PM
Funny how you ignore victims and go straight to penetraters.
Disarming people dramatically increases their odds of becoming victims. The right to carry has kept millions from becoming victims.
Who's ignoring victims here?
Again, this is less about guns and more about control.
An armed person is a citizen. An unarmed person is a subject. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them. – Walter Mondale
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 28, 2013, 02:26:00 PM
You have an issue with preventative law?
Exactly what is it you mean by preventative law? You do realize that this law was in place for 10 years and had NO effect as promoted by the liars promoting it. How is it you never address that particular "inconvenient truth"?? And perhaps discuss exactly what it is you think there is about this that would actually accomplish something? And how would it do that...especially since we have an extended time frame proving the opposite...?
There is no such thing in the Constitution. It DOES however say that all things not specifically mentioned are reserved to the states - but that still isn't the case here. And you know it. This is about the fundamental ongoing right for law abiding citizens to enjoy the shooting sport or sports of their choice without undo government intervention.
It's all about the fact that Blobama and his good buddies at the "Brady Bunch Organization" want to eliminate private ownership of firearms. Period. A sentiment he has expressed support for on several occasions.
Hey, didn't I make some comments about Blobama and his anti-gun fanatics a few months ago before the election - and a whole slew of people jumped on that saying how he never has shown any intention of trying to take away guns. Except for the fact that he has talked about it for a long, long time - just not in 2008, so you could be "disarmed" into thinking his intentions were something else...
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 28, 2013, 02:52:41 PM
Funny how you ignore victims and go straight to penetraters.
Really not so funny how you ignore reality and go straight to the fantasy. I still think you must be shadows in disguise....
I bet you really meant perpetrators, didn't you? But maybe not....
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 27, 2013, 07:31:39 PM
Guido, look at the racist comments under the article you posted. You are known by the company you keep.
Please, for all of us, just shut up once and a while.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 28, 2013, 04:33:01 PM
Exactly what is it you mean by preventative law? You do realize that this law was in place for 10 years and had NO effect as promoted by the liars promoting it. How is it you never address that particular "inconvenient truth"?? And perhaps discuss exactly what it is you think there is about this that would actually accomplish something? And how would it do that...especially since we have an extended time frame proving the opposite...?
There is no such thing in the Constitution. It DOES however say that all things not specifically mentioned are reserved to the states - but that still isn't the case here. And you know it. This is about the fundamental ongoing right for law abiding citizens to enjoy the shooting sport or sports of their choice without undo government intervention.
It's all about the fact that Blobama and his good buddies at the "Brady Bunch Organization" want to eliminate private ownership of firearms. Period. A sentiment he has expressed support for on several occasions.
Hey, didn't I make some comments about Blobama and his anti-gun fanatics a few months ago before the election - and a whole slew of people jumped on that saying how he never has shown any intention of trying to take away guns. Except for the fact that he has talked about it for a long, long time - just not in 2008, so you could be "disarmed" into thinking his intentions were something else...
My only disagreement is that it has nothing to do with "sport." The
Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the
others.
It is hard to legislate against an armed populous with the right to protect themselves against threats to their individual liberty.
If the constitution is a fence designed to restrain government, the right to bear arms is the fence post.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 28, 2013, 04:52:38 PM
My only disagreement is that it has nothing to do with "sport." The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
It is hard to legislate against an armed populous with the right to protect themselves against threats to their individual liberty.
If the constitution is a fence designed to restrain government, the right to bear arms is the fence post.
That is the even bigger part of it. While it really isn't at all likely an armed insurrection would ever succeed, the are myriad other areas of problems where the single best solution - or the only solution - is the ability to defend oneself with a firearm.
And the intended use is irrelevant anyway. As long as it is a lawful use, it really is no one's business what I do with a gun, where I do it (see the preface before getting all excited about 'where') or anything else related to the use of a firearm. I can hang them from the ceiling with a light socket and make a chandelier out of it - nobody's business except mine.
You reactionaries here at TNF quit taking things out of context and above all else please stop saying we advocate gun control. I have never taken that position nor has POTUS OBAMA.
American guns are here to stay. But we can do better about filling out forms to insure the wrong people do not buy any more than they already have.
Why do you hate comprehensive background checks?
:-*
Quote from: Conan71 on January 28, 2013, 03:27:42 PM
Disarming people dramatically increases their odds of becoming victims. The right to carry has kept millions from becoming victims.
Who's ignoring victims here?
Can you source this "fact?" Looks to me like the villain was featured...not his victims.
Who has called for disarming?
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 28, 2013, 05:58:53 PM
You reactionaries here at TNF quit taking things out of context and above all else please stop saying we advocate gun control. I have never taken that position nor has POTUS OBAMA.
American guns are here to stay. But we can do better about filling out forms to insure the wrong people do not buy any more than they already have.
Why do you hate comprehensive background checks?
:-*
Yes, he has. You really should go back more than 4 weeks on your "research". Sense and knowledge of history moment.
And how is it that a form (which is already required - an affadavit that is a legal document that can and is used in court - Form 4473) will make any difference? Other than a support item in a court of law. So, I ask again - since you have advanced the idea that "we can do better about filling out forms to insure the wrong people do not buy any more than they already have" - HOW is it that better filling out of forms will ensure anything at all?? Or...you could just dodge the question, like you have dodged all the others...
So,...since "better filling out of forms" is an inane, ineffective, non-event in any real world context, just exactly what is it that you ARE advocating?? Once the silliness of that effort is shown, what is the NEXT step in your mind??
There...3 MORE questions to avoid/ignore.
As for me, I'm am not against background checks. Neither is the NRA - that is why they supported them. That is one of the reasons we have them. Oh,...didn't know that? Hmmm....big surprise....
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 28, 2013, 05:58:53 PM
You reactionaries here at TNF quit taking things out of context and above all else please stop saying we advocate gun control. I have never taken that position nor has POTUS OBAMA.
American guns are here to stay. But we can do better about filling out forms to insure the wrong people do not buy any more than they already have.
Why do you hate comprehensive background checks?
:-*
D'oh!!!
QuoteReuters) - President Barack Obama turned to law enforcement on Monday for support in his push to tighten gun laws, meeting at the White House with police chiefs from cities scarred by mass shootings and calling for more officers nationwide.
Obama, who has made stricter gun control measures a top policy goal for this year, reiterated his desire that lawmakers pass measures he recently unveiled to curb gun violence, including an assault weapons ban and universal background checks for gun purchases.
The meeting was the latest in a series of discussions that Obama is using to try to build political support for tighter gun control after 20 young children and six adults were killed in December by a gunman at a school in Newtown, Connecticut.
Newtown's police chief, Michael Kehoe, attended the meeting along with his counterparts from Aurora, Colorado, where 12 people were killed and 58 wounded in a mass shooting at a movie theater last July, and from Oak Creek, Wisconsin, where six people were killed and four wounded at a Sikh temple in August.
In remarks to reporters at the start of the meeting, Obama noted that the police chiefs realized the problem of gun violence extends beyond high-profile mass shootings.
"That's why part of the conversation that we're going to be having today relates not only to the issue of new laws or better enforcement of our gun laws, it also means what are we doing to make sure that we've got the strongest possible law enforcement teams on the ground?" Obama said.
"What are we doing to hire more cops? What are we doing to make sure that they're getting the training that they need?" he said.
Obama wants to ban military-style assault weapons and ensure that all gun buyers are subjected to background checks. But he needs Congress to pass legislation on the politically tricky issues.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold its first hearing on Wednesday on the measures.
"The only way that we're going to be able to do everything that needs to be done is with the cooperation of Congress," Obama said.
"That means passing serious laws that restrict the access and availability of assault weapons and magazine clips that aren't necessary for hunters and sportsmen and those responsible gun owners who are out there. It means that we are serious about universal background checks," he said.
The National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful pro-gun lobby group, has vowed to defeat the plan, which it says would infringe on gun ownership rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Monday's meeting included Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
Obama and Biden have said their plan would not affect the rights of responsible gun owners. Biden traveled to Richmond, Virginia last week with that message.
That's gun control no matter how you slice it.
Stronger background checks, you bet! Just be prepared for the gubmint to be more privy to things in your background you may not want them to know.
At least Obama will go down at being the best at something...The best gun salesman in the history of the world.....!!!
Conan, it is not gun control. It is controlling the manufacture and distribution of military armaments to civilians.
You gun nuts are crazy. Even Reagan would distance himself from your stench.
Isn't it time for you to start harping on immigration?
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 28, 2013, 10:09:22 PM
Conan, it is not gun control. It is controlling the manufacture and distribution of military armaments to civilians.
You gun nuts are crazy. Even Reagan would distance himself from your stench.
Isn't it time for you to start harping on immigration?
You are all over the place. "...it is not gun control. It is controlling.."
Bahahaha!
I'm just waiting for you to start howling about government intrusion into privacy when you figure out the sort of confidential medical info they will want to tap into for their "comprehensive" checks. I hate to disappoint, but you will find this will be just like the Clinton era control measures, window dressing and little else. Sick people will still seek out and kill the weak and defenseless amongst us.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 28, 2013, 10:19:04 PM
You are all over the place. "...it is not gun control. It is controlling.."
