kallend 2,184 #76 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuote I love how you can be patronizing and obtuse in the same post. We've been through all this before. Maybe you just need more time to think about it. Nope. Someone else here is running into a contradiction.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #77 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote I love how you can be patronizing and obtuse in the same post. We've been through all this before. Maybe you just need more time to think about it. Nope. Someone else here is running into a contradiction. When you find him, let me know.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #78 January 8, 2008 QuoteI love how you can be patronizing and obtuse in the same post. We've been through all this before. Maybe you just need more time to think about it. You might be worrying too much about this. Conserve brain power and expend as much effort as he does. I'm sitting on my ass till he explains why the Chinese used gunpower primarily for entertainment value. I expect I'll see spring first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #79 January 8, 2008 Quote He sees his oportunity to throw chum and apear cute. Did it work for you? Learn a new word today, Marc? "chum" has several meetings ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Douva 0 #80 January 8, 2008 Yes. They have the right to bear arms until they are adjudicated dangerous or convicted of a crime. No. If they have been adjudicated dangerous or convicted of a crime, they are stripped of that right. Your poll is poorly worded.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #81 January 8, 2008 Your poll is poorly worded. Do you think that was done unintentionally?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #82 January 8, 2008 Quote Quote He sees his oportunity to throw chum and apear cute. Did it work for you? Learn a new word today, Marc? "chum" has several meetings If he would search he would see it used before.....with the meaning spelled out for him"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #83 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuote"chum" has several meetings If he would search he would see it used before.....with the meaning spelled out for him It's important to hear a Homer voice when you read it "chum has several meanings" like "Batman's a scientist" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,184 #84 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I love how you can be patronizing and obtuse in the same post. We've been through all this before. Maybe you just need more time to think about it. Nope. Someone else here is running into a contradiction. When you find him, let me know. rushmc has a mirror you can look in.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #85 January 8, 2008 Quote19 Noes, 7 Yeses so far. So what can be done to make it harder for madmen and criminals to get guns. "Nothing" is NOT an acceptable answer. ....................................................................... Madmen and felons don't have the right to own a gun in America. We already have laws on the books for that now. I really doubt if further laws of that nature will do much of anything to help. Most honest gun owners, that I know, don't want nutcases with guns any more than you do. So, what exactly are you suggesting we do to keep guns out of the hands of madmen? What new laws do you want implemented? If they make sense, I'll listen..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #86 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteI love how you can be patronizing and obtuse in the same post. We've been through all this before. Maybe you just need more time to think about it. You might be worrying too much about this. Conserve brain power and expend as much effort as he does. Good policy.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #87 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteThere are already 20,000 gun laws on the books. Apparently, all of those are still not good enough for you. So you want just a few more gun laws, and then magically, madmen will quit killing people? No, they won't. And then you'll want still more gun laws... And so it goes, with more ineffective laws being piled on top of all the previous ineffective laws. And anti-gun folks always crying for still more. And this cycle leads to the inexorable march towards total confiscation. Until in the end, there are no more more guns for the law abiding. So at some point you just have to stop and say; "no more". We've done all we can. The time has come to accept the fact that madmen will always get guns no matter what measures you try and implement to stop them. Therefore, the only logical response is to ensure that the good citizens have the means to stop the madmen. So if "nothing" is not the response you want, then my response is this: Implement nationwide shall-issue concealed handgun carry licenses, and ban gun-free zones from public areas like schools, churches and malls. Not exactly what you wanted though, eh? Your solution, I'm sure, only involves more restrictions on the law-abiding, rather than less... We need laws with teeth that law abiding gun shop owners can use to deny gun purchases by criminals and the mentally unstable. We need laws that encourage law abiding gun owners to place more attention to the security of their guns... So if we did those two additional things you request, THEN you would finally be happy with the state of gun laws in America? THEN you would be content that we were doing everything possible to prevent gun crime? THEN you wouldn't come back and ask for yet more gun laws to be piled on top of the 20,002 that already exist? THEN, if madmen continued to get guns anyway, you would finally throw up your hands in defeat, and admit that gun laws don't stop madmen from getting guns? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,184 #88 January 8, 2008 QuoteTHEN you wouldn't come back and ask for yet more gun laws to be piled on top of the 20,002 that already exist? THEN, if madmen continued to get guns anyway, you would finally throw up your hands in defeat, and admit that gun laws don't stop madmen from getting guns? On the whole I'd prefer 2 that work over 20,000 that don't work. The data show very clearly that most the laws currently on the books are pretty useless. I believe Mike's data showing that the fairly stringent rules Texas requires for a CCW permit are effective. I'd like to see something like those used as a model for gun ownership.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #89 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteTHEN you wouldn't come back and ask for yet more gun laws to be piled on top of the 20,002 that already exist? THEN, if madmen continued to get guns anyway, you would finally throw up your hands in defeat, and admit that gun laws don't stop madmen from getting guns? On the whole I'd prefer 2 that work over 20,000 that don't work. The data show very clearly that most the laws currently on the books are pretty useless. I believe Mike's data showing that the fairly stringent rules Texas requires for a CCW permit are effective. I'd like to see something like those used as a model for gun ownership. Then you also advocate having training and licensing to speak in public or on the internet, to vote, etc etc etc... Seems quite hypocritical for someone that incessantly posts about how the Patriot Act is destroying the rights of Americans... Of course, this will do two things in regards to criminals getting guns: Jack and Shit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,184 #90 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteTHEN you wouldn't come back and ask for yet more gun laws to be piled on top of the 20,002 that already exist? THEN, if madmen continued to get guns anyway, you would finally throw up your hands in defeat, and admit that gun laws don't stop madmen from getting guns? On the whole I'd prefer 2 that work over 20,000 that don't work. The data show very clearly that most the laws currently on the books are pretty useless. I believe Mike's data showing that the fairly stringent rules Texas requires for a CCW permit are effective. I'd like to see something like those used as a model for gun ownership. Then you also advocate having training and licensing to speak in public or on the internet, to vote, etc etc etc... Seems quite hypocritical for someone that incessantly posts about how the Patriot Act is destroying the rights of Americans... Of course, this will do two things in regards to criminals getting guns: Jack and Shit. What evidence do you have of that? The two primary methods by which criminals get guns are (1) ostensibly "legal" purchases, and (2) theft. Explain why tightening the currently lax standards for purchase, and imposing more responsibilty gun owners to properly secure their weapons will make NO difference. Unless, of course, you think those "law abiding gun owners" will disobey the law.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #91 January 8, 2008 QuoteWhat evidence do you have of that? When has government NOT tried to expand it's power? QuoteThe two primary methods by which criminals get guns are (1) ostensibly "legal" purchases Proof? If they have a criminal record, they will NOT get approved for purchase. Quote(2) theft. Yes, theft happens. So do break-ins. You're willing to give up the life of the family in that home (in which case the criminal STILL gets the guns) - I'm not. QuoteExplain why tightening the currently lax standards for purchase How about YOU explain how they're lax, Professor. While you're at it, you can finally give those CONCRETE examples of laws you would enact or change to make it happen. Quoteand imposing more responsibilty gun owners to properly secure their weapons will make NO difference. I'll use my standard litmus test here, for "reasonable" suggestion. Are you willing to impose those same restrictions, responsibilities and penalties on police in the performance of their duty? If not, then why is it such a good idea to do so to anyone else?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #92 January 8, 2008 I think you know where I stand on gun ownership and usage......... BUT.... In our current world I would support some kind of mandatory classes before gun ownership. RESPONSIBLE gun ownership and usage is sorely lacking in this country.... far too many people do not have any background...if they do not come from a family that has guns.. or if they have not been exposed to firearms OR have not served in the military. There are far too many LEGAL gun owners out there whose only exposure to what owning a gun means is to open their wallet and pull out a credit card.. FRANKLY.. that scares me. I dont know if a license is the best way to do it.. BUT I sure as hell want some MANDATORY classes on gun ownership BEFORE anyone can purchase. There are way too many nimrods that do not know how to handle weapons.. how to clean them...and when its best to use them. I would also require actually doing some shooting so they MIGHT be able to hit the fucking broad side of a barn... before they go into the woods...... or can hit realistic targets in situational scenarios... in home protection.. so that you dont shoot your god damn neighbor thru your walls... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #93 January 8, 2008 That's about my stance exactly. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #94 January 8, 2008 Then you, also, support the governments' "right" to place those same restrictions you support for the Second Amendment upon any other right... make sure to print your name clearly on the forms for your "Freedom of Speech" and "Voting" licenses, among others.