birdlike 0
birdlike 0
QuoteQuote>what gain is there in this opening of information?
There is certainly potential gain in knowing whether a given person has a gun if the police are about to arrest him for murder - they will know that they must be extremely cautious.
This discussion is about making this information available to anyone, not just cops. So answer the question being asked.
Do you honestly think the police would need to know this information before they arrest a person for murder? Their procedure isn't going to change a single bit.
Exactly. Billvon is obviously very intelligent, so I have to wonder why he uses sophistry to argue.
Surely he can't think that cops will be going to arrest a suspected MURDERER, and benefit one whit from finding his name and what guns he's registered on some database. Like that's the trip that's going to spur them to be careful when they go to apprehend a guy they already have fingered for murder?
Mr. Von can do better than that... why the ruse?Imaginations on fire
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteGuns kill far more people than planes every year, both in the USA and worldwide.
And cars kill more than guns -- DESPITE the fact that "guns are designed to kill, and cars are not."
Imagine if the cars were designed to kill!
Now, let's ask the question, "How well have the laws that make it easy to look up who has what car, and the laws that require people to get a license before they drive, worked to eliminate vehicular deaths?"
People scream on and on about licensing guns just like we license cars, but they never think for a moment about the fact that licensing cars has zero ability to stop car accidents from happening, as evidenced by how common car accidents actually ARE.
I sure wish you would stop obfuscating, and offering these pathetic distractions about cars and airplanes, sir, as they bring us no nearer to anything that we can call the truth of the matter.
License guns like cars? Lets go for it!!
You'd have to give a license to any 17 year old that wanted it and passed a test that any brain dead chimpanzee could handle.
You'd have to recognize that license throughout all 50 states without fail and without limitation.
And if said 17 year old were caught without said license, it would be a $100 (if I recall Texas fines) ticket that would be expunged after 3 years.
No more background checks (you don't have to have one to get a driver's license, after all). No mental records check (not required for driver's license). No felony check (again, not required).
You could buy as many as you want, wherever you want. You could import whatever you want and sell or trade them to whoever you wanted. You could build whatever gun you like... you could customize it, trick it out, cut it down... all without Fed.gov intervention.
So...the next time someone says they want to "license guns just like cars"... ask them how they feel about the above. If they disagree - they're lying through their teeth about the issue.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
birdlike 0
QuoteMy point is that he made a silly argument.
BTW car ownership records are not secret, cars must be registered and drivers licensed. You are not helping your case here.
Do you really think your comparison to cars is helping yours?
Despite the fact that this system you claim would save lives when applied to guns is currently in place with regard to cars, cars still kill more people each year than guns do. And there are far more guns in the U.S. than cars. How well has registration of cars and licensing of drivers worked for keeping down the deaths? Not very well, it would seem. You don't have to look far to find unlicensed people killing other people in vehicular accidents with unregistered cars. Gee, how'd they do that? Th-there's a system in place, run by the government, that's supposed to be taking care of all of that!
So who's making the silly arguments?
Imaginations on fire
mnealtx 0
QuoteBTW car ownership records are not secret, cars must be registered and drivers licensed. You are not helping your case here.
Registration and licensing are ONLY required for operation on public roads - NOT for ownership. Your example fails.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
birdlike 0
Quote>Even if the records show the murderer doesn't own a gun, the police
>are still going to be super-cautious anyway . . .
. . . like I said. There are reasons for and reasons against. Your reasons against are good ones. Other people have good reasons for.
Yes, but YOUR proffered reason for was promptly demolished. Why did you offer it? You had to know it was intrinsically flawed and invalid.
Imaginations on fire
birdlike 0
Quotethink downtown Chicago...."in the interest of safety of our city"
Do you mean when Daley had his crews go to Meigs field in the dead of night and slash X's into the runway, even though he did not have the authority to do so?
When he caused pilots to have their planes STRANDED at a defunct airport? (They eventually had to get permission to take off from the TAXIWAYS to get their aircraft out of there!)
I wouldn't trust the government of Chicago, or IL, with much of anything at all.
Imaginations on fire
birdlike 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat if there were several national organizations and dozens of powerful politicians actively working to end private aircraft ownership? Would that change your mind?