Bahahaha!
I'm just waiting for you to start howling about government intrusion into privacy when you figure out the sort of confidential medical info they will want to tap into for their "comprehensive" checks. I hate to disappoint, but you will find this will be just like the Clinton era control measures, window dressing and little else. Sick people will still seek out and kill the weak and defenseless amongst us.
You fill out information for home insurance? Health insurance? Licenses? Passports? Taxes? Is it just the lazy people who fear the forms? Why do you like to exaggerate what the outcome may be? Why do you use fear in the manner in which you do?
I support the rights of citizens to own firearms.
I'm just waiting for your hate and fear act on the immigration issue...again.
(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k196/DeSwiss/New%20Stuff3/125442_600.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on January 28, 2013, 10:19:04 PM
Sick people will still seek out and kill the weak and defenseless amongst us.
And as long as we're drowning in guns, they'll take a lot of us with them on their way out.
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 28, 2013, 10:27:31 PM
You fill out information for home insurance? Health insurance? Licenses? Passports? Taxes? Is it just the lazy people who fear the forms? Why do you like to exaggerate what the outcome may be? Why do you use fear in the manner in which you do?
I support the rights of citizens to own firearms.
I'm just waiting for your hate and fear act on the immigration issue...again.
(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k196/DeSwiss/New%20Stuff3/125442_600.jpg)
You do understand that if I walk into Academy Sports to purchase a conceal carry gun, I already fill out a form so they can phone in a background check, correct?
It's actually simpler than filling out an app for health insurance, life insurance, auto insurance, or a pre-op admission form. I've filled out all of the above in the last year or so. I personally don't know of any 2A advocates who are not for background checks. I'm just curious what you think will be different about them just because POTUS Obama says we need them? We already do it.
In order to access mental health information which might disqualify someone, though, the government is going to have to have better access to private medical records. I don't have a problem with it because I don't have any loose screws rattling around. Curious how that's going to resonate with you. Do you think government bureaucrats should have access to anyone's confidential medical info at their fingertips?
As far as immigration, I think everyone realizes there needs to be a sensible solution. However, if all the president is interested in doing is trying to secure votes for future Democrat candidates rather than really make a difference, he's going to face stiff resistance. I'm hearing some bi-partisan solutions which make great sense. Let's see how far that gets.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 29, 2013, 04:14:02 PM
You do understand that if I walk into Academy Sports a gun show circus to purchase a conceal carry gun, I already fill out a form so they can phone in a background check slip through the cracks (like the old days :D), correct?
So far, It's actually simpler than filling out an app for health insurance, life insurance, auto insurance, or a pre-op admission form. I've filled out all of the above in the last year or so. I personally don't know of any 2A advocates who are not for background checks. I'm just curious what you think will be different about them just because POTUS Obama says we need them? We already do kinda it. What about ammunition?
In order to access mental health information which might disqualify someone, though, the government is going to have to have better complete :) access to private medical records. I don't have a problem with it because I don't have any loose screws rattling around (sez who?). Curious how that's going to resonate with you. Do you think government bureaucrats should have access to anyone's confidential medical info at their fingertips? Why not? http://gawker.com/5979916/can-animals-be-mentally-ill
As far as immigration, I think everyone realizes there needs to be a sensible solution. However, if all the president is interested in doing is trying to secure votes for future Democrat candidates (that's the deal, sucka) rather than really make a difference, he's going to face stiff resistance. I'm hearing some bi-partisan solutions which make great sense. Let's see how far that gets.
Republican Latino Outreach Memo: Don't Use the Term Illegal Immigrant, or Illegals, Aliens and "Anchor Babies"http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/29/republican-latino-outreach-memo-dont-use
You didn't get the memo?
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 29, 2013, 04:49:04 PM
Republican Latino Outreach Memo: Don't Use the Term Illegal Immigrant, or Illegals, Aliens and "Anchor Babies"
http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/29/republican-latino-outreach-memo-dont-use
You didn't get the memo?
I'm not a Republican. Besides Asian women are the latest to discover paternal tourism in the U.S. Mexicans are so 2005.
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 28, 2013, 10:09:22 PM
Conan, it is not gun control. It is controlling the manufacture and distribution of military armaments to civilians.
You gun nuts are crazy. Even Reagan would distance himself from your stench.
Isn't it time for you to start harping on immigration?
Do you even listen to yourself?? Or think about what you are writing while writing it?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 29, 2013, 04:14:02 PM
...In order to access mental health information which might disqualify someone, though, the government is going to have to have better access to private medical records. I don't have a problem with it because I don't have any loose screws rattling around. Curious how that's going to resonate with you. Do you think government bureaucrats should have access to anyone's confidential medical info at their fingertips?
This is one of my concerns about having government access to medical records. There's tremendous potential for abuse, for one thing, and for another once someone's name winds up on the official list, it will be impossible to get off of it. That's exactly like the no-fly list that TSA maintains.
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 29, 2013, 04:49:04 PM
You didn't get the memo?
And as always, you ignore the reality and don't respond to the direct questions posed. Background checks are done at gun shows. Anytime, anywhere a dealer sells a firearm, a background check is done.
The only way to avoid that is the sale between individuals. One individual to another individual. The vast minority of gun sales in this country....
Hey! Here's a thought... if you aren't against people owning guns, how about telling us what your opinion really is...like has been asked repeatedly. Along with other questions still pending.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 29, 2013, 08:15:45 PM
I'm not a Republican. Besides Asian women are the latest to discover paternal tourism in the U.S. Mexicans are so 2005.
Long time. Have friends from 60's who got on that train.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 29, 2013, 08:44:37 PM
how about telling us what your opinion really is...like has been asked repeatedly.
He doesn't have a personal opinion regarding anything until he reads it on HuffPo, DailyKoz, or Al Jazeera.
Conan and Heir, why do you need assault weapons?
What's wrong with marking the box on the form stating you've been certified crazy?
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 29, 2013, 11:55:32 PM
Conan and Heir, why do you need assault weapons?
What's wrong with marking the box on the form stating you've been certified crazy?
Who ever said I
need an "assault" weapon? Who ever said I even own one? It is my legal right to own one if I so choose under current law. They are a lot of fun for target shooting, but not anything I'd use as a primary form of self-defense.
I will tell you why I think an "assault" weapon ban is nothing more than the popular political flavor of the day. More people are killed by revolvers every year than "assault" weapons. Far more people are killed by knives, drunk driving, second hand smoke, drug overdose, drowning, electrocution, etc. than rounds fired from "assault" weapons. I even suspect more people die being beaten by a shovel or baseball bat every year. The incidence of mass shootings using "assault" weapons is relatively small vs. other firearms. This is just another way for legislators for a ban to make those who really haven't looked more deeply into the issue feel like they are doing something to protect them. Legislators against a ban are making their constituents feel like they are looking out for a right guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment.
Of course, 30 round mags and flash suppressors are not mentioned in 2A. Neither are tanks or battleships. It's not the weapon that's the issue. It's unhinged people and a lack of respect for life that's the real issue. You can't legislate the evil out of people.
As far as the form goes, they do have a box to check for that. Someone knows they will be turned down for a purchase if they check it. So they lie. All hoops like this do is add up to more paperwork for law-abiding citizens. If it actually has helped screen out people who should not own a gun, it's obviously a good thing. I also don't have a problem for individual transactions at gun shows having to be run through an FFL who is at the show. That still doesn't stop on the street transactions nor theft.
Part of being a responsible gun owner though is having a secure place to keep your weapon or weapons locked down.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3tGFnnRa-uM/UDT-dqlCajI/AAAAAAAAAx8/bWeLeOiAsTc/s1600/atf%2B4473.jpg)
QuoteMore people are killed by revolvers every year than "assault" weapons.
"A Killing Machine": Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazineshttp://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings#data
Looks like they are killed by high-capacity magazines....
Why do you suppose Reagan wanted belts and suspenders on assault weapon purchases?
Also, instead of fighting against a background check, why not be for background checks unless you are a man who thinks "the government is out to get him."
QuotePart of being a responsible gun owner though is having a secure place to keep your weapon or weapons locked down.
Exactly. And when a mother fails to do so it's cause for asking why did she need those arms? Why wasn't she responsible enough to protect the public from a son she knew was not right?
Using your arguments, all drugs should not only be legal, but there should be trade shows making them available to the public. I have no problem with that.
Using this issue to prove your manhood will not work.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/2f3e036227470d5f5d5040837bcd520a/tumblr_mgrbb2Nwb41qfhxz1o1_500.jpg)
Lapierre sounds mentally ill! Under current law, gun purchasers buying firearms from federally licensed dealers are subject to background checks. As a result, more than 2 million applicants have been prohibited from purchasing guns. Unfortunately, 40 percent of firearm acquisitions are from individuals who are not licensed gun dealers and do not undergo any background checks.