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #95 January 8, 2008 are you sure it's the lack of a formalized training requirement that leads to these problems? I don't see a shortage of information; some people are just fucking idiots. It is claimed that accidents continue to trend down and have been at historical lows for some time now. If true, seems more probable that the intent of enacting such changes is to make it more difficult and expensive for new purchasers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #96 January 8, 2008 Quoteare you sure it's the lack of a formalized training requirement that leads to these problems? I don't see a shortage of information; some people are just fucking idiots. Agreed - seems like it would be MORE advantageous to increase training requirements for hunting licenses, if that is the case. QuoteIt is claimed that accidents continue to trend down and have been at historical lows for some time now. If true, seems more probable that the intent of enacting such changes is to make it more difficult and expensive for new purchasers. Agreed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #97 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteare you sure it's the lack of a formalized training requirement that leads to these problems? I don't see a shortage of information; some people are just fucking idiots. Agreed - seems like it would be MORE advantageous to increase training requirements for hunting licenses, if that is the case. In Iowa it is now required that one must have an 8 (or maybe more) hour hunter stafety course before you can get a hunting license. Do you know is that common among the states? IT has been this way for over 10 years now I think QuoteIt is claimed that accidents continue to trend down and have been at historical lows for some time now. If true, seems more probable that the intent of enacting such changes is to make it more difficult and expensive for new purchasers. Agreed."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #98 January 8, 2008 Quote If true, seems more probable that the intent of enacting such changes is to make it more difficult and expensive for new purchasers. I think that would be a good thing if it costs them more and takes more time for them to get the things..... this is based on watching very carefully at some informal ranges such as gravel pits.. and hell at even a couple formal ranges I frequent. Sorry but I get skittish when some asswhole sweeps the muzzle of a loaded weapon in my direction.... oh and I always love to watch the Rambo types running around the gravle pit... making like GI Joe.. when they dive over a pile of gravel and roll into firing position.... and the rifle goes off when they hit the gravel.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #99 January 9, 2008 I find it odd that those who are most vocal about government abuses of rights are the most in support of MORE abuse of rights...and the most blind to the fact that what they suggest in this thread opens the door wide to even MORE abuse of rights. Does anyone here think the government wouldn't LOVE to be able to enforce some sort of "Free Speach License"? Would anyone here like to have their internet posting history and emails scrutinized for "offenses" and have to undergo 'training' and 'licensing' to exercise their First Amendment right? I've seen some on the Left advocating poll tests (so much for "everyone's vote counts', eh?) ... does anyone think the government wouldn't just LOVE to be able to control who gets to vote? Is anyone here THAT DAMN STUPID to think that once you open the door to the government to have THAT much control over ONE right, that they won't TAKE that same control over every other right they can?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #100 January 9, 2008 Quote Is anyone here THAT DAMN STUPID to think that once you open the door to the government to have THAT much control over ONE right, that they won't TAKE that same control over every other right they can? WOW what a strawmanYour freedom of speech can not fly thru my walls and kill me....... Your drunken playing around with a firearm.. OR a car can.... So do you advocate.. NO drivers licensing..... or drivers education??? AND.. by the way the Government already DOES intrude on your privacy daily.. get the fuck over it....ESPECIALLY since you support it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Lefty 0 #77 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote I love how you can be patronizing and obtuse in the same post. We've been through all this before. Maybe you just need more time to think about it. Nope. Someone else here is running into a contradiction. When you find him, let me know.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #78 January 8, 2008 QuoteI love how you can be patronizing and obtuse in the same post. We've been through all this before. Maybe you just need more time to think about it. You might be worrying too much about this. Conserve brain power and expend as much effort as he does. I'm sitting on my ass till he explains why the Chinese used gunpower primarily for entertainment value. I expect I'll see spring first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #79 January 8, 2008 Quote He sees his oportunity to throw chum and apear cute. Did it work for you? Learn a new word today, Marc? "chum" has several meetings ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Douva 0 #80 January 8, 2008 Yes. They have the right to bear arms until they are adjudicated dangerous or convicted of a crime. No. If they have been adjudicated dangerous or convicted of a crime, they are stripped of that right. Your poll is poorly worded.