Ron 10 #151 December 4, 2008 Quotethe gun-lobby's intransigence in opposing sensible, effective laws. As opposed to the anti gun side wanting to turn them all in and melt them all down? If I have to pick between a govt that trusts honest citizens to carry a loaded gun vs, a govt that wants to disarm everyone....I'll pick the govt that trusts citizens. I still find it funny you cry about your model rocket motors being regulated, you cry about airspace being regulated, you fight against canopies being regulated...But you are all for regulating this one thing."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #152 December 4, 2008 QuotePlease don't freak out on me here. I don't think anyone will freak out on you since you asked a very reasonable question to get more information. QuoteWhy are pro gun people and the NRA so opposed to gun registration. A few reasons...I'll try to list a few off the top of my head. 1. Registration almost always leads to confiscation. NYC confiscated a bunch of legally owned semi auto's in 1990 based on information that was collected in the 1968 2. "Reasonable" gun laws often lead to more and more unreasonable gun laws (see below). Plus the whole debate on what is considered reasonable is like trying to discuss reasonable wing loadings for all jumpers. 3. Despite the best efforts of gun control groups...They have not been able to show any data that proves their argument. Of course, any data brought up is debated down to the font used from either side...But the anti-gun groups have not been able to show and correlation, and one study done by the CDC in Atlanta said they could NOT find any correlation between gun bans and reductions in crime. About the only study I have seen is that gun bans reduce the number of suicides by gun...But suicides by other means is HIGHER in those areas. 4. Registration, licensing ect is often used to prevent people from doing something...Think of the Jim Crow "poll taxes". And the NFA act of 1934 is a great example. In 1934 it cost 200 dollars (The modern day equivalent of 3200.00 dollars) to register a 3 dollar silencer, or a 10 dollar shotgun. It was implemented to prevent the poor from owning those types of weapons; the rich could own as many as they wanted. The Gun Control Act of 1968 many think was really to prevent blacks from being able to obtain weapons. The AWB in 94 was to prevent "crime" but the weapons picked to be banned according to the DOJ were used in less than 4% of crimes (around 1% for the actual assault weapons). All "reasonable": The British Gun Control Act of 1920 allowed the purchase of pistols if you could prove a "good reason" and could get a police permit. They banned shot shotguns and machine guns using the same logic..."Civilians don't need these things" so no one could have a "good reason" to own one. In 1946, the Home Secretary announced a policy change: henceforth, self-defense would not be considered a "good reason" for being granted a Firearms Certificate 1953 they passed a ban on any "offensive weapon". In 1959 thy banned "flick knives"...Quick opening knifes...Of course no data actually found they were more dangerous than any other knife, but they *sounded* evil. 1966 three cops were killed by revolvers....So Home Secretary Roy Jenkins told Parliament that controls on SHOTGUNS were needed. The Criminal Justice Act of 1967 required a license for the purchase of shotguns now. Firearms Act of 1982 made certain toy guns illegal. In 1987 after Hungerford Semi-automatic center fire rifles were banned. 1996 Dunblane. a guy that had been reported to the police several times went on a killing spree. Feb 1997 all but .22 cal handguns were banned. Blair removed the .22 exemptions from the ban making all handguns illegal. Even though handguns are illegal...Gun crime is up Quote http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. The gun laws actually bit them in the butt when in 1940 the British Govt put ads in American papers asking Americans to send personal weapons to England. The NRA sent about 7k weapons over. QuoteWhen talking about things like phone taps I have always been told, if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. Those same people that say that are opposed to gun registration. If you aren't doing anything wrong with your guns, what difference does it make. The difference is that phone taps are aimed at individuals. Gun registration affects an entire group without cause. A true comparison would be phone taps on anyone named Muhammad in the US no matter what they have done."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #153 December 4, 2008 QuoteI think that is a bogus fear based on the recent SC decision. The confiscations in New Orleans were also considered in retrospect to be unconstitutional.... But, that didn't stop it from actually happening now did it?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #154 December 4, 2008 Quote I have managed to survive 63 years (31 working on the south side of Chicago) without needing any gun toting vigilante to rescue me from the local thugs. And in those 63 years (31 on the S. Side of Chicago)...How many times have you been shot? Based on the data you gave..There must not be a gun problem at all then. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #155 December 4, 2008 QuoteIt would take a substantially longer time period than the infamous three days to acquire and construct a fertilizer bomb weapon capable of taking out, for instance, 12 of your bosses and co-workers at the post office. The VT shooter bought one hangun and then waited the required 30 days to buy the second handgun he used. That right there should show you that the real crazies don't mind waiting. QuoteI seriously doubt the average person could construct a viable sarin gas weapon without killing himself in the process. It was done in Japan. And don't forget OKC..McVey did that with a rental truck and some fertilizer and fuel."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #156 December 4, 2008 QuoteI have managed to survive 63 years (31 working on the south side of Chicago) without needing any gun toting vigilante to rescue me from the local thugs. So, since you haven't died in 63 years, you don't really NEED that life insurance policy after all, now do you? Since you haven't had a fire in your kitchen, you don't NEED that fire extinguisher or fire insurance, now do you?