You mean, like the ATA and the pols they have in their pockets, and, of course the Feds Against Aviation)
Show me where they're trying to ban private aviation.
Apparently you don't keep up with the aviation news. If they ATA and FAA have their way GA will be priced out of the sky.
Sounds like Ted Kennedy's "10,000% tax on ammunition," to me.
So I guess JohnRich is right about high-powered politicians trying to end gun ownership. Maybe you're right about ATA and FAA trying to do the same with flying. It just means that YOU should be seeing it OUR way when it comes to what we claim they're trying to do with our gun rights. Your own examples BOLSTER our claims.Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire
birdlike 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteShow me where they're trying to ban private aviation.
Apparently you don't keep up with the aviation news. If they ATA and FAA have their way GA will be priced out of the sky.
Mayor Daley is trying to ban GA in his city. Disney has managed to ban GA over its park. GA is banned over huge areas of the western and southern USA.
Ah, I was hoping you would go there. Because now you have opened up the door for gun/plane comparisons.
There are types of places where you can't take a gun, but that doesn't mean that they are banned. These are deemed "reasonable restrictions", in the name of crime fighting.
So likewise, just because there are a few places where you can't fly your airplane, that doesn't mean that people are trying to ban private aviation. Those are just deemed "reasonable restrictions". It may be for anti-terrorism reasons, military training areas or national park noise restrictions. Whatever the justification, our elected representattives have deemed them prudent. And as you are fond of saying, since you voted them into office, you are responsible for these restrictions.
If those aviation restrictions chaff you so much, I'll expect more sympathy from you in the future when I complain about gun restrictions. Okay?
Dude, this one was just...
plain...
MASTERFUL.
Imaginations on fire
birdlike 0
QuoteQuoteJohn if firearms confiscations became a reality would you be in favor of the law and do everything you could to facilitate it?
Or would you defy that law and do everything you could to evade and ignore it?
Or would you do nothing?
hint: the answer is either 1, 2, or 3
try and speak like a human, not a politician.
I think such a law would be clearly unconstitutional and I would be opposed to it. Just like I am opposed to all of Bush's assaults on the Constitution.
This is just funny.
You were asked whether you would be in favor of the law, and what you would do if it passed (facilitate it, defy it, or nothing).
You answered only the part about whether you would favor it.
Then of course there was the obligatory introduction of Bush's 'assaults on the Constitution'--as though that had any relevance here to this discussion.
People are right to say that you constantly neglect to answer straightforward questions, and then delve into trivial nuances in syntax or absurd tangents as though you think we don't see what you're doing.
It's quite amazing to witness.
Imaginations on fire
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote......I'm still not concerned about having my plane confiscated.
Probably not. Because there is no emotional frothing at the mouth lobby trying to do that............................................................................................................yet.
Another paranoid statement.
Not a paraniod statement but comment about a paranoid group. Like the Brady bunch which is now the VPC?
and I don't really think any lobby would try and take GA planes away, I was only trying to make a point about the differences![[:/]](//www.dropzone.com/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png "[:/]")
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Is there a move afoot to confiscate guns in the USA?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4988011.html
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote......I'm still not concerned about having my plane confiscated.
Probably not. Because there is no emotional frothing at the mouth lobby trying to do that............................................................................................................yet.
Another paranoid statement.
Not a paraniod statement but comment about a paranoid group. Like the Brady bunch which is now the VPC?
and I don't really think any lobby would try and take GA planes away, I was only trying to make a point about the differences
Is there a move afoot to confiscate guns in the USA?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4988011.html
Very interesting, but nothing in there to do with confiscating guns. Stop being so paranoid.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote......I'm still not concerned about having my plane confiscated.
Probably not. Because there is no emotional frothing at the mouth lobby trying to do that............................................................................................................yet.
Another paranoid statement.
Not a paraniod statement but comment about a paranoid group. Like the Brady bunch which is now the VPC?
and I don't really think any lobby would try and take GA planes away, I was only trying to make a point about the differences
Is there a move afoot to confiscate guns in the USA?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4988011.html
Very interesting, but nothing in there to do with confiscating guns. Stop being so paranoid.
No paranoia but I am seeing some delusional behavior on this thread
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 2,146
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteDIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban,
picking up every one of them; "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have
done it.”
