|
justsendingits
Aug 27, 2002, 10:04 AM
Post #101 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
It takes a huge effort to deprogram yourself,from the midwestern propaganda you have heard all your life!!--I should know!!
|
|
|
|
|
daggerx
Aug 28, 2002, 2:42 AM
Post #102 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2001
Posts: 761
|
If you want my guns you are going to have pry them out of my cold dead hands!!!
DaggerX
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 28, 2002, 2:51 AM
Post #103 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Dave,
That's just silly now and a really dumb comment!
Yeah! You think you're a big man with that gun? Well looky here buddy, you'll have to pry my "member" from my warm, lubricated hands!
Just had to be nasty!
Rich,
Tell me about it! I'm from Wisconsin! You don't get more bombardment of BS propaganda from the BS NRA than in the deer hunting capital of the Midwest. Believe me. I actually used to believe some of their crap, until I woke up and realized I had a brain. Which, if you knew me, you would understand why that took so long!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
coach
Aug 28, 2002, 7:56 PM
Post #104 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2001
Posts: 3348
|
Right on Jody!
The fact that the founding fathers of this country were able to revolt from an oppressive government (England) was due to the fact that they own weapons. Their revolt would have been very short if they had fallen out armed with cricket paddles!
I will not register my firearms because I may trust this government but who is to say what it will be like in 5 or 10 years. My firearm is for my home protection and I have trained my wife and children how to use it. I would hate to imagine them at home if someone tried to break in without any protection. Registration will not stop crimes of passion which will always continue to happen and I am sure that the basic criminal lowlife is not going to line up to register his firearms. Once weapons are registered it would be a simple matter for a criminal to obtain access to the information (public record) and then know which homes are armed and which are not and then target those unarmed.
Climb On
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 28, 2002, 8:09 PM
Post #105 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
More conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
|
|
dominator
Aug 28, 2002, 8:18 PM
Post #106 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2002
Posts: 72
|
wildtrail, I may not be as into the arguments as the other guys but why do you always answer with 'conspiracy theories' instead of coming up with facts to refute them?
|
|
|
|
|
coach
Aug 28, 2002, 8:35 PM
Post #107 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2001
Posts: 3348
|
Wildtrail,
No conspiracy here, if I were a criminal and all weapons were required to be registered I could simply go to the courthouse and under the Freedon of Information Act request those records. I would simply eliminate those homes I knew were armed from my shopping list. Not conspiracy, just common sense!
Climb On
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 28, 2002, 9:10 PM
Post #108 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Because it would be redundant. Why repeat it? Read what others are posting.
However, coach has a point. A small one, but it is a point. Not too many criminals go to the court house on purpose.
However, it is possible and I'm still for registering guns. People never have a good reason not to. Most is conspiracy (i.e. the govt planning to take them away and "registration" is just the first step). There, that is one example of conspiracy theory.
It was a poor choice in words in reference to coach, but most people on here are too into that NRA bullshit conspiracy theory crap.
NRA=FOS
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
catga86
Aug 28, 2002, 9:14 PM
Post #109 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2001
Posts: 372
|
Gun control laws is a very touchy subject. I personally believe this world would be a better place with no guns. (Yeah, I know I am one of those pot smokin hippies) It is so hard to restrict people, but if there are some laws, some people with follow, and that is all you can ask for.
|
|
|
|
|
coach
Aug 28, 2002, 9:59 PM
Post #110 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2001
Posts: 3348
|
Wildtrail,
I would also ask you to give me one good reason to register my gun. It won't stop me from shooting someone if I ever got stupid enough to want to do that and it won't stop someone from having an accident with it if they found it (like a small child). Only I can ensure that by having it secured so that an accident can't happen. Once again, registration won't do that. So please explain to me how letting the government know that I have a gun will change things positively because somewhere in all of this I must have missed it. More laws won't make all the senseless killings stop, only intelligent use and care of guns by there owners will do that. I do believe that I have a right to own a firearm, guaranteed by the Constitution and I will continue to exercise that right.
Climb On
|
|
|
|
|
phillycheese
Aug 28, 2002, 10:14 PM
Post #111 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2002
Posts: 584
|
i think everyone needs to quit blaming inanimate objects for acts of violence. guns have never pulled the pin back by itself and let go. they have never, by thier own will, squeezed the trigger to go off with malicious intent, or any intent for that matter. when a murder happens, we don't send the knife or gun to prison. we don't punish the inanimate object, it's the person who takes the responsibility for the action.
start focusing on educating people about the value of human life and we wouldn't have this problem. oh wait... we are all evolved and created by chance(allegedly), therefore there is no value to life. it was all an accident. maybe now people can understand why having an absolute standard is important. (obviously the government isn't that absolute standard.) without an absolute standard, there is no right or wrong. subjective and interpretational ethics rule and we end up with the "nobody is wrong attitude" which cannot claim that the nazi regimes, cambodia killing fields, etc. were wrong. people need to either accept the absolute, or conform to some form of utilitarian way of thinking. (the greatest good for the greatest amount of people) i won't go into why utilitarianism ultimately fails.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 28, 2002, 10:18 PM
Post #112 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Wildtrail...In California a few years back there were a few "ugly" guns that were required to be registered and not everyone registered them by the deadline. The then Attorney General said that there would be an 'amnesty period' if people still wanted to come in after the deadline and register them. About 1500 people did. A couple of years later, new AG, and those owners rec'd a letter. The letter stated that the amnesty period in which they registered their guns was illegal(although they had been allowed to do it by the previous AG). They had 30 days to turn their gun in, render them inoperable, or get them out of the state or be guilty of a felony and they would be charged.. A fine example of getting screwed
by the government. First they get tricked into registering them, then they get screwed by the guns basically being confiscated. Yeh, I trust my government! NOT!
|
|
|
|
|
coach
Aug 28, 2002, 10:30 PM
Post #113 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2001
Posts: 3348
|
Jody,
Right on! I was not aware of that incident but that is exactly what I was talking about earlier. I may trust the folks in power today but what about the next group to come along?
I spent 25 years of my life fulfilling an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States". I expect to be able to realize the freedoms that it provides and owning my firearm is one of them!
Climb On
|
|
|
|
|
joel_gibbel
Aug 28, 2002, 11:32 PM
Post #114 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2002
Posts: 129
|
Steve, I completely agree:
NRA = FOS
Stop being so proud of having guns and "defending the constitution" and all that crap. Guns are designed to kill. If you own one, then there must be a possibility you'll use it...to kill. Killing is wrong, no matter if it's in defending your family or it's a criminal who you think deserves it or it's an enemy in a war. It's still wrong. Stop the violence, stop being paranoid with the government, stop loving your guns so much.
Okay I've said my piece.
Peace out.
[ This Message was edited by: joel_gibbel on 2002-08-28 16:32 ]
[ This Message was edited by: joel_gibbel on 2002-08-28 16:33 ]
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 28, 2002, 11:34 PM
Post #115 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
#1 I never blamed a gun for killing. A person kills, a gun is only a tool.
#2 Coach, I'd like you to give me one good reason to not register them.
#3 Jody, one example and a bad one. If those that had a specific (key word is that it was a specific type of assault weapon) didn't follow the regulations, then they are stupid. Plain and simple. Those who did register them, still have them. Stupid is as stupid does. Not a good example Jody. I remember that and those that did register their weapons, still have them. You just proved a point in my favor, I think.
Coach,
I guess I don't buy all that stuff that the NRA tells gun owners. I always thought they were full of it (and they are). I would happily register my gun. The real point is, what's the big deal? So you fill out a form.
You want a good reason? A registered gun can be tracked if, like you said you got stupid, and did something wrong. People do that, you know. Also, it helps Law Enforcement (I talked to a few friends that work in law, two of them detectives) help get a "bead" on where the unregistered and illegal guns may be. It gives them a better idea of how many are out there.
There, there are two good reasons. My good friend (one of the detectives) said that law enforcement dealing with illegal guns and violent crimes involving guns would be much easier to solve and there would be far less work involved and that finding illegal guns would be easier to single out if firearms are registered. This isn't me saying this. I asked, and he gave me a lot of info. I'm just giving you the "gist" of long conversation.
I don't care what some of you think. The government is NOT trying to take them away.
Whatever you want to believe.....
Cheers!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 28, 2002, 11:40 PM
Post #116 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Thanks, Joel. However, I don't think that all gun owners will kill. You have the possibility, as a gun makes killing the easiest, but I would never think that of the people on here. Then again, you never really know, do you?
Unless, of course, hunting. Hunting is still killing, but I can't be hippocrytical as I used to hunt, but I also never killed much. Still, I don't believe in hunting, but I can't say its bad, either. Totally different subject.
Yeah, the whole gun image and constitutional rights relating to guns are in rather poor quality and taste. It is old thinking, but I don't think everybody here is taking that stance. It is more of a regulation or law debate, still you can see that "pry it from me cold dead fingers" crap leak out from time to time. Everybody is bigger than that here. At least, I think so.
Thanks, Joel.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 28, 2002, 11:49 PM
Post #117 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
Jody,
Does California consider all guns to be firearms or guns with short barrels, such as modified short barrel rifles , shotguns and handguns?
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 29, 2002, 12:44 AM
Post #118 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
joel...I have never called anyone a moron on this site but darnit! You are just about to make me do it. If someone came along and was raping and torturing your wife, you would sit there and let them do it because killing is wrong? You would not kill an intruder, even if the intruder was intent on killing you and your family? I don't know why I am responding to that statement, that was absolutely assinine!
Steve, why is that a bad example? That was a perfect example of the government taking guns away from otherwise law-abiding citizens. So, in your book, the government can suddenly make something illegal ex post facto, and the only people it affects is law-abiding citizens? Come on Steve, you're smarter than that! Also, how is registering a legal gun going to help law enforcement know where the illegal ones are? I still don't know what you have to fear from a law-abiding citizen.
Jeffe..in CA, all guns are considered firearms. There is a distinction made for "firearms capable of being concealed", i.e. handguns, etc.
I have been a road patrol officer for 13 years. I am a firearms instructor and inspector for the largest agency in the state. Trust me, I know what I am talking about on this subject.
BTW, I do agree with you on one thing, the NRA sucks. They are not nearly strong enough in their stand against gun-control, they compromise too much with the politicians, and they beg for money too much. I prefer the Gun Owners of America, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, (check LEAA out if you really want to know how law enforcement feels about gun-control), and the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Sorry we're on opposite sides on this one Steve, I still like you though.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 29, 2002, 2:11 AM
Post #119 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Jody,
First off, glad you agree about the NRA. As for your end statement, ditto!
If they were law abiding citizens, then they would have followed the LAW in the first place. I remeber what you are talking about and they weren't ordinary guns. The Government gave them time to register, and those that didn't lost them. Those that did register these weapons, still have them. Case in point. You proved me right and it wasn't a good example for your case as you think the "government" is going to take away all the guns and they won't do that. The few that had these certain weapons in CA were asked to register them as they weren't your typical rifel, shotgun, or handgun, but of very assault nature. They were given permission by the government to own these weapons, but there were two stipulations. One, you had to have a permit. Two, you had to register. These people knew that before hand, yet didn't follow the rules. Therefore, they were NOT law abiding citizens. They knew what the process was to own them, yet failed to follow. Of the many onwners of these particular weapons, the ones that didn't follow the law's regulations lost them. I say they deserve it. You want law abiding? Then you should have to obey it.
That is why it was a bad example. One, that said "victims" didn't obey the law and lost their assault firearms. Two, the government did NOT take all said weapons away from all owners. Just those that failed to follow the law.
I know several people that have weapons of an assault nature. Especially the ones that work in law enforcement. Even they aren't above the law and have to meet the same requirements to own weapons of that nature.
Steve
[ This Message was edited by: wildtrail on 2002-08-28 19:12 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 29, 2002, 3:22 AM
Post #120 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
"...They were given permission by the government to own these weapons, but there were two stipulations..."
How can the government give us permission to possess something that is a right guaranteed us by the Constitution? Obviously the Constitution means nothing to the government. these citizens were doing nothing to violate the Constitution...that is why, in my book, they are still "law-abiding" even while not registering those guns.