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #81 January 8, 2008 Your poll is poorly worded. Do you think that was done unintentionally?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #78 January 8, 2008 QuoteI love how you can be patronizing and obtuse in the same post. We've been through all this before. Maybe you just need more time to think about it. You might be worrying too much about this. Conserve brain power and expend as much effort as he does. I'm sitting on my ass till he explains why the Chinese used gunpower primarily for entertainment value. I expect I'll see spring first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #79 January 8, 2008 Quote He sees his oportunity to throw chum and apear cute. Did it work for you? Learn a new word today, Marc? "chum" has several meetings ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douva 0 #80 January 8, 2008 Yes. They have the right to bear arms until they are adjudicated dangerous or convicted of a crime. No. If they have been adjudicated dangerous or convicted of a crime, they are stripped of that right. Your poll is poorly worded.I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #81 January 8, 2008 Your poll is poorly worded. Do you think that was done unintentionally?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #82 January 8, 2008 Quote Quote He sees his oportunity to throw chum and apear cute. Did it work for you? Learn a new word today, Marc? "chum" has several meetings If he would search he would see it used before.....with the meaning spelled out for him"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #83 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuote"chum" has several meetings If he would search he would see it used before.....with the meaning spelled out for him It's important to hear a Homer voice when you read it "chum has several meanings" like "Batman's a scientist" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #84 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I love how you can be patronizing and obtuse in the same post. We've been through all this before. Maybe you just need more time to think about it. Nope. Someone else here is running into a contradiction. When you find him, let me know. rushmc has a mirror you can look in.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #85 January 8, 2008 Quote19 Noes, 7 Yeses so far. So what can be done to make it harder for madmen and criminals to get guns. "Nothing" is NOT an acceptable answer. ....................................................................... Madmen and felons don't have the right to own a gun in America. We already have laws on the books for that now. I really doubt if further laws of that nature will do much of anything to help. Most honest gun owners, that I know, don't want nutcases with guns any more than you do. So, what exactly are you suggesting we do to keep guns out of the hands of madmen? What new laws do you want implemented? If they make sense, I'll listen..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #86 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteI love how you can be patronizing and obtuse in the same post. We've been through all this before. Maybe you just need more time to think about it. You might be worrying too much about this. Conserve brain power and expend as much effort as he does. Good policy.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #87 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteThere are already 20,000 gun laws on the books. Apparently, all of those are still not good enough for you. So you want just a few more gun laws, and then magically, madmen will quit killing people? No, they won't. And then you'll want still more gun laws... And so it goes, with more ineffective laws being piled on top of all the previous ineffective laws. And anti-gun folks always crying for still more. And this cycle leads to the inexorable march towards total confiscation. Until in the end, there are no more more guns for the law abiding. So at some point you just have to stop and say; "no more". We've done all we can. The time has come to accept the fact that madmen will always get guns no matter what measures you try and implement to stop them. Therefore, the only logical response is to ensure that the good citizens have the means to stop the madmen. So if "nothing" is not the response you want, then my response is this: Implement nationwide shall-issue concealed handgun carry licenses, and ban gun-free zones from public areas like schools, churches and malls. Not exactly what you wanted though, eh? Your solution, I'm sure, only involves more restrictions on the law-abiding, rather than less... We need laws with teeth that law abiding gun shop owners can use to deny gun purchases by criminals and the mentally unstable. We need laws that encourage law abiding gun owners to place more attention to the security of their guns... So if we did those two additional things you request, THEN you would finally be happy with the state of gun laws in America? THEN you would be content that we were doing everything possible to prevent gun crime? THEN you wouldn't come back and ask for yet more gun laws to be piled on top of the 20,002 that already exist? THEN, if madmen continued to get guns anyway, you would finally throw up your hands in defeat, and admit that gun laws don't stop madmen from getting guns? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,184 #88 January 8, 2008 QuoteTHEN you wouldn't come back and ask for yet more gun laws to be piled on top of the 20,002 that already exist? THEN, if madmen continued to get guns anyway, you would finally throw up your hands in defeat, and admit that gun laws don't stop madmen from getting guns? On the whole I'd prefer 2 that work over 20,000 that don't work. The data show very clearly that most the laws currently on the books are pretty useless. I believe Mike's data showing that the fairly stringent rules Texas requires for a CCW permit are effective. I'd like to see something like those used as a model for gun ownership.