"The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no
longer need to protect the states or themselves."
QuoteFRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
"We have other legislation that all of you are aware that I have been so active on, with
my colleagues here, and that is to shut down the gun shows.”
QuoteJOHN CHAFEE, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND
“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of
handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)... . It is time to
act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!”
QuoteNELSON T. “PETE” SHIELDS, CHAIRMAN EMERITUS, HANDGUN CONTROL, INC.396
" .... the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun
ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed
sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal.”397
"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns).”398
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities -
very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to
strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of
handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales.
Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and
ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.”
As for confiscation:
How about California, in 1989? How about New York City, in 1991?
Now...what was that about paranoia, again?
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
birdlike 0
Paranoid is what your enemies call you when they know you know the shit they're up to.
Imaginations on fire
rushmc 23
Quote".... at times by looking in the mirror"?
Ooohhhhh, can't accept defeat so we go to PA's do we. Nice
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 2,146
QuoteHere's some quotes:
QuoteDIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban,
picking up every one of them; "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have
done it.”
"The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no
longer need to protect the states or themselves."QuoteFRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
"We have other legislation that all of you are aware that I have been so active on, with
my colleagues here, and that is to shut down the gun shows.”QuoteJOHN CHAFEE, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND
“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of
handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)... . It is time to
act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!”QuoteNELSON T. “PETE” SHIELDS, CHAIRMAN EMERITUS, HANDGUN CONTROL, INC.396
" .... the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun
ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed
sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal.”397
"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns).”398
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities -
very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to
strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of
handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales.
Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and
ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.”
As for confiscation:
How about California, in 1989? How about New York City, in 1991?
Now...what was that about paranoia, again?
Restrictions on handguns does not equal confiscation of all guns.
You already accept, I suspect, restrictions in many places (courthouses and other govt. buildings, for example), and restrictions on certain types of guns (machine guns...). The principle is established, all you're quibbling about is where the line is drawn.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteHere's some quotes:
QuoteDIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban,
picking up every one of them; "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have
done it.”
"The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no
longer need to protect the states or themselves."QuoteFRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
"We have other legislation that all of you are aware that I have been so active on, with
my colleagues here, and that is to shut down the gun shows.”QuoteJOHN CHAFEE, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND
“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of
handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)... . It is time to
act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!”QuoteNELSON T. “PETE” SHIELDS, CHAIRMAN EMERITUS, HANDGUN CONTROL, INC.396
" .... the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun
ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed
sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal.”397
"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns).”398
"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities -
very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to
strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of
handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales.
Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and
ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.”
As for confiscation:
How about California, in 1989? How about New York City, in 1991?
Now...what was that about paranoia, again?
Restrictions on handguns does not equal confiscation of all guns.
You already accept, I suspect, restrictions in many places (courthouses and other govt. buildings, for example), and restrictions on certain types of guns (machine guns...). The principle is established, all you're quibbling about is where the line is drawn.
I think you may referenced the "slippery slope" concept before. Think it applies here? I sure as hell do. To many examples not to think about it.
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
mnealtx 0
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteRestrictions on handguns does not equal confiscation of all guns.
Is this like the claim that the sun revolves around the earth, from a certain (lame) perspective?
"Ban them!," "turn 'em all in," "totally illegal" sure sound more like confiscation rather than restriction.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote......I'm still not concerned about having my plane confiscated.
Probably not. Because there is no emotional frothing at the mouth lobby trying to do that............................................................................................................yet.
Another paranoid statement.
Not a paraniod statement but comment about a paranoid group. Like the Brady bunch which is now the VPC?
and I don't really think any lobby would try and take GA planes away, I was only trying to make a point about the differences
Is there a move afoot to confiscate guns in the USA?
Paranioa huh?
Nnnnnoooooooo, no one is thinking about confiscation of gun, Nnnnoooooo
San Francisco's already tough laws on firearms will get even stronger -- becoming some of the most restrictive in the country -- after a vote at City Hall Tuesday. But even new restrictions won't do much to stop the gun violence escalating on city streets, one sponsor of the new laws said after the vote.