So, why were those guns so bad? You keep using the word "assault weapon". What is an "assault weapon"? I'm curious.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 29, 2002, 3:34 AM
Post #121 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Steve, without waiting for your answer on my last question, let me show you this:
What is the difference between this gun
and this gun?
Nothing! Except how they look! The top one is banned, the bottom one isn't. Just because the top one looks 'mean', the 'wise' politicians banned it. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 29, 2002, 7:52 AM
Post #122 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Well, the government has always decided what we can and can't own. That is why.
The difference between those to weapons is this:
One is auto (unless, of course, it is the AR-15, which I used to own). However, I bought it for the "fun" aspect, and it was totally and completely useless. The other, the non-M-16 or AR-15 has a higher caliber, however, the M-16 and AR-15 version offer a lighter weight and more "tactical" round and versatility, which is completely "assault". Now, given, a responsible person will not use said weapon for wrong doing. Then again, even the "responsible" person does not NEED that weapon. It is completely useless. It's caliber is too low for hunting "big game" in most states, and too powerful for hunting small game, period.
I understand your concerns. It may not seem like it, but I really do. As I had said before, I used to be a gun owner, so it isn't that I am standing on one side of the fence without knowing what the other wishes, stands for, or means.
The fact is this, having talked to politicians (sadly to say there are some in my family), law enforcement personnel, etc, the fact remains the same. The only real reason the govt wants the citizen to register his/her firearms is to track them. If you read my previous post, you know why. Basically, it is a good idea and the govt has no intentions on taking them away. NONE AT ALL.
Knowing that this person owns this or that, only helps them target necessary areas in relation to "illegal" weapons. I don't care what you say, it is a GOOD idea. If the registration of firearms will lead to better law enforcement (remember, it is a plan that needs to be implicated, not a proven process) to target specific areas, to learn and confescate illegal weapons, I'm all for it. Why would you not be? The WON'T take yours from you. All they ask is that you fill out a for annually to show that you have said weapons, or who you sold them to. Not a big deal.
I understand concerns. I know the govt isn't always honest. The fact is they don't want to take them from you. It is a plan in the grand design, and all it will take is an annual form. I don't see the problem.
Conspiracy theory could be a problem. Either way, the intention is to let Americans own what they own and to know what they have. People assume this means they are being "watched". This isn't true. The goal is to know what is out there....(refer to my last post about law enforcement). I think you understand. Your firearms being registered is not a, "we know who has what so we can take them away", rather a "we know who has what, so where is the problem". I say give them a helping hand.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 29, 2002, 11:08 AM
Post #123 of 197
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
Under the assualt weapon ban passed by the Clinton administration the three items making the AR 15(rifle on top) a assault rifle are 1)the bayonet lug, 2)thirty round magazine 3)the flash suppressor. These items are what qualified the AR 15 as evil. The legislation banned the MANUFACTURING and IMPORTATION of weapons equipped with these items. You can still LEGALLY purchase a AR 15 stripped of these items. You can still LEGALLY purchase a newly manufactured flash suppressor and bayonet lug. Then LEGALLY add them to your rifle.
The Mini 14 or 30(rifle on the bottom) has never been marketed from the manufacture with a flash suppressor or bayonet lug. These items can be simply added.
So what did the assault weapon ban do to make our country safe?
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Aug 29, 2002, 11:10 AM
Post #124 of 197
(3597 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
BAN GUNS!! BE A SLAVE!!
|
|
|
|
|
jeffe
Aug 29, 2002, 11:26 AM
Post #125 of 197
(3597 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2001
Posts: 125
|
I do support registration. Over the course of a year I see many guns stolen in burglaries. Most often the gun owner is not careless in any manner, simply a victim of crime. Many people do not have the serial numbers of their guns recorded. When they are stolen, firearms registry is often the only way to obtain this information.
In PA the firearms registry is maintained by the PA State Police. No records are kept on the county level. I cannot quote statute, however there are privacy laws limiting the disclosure of this information to lawenforcement and the registrant. Like anything else a motivated criminal may find the way to obtain this information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