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #89 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteTHEN you wouldn't come back and ask for yet more gun laws to be piled on top of the 20,002 that already exist? THEN, if madmen continued to get guns anyway, you would finally throw up your hands in defeat, and admit that gun laws don't stop madmen from getting guns? On the whole I'd prefer 2 that work over 20,000 that don't work. The data show very clearly that most the laws currently on the books are pretty useless. I believe Mike's data showing that the fairly stringent rules Texas requires for a CCW permit are effective. I'd like to see something like those used as a model for gun ownership. Then you also advocate having training and licensing to speak in public or on the internet, to vote, etc etc etc... Seems quite hypocritical for someone that incessantly posts about how the Patriot Act is destroying the rights of Americans... Of course, this will do two things in regards to criminals getting guns: Jack and Shit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,184 #90 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteTHEN you wouldn't come back and ask for yet more gun laws to be piled on top of the 20,002 that already exist? THEN, if madmen continued to get guns anyway, you would finally throw up your hands in defeat, and admit that gun laws don't stop madmen from getting guns? On the whole I'd prefer 2 that work over 20,000 that don't work. The data show very clearly that most the laws currently on the books are pretty useless. I believe Mike's data showing that the fairly stringent rules Texas requires for a CCW permit are effective. I'd like to see something like those used as a model for gun ownership. Then you also advocate having training and licensing to speak in public or on the internet, to vote, etc etc etc... Seems quite hypocritical for someone that incessantly posts about how the Patriot Act is destroying the rights of Americans... Of course, this will do two things in regards to criminals getting guns: Jack and Shit. What evidence do you have of that? The two primary methods by which criminals get guns are (1) ostensibly "legal" purchases, and (2) theft. Explain why tightening the currently lax standards for purchase, and imposing more responsibilty gun owners to properly secure their weapons will make NO difference. Unless, of course, you think those "law abiding gun owners" will disobey the law.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #91 January 8, 2008 QuoteWhat evidence do you have of that? When has government NOT tried to expand it's power? QuoteThe two primary methods by which criminals get guns are (1) ostensibly "legal" purchases Proof? If they have a criminal record, they will NOT get approved for purchase. Quote(2) theft. Yes, theft happens. So do break-ins. You're willing to give up the life of the family in that home (in which case the criminal STILL gets the guns) - I'm not. QuoteExplain why tightening the currently lax standards for purchase How about YOU explain how they're lax, Professor. While you're at it, you can finally give those CONCRETE examples of laws you would enact or change to make it happen. Quoteand imposing more responsibilty gun owners to properly secure their weapons will make NO difference. I'll use my standard litmus test here, for "reasonable" suggestion. Are you willing to impose those same restrictions, responsibilities and penalties on police in the performance of their duty? If not, then why is it such a good idea to do so to anyone else?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #92 January 8, 2008 I think you know where I stand on gun ownership and usage......... BUT.... In our current world I would support some kind of mandatory classes before gun ownership. RESPONSIBLE gun ownership and usage is sorely lacking in this country.... far too many people do not have any background...if they do not come from a family that has guns.. or if they have not been exposed to firearms OR have not served in the military. There are far too many LEGAL gun owners out there whose only exposure to what owning a gun means is to open their wallet and pull out a credit card.. FRANKLY.. that scares me. I dont know if a license is the best way to do it.. BUT I sure as hell want some MANDATORY classes on gun ownership BEFORE anyone can purchase. There are way too many nimrods that do not know how to handle weapons.. how to clean them...and when its best to use them. I would also require actually doing some shooting so they MIGHT be able to hit the fucking broad side of a barn... before they go into the woods...... or can hit realistic targets in situational scenarios... in home protection.. so that you dont shoot your god damn neighbor thru your walls... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #93 January 8, 2008 That's about my stance exactly. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #94 January 8, 2008 Then you, also, support the governments' "right" to place those same restrictions you support for the Second Amendment upon any other right... make sure to print your name clearly on the forms for your "Freedom of Speech" and "Voting" licenses, among others.