The lie is the government failing to prosecute. Just as it's illegal for someone under 18 to buy cigarettes and for someone under 21 to purchase alcohol, and you don't prosecute them for it. You just don't sell it to them. That doesn't mean that they don't try. People who sell it to them DO get prosecuted.
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 29, 2013, 11:55:32 PM
Conan and Heir, why do you need assault weapons?
What's wrong with marking the box on the form stating you've been certified crazy?
Not even within 1,000 miles of the point.
Why do you need any of the things you need beyond food and shelter? Start at the front door of your house and go through it all - the vast majority of the contents have nothing to do with things you 'need'.
But you know this already....
Quote from: patric on January 30, 2013, 12:26:31 PM
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/2f3e036227470d5f5d5040837bcd520a/tumblr_mgrbb2Nwb41qfhxz1o1_500.jpg)
Absolutely!! Another area where it is NO ONE else's business except the people involved. And while we are at it, add plural marriage to the marriage thing, in addition to same-sex. NO ONES BUSINESS!!
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 30, 2013, 12:37:14 PM
Unfortunately, 40 percent of firearm acquisitions are from individuals who are not licensed gun dealers and do not undergo any background checks.
The lie is the government failing to prosecute. Just as it's illegal for someone under 18 to buy cigarettes and for someone under 21 to purchase alcohol, and you don't prosecute them for it. You just don't sell it to them. That doesn't mean that they don't try. People who sell it to them DO get prosecuted.
The real lie (and omissions) for this are the fact that Bloomberg has no clue about the 40% number - and neither did that 1994 "survey" of about 250 people - by phone - about who was buying guns where. Less than zero information there. Which caters to YOUR world just fine...
And the interesting little omission that you so conveniently left out is that same survey addressed this whole non-sense idea of "gun show loophole" - just when background checks were starting up AT gun shows. And they found that under 4% of gun sales occurred at gun shows.
You just blather on blindly from Bloomberg and Brady Bunch LWRE sources the same way that others parrot "The Script" from the RWRE.
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 30, 2013, 12:10:57 PM
"A Killing Machine": Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings#data
Looks like they are killed by high-capacity magazines....
Why do you suppose Reagan wanted belts and suspenders on assault weapon purchases?
Also, instead of fighting against a background check, why not be for background checks unless you are a man who thinks "the government is out to get him."
Exactly. And when a mother fails to do so it's cause for asking why did she need those arms? Why wasn't she responsible enough to protect the public from a son she knew was not right?
Using your arguments, all drugs should not only be legal, but there should be trade shows making them available to the public. I have no problem with that.
Using this issue to prove your manhood will not work.
Why do you keep coming up with the idea I'm not for background checks? I'm very much for background checks. Not sure where you come up with your "all drugs should be legal" but hey, it's your reality. Mother Jones isn't exactly known for statistical accuracy and reading the article you linked to it even states what type of clips were used was unclear. Great methodology, MJ!
Speaking of reality: Sandy Hook happened in spite of an "assault" weapon ban which specifically spelled out that Bushmasters like the one allegedly used in that killing were illegal to possess in the state of Connecticut. There are also laws which prohibit discharging a weapon in the city limits, laws against bringing firearms onto school property, aiming a loaded firearm at other people, transporting loaded firearms, and even using a firearm to kill people. The reality is, a gun ban nor any of those other laws prevented this tragedy from happening. Even enhanced background checks apparently would not have prevented this. The one person who could have kept this from happening apparently did not appreciate the responsibility she had as a gun owner to keep them secure and out of reach of her crazy son. It's not the fault of the rest of responsible gun owners this tragedy happened.
If the government wants to classify "assault" weapons like fully automatics and require special licensing, so be it. That does not impinge on my right to defend myself, there are still plenty of other legal means to do so which are far more practical for home defense. Enhanced background checks are certainly sound logic.
However, nothing in the way of new restrictions or better background checks will prevent the criminally insane from doing criminally insane things. If discussion does not include and result in better school security, no amount of regulation on lawful gun owners, sellers, and buyers will make a difference in preventing tragedies like this from happening in the future.
Wayne Laughier testified in 1999 that he was all for comprehensive background checks. Funny how the tea heads have taken over the NRA too.
The NRA was originally a gun control organization. Now, they represent everything mean and angry and hateful about the distribution of arms. Again I will ask, why do you need these weapons? And if it is to protect yourselves from your government then what does that say about you?
In other words, he was for background checks right up to the point when the "black guy" got elected. Notice, whenever ANY Republican talks about policy on any subject they go to "THIS administration is a FAILURE" totally ignoring and/or dismissing everything he's ever done or said.
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 30, 2013, 10:21:36 PM
Wayne Laughier testified in 1999 that he was all for comprehensive background checks. Funny how the tea heads have taken over the NRA too.
The NRA was originally a gun control organization. Now, they represent everything mean and angry and hateful about the distribution of arms. Again I will ask, why do you need these weapons? And if it is to protect yourselves from your government then what does that say about you?
In other words, he was for background checks right up to the point when the "black guy" got elected. Notice, whenever ANY Republican talks about policy on any subject they go to "THIS administration is a FAILURE" totally ignoring and/or dismissing everything he's ever done or said.
The NRA is nothing more than a lobbying group for gun manufacturers. I'll never become a member for that specific reason. At one point I understand they USED to be for the gun owner. I know many likeminded gun owners who feel the same way.
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 30, 2013, 10:21:36 PM
Wayne Laughier testified in 1999 that he was all for comprehensive background checks. Funny how the tea heads have taken over the NRA too.
The NRA was originally a gun control organization. Now, they represent everything mean and angry and hateful about the distribution of arms. Again I will ask, why do you need these weapons? And if it is to protect yourselves from your government then what does that say about you?
In other words, he was for background checks right up to the point when the "black guy" got elected. Notice, whenever ANY Republican talks about policy on any subject they go to "THIS administration is a FAILURE" totally ignoring and/or dismissing everything he's ever done or said.
Quit being such a racist. It really cheapens your argument.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 28, 2013, 03:27:42 PM
Disarming people dramatically increases their odds of becoming victims. The right to carry has kept millions from becoming victims.
Who's ignoring victims here?
Another gun nut lie.
http://guninformation.org/
QuoteMYTH: Keeping guns in the home increases personal protection.
TRUTH: Obviously, self defense is not a good argument against gun control since those who own firearms are actually more likely to be victims of homicide. Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide. Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with the murderer) (source) and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide (source). Guns make it more likely that a suicide attempt will be successful than if other means were used such as sleeping pills.
MYTH:"Guns don't kill, people kill people" is a good argument against gun control.
TRUTH: This pro-gun argument makes about as much sense as claiming that "glasses don't see, eyes see" is a good argument against wearing glasses. Glasses are a tool which help people to see just as guns are a tool that help people to kill and injure others. Empirical research indicates that firearms increase the chances that a crime will turn deadly. A study done by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence reported that a victim is about five times more likely to survive if an attacker is armed with a knife rather than a gun (source). Furthermore, The International Crime Victim Survey concluded that there is a correlation between gun ownership and an increase in both homicide and suicide.
And yes, a significant part of the gun nut argument is racist.
Every time you talk about Trayvon Martin, you prove that point in a pretty blatant way.
Walkable urban areas where everyone packs heat are not safe urban environments for ANYBODY.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 25, 2013, 07:37:03 PM
I stopped in at Bass Pro Shops this evening on the way home and bought a 30 round magazine for my Ruger Mini 14. Just be-cause. Just because some ignorant Chicago political hack has the nerve to TRY to tell me that he knows better than I, how to live my life! (Oh!!...did I leave out "arrogant, self-righteous, hypocritical political hack".... sorry!)
Also, gotta keep up the appearances of being a cantankerous old fart. What would my kids and grandkids say if I let them down like that!! CAN NOT disappoint the heirs!!
Probably won't ever use it, but at least I have it in case of Zombies!! Or wild hog hunting!!! Hmmm....maybe I will use it....
::) Gunscum. That's all you are. Now get back to your fruity talk comparing MILITARY STYLE GUNS & AMMO THAT CAN ONLY BE USED TO MOW DOWN PEOPLE to baseball bats or soccer balls.
I get tired of partisan gun hacks from the boondocks or the burbs telling me that Chicago would be safer if everyone was packing heat.
Idiots.
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/c7.0.403.403/p403x403/398068_544003952277254_1704124765_n.png)
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on January 31, 2013, 01:34:27 AM
::) Gunscum. That's all you are. Now get back to your fruity talk comparing MILITARY STYLE GUNS & AMMO THAT CAN ONLY BE USED TO MOW DOWN PEOPLE to baseball bats or soccer balls.
I get tired of partisan gun hacks from the boondocks or the burbs telling me that Chicago would be safer if everyone was packing heat.
Idiots.
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/c7.0.403.403/p403x403/398068_544003952277254_1704124765_n.png)
Wow! What an imaginative name caller... so clever of you. But hey, I guess that's what the rest of the world has come to expect from their soccer hooligans, so why should we be any different, eh? And if that's all ya got, I guess ya gotta go with it... Your signature pretty well puts it all out in front - your hero is Noel Lemon, whose quote directly stated that his goal was to feed the hate.