The violence that has been generally confined to more crime-plagued neighborhoods crossed into a major tourist area Monday afternoon, with a shooting that left one person dead and put bullet holes through the front window of a popular restaurant.
Gun-related homicides, injuries from shootings, and gun crimes in and around schools are becoming increasingly common, according to the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice.
The laws -- which gained final approval from the Board of Supervisors -- would restrict both the sale and possession of firearms.
Specifically, they would prohibit the possession or sale of firearms on city property, require firearms in residences to be in a locked container or have trigger locks and require firearm dealers to submit an inventory to the chief of police every six months.
The last provision is intended to allow city officials to know how many guns are sold, though there is only one gun shop in the city.
"We're pleased that, as soon as the mayor signs this, San Francisco has the strongest anti-gun laws in the nation," said Nathan Ballard, spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom. The mayor sponsored the legislation, along with Supervisors Sophie Maxwell and Ross Mirkarimi.
Despite the laws, however, Mirkarimi said he doubts they will quell the kind of violence that erupted on Monday afternoon, which police suspect may be tied to a feud between a San Francisco gang and an East Bay gang.
The shooting happened at the corner of Ellis and Cyril Magnin streets, across from the Hilton hotel and near the Powell Street cable car turnaround.
"Nobody should be surprised about the migration and proliferation of gun violence in San Francisco," Mirkarimi said. "We've been saying this for two-and-a-half years, that the murders, homicides and gun violence that have been occurring in the more routine areas ... have now migrated into other areas."
The number of shootings resulting in nonfatal injuries continues to rise, with 269 such incidents in 2005 and 303 in 2006. As of May 10 of this year, there were 105.
Supervisor Maxwell said the new restrictions, which passed 8-3, are separate issues from the violence in the streets. Supervisors Aaron Peskin, Chris Daly and Ed Jew voted "no."
While the mayor has praised these new restrictions, he only expressed tepid support for Proposition H in 2005, which would have required gun owners to surrender their weapons to police and would have made it illegal to buy and sell firearms and ammunition in the city.
Voters passed the proposition with 58 percent in favor, but it is tied up in court after the National Rifle Association challenged its constitutionality. Newsom said the vote amounted to a "public opinion poll."
The gun owners association did not return a call for comment on the new restrictions Tuesday afternoon.
Peskin said he didn't support the laws because he believes they will have no impact.
"It is silly feel-good legislation with no teeth," Peskin said.
Daly has questioned Newsom's commitment to gun control, noting that the mayor wasn't a strong backer of Prop. H, which Daly sponsored.
Jew said sufficient laws already are in place and he questioned the further use of city resources on the issue in the wake of challenges to Prop.
H.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/25/BAG26R6G3Q1.DTL&hw=Wyatt+Buchanan&sn=001&sc=1000
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote......I'm still not concerned about having my plane confiscated.
Probably not. Because there is no emotional frothing at the mouth lobby trying to do that............................................................................................................yet.
Another paranoid statement.
Not a paraniod statement but comment about a paranoid group. Like the Brady bunch which is now the VPC?
and I don't really think any lobby would try and take GA planes away, I was only trying to make a point about the differences
Is there a move afoot to confiscate guns in the USA?
Paranioa huh?
Nnnnnoooooooo, no one is thinking about confiscation of gun, Nnnnoooooo
In a nation of 300,000,000, any idea at all will have a few supporters, even wacky ideas. Some people even think global warming is a myth and that Bush is a good president.
I don't see this as any kind of movement with remotely popular support.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote......I'm still not concerned about having my plane confiscated.
Probably not. Because there is no emotional frothing at the mouth lobby trying to do that............................................................................................................yet.
Another paranoid statement.
Not a paraniod statement but comment about a paranoid group. Like the Brady bunch which is now the VPC?
and I don't really think any lobby would try and take GA planes away, I was only trying to make a point about the differences
Is there a move afoot to confiscate guns in the USA?
Paranioa huh?
Nnnnnoooooooo, no one is thinking about confiscation of gun, Nnnnoooooo
In a nation of 300,000,000, any idea at all will have a few supporters, even wacky ideas. Some people even think global warming is a myth and that Bush is a good president.
I don't see this as any kind of movement with remotely popular support.
Your denial is quite telling
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites