[JohnE]

Oh boy is this great...

Tighten up the aluminum foil hat LL, and remember, when the going gets tough, the tough GO ALL CAPS....

What steps has Obama has taken no steps towards the banning of your precious phallic substitutes? Keeping guns out of the hands of bad people, and closing gun show loopholes are both common sense legislation...and 50 round magazines are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Add to that the fact that are too heavy and notoriously unreliable...



I am not anti gun, I own a few...but they are all tactical weapons similar to those I employ during the course of my work. I do not need nor want assault weapons, I have those at the office. And when the zombies rise up, I will go and get them. I am highly trained in the care, feeding and utilization (I have shot competitively and professionally for years...) of said weapons, and can tell you that I still feel a sense of awe and responsibility when I carry one. A sense of awe not connected to any sort of fantasy of saving the world or being Rambo and a sense of responsibility in the knowledge that one 3.5 lb pull of the trigger may change a life or lives forever.

I am not anti gun...I am anti stupid, crazy and criminal people owning/having easy access to guns. The simplest way to accomplish that is waiting periods, registration of some sort, and mandatory testing, training and insuring. Couple this with a truthful discussion of the consequences of pulling the trigger and what happens when that tiny piece of lead impacts downrange of your barrel. No matter what The Nuge, Palin and that draft dodging sycophant idiot LaPierre tell you, is that the anti gun crowd is typically not anti gun, they are anti morons and criminals owning guns and keeping military grade hardware in the hands of the military where it belongs.

Switzerland has a similar rate of possession and ownership, yet a much lower rate of homicide by firearm. Why? I would suggest a sense of duty, coupled with mandatory training and registration.

The business side of the gun world knows that when and politician says anything regarding any type of control or registration that ammo and gun prices will go through the roof. They may talk shit about Obama, but the are making millions off of any action by him and the pro registration types. I think that much of the gun crazy public in our country have simply fallen prey to the good old American tradition of crass consumerism coupled with the malady more is betteritis. I would hazard a guess that more $$ is made from gun related (T shirts, jackets, caps, belt buckles, bumper stickers etc) than off of the actual merchandising of firearms and associated accessories.

Interesting read...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201208/the-tradeoffs-gun-ownership-0

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Interesting article. Without fact checking:

"...visitors to the National Rifle Association (NRA) Headquarters building in Fairfax, Virginia are not allowed to bring guns inside..."

"A U.S. survey found that guns in the home are more likely to be used by men to intimidate women than against strangers."

"Analysis of crime records found that people who had been shot with a gun were 4.5 times more likely than average to be carrying a gun themselves at the time."

"...businesses that allow guns in the work place are about 5 times more likely to experience a homicide than businesses that do not."

"...gun-related homicides increased 25% after Missouri repealed its law requiring background checks..."

 

[llkoolkeg]

The only reason I mention it is because it IS the driving force of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Taliban, etc. and our President seems to think he can disassociate the terrorism from what is, by their own words, motivating them to be terrorists. In their videos, the ISIS clowns claim that they are the true Muslims, the rest are sellout apostates and the Christian communities they seek out for capture, enslavement, torture and HD beheading are referred to as Crusaders. I just think it is hypocritical for him as President to be willing to use the label to describe otherwise peaceful, predominantly Judeo-Christian 2nd amendment supporting people here in our country, i.e. "domestic terrorists" but balk at referring to ISIS as Muslim Terrorists, Jihadists or Islamists. I personally wish that people would not proselytize with the gun or sword but with love and good works. Wishing doesn't make it happen, though, now or historically. Who brought up the Crusades, the Inquisition and atrocities committed "in the name of Christ"? Our President, presumably as if to say "don't criticize Islamic Jihadism now when your own Christian faith was used to justify historical violence in the past". I just find it hypocritical and disingenuous. Burying your head in the sand, pretending otherwise and not putting the correct label on something so as to not offend others who may not be as overtly hostile is P.C. to the extreme. Should we not call drug gang turf wars by that appellation because members of MS13 and the Bloods might take offense to their business practices being pejoratively labelled?

 

[johnbryanpeters]

I'm sure that I could find later examples, but "Christian faith" was argued as a justification for murder in the 20th century in the United States, specifically as justification for caucasian people murdering and inflicting other violence on black citizens.

A central tenet of much of your argument is that there's an alien other group of people that should be wiped out. This is precisely the reasoning of ISIS and, I would argue, of the amorphous libertarian/tea party/republican thinkers who have been destroying the social fabric of the United States since at least the McCarthy era.

 

[Westy]

I'm sure that I could find later examples, but "Christian faith" was argued as a justification for murder in the 20th century in the United States, specifically as justification for caucasian people murdering and inflicting other violence on black citizens.

A central tenet of much of your argument is that there's an alien other group of people that should be wiped out. This is precisely the reasoning of ISIS and, I would argue, of the amorphous libertarian/tea party/republican thinkers who have been destroying the social fabric of the United States since at least the McCarthy era.

The Christian faith was just used to justify slavery and violence agains blacks but the wholesale slaughter of Native Americans. And in more modern times it was used in attempt to kill native culture. In the not too distant past, children were forcibly removed from their family homes and sent to special schools where their native language, and culture was banned. They were taught to be good english speaking american christians, because FREEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!!!!

Clearly, if the Indians had moar gunz, Obama wouldn't have been able to do that to them.