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #157 December 4, 2008 QuoteSo, since you haven't died in 63 years, you don't really NEED that life insurance policy after all, now do you? Since you haven't had a fire in your kitchen, you don't NEED that fire extinguisher or fire insurance, now do you? Heck, it is even easier than that...He has not needed one in 63 years (31 working on the south side of Chicago)...So there must not be a gun problem at all!"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #158 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Because registration is seen as a step on the path towards confiscation. They can't take away what they don't know you have. I think that is a bogus fear based on the recent SC decision. Your supposition is incorrect. NY, DC, New Orleansk, California... all have used registration info to confiscate firearms. Since the recent SC decision?... 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
kallend 2,117 #159 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteI have managed to survive 63 years (31 working on the south side of Chicago) without needing any gun toting vigilante to rescue me from the local thugs. So, since you haven't died in 63 years, you don't really NEED that life insurance policy after all, now do you? Silly arguments don't help your case, they just make you look silly. Everyone dies.... 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
kallend 2,117 #160 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteIt would take a substantially longer time period than the infamous three days to acquire and construct a fertilizer bomb weapon capable of taking out, for instance, 12 of your bosses and co-workers at the post office. The VT shooter bought one hangun and then waited the required 30 days to buy the second handgun he used. That right there should show you that the real crazies don't mind waiting. QuoteI seriously doubt the average person could construct a viable sarin gas weapon without killing himself in the process. It was done in Japan. . As previously mentioned, they were NOT average people even though they were wackos.... 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
kallend 2,117 #161 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuotePlease don't freak out on me here. I don't think anyone will freak out on you since you asked a very reasonable question to get more information. QuoteWhy are pro gun people and the NRA so opposed to gun registration. A few reasons...I'll try to list a few off the top of my head. 1. Registration almost always leads to confiscation. NYC confiscated a bunch of legally owned semi auto's in 1990 based on information that was collected in the 1968 One example is "almost always"? I suppose 2 is almost more than 10 in Ronworld. Quote 2. "Reasonable" gun laws often lead to more and more unreasonable gun laws (see below). Plus the whole debate on what is considered reasonable is like trying to discuss reasonable wing loadings for all jumpers. 3. Despite the best efforts of gun control groups...They have not been able to show any data that proves their argument. Of course, any data brought up is debated down to the font used from either side...But the anti-gun groups have not been able to show and correlation, and one study done by the CDC in Atlanta said they could NOT find any correlation between gun bans and reductions in crime. About the only study I have seen is that gun bans reduce the number of suicides by gun...But suicides by other means is HIGHER in those areas. LOTS of correlation found between gun ownership and gun fatalities though. I posted a list just this week.... 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
kallend 2,117 #162 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteI have managed to survive 63 years (31 working on the south side of Chicago) without needing any gun toting vigilante to rescue me from the local thugs. It's amazing that someone as intelligent as a college professor can take his own personal life experience, extrapolate from that to represent the needs of 300 million people, and considers that valid statistical logic. If you bothered to read the thread (which apparently you don't) you would have seen that my reply was to a post addressed specifically to me personally, and was not an extrapolation to anything. Hence your post is complete rubbish and irrelevant.... 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
kallend 2,117 #163 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuotethe gun-lobby's intransigence in opposing sensible, effective laws. As opposed to the anti gun side wanting to turn them all in and melt them all down? . Strawman: no-one here has suggested that.... 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
DougH 270 #164 December 4, 2008 Quote [ Or is Speakers Corner now doomed to a daily vitriolic anti- president blast because sore losers can't cope with democracy in action? It has been that way for the past 8 years on message boards across the world, why would you expect that to change? "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #165 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI have managed to survive 63 years (31 working on the south side of Chicago) without needing any gun toting vigilante to rescue me from the local thugs. So, since you haven't died in 63 years, you don't really NEED that life insurance policy after all, now do you? Silly arguments don't help your case, they just make you look silly. Everyone dies. Take your own advice - as you are so fond of saying, anecdote != data.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #166 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because registration is seen as a step on the path towards confiscation. They can't take away what they don't know you have. I think that is a bogus fear based on the recent SC decision. Your supposition is incorrect. NY, DC, New Orleansk, California... all have used registration info to confiscate firearms. Since the recent SC decision? Didn't you just post below about silly arguments? Maybe you should re-read the complaint in Heller - it was about a ban on ownership, not confiscation. Try again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 871 #167 December 4, 2008 I love how we all throw around the term "purchase" when it comes to a criminal act with some sort of weapon. I seriously doubt if many criminals are "shopping" for their "tools" of death. It's just so much easier to steal them. Cars are stolen every few seconds in this country and we know firearms are typical targets of B&E of homes. Cop cars have weapons stolen as well. Laws passed that create hurdles to the LEGAL acquisition of guns will not stop the criminal element. In other words....it takes less than 8 seconds for a professional criminal to steal your car. And cars are registered, licensed weapons....errr tools. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #168 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuotethe gun-lobby's intransigence in opposing sensible, effective laws. As opposed to the anti gun side wanting to turn them all in and melt them all down? . Strawman: no-one here has suggested that. Nor did anyone say so, though I'm sure such people exist here. Feinstein's words are, of course, a matter of public record. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #169 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI have managed to survive 63 years (31 working on the south side of Chicago) without needing any gun toting vigilante to rescue me from the local thugs. So, since you haven't died in 63 years, you don't really NEED that life insurance policy after all, now do you? Silly arguments don't help your case, they just make you look silly. Everyone dies. Take your own advice - as you are so fond of saying, anecdote != data. You too should read the thread.... 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
kallend 2,117 #170 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because registration is seen as a step on the path towards confiscation. They can't take away what they don't know you have. I think that is a bogus fear based on the recent SC decision. Your supposition is incorrect. NY, DC, New Orleansk, California... all have used registration info to confiscate firearms. Since the recent SC decision? Didn't you just post below about silly arguments? Maybe you should re-read the complaint in Heller - it was about a ban on ownership, not confiscation. Try again. Maybe you should read the decision authored by Scalia. Try again.... 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
kallend 2,117 #171 December 4, 2008 Quote I love how we all throw around the term "purchase" when it comes to a criminal act with some sort of weapon. I seriously doubt if many criminals are "shopping" for their "tools" of death. It's just so much easier to steal them. Cars are stolen every few seconds in this country and we know firearms are typical targets of B&E of homes. Cop cars have weapons stolen as well. Sorry that just can't be true - JR informs us that criminals say they AVOID places where there are guns. (Of course, what criminals SAY and what criminals DO may be at variance ).... 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 #172 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI have managed to survive 63 years (31 working on the south side of Chicago) without needing any gun toting vigilante to rescue me from the local thugs. So, since you haven't died in 63 years, you don't really NEED that life insurance policy after all, now do you? Silly arguments don't help your case, they just make you look silly. Everyone dies. Take your own advice - as you are so fond of saying, anecdote != data. You too should read the thread. I don't care what your post was in response to, to be honest. You support obstructions to law-abiding gun owners and hold up your experiences as proof, then denigrate others for doing the same.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #173 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because registration is seen as a step on the path towards confiscation. They can't take away what they don't know you have. I think that is a bogus fear based on the recent SC decision. Your supposition is incorrect. NY, DC, New Orleansk, California... all have used registration info to confiscate firearms. Since the recent SC decision? Didn't you just post below about silly arguments? Maybe you should re-read the complaint in Heller - it was about a ban on ownership, not confiscation. Try again. Maybe you should read the decision authored by Scalia. Try again. I have it saved on my computer. Prove your cite.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #174 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Because registration is seen as a step on the path towards confiscation. They can't take away what they don't know you have. I think that is a bogus fear based on the recent SC decision. Your supposition is incorrect. NY, DC, New Orleansk, California... all have used registration info to confiscate firearms. Since the recent SC decision? Didn't you just post below about silly arguments? Maybe you should re-read the complaint in Heller - it was about a ban on ownership, not confiscation. Try again. Maybe you should read the decision authored by Scalia. Try again. I have it saved on my computer. Prove your cite. Maybe you should apply a little linguistic logic to your statement, and think about the meaning of ownership and the meaning of confiscation, and report back.... 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
kallend 2,117 #175 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI have managed to survive 63 years (31 working on the south side of Chicago) without needing any gun toting vigilante to rescue me from the local thugs. So, since you haven't died in 63 years, you don't really NEED that life insurance policy after all, now do you? Silly arguments don't help your case, they just make you look silly. Everyone dies. Take your own advice - as you are so fond of saying, anecdote != data. You too should read the thread. I don't care what your post was in response to,. That's obvious, or you wouldn't have whined about it. Not paying attention is what led to your non-sequitur.... 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