As for being safer with concealed carry, well all you have to do is look at and study the results for the other 48 states that have embraced it and see that the violent crimes rates have reduced - more than without (you do know how to read....??). Probably one of the reasons so many - most - legitimate law enforcement personnel are in favor. (Like the latest - the sheriff in Wisconsin). And exactly opposite the Blobama Brady Bunchers.
Quote:
MILITARY STYLE GUNS & AMMO THAT CAN ONLY BE USED TO MOW DOWN PEOPLE...
And you wonder why you have so little credibility on this topic?? You don't even understand that most basic fact that you cannot judge the book by the cover - looks don't mean a thing, it's what inside that counts, and a .223 is an extremely valuable round for a wide variety of shooting sports. None of which involve mowing down people! (Do you use that same logic in your dealings with people - just look at the outside and make your uninformed, snap judgements based on the color of the covering??)
It's hard to argue with success, but that is exactly what the Brady Buncher's do. Fly in the face of reality. They are the LWRE equivalent of Birthers - repeating the chant in hopes that normal people will finally be worn down and go along with their ignorance just to shut them up.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on January 31, 2013, 01:23:25 AM
Another gun nut lie.
http://guninformation.org/
And yes, a significant part of the gun nut argument is racist.
Every time you talk about Trayvon Martin, you prove that point in a pretty blatant way.
Walkable urban areas where everyone packs heat are not safe urban environments for ANYBODY.
Bad night of PWI for Ruff, I guess.
Don't go off on partisan hackery when you cite uninformed biased bloggers for your sources.
As far as there being a higher chance of homicide in my home with a loaded weapon, that would be correct. Once someone breaks in my door, there will be a homicide- justifiable homicide. Neither my wife nor I have depressive issues, so the chances of suicide in my home is 0%, that is unless one of my cats or my Yorkie grows an opposable thumb and decides to end it all. My wife prefers not to be a victim of rape or murder if she is home alone, I can respect that.
Advocating responsible self-defense is hardly gun-nuttery.
You're more likely to get your gun taken away from you and used against you than you are to successfully use it in self defense. Maybe not you personally, but people in general. Moreover, that gun is quite likely to get stolen from you if you don't carry it with you at all times. Then it'll be sold and used on some poor bastard who wasn't quick enough in handing over his wallet. I guess the answer is even more guns?
Quote from: nathanm on January 31, 2013, 03:54:47 PM
You're more likely to get your gun taken away from you and used against you than you are to successfully use it in self defense.
(http://www.adamtglass.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/real-life-philosoraptor.jpeg)
If that is food for thought, we may starve.
Quote from: nathanm on January 31, 2013, 03:54:47 PM
You're more likely to get your gun taken away from you and used against you than you are to successfully use it in self defense. Maybe not you personally, but people in general. Moreover, that gun is quite likely to get stolen from you if you don't carry it with you at all times. Then it'll be sold and used on some poor bastard who wasn't quick enough in handing over his wallet. I guess the answer is even more guns?
That is one of the dumbest meme's being perpetrated by the anti-gun crowd. I like my chances a whole lot better against an armed intruder or attacker if I am armed.
A gun in the hands of a properly trained person who is responsible in either keeping it on them or locked down when not on them is good defense. Good SDA instructors not only assure you know how to fire a weapon but also know how to avoid having it taken from you. I wouldn't take the class from anyone who doesn't also include advanced self-defense as a part of the curriculum.
Now, a gun in the hands of a hapless idiot who doesn't appreciate the responsibility of owning a firearm will likely have it used on them or end up getting it stolen that does happen, but there's no credible evidence to suggest this happens more often than not.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 31, 2013, 04:50:07 PM
Now, a gun in the hands of a hapless idiot who doesn't appreciate the responsibility of owning a firearm
There are a lot of hapless idiots that own guns. The problem isn't responsible gun ownership. The problem is the overwhelming amount of irresponsible gun ownership. Over 100,000 guns are stolen each year in this country, mostly from people's houses. This isn't just a few idiots not locking up their guns. It's a lot of idiots not locking up their guns.
Quote from: nathanm on January 31, 2013, 05:40:50 PM
There are a lot of hapless idiots that own guns. The problem isn't responsible gun ownership. The problem is the overwhelming amount of irresponsible gun ownership. Over 100,000 guns are stolen each year in this country, mostly from people's houses. This isn't just a few idiots not locking up their guns. It's a lot of idiots not locking up their guns.
I get where you are coming from, that sounds like a large number but as a percent 100K represents only .0005 percent of the estimated 200 million privately-owned firearms. That's .00028 of the estimated 350 million total between LEO, armed forces, and other government entities. Hell they are even stolen from cop's homes and cars.
People need to realize a night stand, freezer, silverware drawer or glove box or center console of a car is not a gun safe. There again, no one seems to be able to delineate how many stolen firearms weren't already reported stolen by someone else prior to the latest theft. In other words, how many of those stolen firearms were one criminal stealing from another when it was reported as stolen?
Most gun owners I know are very anal about properly secured and anchored safes in their home and mini safes in their vehicle.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2013, 10:08:03 AM
I get where you are coming from, that sounds like a large number but as a percent 100K represents only .0005 percent of the estimated 200 million privately-owned firearms. That's .00028 of the estimated 350 million total between LEO, armed forces, and other government entities. Hell they are even stolen from cop's homes and cars.
People need to realize a night stand, freezer, silverware drawer or glove box or center console of a car is not a gun safe. There again, no one seems to be able to delineate how many stolen firearms weren't already reported stolen by someone else prior to the latest theft. In other words, how many of those stolen firearms were one criminal stealing from another when it was reported as stolen?
Most gun owners I know are very anal about properly secured and anchored safes in their home and mini safes in their vehicle.
Speaking of safes, can you or any other gun owner here suggest a good cable anchor safe for my car?
Quote from: Hoss on February 01, 2013, 10:16:37 AM
Speaking of safes, can you or any other gun owner here suggest a good cable anchor safe for my car?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2013, 10:08:03 AM
I get where you are coming from, that sounds like a large number but as a percent 100K represents only .0005 percent of the estimated 200 million privately-owned firearms. That's .00028 of the estimated 350 million total between LEO, armed forces, and other government entities. Hell they are even stolen from cop's homes and cars.
Yes, it's a small percentage, but still a large number in absolute terms, and very likely under reported. As far as most gun owners you know being responsible, you apparently don't know many good 'ol boys. ;)
Hell, one of my clients leaves a loaded shotgun in the corner of his office and has since I first started working for him 15 years ago. :P Perhaps the gun owning set here in Oklahoma is more likely to use a safe. I don't know enough gun owners here well enough to know what their security arrangements are.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 31, 2013, 08:48:51 AM
Bad night of PWI for Ruff, I guess.
Don't go off on partisan hackery when you cite uninformed biased bloggers for your sources.
As far as there being a higher chance of homicide in my home with a loaded weapon, that would be correct. Once someone breaks in my door, there will be a homicide- justifiable homicide. Neither my wife nor I have depressive issues, so the chances of suicide in my home is 0%, that is unless one of my cats or my Yorkie grows an opposable thumb and decides to end it all. My wife prefers not to be a victim of rape or murder if she is home alone, I can respect that.
Advocating responsible self-defense is hardly gun-nuttery.
No. Partisan hackery is YOUR job, not mine.
There is a better chance of your weapon being used to kill an unsuspecting foreign exchange student than an actual murderer.
Oh, wait... if a petty thief breaks into your house, they deserve to die, right?
Really nice christian attitude you have there.
Funny dat.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/26/us/verdict-in-death-of-student-reverberates-across-nation.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Quote"This was a terrible tragedy, but once you had testimony this kid had an object in his hand and he was dancing around, moving forward, you had an acquittal right there," said Don Kates, a civil liberties lawyer and criminologist in San Francisco.
One caller to a talk show on radio station WLS in Chicago said yesterday: "This is a racist thing. If the guy who they killed was white, the killer would have been convicted. This is Klan country. If the guy was a minority, there'd be a riot and a new trial."
"What's happening is that we've got a gun lobby that's basically saying that pretty much everyone in America should be armed to the teeth because crime is rampant, the law can't protect you, and you have to do it for yourself," said Susan Whitmore, director of communications for the gun control group, Handgun Control. "But what you find is that guns don't make us safer, they just escalate the violence."
"This seems like Wild West justice," said Dan Wideman, a 24-year-old writer in Chicago. "But it shouldn't surprise us because of the level of fear and paranoia in our country. The only thing shocking about it is that American society has degenerated to the point where we just take something like this for granted whereas it led the Japanese newscasts nightly.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on February 03, 2013, 11:12:41 AM
No. Partisan hackery is YOUR job, not mine.
There is a better chance of your weapon being used to kill an unsuspecting foreign exchange student than an actual murderer.
Oh, wait... if a petty thief breaks into your house, they deserve to die, right?
Really nice christian attitude you have there.
Funny dat.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/26/us/verdict-in-death-of-student-reverberates-across-nation.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
That's Castle Doctrine. If someone is stupid enough to break into MY house and not expect me feel threatened, let them try it. If you're not in my house by invite, you better get out.
And I'm not what you would consider a 'gun nut'. I own two semi-automatic handguns. Trying to get a shotgun also.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 31, 2013, 07:36:55 AM
Wow! What an imaginative name caller... so clever of you.
I have more respect for "Brady bunchers" than I will ever have for the gunscum who insist their rights to buy a bright shiny new military-style phallus trump the rights of parents who want to enroll their kids in elementary schools that are free from armed guards and/or metal detectors.
I remember James Brady.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57562892/jim-bradys-wife-sarah-this-is-a-huge-moment-for-gun-control/
I remember Ruby Ridge and Waco. Do YOU remember 42-year old deputy marshall William F. Dagan? Me neither. But I bet his family does.
If Mr. Weaver had done what any REAL AMERICAN CITIZEN does when arrested and understands he would have had his day in court, this would never have happened.
Do you remember that Randy Weaver was a racist white supremicist? And yet he is martyred as some sort of saint because he refused to follow AMERICAN LAWS and appear in court...
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/26/us/fugitive-in-idaho-cabin-plays-role-of-folk-hero.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
QuoteIn the five days since a deputy United States marshal, William F. Degan, and Mr. Weaver's 13-year-old son, Samuel, were killed in a shootout, crowds of people have been steadily harassing the officers who are trying to detain the fugitive. He has vowed to die, and to take his three daughters and his wife, Vicki, with him if necessary.
Mr. Weaver, who is wanted on a Federal gun charge, has holed up in his cabin since January 1991, when he failed to appear in court. The Federal authorities have kept the cabin under surveillance, hoping, they said, to arrest him without a confrontation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal agents said Samuel, who was armed, was killed Friday in the initial exchange of gunfire that led to the death of the 42-year-old deputy marshal, Mr. Degan.
Even beyond the continuing confrontation at the roadblock, there is evidence of considerable support in Idaho for Mr. Weaver and other fugitives who have taken on the Federal Government. White supremacists, although disavowed by virtually every politician in the state, continue to flourish in Idaho; the headquarters of the Aryan Nations, a radical neo-Nazi group, has been based 60 miles south of here, at Hayden Lake, for more than a decade.
In recent years Claude Dallas, a man convicted of killing two game wardens, and Christopher Boyce, who sold American military secrets to the Soviet Union, found refuge in the sparsely populated woods of Idaho and had numerous supporters.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Trochmann, a friend of the Weavers who has been bringing the family food for the last year, was also at the barricade, along with several of her children.
When she last visited them, a month ago, all the Weaver children except the baby were armed, Mrs. Trochmann said, adding, "I'm proud of Randy, and I hope he doesn't surrender."
The Weavers' baby is 9 months old; the other girls are 12 and 16 years old.
Like other supporters of Mr. Weaver, Mrs. Trochmann expressed little sympathy for the deputy marshal who was killed. She said the agents "provoked" the killing by trespassing on Mr. Weaver's property, 20 acres of thick forest on a mountaintop just outside this hamlet of 130 people.
The cabin is in Boundary County, which has only a single black family among its 9,000 residents, according to the 1990 census.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A human rights group, formed several years ago to counter racists, has been trying this week to defuse the image of Mr. Weaver as a folk hero. "This is not a case of civil rights or harassment," the group, the Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations, said in a statement. "If our system is to survive, we must respect the laws and the judicial system."
The Branch Dividians were also TRAITORS to this country... traitors worse than Jane Fonda could ever dream of being...
http://www.culteducation.com/waco.html
QuoteFormer BATF director Steven Higgins later outlined the information received by his bureau suggesting the potential danger posed by David Koresh and his followers, both to the public and the Davidians themselves. He stated, "I can only say: Remember Jonestown. Or remember the members of the sect in Canada and Switzerland [i.e. The Solar Temple] who committed mass suicide. Or look at what happened in the subways in Japan, where a group [Aum] whose presence was known and considered potentially dangerous by government officials allegedly uncorked a deadly nerve gas. The day has long passed when we can afford to ignore the threat posed by individuals who believe they are subject only to the laws of their god and not those of our government."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...during 1999 former United States Senator John Danforth (Republican-Missouri) conducted an independent investigation regarding Waco. After 10 months, which included interviews with about 900 witnesses, the examination of 2.3 million pages of documents and an expense of between $10 million to $11 million dollars Danforth concluded with "100 percent certainty" that the FBI did not start the fire or shoot at cult members during the fire. He further stated, "There are no doubts in my mind," and concluded, "The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of David Koresh." The Danforth Report published in November 2000 unequivocally reaffirmed the conclusions previously submitted July 21, 2000 in his Special Interim Report, which cited the following five points:
1. Government agents did not start the fire at Waco;
2. Government agents did not shoot at the Branch Davidians on April 19, 1993;
3. Government agents did not improperly use the United States military;
4. Government agents did not engage in a massive conspiracy and cover-up. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Attorney General Reno, the present and former Director of the FBI, other high officials of the United States, or the individual members of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team who fired three pyrotechnic tear gas rounds on April 19, 1993.
5. Responsibility for the tragedy at Waco rests with certain of the Branch Davidians and their leader, David Koresh, who shot and killed four ATF agents, wounded twenty others, shot at FBI agents trying to insert tear gas into the complex, burned down the complex, and shot at least twenty of their own people, including five children.
Not content with the court's decision, the Waco Davidian survivors pursued appeals. But in June of 2003 without dissent, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an attempt by the survivors to collect damages from the government. Less than a year later in 2004, the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear their appeal, questioning the conduct of a judge involved in lawsuits over the Branch Davidian siege outside Waco.
Despite these facts, which have been established repeatedly by the detailed examination and analysis of the evidence and reported through a succession of investigations, hearings and court actions, the Waco Davidian Standoff continues to be a favorite topic amongst anti-government conspiracy theorists. It seems this subculture of suspicion insists upon turning this cult tragedy into a thriving "cottage industry," which has included documentaries, books, videos (available through numerous Web sites) and even speaking tours. It is doubtful that such extremists will ever accept the facts about the Davidians and will instead perpetuate their own alternative version of reality for propaganda and profit.
Propaganda and profit.
Those are the values of the gun-nut anti-gubmint counterculture and their cronies in the NRA.
It is an insult to the people who worked at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City that you should continue to ask whether we remember Ruby Ridge and Waco.... and then fail to mention the despicable traitorous acts of Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, etc....
Do YOU remember the Oklahoma City bombing?
I do.
I was there.
I sang the service at the catholic church across the street the week after -- window blown out -- windows at the Regency condos/apts across the street also blown out.
I had a friend who worked for the Rotary Club and normally would have been buying breakfast bagels, etc. for staff at the Journal Record building across the street from the Murrah building at around 9:02 am. But she had to be out of town that day. She was pretty hysterical that day, if memory serves.
I had a family member completing her masters in social work at OU working at the VA in Norman... many vets were having relapses and the staff had to do a lockdown.
All the televisions in the hospital were showing footage of downtown OKC that looked like a war zone.
They couldn't turn them off fast enough.
Members of the gun counterculture and their ilk are the ones with blood on their hands.
Not the ATF. Not the federal workers (SSA, ATF, DEA, Army recruiters, etc).
And certainly not those workers' children.
IMHO, anyone who mentions Ruby Ridge and Waco as rallying cries against gun control are domestic terrorist sympathizers and are part of the problem.
I don't blame the weapons; just the gun nuts who stockpile them.
Pity.
Quote from: Hoss on February 03, 2013, 11:23:04 AM
That's Castle Doctrine. If someone is stupid enough to break into MY house and not expect me feel threatened, let them try it. If you're not in my house by invite, you better get out.
And I'm not what you would consider a 'gun nut'. I own two semi-automatic handguns. Trying to get a shotgun also.
That's your personal choice.
It is respected and supported by law.
It will not be a crime for you to use a gun against an intruder in your own home.
However, to equate that choice as something that makes somebody more patriotic or manly than someone who does not want guns in his/her home?
Well... you know us soccer fans... unlike hockey fans, we're prone to violence. ;)
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on February 03, 2013, 12:51:46 PMThat's your personal choice.
It is respected and supported by law.
It will not be a crime for you to use a gun against an intruder in your own home.
However, to equate that choice as something that makes somebody more patriotic or manly than someone who does not want guns in his/her home?
Well... you know us soccer fans... unlike hockey fans, we're prone to violence. ;)
You do yourself no good putting words into peoples mouths as I've never said it makes them 'more manly or patriotic'. It makes it my right to defend myself in my home or car.
Right and choice. I don't disparage those who choose not to.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on February 03, 2013, 12:40:16 PM
1. Government agents did not start the fire at Waco;
When I was a volunteer interpreter at Fort Smith NHS, I had the privilege of shaking the hand of one of the Texas Rangers who recovered the flash-bang that the FBI said it didnt fire into the gasoline storage.
They were understandably modest about it, and it resulted in an FBI policy from that point on to stop routinely allowing local authorities crime scene access to conduct their own investigations.
Now, hows that for thread drift?
Quote from: Hoss on February 03, 2013, 12:57:26 PM
You do yourself no good putting words into peoples mouths as I've never said it makes them 'more manly or patriotic'. It makes it my right to defend myself in my home or car.
Right and choice. I don't disparage those who choose not to.
Wasn't referring to you personally.
Was referring generally to those on this site who live in suburbs or low crime areas who insist on the moral superiority of packing heat.
Carrying a gun shouldn't be looked upon as some sort of badge of honor.
I have friends in Turley who have quite a few firearms in their home.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on February 03, 2013, 01:05:18 PM
Wasn't referring to you personally.
Was referring generally to those on this site who live in suburbs or low crime areas who insist on the moral superiority of packing heat.
Carrying a gun shouldn't be looked upon as some sort of badge of honor.
I have friends in Turley who have quite a few firearms in their home.
In the area I live in, and the circumstances (assisting my Mother) it really didn't dawn upon me to start carrying until last year. I'm glad I do. There's usually not a weekend goes by that I don't hear the PoPo Whirlies overhead. I don't live in a really bad neighborhood, but close enough to some sketchy businesses on Admiral that I do feel the need to make sure both myself and my mother are defended.
And Conan is right. Having a CC license (now just a carry license) isn't enough. You need to put in range time at the VERY least, or take a defensive carry course along with the range time (more preferable). Having a firearm and knowing how to use it aren't the same. I see too many people sweep the line at ranges with their finger in the guard to scare me. And when I say too many...I mean at least one.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on February 03, 2013, 01:05:18 PM
Wasn't referring to you personally.
Was referring generally to those on this site who live in suburbs or low crime areas who insist on the moral superiority of packing heat.
Carrying a gun shouldn't be looked upon as some sort of badge of honor.
I have friends in Turley who have quite a few firearms in their home.
I have friends in Turley...
Variation on the theme of: "...some of my best friends are <fill in the blank>" - of the group you are disparaging at that particular moment.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 03, 2013, 01:22:51 PM
I have friends in Turley...
Variation on the theme of: "...some of my best friends are <fill in the blank>" - of the group you are disparaging at that particular moment.
And they are good friends. I've gone to a few of their kid's football games...
And I go to their place more often than they go to mine-- might be different if I had an above ground pool...
Please, go on and tell me how I "disparage" my friends who live in a high crime area for owning guns.
I respect their decision, and likely would be forced to at least have a handgun if I lived in their neighborhood.
Most gun owners don't drink the NRA's koolaid and don't support the rights of survivalists and potential domestic terrorists' to stockpile weapons and ammo.
But maybe that's just my experience... being a soccer-loving yankee and all... ::)
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on February 03, 2013, 12:40:16 PM
I have more respect for "Brady bunchers" than I will ever have for the gunscum who insist their rights to buy a bright shiny new military-style phallus trump the rights of parents who want to enroll their kids in elementary schools that are free from armed guards and/or metal detectors.
It is an insult to the people who worked at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City that you should continue to ask whether we remember Ruby Ridge and Waco.... and then fail to mention the despicable traitorous acts of Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, etc....
Do YOU remember the Oklahoma City bombing?
I do.
I was there.
I sang the service at the catholic church across the street the week after -- window blown out -- windows at the Regency condos/apts across the street also blown out.
I had a family member completing her masters in social work at OU working at the VA in Norman... many vets were having relapses and the staff had to do a lockdown.
Members of the gun counterculture and their ilk are the ones with blood on their hands.
Not the ATF. Not the federal workers (SSA, ATF, DEA, Army recruiters, etc).
And certainly not those workers' children.
I don't blame the weapons; just the gun nuts who stockpile them.
Pity.
All that from the soccer hooligan camp that preaches and advocates the fostering and advancement of hate.... see RufNex signature line.
Pine Ridge reservation confrontation - American Indian Movement.
http://www.whoisleonardpeltier.info/context/aim-american-indian-movement/
"A six-page FBI memo dated April 24, 1975, "The Use of Special Agents of the FBI in a Paramilitary Law Enforcement Operation in the Indian Country," shows that, two months prior to the Oglala shoot-out, the FBI was preparing for a major armed confrontation with AIM."
Whew! All these traitors being slung around like there was absolute-morality and not cultural. In the minds of the Branch Davidians, I suspect they believed they were doing God's work. Of course, they were wrong - they were victim to the same "cultural morality" concept that their beliefs layered over their actions. Leading to an absolute-morality fail of the killing of innocents. You really believe that the FBI and Department of Justice could not have handled that without all the sensationalism and drama and ultimate death?? You really are so ignorant of the FACTs that David Koresh was in town on a regular basis and could have been picked up at any one of MANY times in town visits when he was NOT ensconced in his fortress and loaded down with his massive arsenal?? Yeah...clever planning by DOJ. But there would not have been the headlines that would have accrued from a successful storming of the fortress without the fires, death and destruction. There was MORE than enough blame to go around at Waco for ALL the sides involved.
McVeigh just ends up being a classic counter to the ignorant assertions that AK-47s are the problem rather than the hearts and minds of men being the problem. Can't believe you would try to use that. And we have talked about that a lot. But hey, why not...? And yeah, I remember it - SWMBO was on the phone to friends in the Southwestern Bell building at exactly the time when the bomb went off. And blew out all their windows... kind of traumatic.
You seem to be implying that you were in the Murrah building...is that right?? Or just in OKC like another few hundred thousand people that day? Everyone in this state has a friend - or at the very least an acquaintance - who was nearby at that time. So where is your outrage about private ownership and use of Ryder trucks, diesel fuel, and ammonium nitrate?? And yeah, before you put your foot in mouth one more time - it IS the exact same comparison, even if you really don't understand that fact. Sadly.
Members of the gun counterculture and their ilk are the ones with blood on their hands.
Not the ATF. Not the federal workers (SSA, ATF, DEA, Army recruiters, etc).
So wrong on so many levels. The ATF has had a long history of horrendous management. Stupid actions. Inept execution of operations. And many times, outright criminal activity. You do remember Fast and Furious? And Baby Bush's version before that one. They do have blood on their hands. Much more than the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners in this country. It is so sad that you let your Brady Bunch Psychosis blur reality so bad. In your strange colored sky world, the government appears to be omnipotent and perfect. Definitely wrong....really ought to have your "eyes" checked.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on February 03, 2013, 01:41:38 PM
And they are good friends. I've gone to a few of their kid's football games...
And I go to their place more often than they go to mine-- might be different if I had an above ground pool...
Please, go on and tell me how I "disparage" my friends who live in a high crime area for owning guns.
I respect their decision, and likely would be forced to at least have a handgun if I lived in their neighborhood.
Most gun owners don't drink the NRA's koolaid and don't support the rights of survivalists and potential domestic terrorists' to stockpile weapons and ammo.
But maybe that's just my experience... being a soccer-loving yankee and all... ::)
"We've only been in the league two and a half years and already half the teams hate us... Give me another two years and we'll have them all."
Culture of hate and violence - by direct admission, and even an expression of pride, of one of the leaders of that particular cult.
heironymouspasparagus...are you really trying to compare soccer smack from an owner thirty years ago as a cause of gun violence today?
That is got to be the stupidest thing you have ever written.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 03, 2013, 02:10:54 PM
heironymouspasparagus...are you really trying to compare soccer smack from an owner thirty years ago as a cause of gun violence today?
That is got to be the stupidest thing you have ever written.
Common...you know better than that! The mild implication was that Lemon was an advocate of hate and violence in soccer. And no, I don't even believe that - I remember hearing him quite a bit and he was - at least on screen - a decent seeming guy. It IS a direct comment on the ignorance and radical statements made that people who have and use a certain type of gun are somehow 'criminals' waiting for an opportunity to "go postal" and start doing mass killing. It is a much BIGGER crock of crap than my little comments related to Noel Lemon!
Was listening to the Fox this evening while Mark Kelly was talking to Chris Wallace. He is a big advocate of the latest round of ignoring the root causes. He specifically said that fewer people would die due to gun violence if the legislation were put in place. Then, Chris Wallace said that LaPierre would say that we had done that for 10 years and it made no difference - both items true. Kelly replied, and I quote from the interview;
"I don't know if it worked or not," Kelly said. "I haven't looked at all the statistics. Common sense tells me that if it is much more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to get assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and guns in general, we will save lives."
And WHY, if you are going to be pushing an agenda, would you NOT know those things? Kelly has less than zero credibility. He has shown himself too lazy to bother with the most elementary effort of trying to make a case. He is a tool. He is depending solely on empathy, holding up his wife as an icon of the symptom with no understanding - or at least no demonstrated, on a national stage, understanding of the problems and their causes. Or rational, workable, viable, meaningful, or effective solutions!
So, here we have a guy whose wife has endured a massive tragedy and survived. He has jumped on a bandwagon while admitting no knowledge of the history (unless he is lying - he is a clear case of that whole "no sense or knowledge of history" thing). And he is putting himself up as representative for a cause advocating a course of action with a proven failure of results from that course of action. And yet, we have huge amounts of time, energy being wasted that could be spent actually looking for and putting solutions in place that might actually help.
Another point he talked about was the "gun show loophole" fallacy. He said in effect, yeah, the NRA went along with background checks for some (when the NRA actually supported and pushed for those checks) and then mentioned the gun show and individual transfers not doing background checks. Either he is intentionally lying...again... or is so woefully ignorant of the reality of gun show checks - they are done in place - ya gotta wonder why he is fronting for this type organization? (SO much like the birther's and Donald Trump with their lies.)
You can see the video here;
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mark-kelly-on-fox-presses-for-background-checks-this-isnt-about-the-second-amendment-anymore/
3:43 - "kill many people, many quickly"... yeah, right.
And stepping on over to 4:20 seconds, he is making the point that several of us here have made, LaPierre makes, and would actually address the root cause. (Watch - he will back peddle on that one soon, since it not only doesn't reinforce his groups point, it reinforces the NRA point.) According to him, there have been 1.7 million fail the background checks since 1999. Why didn't Bush I enforce the law? Or Billy Bob? Or Baby Bush? Or now, Blobama?? When a convicted felon or someone who has been found to have mental issues - like Loughner - signs the forms and applies for a check to buy a gun, they are committing a felony!! WHY IS THAT NOT ENFORCED??
And why do we continue to ignore the mental problems issue? Why was Loughner outside of a formal treatment - be it voluntary or mandatory - when he had been kicked out of school for those issues?? Or Lanza? All of these guys doing this stuff have a history and if they had been addressed before, there are a bunch of people still alive today! And yet, today, even after all this - we continue to ignore the reality!!
And about 9:50 - he keeps up his pattern of lies. Again, saying gun shows let criminals and mental problems just go willy-nilly grabbing guns and going around killing with impunity.
A discussion of causes and possible workable methods to address the issues would be such a refreshing change...
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on February 03, 2013, 12:40:16 PM
I have more respect for "Brady bunchers" than I will ever have for the gunscum who insist their rights to buy a bright shiny new military-style phallus trump the rights of parents who want to enroll their kids in elementary schools that are free from armed guards and/or metal detectors.
I remember James Brady.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57562892/jim-bradys-wife-sarah-this-is-a-huge-moment-for-gun-control/
I remember Ruby Ridge and Waco. Do YOU remember 42-year old deputy marshall William F. Dagan? Me neither. But I bet his family does.
If Mr. Weaver had done what any REAL AMERICAN CITIZEN does when arrested and understands he would have had his day in court, this would never have happened.
Do you remember that Randy Weaver was a racist white supremicist? And yet he is martyred as some sort of saint because he refused to follow AMERICAN LAWS and appear in court...
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/26/us/fugitive-in-idaho-cabin-plays-role-of-folk-hero.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
The Branch Dividians were also TRAITORS to this country... traitors worse than Jane Fonda could ever dream of being...
http://www.culteducation.com/waco.html
Propaganda and profit.
Those are the values of the gun-nut anti-gubmint counterculture and their cronies in the NRA.
It is an insult to the people who worked at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City that you should continue to ask whether we remember Ruby Ridge and Waco.... and then fail to mention the despicable traitorous acts of Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, etc....
Do YOU remember the Oklahoma City bombing?
I do.
I was there.
I sang the service at the catholic church across the street the week after -- window blown out -- windows at the Regency condos/apts across the street also blown out.
I had a friend who worked for the Rotary Club and normally would have been buying breakfast bagels, etc. for staff at the Journal Record building across the street from the Murrah building at around 9:02 am. But she had to be out of town that day. She was pretty hysterical that day, if memory serves.
I had a family member completing her masters in social work at OU working at the VA in Norman... many vets were having relapses and the staff had to do a lockdown.
All the televisions in the hospital were showing footage of downtown OKC that looked like a war zone.
They couldn't turn them off fast enough.
Members of the gun counterculture and their ilk are the ones with blood on their hands.
Not the ATF. Not the federal workers (SSA, ATF, DEA, Army recruiters, etc).
And certainly not those workers' children.
IMHO, anyone who mentions Ruby Ridge and Waco as rallying cries against gun control are domestic terrorist sympathizers and are part of the problem.
I don't blame the weapons; just the gun nuts who stockpile them.
Pity.
EXACTLY! When anybody comes out with the "taking our guns" battle cry, I know they are echoing hate for our US government. You can detect these types by their jingoistic tendencies, by their overt hugging of our vets and our flag.
Nice post Ruff.
It's all Janet Reno's fault. ::)
And now for something entirely different... (no, not Monty Python...)
If you caught the GoDaddy commercial, and were looking for the eye bleach, you can rest easy in the knowledge that you didn't see the one the network didn't allow. And for those people, here you go....
Enjoy!
http://www.businessinsider.com/go-daddys-banned-2013-super-bowl-ad-with-bar-refaeli-2013-2
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on February 03, 2013, 01:05:18 PM
Wasn't referring to you personally.
Was referring generally to those on this site who live in suburbs or low crime areas who insist on the moral superiority of packing heat.
Carrying a gun shouldn't be looked upon as some sort of badge of honor.
I have friends in Turley who have quite a few firearms in their home.
Wanting to protect ones-self hardly makes them a "gun-nutter". Someone who sport shoots is hardly a "gun-nutter".
I live in a low crime area. That doesn't mean random crimes don't occur in those areas from time-to-time. It's safe to assume that if someone kicks in the door of a house, when there is a car or cars present in the driveway, they know there are people home and they are (or at least believe they are) capable of, over-powering the occupants either by physical force or they are armed.
In 1994 my neighbor's house across the street was broken into in the middle of the day. His stepchildren were home alone on summer break. They ran to a bedroom and locked the door when they heard the intruder kicking in the front door. When the knob started rattling on the bedroom door, the oldest of the boys fired through the door with a .357 and center punched the burglar in the middle of the chest. The intruder staggered out to the front yard where he collapsed deader than fried chicken.
I didn't live there then, it's a story my neighbor told me and I've verified it by looking up old newspaper accounts. Gary is a sportsman and loves to hunt and fish. His ex-wife's father was a retired LEO. Between the two of them, they instilled respect for firearms and also properly trained the rest of the family in the use of firearms to protect themselves. Had the kids not had the opportunity to protect themselves, we might have heard a different story about the mass slaying of four children in mid-town Tulsa.
I hope I never have to raise a firearm toward another human to protect myself. I don't know of anyone who does carry for self defense who is merely waiting for a chance to cap someone. Your decision not to carry is your business and I can respect that. At least show the same respect for those who don't view it the same way you do rather than mocking people as thinking they are morally superior when that's far from the truth.
What? They didn't use an AK-47? Oh, the shame....
http://hhshootingsports.com/WireShots/archives/3393
Because, once again, I've never argued against owning a .357.
Not once.
I've also never once argued against hunting deer or shooting skeet.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on February 20, 2013, 03:27:14 PM
What? They didn't use an AK-47? Oh, the shame....
http://hhshootingsports.com/WireShots/archives/3393
Because, once again, I've never argued against owning a .357.
Not once.
I've also never once argued against hunting deer or shooting skeet.
Unless one wants to use an AK-47 or SKS or something that looks "bad" for deer hunting....
7.62 x 39 is an excellent deer cartridge. Very good for a wide variety of medium sized game. Not quite up to grizzly, but great for black bear.
Quote from: Teatownclown on February 03, 2013, 11:20:29 PM
EXACTLY! When anybody comes out with the "taking our guns" battle cry, I know they are echoing hate for our US government. You can detect these types by their jingoistic tendencies, by their overt hugging of our vets and our flag.
Pot, meet kettle...kettle, meet pot...
The Ignorant Rantings of Unreasonable, Irresponsible Gun NutsBy: Sarah Jones Dec. 19th, 2012http://www.politicususa.com/ignorant-rantings-gun-nuts.html
QuoteLike many of you, I've been the recipient of angry gun nuts' talking points. Yesterday a real gun nut told me to "shut the hell up" because he fought in Vietnam and held real weapons whereas according to him, I know nothing just because I support reasonable gun control. That was after one of them asked why he should care that children died. Clearly these are not well socialized people, and just as clearly, they don't speak for most gun owners.
Little does Gun Nut know that I have covered our military training on some pretty hefty weapons that I could barely hold up to my shoulder, and own a gun myself (though not a semi-automatic rifle, even a sporting one is not something I need for self-defense). I covered safety and skill training with our troops, as well as sitting in on a rules of engagement class.
I've also interviewed plenty of police in my time and had discussions about levels of engagement and weapons. These things only solidified my belief that TRAINING is important and no citizen should have a semi-automatic assault weapon modeled on the weapons built for military and law enforcement without some serious training.
Only fools think they don't need to learn anything before handling something so powerful.
So to all of the gun nuts who claim that a semi-automatic assault weapon is the "same thing" as a hunting semi-automatic, I say you are the problem and you should not have access to an assault weapon precisely because you don't respect the differences, the capability, and the power of such weapons.