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #95 January 8, 2008 are you sure it's the lack of a formalized training requirement that leads to these problems? I don't see a shortage of information; some people are just fucking idiots. It is claimed that accidents continue to trend down and have been at historical lows for some time now. If true, seems more probable that the intent of enacting such changes is to make it more difficult and expensive for new purchasers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #96 January 8, 2008 Quoteare you sure it's the lack of a formalized training requirement that leads to these problems? I don't see a shortage of information; some people are just fucking idiots. Agreed - seems like it would be MORE advantageous to increase training requirements for hunting licenses, if that is the case. QuoteIt is claimed that accidents continue to trend down and have been at historical lows for some time now. If true, seems more probable that the intent of enacting such changes is to make it more difficult and expensive for new purchasers. Agreed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #97 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteare you sure it's the lack of a formalized training requirement that leads to these problems? I don't see a shortage of information; some people are just fucking idiots. Agreed - seems like it would be MORE advantageous to increase training requirements for hunting licenses, if that is the case. In Iowa it is now required that one must have an 8 (or maybe more) hour hunter stafety course before you can get a hunting license. Do you know is that common among the states? IT has been this way for over 10 years now I think QuoteIt is claimed that accidents continue to trend down and have been at historical lows for some time now. If true, seems more probable that the intent of enacting such changes is to make it more difficult and expensive for new purchasers. Agreed."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #98 January 8, 2008 Quote If true, seems more probable that the intent of enacting such changes is to make it more difficult and expensive for new purchasers. I think that would be a good thing if it costs them more and takes more time for them to get the things..... this is based on watching very carefully at some informal ranges such as gravel pits.. and hell at even a couple formal ranges I frequent. Sorry but I get skittish when some asswhole sweeps the muzzle of a loaded weapon in my direction.... oh and I always love to watch the Rambo types running around the gravle pit... making like GI Joe.. when they dive over a pile of gravel and roll into firing position.... and the rifle goes off when they hit the gravel.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #99 January 9, 2008 I find it odd that those who are most vocal about government abuses of rights are the most in support of MORE abuse of rights...and the most blind to the fact that what they suggest in this thread opens the door wide to even MORE abuse of rights. Does anyone here think the government wouldn't LOVE to be able to enforce some sort of "Free Speach License"? Would anyone here like to have their internet posting history and emails scrutinized for "offenses" and have to undergo 'training' and 'licensing' to exercise their First Amendment right? I've seen some on the Left advocating poll tests (so much for "everyone's vote counts', eh?) ... does anyone think the government wouldn't just LOVE to be able to control who gets to vote? Is anyone here THAT DAMN STUPID to think that once you open the door to the government to have THAT much control over ONE right, that they won't TAKE that same control over every other right they can?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #100 January 9, 2008 Quote Is anyone here THAT DAMN STUPID to think that once you open the door to the government to have THAT much control over ONE right, that they won't TAKE that same control over every other right they can? WOW what a strawmanYour freedom of speech can not fly thru my walls and kill me....... Your drunken playing around with a firearm.. OR a car can.... So do you advocate.. NO drivers licensing..... or drivers education??? AND.. by the way the Government already DOES intrude on your privacy daily.. get the fuck over it....ESPECIALLY since you support it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
steve1 5 #85 January 8, 2008 Quote19 Noes, 7 Yeses so far. So what can be done to make it harder for madmen and criminals to get guns. "Nothing" is NOT an acceptable answer. ....................................................................... Madmen and felons don't have the right to own a gun in America. We already have laws on the books for that now. I really doubt if further laws of that nature will do much of anything to help. Most honest gun owners, that I know, don't want nutcases with guns any more than you do. So, what exactly are you suggesting we do to keep guns out of the hands of madmen? What new laws do you want implemented? If they make sense, I'll listen..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #86 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteI love how you can be patronizing and obtuse in the same post. We've been through all this before. Maybe you just need more time to think about it. You might be worrying too much about this. Conserve brain power and expend as much effort as he does. Good policy.