 

[binary visions]

I just think it is hypocritical for him as President to be willing to use the label to describe otherwise peaceful, predominantly Judeo-Christian 2nd amendment supporting people here in our country, i.e. "domestic terrorists" but balk at referring to ISIS as Muslim Terrorists, Jihadists or Islamists.

What are you talking about? I'm not being obstinate, I have no clue what you're talking about.

He brought up the previously bloody Christian atrocities because people were painting Islam as a violent religion. How is this hypocritical? It's drawing a comparison, and one that actually should be welcomed by Christians since the entire point is that people can be bad, and people can be bad in the name of religion, but that doesn't mean that the religion and the bad people should be inexorably linked.

Presumably, by your own words, we should all be encouraged paint Christianity by the broad strokes of abortion clinic bombers and Spanish torturers without anyone being upset.

God forbid anyone acknowledge that it's offensive to broadly tie a tiny segment of the most despicable scum to a much larger segment that wants nothing to do with them. That's far too politically correct. Please forgive me if I ever walk past you in the street and call you a Nazi - you're white and it's really hard for me to tell the difference.

 

[JohnE]

Just a subtle reminder here...worship of invisible men in the sky has been used to justify the subjugation, torture and murder/genocide of the followers of other imaginary men in the sky ever since man first picked up a rock...now back to your regularly scheduled idiocy.

 

[gastro]

The Christian faith was just used to justify slavery and violence agains blacks but the wholesale slaughter of Native Americans.

And gun control laws were used to make such oppression and ill-treatment easier.

At least I think so. Your sentence structure is not totally clear.

 

[Westy]

And gun control laws were used to make such oppression and ill-treatment easier.

At least I think so. Your sentence structure is not totally clear.

That occurred during times when there was no gun control. The history of national level gun control started as a response to prohibition era organized crime violence. God damned government took our freedom own machine guns. Image how much better off we would be as a country if we could once again buy a Tommy Gun with a 50 round magazine or a BAR? Unfortunately, now only criminals have machine guns and the streets are rife with the sound of fully automatic murder.

We live in a country with more government controlled firepower than the other top 6 or 7 countries combined. No minority population could ever defend itself against the will of the government with armed resistance no matter how many firearms they owned.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Oh boy is this great...

Tighten up the aluminum foil hat LL, and remember, when the going gets tough, the tough GO ALL CAPS....

What steps has Obama has taken no steps towards the banning of your precious phallic substitutes? Keeping guns out of the hands of bad people, and closing gun show loopholes are both common sense legislation...and 50 round magazines are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Add to that the fact that are too heavy and notoriously unreliable...

I am not anti gun, I own a few...but they are all tactical weapons similar to those I employ during the course of my work. I do not need nor want assault weapons, I have those at the office. And when the zombies rise up, I will go and get them. I am highly trained in the care, feeding and utilization (I have shot competitively and professionally for years...) of said weapons, and can tell you that I still feel a sense of awe and responsibility when I carry one. A sense of awe not connected to any sort of fantasy of saving the world or being Rambo and a sense of responsibility in the knowledge that one 3.5 lb pull of the trigger may change a life or lives forever.

I am not anti gun...I am anti stupid, crazy and criminal people owning/having easy access to guns. [Snipped for brevity's sake]

Interesting read...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201208/the-tradeoffs-gun-ownership-0

JohnE, Why don't YOU tighten up the duct-tape on your tucked tool? Your stereotypical phallic response was already predicted posts ago as were the Bloomburg "common sense" talking points. The same NICS check is done at gun shows just like gun stores so quit parroting Sarah Brady "loophole" lies...and they didn't envision or have drum magazines for muzzleloaders, genius. You are nothing but a Godless Fudd hypocrite who thinks you should be trusted with what others should not. I don't carry or have Rambo or Zombie delusions and for you to make such assumptions of me or my political leanings shows what a hothead presumptive fvck you are. Training is good, reducing incidence of idiocy is good but universal registration is most definitely not. Hit the cold showers, lightweight, because you need to know more about your betters before challenging them based on your petty ignorant assumptions.

JBP, the statistics posted are easily manipulated by CDC(or whoever selectively assembled them) to paint half-truths, e.g. people carrying guns or wearing them in their businesses are likely to have greater incidences of trouble ANYWAYS because they are engaged in risky businesses with risky clientele in risky neighborhoods.

It's a shame you and Westy have such a poor opinion of Christianity but you may have your reasons. To condemn the whole religion or assume it is such a hateful thing because of past history is in my opinion throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't think anyone minding their own business and living peaceable should have violence visited upon them Christian, Muslim or otherwise but the stodgy Christian has become such a fun target of abuse almost universally here and abroad that killing them no longer inspires horror in our President or members here. Because of past injustices, priests assaulting alter-boys, racism, American Indian mistreatment and the Stock Market's troubles, all Christians are objects of derision and spite and somehow less than you good folk. You all really need to get out more and meet some people who may challenge your stereotypes and preconceived notions of who Christians really are.

BV, we seem to be communicating in different languages because I similarly have no earthly idea WTF you are talking about either. My only issue with your last post is that you seem to think Christianity and Islam are equally peaceful and benevolent. I disagree. I know and have known many nice Muslims, certainly, but I would compare Islam more with OT religion and belief than NT Christianity. Islam today seems more like Christianity as practiced 300 years ago, when it was spread by domination and subjugation rather than by service and brotherhood. Christianity has evolved quite a bit since then but as of this day, Islam by and large has not. Again, I have no ill will at all towards Muslim people who do not wish to dominate me or mine but that is not the same thing as saying Islam and Christianity are equally peaceful and non-violent in their present day iterations...and not speaking out against the evil that is done in the name of Allah makes it no less real.