If the military and police have to train to use these weapons, why don't you? Why should the police have to face untrained civilians carrying these weapons?
Respect for the incredible destruction these weapons are capable of is the first sign that maybe you can handle one. Pretending they are the "same" as a hunting rifle is the first clue that your ignorance renders you too dangerous to come near one.
Training is not a cure-all, either. As we can see, these weapons do not belong in the public sphere. They don't belong in our homes. One adult who is trained properly does not fix the problem of access for those who aren't, or the mental illness or pure crazy rage of those who aren't. There is no legitimate reason for having an assault weapon. You're not going to be able to fight the "government" with an assault weapon and you don't need it for self-protection. You don't need it to hunt (I'm not referring to semi-automatic sporting rifles here — read more carefully — though I note that use of one removes the "sporting" aspect from the equation) unless you are a complete idiot, which brings us back to those of you who should not own a gun in the first place.
For all of the gun nuts screaming about how their weapons are the same as any other weapon, get a clue. The 1994 assault weapon ban specifically protected over 670 types of hunting rifles and shotguns.
Here's how the Brady organization defines the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons:
Q. What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons?
A. Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile to kill an animal, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to kill as many people quickly, as would be needed in combat.
Opponents of banning assault weapons argue that these military-style weapons only "look" scary. Assault weapons look scary and are scary because they are equipped with combat hardware. Combat features like high-capacity ammunition magazines, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns, are designed specifically to facilitate the killing of human beings in battle.
These combat features include:
A large-capacity ammunition magazine which enables the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Many assault weapons come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing more than 50 bullets to be fired without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines;
A folding stock which facilitates maximum concealability and mobility in close combat (which comes at the expense of the accuracy desired in a hunting weapon);
A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handed shooting;
A barrel shroud which enables the shooter to shoot many rounds because it cools the barrel, preventing overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire;
A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor which allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire;
A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer which allows an assassin to shoot without making noise;
A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet which allows someone to stab a person at close quarters in battle.
So, gun nuts, cry us a river about your imaginary loss of rights as you continue to refuse any responsibility for learning about the actual law you're complaining about. Once again, we are back where we started. If you are too ignorant to learn about the law as you scream about it, then you are simply giving more fodder to the idea that you, specifically due to your angry ignorance, should not be able to own an assault weapon. If you are too lazy and stupid to be a responsible citizen, then you are too dangerous to own an assault weapon.
I don't believe I've ever called anyone a "stupid idiot" before in all of the years I've written here. So, Gun Nuts, consider yourselves special.
Thanks for making the case for those of us who support reasonable, common sense gun control. The second amendment does not come before other rights, and it seems we must protect the rights of our citizens to life and liberty over your right to be a dangerous idiot. I dare say you should thank us for protecting you from yourself, but I get the idea that you can't see what we see.
As Biden said, buy a shotgun. ;)
Oklahoma Panel to Consider Church Gun Liability Immunityhttp://kwgs.com/post/oklahoma-panel-consider-church-gun-liability-immunity (http://kwgs.com/post/oklahoma-panel-consider-church-gun-liability-immunity)
QuoteOKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — An Oklahoma Senate panel is to consider a proposal to make businesses and places of worship immune from liability if they don't ban firearms from their premises.
The bill Republican Senator AJ Griffin of Guthrie is scheduled to go before the Senate Public Safety Committee Thursday.
It also shields employers from legal liability if they don't ban employees from bringing guns onto the business's property.
Griffin's proposal is among dozens of gun-related bills moving through Oklahoma's legislature. Most of them intend to strengthen or protect current gun rights amid increased recent interest in gun legislation.
Personally I love this story. Lets put more guns into high crime areas.
Kyle Coplen, who founded the Armed Citizens Project, is giving away 20-gauge single-shot shotguns to residents in mid- and high-crime neighborhoods to test whether or not the weapon will help reduce crime in the area, according to the group's website. Coplen says the weapons are not of much value to criminals, but are especially useful for citizens looking to protect themselves from criminals.
http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/02/20/houston-group-giving-away-shotguns-high-crime-neighborhoods-to-test-if-crime-is-reduced/
Quote from: TeeDub on February 21, 2013, 07:41:32 PM
Personally I love this story. Lets put more guns into high crime areas.
Kyle Coplen, who founded the Armed Citizens Project, is giving away 20-gauge single-shot shotguns to residents in mid- and high-crime neighborhoods to test whether or not the weapon will help reduce crime in the area, according to the group's website. Coplen says the weapons are not of much value to criminals, but are especially useful for citizens looking to protect themselves from criminals.
http://houston.cbslocal.com/2013/02/20/houston-group-giving-away-shotguns-high-crime-neighborhoods-to-test-if-crime-is-reduced/
Stupid premise. Single shot is a of little value outside of a limited range of uses. I use a single shot a lot - the vast majority of my shooting is either with a one shot or with only one round loaded at a time. Allows concentration and focus on the one instance at a time that occurs right then. Requires thinking and practicing to make sure you hit the target with no recourse but to reload. But then when I go hunting, I use the 3 shots allowed (migratory fowl - ducks.) Or as many as I can get in the magazine for everything else. That new 30 round may just come in handy after all...
A 5 shot pump would be much better choice, but then would also be more attractive to thieves. This is one of those things that is "designed to fail". Highly inappropriate.
The new assault rifles are out.
(http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/FRS-15.png)
As previously discussed, the SAFE act and other local assault weapons measures like those passed in California, were focused on the appearance of the weapons. Pistol grips, and flash suppressors are scary, and they make the typical AR-15, which is far less powerful than the typical hunting rifles, a bad weapon.
So they passed a noble law(s) to change the look of the weapons. No longer can you have a pistol grip AND a detachable magazine on the same gun. No longer can a flash suppressor be mounted to the end of the barrel on any weapon with a pistol grip. Flash suppressors are out anyway, they are now called discharge gas diverters.
You can buy one of the new models or spend less than $100 for a kit to make your existing AR or AK California (and a few other states) legal.
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a316/casurfballa/Featurless.jpg)
California Special:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ovl2gUL8Pso/TkAPca52V0I/AAAAAAAABM0/pFT8iWa-8vA/s1600/KittyRifle.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on February 10, 2014, 03:07:25 PM
California Special:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ovl2gUL8Pso/TkAPca52V0I/AAAAAAAABM0/pFT8iWa-8vA/s1600/KittyRifle.jpg)
It comes with a backpack full of lollypops.
Survivors recount scenes of terror dubbed 'China's 9/11' by state media
Chinese leaders vow 'iron-fisted' response after knife-wielding attackers bring carnage to a tranquil southwestern city, killing at least 29 people
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10671498/Survivors-recount-scenes-of-terror-dubbed-Chinas-911-by-state-media.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/02/separatists-behind-bloody-machete-terrorist-attack-that-left-33-dead-and-143-injured-in-china-officials-say/
Quote from: patric on March 02, 2014, 12:59:05 PM
Survivors recount scenes of terror dubbed 'China's 9/11' by state media
Chinese leaders vow 'iron-fisted' response after knife-wielding attackers bring carnage to a tranquil southwestern city, killing at least 29 people
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10671498/Survivors-recount-scenes-of-terror-dubbed-Chinas-911-by-state-media.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/02/separatists-behind-bloody-machete-terrorist-attack-that-left-33-dead-and-143-injured-in-china-officials-say/
It all goes back 4,000 years ago when people first started making the shift to iron from bronze....we can blame all this carnage on those people of that time who somehow thought unchecked economic growth and expansion and enhanced tools would somehow be good for the world. And now we see how this ill-conceived proliferation of iron has inevitably led to the massacre of these people...
One might question whether in fact it was the fault of the knife or the person wielding the device. Well, there can be no doubt whatsoever - the mere existence of the knife must be the proximate cause of this massacre! And steps must be taken at once to ensure this can never happen again!! All knives must be outlawed and collected for destruction at once!!
Somehow I suspect that had they been carrying firearms, 10 attackers would have managed to kill far more than 33.
Quote from: nathanm on March 02, 2014, 03:46:30 PM
Somehow I suspect that had they been carrying firearms, 10 attackers would have managed to kill far more than 33.
Perhaps. Depends on the guns.
But the implicit - no, actually, the explicit thought behind that statement is that the lives of 33 are worth less than the lives of 34 or more would be....
The problem goes to the inherent violent tendencies present in the human animal regardless of the weapon used. I received a link to some nut-case right wing extremist web site where the guy was "making the case" that upon review of the backgrounds of all the people involved in the most heinous school massacres - they were all found to be from liberal, permissive, Democrat families or backgrounds. Leading to the conclusion the being Democrat is a mental illness that should result in institutionalization for the duration.
Which is almost as absurd as the extreme left assertions that somehow guns are the problem. Looking at the "facts", it would naturally lead us to the concept that Democrats must be denied gun ownership, and Republicans must be required to own guns.
Found it -
http://www.youtube.com/embed/FeTCkoXslsE?rel=0