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #87 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteThere are already 20,000 gun laws on the books. Apparently, all of those are still not good enough for you. So you want just a few more gun laws, and then magically, madmen will quit killing people? No, they won't. And then you'll want still more gun laws... And so it goes, with more ineffective laws being piled on top of all the previous ineffective laws. And anti-gun folks always crying for still more. And this cycle leads to the inexorable march towards total confiscation. Until in the end, there are no more more guns for the law abiding. So at some point you just have to stop and say; "no more". We've done all we can. The time has come to accept the fact that madmen will always get guns no matter what measures you try and implement to stop them. Therefore, the only logical response is to ensure that the good citizens have the means to stop the madmen. So if "nothing" is not the response you want, then my response is this: Implement nationwide shall-issue concealed handgun carry licenses, and ban gun-free zones from public areas like schools, churches and malls. Not exactly what you wanted though, eh? Your solution, I'm sure, only involves more restrictions on the law-abiding, rather than less... We need laws with teeth that law abiding gun shop owners can use to deny gun purchases by criminals and the mentally unstable. We need laws that encourage law abiding gun owners to place more attention to the security of their guns... So if we did those two additional things you request, THEN you would finally be happy with the state of gun laws in America? THEN you would be content that we were doing everything possible to prevent gun crime? THEN you wouldn't come back and ask for yet more gun laws to be piled on top of the 20,002 that already exist? THEN, if madmen continued to get guns anyway, you would finally throw up your hands in defeat, and admit that gun laws don't stop madmen from getting guns? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #88 January 8, 2008 QuoteTHEN you wouldn't come back and ask for yet more gun laws to be piled on top of the 20,002 that already exist? THEN, if madmen continued to get guns anyway, you would finally throw up your hands in defeat, and admit that gun laws don't stop madmen from getting guns? On the whole I'd prefer 2 that work over 20,000 that don't work. The data show very clearly that most the laws currently on the books are pretty useless. I believe Mike's data showing that the fairly stringent rules Texas requires for a CCW permit are effective. I'd like to see something like those used as a model for gun ownership.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #89 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteTHEN you wouldn't come back and ask for yet more gun laws to be piled on top of the 20,002 that already exist? THEN, if madmen continued to get guns anyway, you would finally throw up your hands in defeat, and admit that gun laws don't stop madmen from getting guns? On the whole I'd prefer 2 that work over 20,000 that don't work. The data show very clearly that most the laws currently on the books are pretty useless. I believe Mike's data showing that the fairly stringent rules Texas requires for a CCW permit are effective. I'd like to see something like those used as a model for gun ownership. Then you also advocate having training and licensing to speak in public or on the internet, to vote, etc etc etc... Seems quite hypocritical for someone that incessantly posts about how the Patriot Act is destroying the rights of Americans... Of course, this will do two things in regards to criminals getting guns: Jack and Shit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #90 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteTHEN you wouldn't come back and ask for yet more gun laws to be piled on top of the 20,002 that already exist? THEN, if madmen continued to get guns anyway, you would finally throw up your hands in defeat, and admit that gun laws don't stop madmen from getting guns? On the whole I'd prefer 2 that work over 20,000 that don't work. The data show very clearly that most the laws currently on the books are pretty useless. I believe Mike's data showing that the fairly stringent rules Texas requires for a CCW permit are effective. I'd like to see something like those used as a model for gun ownership. Then you also advocate having training and licensing to speak in public or on the internet, to vote, etc etc etc... Seems quite hypocritical for someone that incessantly posts about how the Patriot Act is destroying the rights of Americans... Of course, this will do two things in regards to criminals getting guns: Jack and Shit. What evidence do you have of that? The two primary methods by which criminals get guns are (1) ostensibly "legal" purchases, and (2) theft. Explain why tightening the currently lax standards for purchase, and imposing more responsibilty gun owners to properly secure their weapons will make NO difference. Unless, of course, you think those "law abiding gun owners" will disobey the law.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #91 January 8, 2008 QuoteWhat evidence do you have of that? When has government NOT tried to expand it's power? QuoteThe two primary methods by which criminals get guns are (1) ostensibly "legal" purchases Proof? If they have a criminal record, they will NOT get approved for purchase. Quote(2) theft. Yes, theft happens. So do break-ins. You're willing to give up the life of the family in that home (in which case the criminal STILL gets the guns) - I'm not. QuoteExplain why tightening the currently lax standards for purchase How about YOU explain how they're lax, Professor. While you're at it, you can finally give those CONCRETE examples of laws you would enact or change to make it happen. Quoteand imposing more responsibilty gun owners to properly secure their weapons will make NO difference. I'll use my standard litmus test here, for "reasonable" suggestion. Are you willing to impose those same restrictions, responsibilities and penalties on police in the performance of their duty? If not, then why is it such a good idea to do so to anyone else?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #92 January 8, 2008 I think you know where I stand on gun ownership and usage......... BUT.... In our current world I would support some kind of mandatory classes before gun ownership. RESPONSIBLE gun ownership and usage is sorely lacking in this country.... far too many people do not have any background...if they do not come from a family that has guns.. or if they have not been exposed to firearms OR have not served in the military. There are far too many LEGAL gun owners out there whose only exposure to what owning a gun means is to open their wallet and pull out a credit card.. FRANKLY.. that scares me. I dont know if a license is the best way to do it.. BUT I sure as hell want some MANDATORY classes on gun ownership BEFORE anyone can purchase. There are way too many nimrods that do not know how to handle weapons.. how to clean them...and when its best to use them. I would also require actually doing some shooting so they MIGHT be able to hit the fucking broad side of a barn... before they go into the woods...... or can hit realistic targets in situational scenarios... in home protection.. so that you dont shoot your god damn neighbor thru your walls... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #93 January 8, 2008 That's about my stance exactly. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #94 January 8, 2008 Then you, also, support the governments' "right" to place those same restrictions you support for the Second Amendment upon any other right... make sure to print your name clearly on the forms for your "Freedom of Speech" and "Voting" licenses, among others.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #95 January 8, 2008 are you sure it's the lack of a formalized training requirement that leads to these problems? I don't see a shortage of information; some people are just fucking idiots. It is claimed that accidents continue to trend down and have been at historical lows for some time now. If true, seems more probable that the intent of enacting such changes is to make it more difficult and expensive for new purchasers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #96 January 8, 2008 Quoteare you sure it's the lack of a formalized training requirement that leads to these problems? I don't see a shortage of information; some people are just fucking idiots. Agreed - seems like it would be MORE advantageous to increase training requirements for hunting licenses, if that is the case. QuoteIt is claimed that accidents continue to trend down and have been at historical lows for some time now. If true, seems more probable that the intent of enacting such changes is to make it more difficult and expensive for new purchasers. Agreed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #97 January 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteare you sure it's the lack of a formalized training requirement that leads to these problems? I don't see a shortage of information; some people are just fucking idiots. Agreed - seems like it would be MORE advantageous to increase training requirements for hunting licenses, if that is the case. In Iowa it is now required that one must have an 8 (or maybe more) hour hunter stafety course before you can get a hunting license. Do you know is that common among the states? IT has been this way for over 10 years now I think QuoteIt is claimed that accidents continue to trend down and have been at historical lows for some time now. If true, seems more probable that the intent of enacting such changes is to make it more difficult and expensive for new purchasers. Agreed."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #98 January 8, 2008 Quote If true, seems more probable that the intent of enacting such changes is to make it more difficult and expensive for new purchasers. I think that would be a good thing if it costs them more and takes more time for them to get the things..... this is based on watching very carefully at some informal ranges such as gravel pits.. and hell at even a couple formal ranges I frequent. Sorry but I get skittish when some asswhole sweeps the muzzle of a loaded weapon in my direction.... oh and I always love to watch the Rambo types running around the gravle pit... making like GI Joe.. when they dive over a pile of gravel and roll into firing position.... and the rifle goes off when they hit the gravel.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #99 January 9, 2008 I find it odd that those who are most vocal about government abuses of rights are the most in support of MORE abuse of rights...and the most blind to the fact that what they suggest in this thread opens the door wide to even MORE abuse of rights. Does anyone here think the government wouldn't LOVE to be able to enforce some sort of "Free Speach License"? Would anyone here like to have their internet posting history and emails scrutinized for "offenses" and have to undergo 'training' and 'licensing' to exercise their First Amendment right? I've seen some on the Left advocating poll tests (so much for "everyone's vote counts', eh?) ... does anyone think the government wouldn't just LOVE to be able to control who gets to vote? Is anyone here THAT DAMN STUPID to think that once you open the door to the government to have THAT much control over ONE right, that they won't TAKE that same control over every other right they can?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #100 January 9, 2008 Quote Is anyone here THAT DAMN STUPID to think that once you open the door to the government to have THAT much control over ONE right, that they won't TAKE that same control over every other right they can? WOW what a strawmanYour freedom of speech can not fly thru my walls and kill me....... Your drunken playing around with a firearm.. OR a car can.... So do you advocate.. NO drivers licensing..... or drivers education??? AND.. by the way the Government already DOES intrude on your privacy daily.. get the fuck over it....ESPECIALLY since you support it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