The discussion seems to be degrading quickly as is reading comprehension. I guess I'm just really surprised to see that so many people who like bikes fear and hate guns and have no idea why we have a 2nd Amendment in the first place. I sure as Hell hope the others don't go out of style as quickly as the 2nd apparently has. What a bunch of pvssies we have collectively become over the last 240 years!

 

[Westy]

It's a shame you and Westy have such a poor opinion of Christianity but you may have your reasons. To condemn the whole religion or assume it is such a hateful thing because of past history is in my opinion throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't think anyone minding their own business and living peaceable should have violence visited upon them Christian, Muslim or otherwise but the stodgy Christian has become such a fun target of abuse almost universally here and abroad that killing them no longer inspires horror in our President or members here. Because of past injustices, priests assaulting alter-boys, racism, American Indian mistreatment and the Stock Market's troubles, all Christians are objects of derision and spite and somehow less than you good folk. You all really need to get out more and meet some people who may challenge your stereotypes and preconceived notions of who Christians really are.

No one here is attempting to directly condemn Christianity but simply point out that people have done terrible things and adulterated christian ideals to justify those terrible things. Just like ISIS is doing with islam. In the case of Isis and Indian wars the true motivation behind the violence is power. Religion is used to justify and rally support because declaring that you are a murderous power hungry cunt rarely garners any popular support.

Pretty much everyone one I know and love is a christian. They are all good people, as are the vast majority of all christians. I am also very close to a handful of jews and muslims. they are also quality individuals. None them are good people because of their religion, I see no correlation between religion and the quality of a person.

 

[JohnE]

Ahh yes, name calling. The last defense of the truly desperate.

And fwiw, I was at a background checkless gun show just this morning, right here in the Peoples Republic of California.

Tell me this...you train on, have to prove competency on, register and insure your car. Why not your firearms?

What is a "Godless Fudd hypocrite"? and just what does "who thinks you should be trusted with what others should not" mean anyway? You make less and less sense as we go along, even if you are my better...

And you make many presumptions for one who accuses others of such things. I am not the one getting all fired up because folks disagree with me...personally, I celebrate the fact that not everyone agrees with me on things. It would be a pretty boring world if we all agreed on everything.

To me, a firearm is a tool that I use to do my job. It is not something to be treated lightly.

 

[velocipedist]

Jon Stewart...Jon Stewart? Is that the sort of whiny, smarmy, imminently impartial "expert" we should turn to for direction in our foreign policy. Not that the jacka$$ Trump is any better but I can't get through 5 minutes of his monologue before feeling the urge to chunder. He is a perfect example of the overwhelming left-leaning Follywood soft-skull that thinks their material fortune entitles them to elevated leadership status in political affairs...and it is happily granted by his adoring minions. Please don't make the assumption that I am any blue blood Limbaugh-loving Republican, either. I come to my own conclusions on issues and do not mind voting accordingly. If anything, I could be loosely termed a Constitutional Libertarian though I am not a member of the Libertarian, Tea Party, etc. When it comes to what is generally referred to as gun control, however, the left has it all wrong as Constitutional intent is clear and unmistakable...

"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Call it "paranoid prattle" if you will but you would think our own Nation and it's Government, born as a response to attempts by the Crown's soldiers to seize the guns and munitions of it's citizens, would be a little more sensible about such things and sensitive to the message it sends to many of them. I would not expect a genuine pacifist or moral objector to understand or sympathize then OR now but in this as with most other things, the majority of people do not live by the convictions they profess. I personally believe every adult who is of sound body and mind and not a careless or foolish imminent threat to the general welfare should possess a military-grade firearm and be trained in its safe storage at-the-ready, maintenance and effective use. If you do not agree, you should not be forced to possess one but you damned sure should not have the desire or ability to project your own phobias upon ME.

The Middle East has been an unstable slaughter pen for its entire history and nothing we do or don't do will change that materially for any substantial period of time. I just do not like seeing our friends left out to dry and our enemies comforted by a President who turns a blind eye to Christians carted off by the score to the dull knife queue while he preaches the virtues of the "religion of peace". If we are to maintain a sphere of influence there, however, we should be standing for the American values traditionally held in esteem by our people and not just those of the transitory meatbag occupying the Oval Office. The 2nd amendment earned it's placement and status and it should not be fvcked with...period.

Sheesh... no one said repel anything, if not for the french and the friendly quarter shown by a number British officers the plucky patriots would not have succeeded in giving birth to our wonderful country. If your reading of history is so completely lacking in nuance and context, that you truly believe the romaniticized birth of our nation yarn, no wonder you continue to fail to answer my original question "Are there any changes/restrictions/regulations you would be willing consider? Or is anything an affront to the 2nd amendment as you perceive it?

 

[JohnE]

Hey man, Paul Revere warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms, by ringing those bells and making sure as he was riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free...he wasnt making any changes/restrictions/regulations, no Sir, youbetchya!

 

[llkoolkeg]

Insinuating I was an aluminum foil hatter in need of a phallic substitute does not constitute a compliment in my book, thus my response which was not born of desperation but annoyance. You don't need a background check to attend a gun show but if you are buying guns there from a gun vendor, they don't run NICS checks in CA? I find that hard to believe. I have never bought a firearm that didn't require a NICS check at minimum and handguns or "regulated" guns require a waiting period, a Handgun Qualification License(HQL) and a State Police Background Check in addition to a NICS check...but that's here in MD and it was my impression that CA was at least similarly restrictive. Not being a CA resident, however, I can't speak on that with any real confidence.

To answer your 2nd question, vehicle licenses are a State-granted privilege vs. the 2nd amendment, which is a natural enumerated right based on the God-given right to self-protection. Apples to oranges.

Godless, based on your "worship of invisible men in the sky" condescending and denigrating comment.
Fudd, a term for people who own guns but support gun control that takes other peoples' guns away.
Hypocrite, based on your claims to not be anti-gun but then going on to say that you own, shoot and carry tactical weapons yet feel that your fellow man should not be permitted to possess the same or standard(not blocked or reduced) capacity magazines. Are you not saying that only Police or Military should be permitted to own, for example, an AR15?

That's why I said what I said. I don't mind people disagreeing with me so long as they are civil and reasonably polite...and I don't believe you were. The courts have repeatedly held that the Police and Military are not responsible for protecting private citizens so you being in support of denying my ability to possess the tools to protect my wife and children is insulting and hypocritical given that I've been shooting, maintaining, customizing and hunting with them since 1975, perhaps even longer than you have. I don't even have a misdemeanor on my record, undergo full background checks with fingerprinting for work often and haven't gotten so much as a traffic ticket in many years. I don't feel as if I should be treated like an untrustworthy criminal who needs to be protected from himself.

Westy, thanks for the clarification on your points relative to Christianity. I haven't been around much recently but I recalled you as being on the more level-headed side of the aisle.

"Are there any changes/restrictions/regulations you would be willing consider? Or is anything an affront to the 2nd amendment as you perceive it?" Changes? Propose one specifically and I will offer my opinion. Restrictions? There are already many numerous restrictions to my owning and possessing firearms that I currently comply with(that criminals do not). What more would produce positive results without unduly burdening the compliant, law-abiding & non-prohibited citizen such as myself? Regulations? There are volumes of regulations I comply with now that criminals completely ignore. Why not throw away the key on criminals who use guns to commit crimes and stop treating me like a criminal-in-waiting? The 2nd amendment is simply the Constitutionally-recognized enumeration of a human right granted by a higher power. My compliance with all the rules, restrictions and regulations already put in place constraining that natural right are evidence of how willing I am to go the extra mile and bend to the will of my country's government as a show of restraint and good faith.

I have no desire to insult folks here or engage in childish spats but the overall tone and direction here on the gun control question has been grossly one-sided for far too long. Most seem to be quietly keeping their heads between their shrugged shoulders on this topic but I have never been one to shy away from speaking my mind when I believe a disservice is being done. If that makes me the guy with my head in the pillory, so be it. Competition or conflict have never turned my tail before and they are not about to now.

 

[JohnE]

The "your" I used in "your precious phallic substitutes" was the royal you...I apologize if you felt it was personal...and the aluminum foil crack was solidly in jest. Again, I apologize if it was taken too personally.

BUT...please tell me the verse in which any deity gives us a right to self defense, much less assault rifles. The right to self defense is given by man, as are other rights. If you look at different bills of rights throughout the worlds nations, from the Magna Carta forward, you will find a staggering number of differences regarding what is considered a human right...self defense not always specifically being enumerated amongst them.

Godless and the religion quotes are of course, my opinion...and we know what opinions are like. But it amazes me how people suddenly become very religious when defending their rights to own firearms (Gotta pertect myself and my kin from them durty Mooslims now...) or prohibit others from getting life saving medical procedures, marry who they choose or the like.

I have ever wanted to take firearms away from anyone, other than those who have lost, via due process of law, the right to possess and utilize said firearms. I defy you to find a post in which I advocated this...

Should there be limitations? I believe so. I shot the other day at a range a few miles from my place, and down the way from me was a guy with a .50 cal just banging away...to what end, I dont know. Why do you have the need to possess such powerful weaponry? Just because you can? Not a very practical home defense weapon if you ask me. Not unlike an .88 Magnum...

Should there be background checks and waiting periods? Again, I have no problem with these, as they seek to keep firearms from the wrong hands, can stop crimes resultant of passion and impetuous behavior.

The tactical weapons that I own are limited to auto loaders and a hotrodded shotgun...I use the term tactical in regards to minor mods and the fact that they are versatile enough to be used in different ways as situation demands...METT-TC rules. My firearms are tools to be used in the performance of my job and the exercise of skills related to my job. Not unlike a carpenter may own several hammers and saws that I would have no need for. Do I think Joe Citizen needs the same or similar weaponry that Cops and military have? No. Because the average person does not have an overriding need for these weapons. It becomes a need vs want thing...if you want to shoot them, join the military or politic for a job as a Cop. Nor does the average Joe appreciate the power and destructive ability of said weapons. We constantly drill on use of force principles and capability of weapons we carry...the right tool for the right job at the right time and right place.

The use of deadly force should always remain the absolute last resort in any circumstance...and this is something too many gun owners do not appreciate. This does not even begin to engage on safety of firearms in the home...

Am I smarmy and sarcastic at times? Yeah...but really dude, go back and read some of your posts. You come off like Alex Jones speechwriter.

 

[llkoolkeg]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The right to my life and its preservation is an inherent natural or human right given by God, not man or man's government.

unalienable adjective un·alien·able \ˌən-ˈāl-yə-nə-bəl, - impossible to take away or give up

For a brief primer => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense
and some background => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Regarding gun control, we happen to disagree on where to draw the line and that's alright. I tend towards the Constitutional Libertarian view of such things and generally favor the least amount of Governmental intrusion into private affairs as we can safely manage. Cops have a tough, thankless job and I sure as heck wouldn't want to do it. They are taking a beating in the press these days for their supposed willingness to use deadly force against minorities. Should all police be vilified for the accused actions or perceived prejudices of a smaller subset? No, but the same holds true for good citizens who should not be lumped in with the crazies and crackpots. I also believe citizens who have demonstrated over time that they can be trusted with things like guns should be given the benefit of the doubt. I have yet to apply for any Class III Tax Stamp goodies primarily because I stubbornly refuse to pay a $200 premium to purchase things like suppressors or real assault rifles but then again, I really don't need them(even if it would be kind of cool).

The main reason I believe trustworthy citizens should be allowed things like AR15s is the same reason I believe police should have them- semi-autos with removable magazines are proven non-cutting-edge technologies that work well, are controllable and make the wielder at least competitive in a potential gunfight, God forbid such a thing actually happen. Is it my primary weapon for home defense? No, my Mossburg 590 is better for that. Should an emergency situation occur with an armed assailant as my opponent, though, I don't want to be the one who brought a knife to a gunfight. I understand that so-called Saturday Night Specials are the most likely thing to come up against but every now and again, determined attackers come more prepared. ARs are also very useful for competitive and target shooting thanks to their modular, customizable nature.

BTW, I'm not familiar with Alex Jones or his speeches. Who is he?

 

[JohnE]

"We hold this right..." still doesn't tell anyone where the Creator, whomever He may be, said we had this right. It is simply believed by the framers of the Constitution. And even if it did, life, liberty and happiness doesn't equate to automatic weapons or those that can pierce armour or bring down small planes. All the Natural Rights and Legal Rights guys have to fall back on is Hobbes and Locke, no scripture, no Veda, no Torah...a God whos main gig is love and forgiveness would most logically tell you to turn the other cheek and He would handle the rest.

I have, thankfully, never been involved in a real life gunfight. I have exercised them ad nauseum, and we tabletop them to death, but to date I have not been involved in one. But I live in fear of responding to one, where no involved party is readily identifiable as "the good guy with the gun..." where I, in good faith, engage and kill the "wrong" guy...

The thing is, the primary goal of government in this case should be, imho, keeping guns out of the wrong hands. This is accomplished via background checks, waiting periods and logical restriction of high powered weapons. It is proven that if a bad guy wants a gun, he will get one. If there are more responsible gun owners out there, and fewer weapons that are harder to get, it logically falls in line that bad guys will have fewer firearms.

I believe the NRA has become its own worst enemy, because as a patsy of the guns and ammo industry, they have categorically refused to do allow any logical legislation to pass. If you oppose them you are a sissy nancy boy who hates freedom and 'mericah. If they were smart, they would champion responsible ownership by respectable, law abiding citizens. And not use late night punchlines like Nugent and Palin as their mouthpieces. Get back to teaching safe, sane and responsible ownership and marksmanship...make it a cool guy club to be a gun owner and shooting sport enthusiast again...not a redneck idiot club full of people who scream louder then the other guy.

And yeah, I agree on the shottie for home defense. That, a good light, a big territorial dog(s) and a celly in the bedroom are the best...after solid doors with good locks and a nice fence.

And come on...you dont know who Alex Jones is? Okay...

 

[Jm_]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The right to my life and its preservation is an inherent natural or human right given by God, not man or man's government.

Could easily be argued that your "creator" is your parents, not an imaginary sky fairy.

unalienable adjective un·alien·able \ˌən-ˈāl-yə-nə-bəl, - impossible to take away or give up

For a brief primer => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense
and some background => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

I bet you are the 1st one then to support universal health care, obamacare, and ending the death penalty.

The main reason I believe trustworthy citizens should be allowed things like AR15s is the same reason I believe police should have them- semi-autos with removable magazines are proven non-cutting-edge technologies that work well, are controllable and make the wielder at least competitive in a potential gunfight, God forbid such a thing actually happen. Is it my primary weapon for home defense? No, my Mossburg 590 is better for that. Should an emergency situation occur with an armed assailant as my opponent, though, I don't want to be the one who brought a knife to a gunfight. I understand that so-called Saturday Night Specials are the most likely thing to come up against but every now and again, determined attackers come more prepared. ARs are also very useful for competitive and target shooting thanks to their modular, customizable nature.

BTW, I'm not familiar with Alex Jones or his speeches. Who is he?

Therein lies a big part of the problem. There are no "law abiding citizens", no "trustworthy" citizens. When's the last time you drove above the speed limit or didn't completely stop at a sign? People do these things and more all day long because they can get away with it and there are no real barriers to doing it. The "law abiding citizen" is a false construct generated by the NRA. There isn't a defined class of "criminals" that you can readily identify. Yes, some people are and will not follow the rules that most of society does, but basic human nature means that there is no hard and fast transition from "good" to "bad". People with no prior criminal records snap and mass-murder people, people commit suicide, and so on. By your own measures, being "law abiding", you shouldn't even own a gun.

A firearm gives a person a much easier and more direct method of hurting or killing someone. This can not be understated. The way our country and culture popularizes firearms and shooting people for a variety of reasons is a huge part of why we are so violent. Every guy dreams of being the "good guy" to come sweeping in to save the day in some sort of Die-Hard scenario. We train our kids early with toy guns. We have created all these issues, but we are so afraid to do something about the mass violence, and we keep telling ourselves that only "good people" will buy and use firearms. Hey, where do you think those criminals got firearms in the first place? Besides gun shows, the majority of them came from these "law abiding citizens" one way or another, because they turned, because they gave them to a family member, because they weren't responsible enough to make them inaccessible, because they lost them, and so on.

To not do something and just pretend that having more "good guys with guns" will somehow solve our violence problem at this point is beyond retarded. You're just going to have more good guys that turn and snap, which requires even more good guys with guns, which means even more will turn and snap, which requires even more good guys with guns, and so on...

 

[llkoolkeg]

Most everyone knows "Our Creator" is God by whatever name you know him and to suggest the Framers meant our parents is just silly. Come on, now.

It is patently unjust to deprive those who are not "prohibited persons" the tools of self-defense because a criminal might buy one from an illegal straw purchaser or steal one. A thief would have to be an Oceans Eleven master criminal to surpass all my security mechanisms and defeat my safe, for example. And yes, I occasionally speed but again, suggesting that speeders should forfeit their right to self defense is just silly. For real?

For certain crimes, the death penalty is appropriate but that is another argument altogether. And no, I do not like the Obamacare law/tax but that's a different thread.

I don't carry concealed and have no wannabe cop or Die Hard fantasies. I just want to be able to protect my family in my home, hunt and target shoot. MD, where I live, is not a "shall issue" state, does not accept carry training or permits from other states and only issues carry permits to a very tiny select group of people I fall not within.

I just did a search on Alex Jones and presume you refer to the guy in TX with the Infowars.com web page? I have never seen or heard of the guy before you mentioned him but I spend most of my time in books rather than online and the only thing I watch on TV with any regularity is Cowboys football, Orioles baseball, Capitals hockey and Premiere/Champions League soccer. My children are pretty young so even my movie options are mostly limited to Disney-type stuff.

 

[Kevin]

Do you have any id just how contradictory you are?
First of all you are waving the constitution around like a fundamental extramist, very much like the Mooslims youre so scared off wave around their qurans.
The founding fathers wanted to raise a secular state and you come playing the god card every time.
Your founding faters did not want religion mixed into politics!

Then because youre claiming to be such a good christian I would also think you would respect the ways of the imaginary Jesus...
God knows i dont believe in any of these fairy tales anymore because Im an adult, but if you are such a fan of bronze age sectarian myths Id think you would actually respect what Jesus taught...

http://tamedcynic.org/jesus-didnt-die-to-give-you-gun-ownership-rights/

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Most everyone knows "Our Creator" is God by whatever name you know him and to suggest the Framers meant our parents is just silly. Come on, now...

There are rather a large number of us who don't buy the premise. I'm not arrogant enough to state that gods don't exist, but until she taps me on the shoulder I'm not wasting much time on the concept.

 

[JohnE]

If your gear is secured in a Fort Knox type safe...how quickly will you be able to access it when someone is breaking into your casa?

And for saying you have never heard of Alex Jones...well, like I said you sound alot like his talking points....

 

[Jm_]

http://tamedcynic.org/jesus-didnt-die-to-give-you-gun-ownership-rights/

Everyone knows Jesus was born in Texas at the Alamo on the 4th of July.

 

[Toshi]

http://wonkette.com/579012/you-work-for-me-open-carry-loon-yells-at-police-exercising-right-to-be-tedious-ahole

 

[llkoolkeg]

JohnE: Everything but one is in the Ft. Knox safe. That one is in a rapid-access biometric. Again, I'd never even heard of the cat. I guess he's some modern-day Limbaugh who likes guns?

JBP: She? Were you fishing for nookie points or do you think a Divine Author might actually possess TTs and a 'nanny? Why would a divine being need sex bits of either variety?

Kevin, you are just plain ignorant and your "arguments", using the term in its loosest sense, are beyond absurd. The Constitution is the supreme law of this land and quoting it does not in any way approximate being a "Mooslim" fundamental extremist. Perhaps is you spent any time reading and learning to understand it, you would come off as less of a pouty rube. The founding fathers did NOT seek to found a secular state; they sought to found one without an established state religion. Big difference there and again, if you bothered to read the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, etc. and had the capacity to comprehend what you'd absorbed, you'd likely be taken more seriously. Incidentally, nowhere have I claimed to be a good Christian. I'm a work in progress...an unfinished symphony. I have a lot more smelting and refining to undergo before I ever even dream of making such a preposterous claim.

 

[Kevin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

 

[mykel]

an unfinished symphony - ya, stocked with out of tune instruments.

Damn boy, you be tedious. I've just finished reading the whole thread - Just what the hell is your point?

 

[JohnE]

Mykel, why do you hate PHREEDUHMB™!!!!!!!!!!????

 

[Beef Supreme]

Perhaps is you spent any time reading and learning to understand it, you would come off as less of a pouty rube. The founding fathers did NOT seek to found a secular state; they sought to found one without an established state religion. Big difference there and again, if you bothered to read the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, etc. and had the capacity to comprehend what you'd absorbed, you'd likely be taken more seriously..

Why do so many conservatives insist on writing drivel like this? This is the mental picture normal people get when you write this crap.

BTW, my money is on John E or JBP if you all were to bet on who would score higher on a civics test.

 

[mykel]

Mykel, why do you hate PHREEDUHMB™!!!!!!!!!!????

Probably because I'm a libtard pinko socialist Canukistanian

 

[velocipedist]

It is patently unjust to deprive those who are not "prohibited persons" the tools of self-defense because a criminal might buy one from an illegal straw purchaser or steal one.

Deprive? Again I have yet to see anyone advocating revoking your right to bear arms.. Making it onerous to own and maintain weapons will stop lazy stupid people from excercising their right, and the people like your self that keep their weapons appropriately and are willing to go through the motions have nothing to worry about... Or is what I am suggesting (which seems sensible/reasonable to me) sound like naive utopianism to you?

Seems to me that if the majority of the US of A was more like Maryland and less like West Virginia we might not be having this conversation.

 

[llkoolkeg]

My sincere apologies for interrupting your pitiable liberal circle-jerk! How dare I voice an opposing viewpoint based on forty years of shooting firearms of all types. I should instead care what a bunch of keyboard cockschlobbers think of me or my viewpoints...especially one who fantasizes about prepubescent geeks whacking off to their webcams.

As the only one who could manage an actual question or semi-intelligent comment this round, I'll respond to velocipedist. Here is the latest list of guns that here in MD we have been, yes, deprived the option of purchasing. None of them are already-regulated NFA firearms but semi-auto centerfires that look scary to politicians, nancy-boys and soccer moms:

AA Arms AP–9 semiautomatic pistol; American Arms Spectre da Semiautomatic carbine; AK–47 in all forms; Algimec AGM–1 type semi–auto; AR 100 type semi–auto; AR 180 type semi–auto; Argentine L.S.R. semi–auto; Australian Automatic Arms SAR type semi–auto; Auto–Ordnance Thompson M1 and 1927 semi–automatics; Barrett light .50 cal. semi–auto; Beretta AR70 type semi–auto; Bushmaster semiautomatic pistol; Bushmaster semi–auto rifle; Calico models M–100 and M–900; CIS SR 88 type semi–auto;Claridge HI TEC C–9 carbines; Claridge HI–TEC semiautomatic pistol; Colt AR–15, CAR–15, and all imitations except Colt AR–15 Sporter H–BAR rifle; D Max Industries semiautomatic pistol; Daewoo MAX 1 and MAX 2, aka AR 100, 110C, K–1, and K–2; Dragunov Chinese made semi–auto; Encom MK–IV, MP–9, or MP–45 semiautomatic pistol; Famas semi–auto (.223 caliber); Feather AT–9 semi–auto;FN LAR and FN FAL assault rifle; FNC semi–auto type carbine; F.I.E./Franchi LAW 12 and SPAS 12 assault shotgun; Steyr–AUG–SA semi–auto; Galil models AR and ARM semi–auto; Heckler and Koch HK–91 A3, HK–93 A2, HK–94 A2 and A3; Heckler and Koch semiautomatic SP–89 pistol; Holmes model 88 shotgun; Holmes MP–83 semiautomatic pistol; Ingram MAC 10/11 semiautomatic pistol and variations including Partisan Avenger and the SWD Cobray; Intratec TEC–9/DC–9 semiautomatic pistol in any centerfire variation; Avtomat Kalashnikov semiautomatic rifle in any format; Manchester Arms “Commando” MK–45, MK–9; Mandell TAC–1 semi–auto carbine; Mossberg model 500 Bullpup assault shotgun; Sterling Mark 6; P.A.W.S. carbine; P.A.W.S. type semiautomatic pistol; Ruger mini–14 folding stock model (.223 caliber); SIG 550/551 "assault" rifle (.223 caliber); SKS with detachable magazine; Skorpion semiautomatic pistol; Spectre double action semiautomatic pistol (Sile, F.I.E., Mitchell); AP–74 Commando type semi–auto; Springfield Armory BM–59, SAR–48, G3, SAR–3, M–21 sniper rifle, M1A, excluding the M1 Garand; Street sweeper assault type shotgun; Striker 12 assault shotgun in all formats; Unique F11 semi–auto type; Daewoo USAS 12 semi–auto shotgun; UZI 9mm carbine or rifle; UZI semiautomatic pistol; Valmet M–76 and M–78 semi–auto; Weaver Arms “Nighthawk” semi–auto carbine; Weaver Arms semiautomatic Nighthawk pistol; Wilkinson Arms 9mm semi–auto “Terry”; and Wilkinson semiautomatic “Linda” pistol.

 

[JohnE]

"...pitiable liberal circle-jerk...keyboard cockschlobbers...especially one who fantasizes about prepubescent geeks whacking off to their webcam...nancy-boys and soccer moms."

Careful dude, youre doing it again...

 

[Kevin]

My sincere apologies for interrupting your pitiable liberal circle-jerk! How dare I voice an opposing viewpoint based on forty years of shooting firearms of all types. I should instead care what a bunch of keyboard cockschlobbers think of me or my viewpoints...especially one who fantasizes about prepubescent geeks whacking off to their webcams.

