Gun Control

[i'va biggen]

The thread was about gun control...He didn't control his gun..

[Grizzy11]

And the safety was probably not engaged. That was stupid!!!

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by Grizzy11

And the safety was probably not engaged. That was stupid!!!

Maybe he was trying to kill her but is a shitty shot LOL

[new2thescene]

Anyone go to the shooting range? I have a 22lr that i'm wanting to take up to lakecity and shoot.

[BigMikeinKC]

Well, I've had enough talk about gun control for a while.

Seems like my "gun" is a tad out of control, so I'm going to go get laid tonight. Since it's been a while since I've shot it, I hope it doesn't have a hair trigger!

[IamNobody]

Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

Well, I've had enough talk about gun control for a while.

Seems like my "gun" is a tad out of control, so I'm going to go get laid tonight. Since it's been a while since I've shot it, I hope it doesn't have a hair trigger!

Just double tap your target..

[Sugar_Daddy]

It's not about guns, it's about our rights!

We are Americans. We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.

Today it is guns, Tomorrow its the hobby. Yea thats right background checks to buy condoms. Buying mass quantities and you will be flagged for possible illegal activities. Not much different than the law New York legislation passed on 1/15/2013 background checks to buy bullets, being flagged for buying mass quantities.

Your losing your freedoms and don't realize it.

[Mr. Crowley]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

HUH? what the heck does this mean. He got what on everybody, someone explain this to me, I am just not getting it.

Since I am the "someone" who made the comment, I will attempt to explain.
1) very dry sense of humor.
2) very angry sense humor.
3) very sarcastic/caustic sense of humor.
4) very pro second amendment, takes "shall not be infringed" seriously.

Hey dd, sorry for the delay, but here goes...

Anecdotal evidence, someone accidentally discharging a weapon, has been used as evidence that we need to infringe those rights many of us hold very dear.

My comment was a direct satirical shot at a comment another member made. When you infringe my rights, even a little, you have set the precedent for others who want to remove more or all of my "god given" rights. Spewing the same propaganda, over and over, (common sense controls, for the children, poll data, etc.) is a tactic that has great potential to change minds. We all hear it, can be moved by it and if allowed to stand untested or unchallenged, we may find we have lost something integral to our way of life.

Maybe youre just "hating" on me! Thought I would clear up my less than complete thought that relates to the post directly above my previous post in this thread. May I say to you, dd, that in your time of grief, i want you to have peace, understanding and strength. Best wishes!

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by Mr. Crowley

Since I am the "someone" who made the comment, I will attempt to explain.
1) very dry sense of humor.
2) very angry sense humor.
3) very sarcastic/caustic sense of humor.
4) very pro second amendment, takes "shall not be infringed" seriously.

Hey dd, sorry for the delay, but here goes...

Anecdotal evidence, someone accidentally discharging a weapon, has been used as evidence that we need to infringe those rights many of us hold very dear.

My comment was a direct satirical shot at a comment another member made. When you infringe my rights, even a little, you have set the precedent for others who want to remove more or all of my "god given" rights. Spewing the same propaganda, over and over, (common sense controls, for the children, poll data, etc.) is a tactic that has great potential to change minds. We all hear it, can be moved by it and if allowed to stand untested or unchallenged, we may find we have lost something integral to our way of life.

Maybe youre just "hating" on me! Thought I would clear up my less than complete thought that relates to the post directly above my previous post in this thread. May I say to you, dd, that in your time of grief, i want you to have peace, understanding and strength. Best wishes!

Not hating at all brother, just missed the boat on the comment. I do appreciate the thoughts.

[Dragracer]

Originally Posted by Johnny4455

Rushing the shooter while he tries to reload a 15 bullet, legal magazine purchased at Walmart is exactly what stopped the az shooter. Google and read what the judge that sentenced him said in a rare op ed article, about laws with reasonable limits on automatic weapons and large magazines. He is a Republican appointed judge who articulates why we need better gun control laws, and still respect our constitutional right to bear arms.

Judge Larry burns, usdc La times http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1.../p2p-73761529/

Originally Posted by Johnny4455

Dick Cheney was brought up to show our congressional reps are unwilling to support sensible gun legislation. Why would congressman Cheney vote no to that? I don't get yout your reference to no plastic guns used in 911, nor do I understand why you think that legislation was use less. Someone suggested I am making an emotional argument? Did you read the federal judge's articles I cited? Is he being emotional? Or instead is he articulating a progressive view of the need for some gun controls laws? Read and argue with his point of view.

It is silly because there were and are not plastic guns. This was just straw man emotional non-sense.

[duckrangler]

I've been sort of looking at gun control laws in a slightly different light. Given that Obama wants the CDC to get involved, claiming "gun violence" is a public health threat, that brought to mind the current flu epidemic. Last I heard, around 20 children were killed by the flu. If you follow the "logic" of those who propose more restrictions on guns and apply it to dealing with the flu, the result would be for the government to round up everyone who doesn't have the flu and restrict their movement and travel (for their own good, of course,) leaving those with the flu to continue on with their day to day lives.

Passing additional laws restricting guns will really only effect the law abiding, and might actually create thousands or even millions of "new" criminals out of people who either aren't aware they have a banned weapon, or refuse to submit. Then again, for some in government, that could well be a goal:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." Ayn Rand, who grew up in the Soviet Union

Mark

Originally Posted by swarmyone

What in the world will this accomplish? Criminals don't obey the law. The law abiding citizen gun owners are not the problem. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books. Handguns are banned (even though the Supreme Court over-ruled that 30 year old law). So by liberal logic, Chicago would be a happy place without guns and everything would be rose buds and lollipops. But alas, they had 513 homicides in 2012....the overwhelming majority were commited with handguns.

Stupid bans accomplish nothing. Don't waste my time.

[duckrangler]

Actually, that was incredibly stupid legislation. I remember that bill, which was "crafted" to specifically target Glock pistols, the first mass produced pistol using a polymer frame. The interesting thing is that their claim that there would be "plastic, undetectable" weapons was a lie from the start. A Glock has nearly 1 pound of steel in it. Interestingly enough, in the years since, that very same pistol which they tried to ban is one of the most popular pistols used by police departments as standard issue to their officers.

That law might just as well been written to outlaw star trek "Phasers," since neither they, nor those "undetectable guns" have ever existed.

Mark

Originally Posted by Johnny4455

Years ago dick Cheney voted against a bill which outlawed sale, production of plastic guns that avoid metal detection. I think almost all Americans would agree that is smart legislation. Can't we be smart about this. It isn't just gun control laws but that is part of it.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by new2thescene

Anyone go to the shooting range? I have a 22lr that i'm wanting to take up to lakecity and shoot.

TAKE ME TAKE ME TAKE ME!!!!!!! And no I'm not kidding!!!!!!!!

Seriously - PM me!

[duckrangler]

What's your point here... a 30/06 is generally regarded as too weak to hunt big, dangerous game. Most people won't use a .223 Remington for deer, nor would somebody use a .458 WinMag. Guns and their ammunition are tools, nothing more. Just as you wouldn't use an oxy-acetalene torch to solder delicate electronic circuit boards, you choose the appropriate caliber for what you're hunting.

Yes, in many states, the .223 is considered too small for deer. However, it's one of the most popular small game/varmint calibers. Great for prairie dogs, woodchucks, and coyotes. Which is why many AR based firearms ARE used for hunting.

Originally Posted by Bartman1963

Not a long gun I would want, because ironically its ammunition is generally regarded as too weak to hunt large game such as deer.

[duckrangler]

Nobody ever had claimed what you just stated. First off, the Constitution does NOT "give" any rights. If you read it, you will see that it's a document that sets very specific set of obligations and restrictions on the government (which Obama once called "negative rights,") and the Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution to place even more limits on what the government can do. Please note that the 9th & 10th Amendments specifically state that just because a "right" isn't listed in the Constitution does NOT mean that it isn't reserved to the States, or the People (please note that the Constitution makes that distinction!)

The Declaration of Independence is really a source for the statement "God given rights," as in the statement that the rights are granted by one's creator. That was a radical view then, and sadly, it seems that it is today as well. The idea being that if a government grants one rights, that same government can then control you and take those rights away. But with God given rights, those rights are inherent in one's life, and the government can NOT take away those rights. The Constitution was designed to protect those rights FROM an oppressive government.

Originally Posted by BigMikeinKC

Why do people claim that the rights given in the Constitution are God given. The writers of the Constitution were not gods, although it seems like many have elevated them to that position.