As the only one who could manage an actual question or semi-intelligent comment this round, I'll respond to velocipedist. Here is the latest list of guns that here in MD we have been, yes, deprived the option of purchasing. None of them are already-regulated NFA firearms but semi-auto centerfires that look scary to politicians, nancy-boys and soccer moms:

AA Arms AP–9 semiautomatic pistol; American Arms Spectre da Semiautomatic carbine; AK–47 in all forms; Algimec AGM–1 type semi–auto; AR 100 type semi–auto; AR 180 type semi–auto; Argentine L.S.R. semi–auto; Australian Automatic Arms SAR type semi–auto; Auto–Ordnance Thompson M1 and 1927 semi–automatics; Barrett light .50 cal. semi–auto; Beretta AR70 type semi–auto; Bushmaster semiautomatic pistol; Bushmaster semi–auto rifle; Calico models M–100 and M–900; CIS SR 88 type semi–auto;Claridge HI TEC C–9 carbines; Claridge HI–TEC semiautomatic pistol; Colt AR–15, CAR–15, and all imitations except Colt AR–15 Sporter H–BAR rifle; D Max Industries semiautomatic pistol; Daewoo MAX 1 and MAX 2, aka AR 100, 110C, K–1, and K–2; Dragunov Chinese made semi–auto; Encom MK–IV, MP–9, or MP–45 semiautomatic pistol; Famas semi–auto (.223 caliber); Feather AT–9 semi–auto;FN LAR and FN FAL assault rifle; FNC semi–auto type carbine; F.I.E./Franchi LAW 12 and SPAS 12 assault shotgun; Steyr–AUG–SA semi–auto; Galil models AR and ARM semi–auto; Heckler and Koch HK–91 A3, HK–93 A2, HK–94 A2 and A3; Heckler and Koch semiautomatic SP–89 pistol; Holmes model 88 shotgun; Holmes MP–83 semiautomatic pistol; Ingram MAC 10/11 semiautomatic pistol and variations including Partisan Avenger and the SWD Cobray; Intratec TEC–9/DC–9 semiautomatic pistol in any centerfire variation; Avtomat Kalashnikov semiautomatic rifle in any format; Manchester Arms “Commando” MK–45, MK–9; Mandell TAC–1 semi–auto carbine; Mossberg model 500 Bullpup assault shotgun; Sterling Mark 6; P.A.W.S. carbine; P.A.W.S. type semiautomatic pistol; Ruger mini–14 folding stock model (.223 caliber); SIG 550/551 "assault" rifle (.223 caliber); SKS with detachable magazine; Skorpion semiautomatic pistol; Spectre double action semiautomatic pistol (Sile, F.I.E., Mitchell); AP–74 Commando type semi–auto; Springfield Armory BM–59, SAR–48, G3, SAR–3, M–21 sniper rifle, M1A, excluding the M1 Garand; Street sweeper assault type shotgun; Striker 12 assault shotgun in all formats; Unique F11 semi–auto type; Daewoo USAS 12 semi–auto shotgun; UZI 9mm carbine or rifle; UZI semiautomatic pistol; Valmet M–76 and M–78 semi–auto; Weaver Arms “Nighthawk” semi–auto carbine; Weaver Arms semiautomatic Nighthawk pistol; Wilkinson Arms 9mm semi–auto “Terry”; and Wilkinson semiautomatic “Linda” pistol.

Lol, did you really just say youre the only one here who could manage a question and then completely failed to anwser the question you were trying to awnser?

Maybe you didnt read my link so ill copy paste it here...

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.[1]

As this might be a bit too complicated for you to comprehend, ill try to translate it without using all the fancy words...

The problem with stupid people is that they dont know that theyre stupid.

Thanks again for proving this point, cowboy.

 

[llkoolkeg]

"...pitiable liberal circle-jerk...keyboard cockschlobbers...especially one who fantasizes about prepubescent geeks whacking off to their webcam...nancy-boys and soccer moms."

Careful dude, youre doing it again...

What...sounding like Alex Jones or responding in kind?

You're right, Kevin, I didn't bother clicking your link. Why? Because I'm tilting at windmills with you and if you think you need to translate English "fancy words" for me, you must suffer from the very affliction you seek to fling in my general direction. Perhaps that explains how you've even heard of it- your personal diagnosis. I basically find you to be a revolting boor with nothing to offer this debate but oafish insults. Do be a dear and run along to some other thread, please? I would like to have a serious discussion here and you seems to have precious little to offer.

I can fling mud with the dirtiest bastard here but would prefer to at least attempt to keep it civil.

 

[JohnE]

Flinging derogatory names as I cited above is not much of an attempt to keep it civil...whether responding in kind or not.

 

[velocipedist]

Ok. I Guess I am on the fence, because you still have access to weapons, just not to some weapons. And the right to bear arms doesn't explicitly say what type of arms... Or hell just require liability insurance and title similar to a vehicle. Prosecute jack asses that leave weapons around or straw purchase. Because as a responsible gun owner I assume your insurance company has knowledge of the majority of your weapons (or their serial #s at least), so you already have registered your guns in some sense. Hell free market this shit if you like whole new industry in the making.

 

[llkoolkeg]

JohnE, neither is patting non-contributors on the back for their insulting comments, especially with trite internet-isms. The oh-so-amusing "ig-ner-unt" spelling of "you hate 'merica / freedom" was barely amusing the first time I saw it. Now that it has become a staple of the anti-conservative lexicon for years, it's far less so. Recycling unoriginal garbage for extra-cheap chuckles from your like-minded peanut gallery earns no points. I should be above being dragged down to a simian level of poo-flinging but like I said, I have not yet mastered the restraint I aspire to.

Velocipedist, to answer your question, mine are insured through an NRA partner company because my home policy wanted an arm and a leg to do so and I felt less secure about the privacy of my information with them, rightly or wrongly, given some of their political donations and stances.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

And the band played on.