It is currently Sun May 27, 2018 2:15 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:55 am 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:20 pm
Posts: 18472
Quote:
I support background checks...yes, I do not see any other way to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, or individuals with a history of violence, domestic abusers, or people with a history of mental illness that includes a predilection towards self harm, or harming others. If you cannot check the background, how do you figure this out.


What about knives, baseball bats, chainsaws, customary household poisons, fertilizer, pressure cookers, nails and ball bearings, and on and on? More people are killed by these items and add in drunk drivers and texting teenagers than by ARs.



_________________
The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory, Aldo Gucci

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience, George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 10:58 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:27 pm
Posts: 2645
Location: Massachusetts
casonet wrote:
Stripersonfly, you really need to get out of Massachusetts, once in a while and see how it is in the rest of the country....We hunt and fish and pass down the tradition.

Casonet,

Grew up in Ohio, not sure if that qualifies as 'rest of the country'. For those lucky enough to have learned gun safety from their parents, grand parents, etc., they are the lucky ones. Great, lets be sure they know how to safely handle a gun.

I can tell you that there are many people, in many parts of the country, who do not have hunting or shooting traditions passed on to them who want to buy firearms too. Some just think guns are cool, some want to get into home defense, others want to hunt, clay shoot, long distance target shooting, three gun competitions, the list goes on. That is great! The more the merrier and I want them to enjoy shooting sports too. Lets take some time for gun safety first. I do have an issue letting someone with no knowledge of firearms, someone completely new to firearms, being able to walk into a store, buy a gun and ammo and walk out and hope for the best. I think that approach borders on careless to the point of negligence.

_________________
Stripersonfly


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:06 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:27 pm
Posts: 2645
Location: Massachusetts
oneounceload wrote:
Quote:
What about knives, baseball bats, chainsaws, customary household poisons, fertilizer, pressure cookers, nails and ball bearings, and on and on? More people are killed by these items and add in drunk drivers and texting teenagers than by ARs.

I feel these types of arguments overlook common sense. First, drunk driving and texting while driving are illegal. We also regulate both of these activities. You need to be 21 to drink, and you need to be of a certain age and taken training, before driving. And our enforcement of these is lousy. Most of the other items you mention (knives, bats, chainsaws, pressure cookers, etc.) require more of a conscious decision and action on the part of an individual to use them to hurt someone else. Firearms are another matter. When used inappropriately they can easily endanger the user or other people. Much more easily than a knife or chainsaw.

_________________
Stripersonfly


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:07 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 8159
Location: Kansas
I also failed to point out that most states require a hunter safety training course prior to issuing a hunting license. Those courses include gun safety and proper handling. I realize that not all gun owners also possess hunting licenses, but many do, and that’s good. I would also point out that for decades, New Hampshire has had a concealed carry birth right with no training required. I haven’t heard of any particular problems. We now have that same right in my state: no problems to report.

_________________
"We pulled the trigger, the safety went forward, both barrels fired almost together, the gun opened, ejectors kicked the fired cases over our shoulder ...the most completely automatic gun we ever fired" Elmer Keith- Shotguns by Keith


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:15 am 
Shotgun Expert
Shotgun Expert
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:02 am
Posts: 22303
Location: Plainfield, IL
stripersonfly wrote:
Firearms are another matter. When used inappropriately they can easily endanger the user or other people. Much more easily than a knife or chainsaw.


Hardly more easily than an automobile: 40,000 + deaths per year, every year. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/ca ... 340012002/

There total of 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013.

Firearms? Of the 2,596,993 total deaths in the US in 2013, 1.3% were related to firearms.

_________________
--Randy

http://randywakeman.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:46 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:27 pm
Posts: 2645
Location: Massachusetts
Randy,

EXACTLY, and I agree, and think how much worse it would be if we did not require people to get training on how to drive, and then demonstrate their ability with a driver's exam?

I have tried to demonstrate why training would be a good thing. Let me turn this around. Why is requiring training for firearm usage bad? Assuming that if someone went through appropriate training and they were guaranteed the right to own firearms, why is that bad? What is wrong with that? Firearms are wonderful things. I really enjoy them. I also have a great deal of respect for them, and I think all of your do too. They are very powerful, and if used incorrectly, they can be very dangerous. What is wrong with asking people to attend training to learn how to use them safely?

_________________
Stripersonfly


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:50 pm 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:44 pm
Posts: 4978
Location: East Texas
First, why don’t you answer my questions rather than pose some pointless unrelated new question in response. Second, requiring people to get training before acquiring a drivers license does nothing to either prevent auto related accidents and deaths nor does it prevent people who possess no valid drivers license from driving. This next part is very important. Please read it carefully and try to understand what it says. The type of person who would commit acts of violence against another person DOES NOT CAREabout passing a background check or about being properly trained on firearms or self defense. Those laws only serve to further restrict and complicate the lives of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. I don’t know how to make it any clearer or more understandable. The “reforms” you support do absolutely nothing to affect any criminal misuse of guns. Again, it only affects law abiding citizens therefore those “reforms” are the very definition of anti-2A.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 2:39 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:27 pm
Posts: 2645
Location: Massachusetts
duckqwacker wrote:
First, why don’t you answer my questions rather than pose some pointless unrelated new question in response.

duckqwacker. First I would point out that you introduced 'practicing your religion' or expressing an opinion' that were the unrelated items to begin with....but alright, in answer to you question, no, I would not require licensing in order to practice a religion or express an opinion. Practicing a religion and expressing an opinion, do not, by themselves cause injury to others. Obviously, as numerous events throughout history can demonstrate, religions and opinions, or ideals, can be used to motivate people to do horrible things. Conversely, putting loaded weapons in the hands of novice inexperienced shooters who have no idea how to use them safely and effectively will most certainly will result in injuries or worse.


duckqwacker wrote:
Second, requiring people to get training before acquiring a drivers license does nothing to either prevent auto related accidents and deaths

You do not think making people attend drivers ed and a licensing exam to prove they have learned the rules of the road does anything to reduce auto accidents or deaths? You really feel that if we just allowed anyone to go buy or rent a car, get behind the wheel and start driving without any training, there would be no uptick in auto accidents or deaths? I do not envy you trying to support this position? That is crazy to say the least. Are there still auto accidents, of course, but to argue that education, training and licensing tests do not reduce them at all is ridiculous.

duckqwacker wrote:
The “reforms” you support do absolutely nothing to affect any criminal misuse of guns. Again, it only affects law abiding citizens therefore those “reforms” are the very definition of anti-2A.

I am going to respectfully disagree with you in regards to effective background checks. Some of the shooters in recent shootings should not have had guns yet they were still able to acquire them. If we had an effective system in place, and the background checks were done instantaneously and efficiently they would not be any complication or hindrance to law abiding citizen. Listen, if you are ok with anyone being allowed to own a gun...regardless of criminal past, or mental health history...if you believe that, it is fine, and we can just agree to disagree. If you feel that felons and those whose mental health may pose a risk to others should be prevented from owning guns...well...how do you do that without background checks?

In regards to training, I do not anticipate it to affect criminal activity. I am trying to address a concern regarding ignorance, and the potentially devastating side effect this could create.

Now, if you would kindly answer my question....What is so bad about asking people to get training if they want to use firearms. I see too many novice shooters who obviously have little to no insight into how to safely handle guns. I see lack of muzzle awareness, trigger awareness, safeties off too soon. If you had a child...would you let them go out, get a gun and just start shooting without providing them with some instruction on safe gun handling and proper gun use? Is asking someone to be responsible really such a complication in their life?

_________________
Stripersonfly


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:34 pm 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:02 pm
Posts: 5419
Location: Central Pennsylvania and Southwest Florida
I am currently conducting an experiment here at home. I have a .357 Mag revolver in my safe and right beside it ammunition. I am waiting to see just how long it will take for that gun to load itself. It has been five years now and neither the gun or ammunition has moved. Conclusion? It is a people problem, not a gun problem. An inanimate gun, or any other object, is never the blame for anyone's death. The problem has to be solved by trying to control crime, not inanimate objects. When someone dies because of a drunken driver we don't blame the car. But, when someone is killed with any gun it becomes the guns' fault. Only liberals can think like that.

_________________
{hs#
Jim

(Warning: To those that read my posts.)
I don't shoot registered targets so what could I possibly know or have to offer?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:53 pm 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:44 pm
Posts: 4978
Location: East Texas
The First amendment is not irrelevant in a discussion about rights. Are you unclear of what a right is? The privilege to drive a car is irrelevant in that same discussion. You keep pitching this false narrative that if someone doesn’t support background checks then they are for felons and children buying guns but that’s ridiculous. Again, felons by definition don’t follow the law so a background check is not going to help. People get guns all the time regardless of background checks. No rational human being believes that training doesn’t contribute to a safer individual and a higher degree of responsibility. The problem with government mandates is the proverbial slippery slope. Once the door is open to mandates pertaining to rights those rights will soon be mandated out of existence. When the choice is between a 1% chance of being shot versus a virtual guarantee the 2A will be regulated out of existence I’ll take my chances on getting shot. I take a much bigger risk everyday when I get behind the wheel and drive to work.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:03 pm 
Shotgun Expert
Shotgun Expert
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:02 am
Posts: 22303
Location: Plainfield, IL
stripersonfly wrote:
Randy,

EXACTLY, and I agree, and think how much worse it would be if we did not require people to get training on how to drive, and then demonstrate their ability with a driver's exam?

I have tried to demonstrate why training would be a good thing. Let me turn this around. Why is requiring training for firearm usage bad? Assuming that if someone went through appropriate training and they were guaranteed the right to own firearms, why is that bad? What is wrong with that? Firearms are wonderful things. I really enjoy them. I also have a great deal of respect for them, and I think all of your do too. They are very powerful, and if used incorrectly, they can be very dangerous. What is wrong with asking people to attend training to learn how to use them safely?


Driver's exams are hardly extensive, regular, or demanding. Operating an automobile is far, far more complicated than using a gun.

What is wrong is infringing on an unalienable right. This is a huge distinction, as keeping and bearing arms is a right Americans are born with, not a privilege to be dispensed by government, but a right.

There is no right to own or operate an automobile.

_________________
--Randy

http://randywakeman.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:21 pm 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:20 pm
Posts: 18472
stripersonfly wrote:
oneounceload wrote:
Quote:
What about knives, baseball bats, chainsaws, customary household poisons, fertilizer, pressure cookers, nails and ball bearings, and on and on? More people are killed by these items and add in drunk drivers and texting teenagers than by ARs.

I feel these types of arguments overlook common sense. First, drunk driving and texting while driving are illegal. We also regulate both of these activities. You need to be 21 to drink, and you need to be of a certain age and taken training, before driving. And our enforcement of these is lousy. Most of the other items you mention (knives, bats, chainsaws, pressure cookers, etc.) require more of a conscious decision and action on the part of an individual to use them to hurt someone else. Firearms are another matter. When used inappropriately they can easily endanger the user or other people. Much more easily than a knife or chainsaw.


More people are murdered by things like "blunt force trauma" than ARs.

Quote:
I do have an issue letting someone with no knowledge of firearms, someone completely new to firearms, being able to walk into a store, buy a gun and ammo and walk out and hope for the best


I do not even need a DL to BUY a car; I don't need training to buy knives or chainsaws or any other deadly device..........

SHOULD people get instruction? Absolutely. Making a LAW, I am totally against.

But then I am also for removing all warning labels from everything and letting Nature take its course..... :wink:

_________________
The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory, Aldo Gucci

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience, George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:23 pm 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:20 pm
Posts: 7307
Location: Mysterious Cities of Gold
On the subject of background checks, my main personal gripe with it isn't that I'm cheap and don't wanna pay the background check fee. It's isn't the invasion of privacy (although that sucks too). It's the demonizing it does to all us law abiding citizens. When we walk into a gun shop with the intent to buy a gun that very day, all the background check does is make us automatic criminals who are guilty until proven innocent.

For the sake of argument here, let's pretend a magic wand was waved and all background checks disappeared and we never had to go through them again to buy a gun legally. Even without the background checks we are still going to be having to leave our personal information on the paperwork. Do you think that a career criminal is going to risk going back to jail and leave their personal information at a gun shop where the records get checked by the ATF every so often? Of course not! They won't step foot in a gun shop, they'll buy their gun on the street regardless of background checks being gone. That's where background checks fail in my book. The only people they affect is law abiding citizens.

_________________
R.I.P. Bubbles
3/1/91-12/8/05

DCx2 Acta Est Fabula
"Liberals need to own the First Amendment like the Conservatives own the Second" - Bill Maher
MAGA = Morons Are Governing America
Does anybody remember laughter? - Robert Plant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:00 pm 
Crown Grade

Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:01 am
Posts: 3288
Location: Newton Kansas
stripersonfly wrote:
oneounceload wrote:
Quote:
What about knives, baseball bats, chainsaws, customary household poisons, fertilizer, pressure cookers, nails and ball bearings, and on and on? More people are killed by these items and add in drunk drivers and texting teenagers than by ARs.

I feel these types of arguments overlook common sense. First, drunk driving and texting while driving are illegal. We also regulate both of these activities. You need to be 21 to drink, and you need to be of a certain age and taken training, before driving. And our enforcement of these is lousy. Most of the other items you mention (knives, bats, chainsaws, pressure cookers, etc.) require more of a conscious decision and action on the part of an individual to use them to hurt someone else. Firearms are another matter. When used inappropriately they can easily endanger the user or other people. Much more easily than a knife or chainsaw.

So, guns don't require a conscious decision by someone before shooting someone?
So somehow the gun sucks them into a trance and makes them unknowingly shoot people.
I'm amazed at that point the gun even needs to use a person, just jump up and shoot people on its own.
Son of Sam was lying then when he said his neighbors dog was telling him to kill people, it was his gun the whole time.
When the kid shot up Va. Tech, was it the gun or the chains that told him to chain the doors shut? Smart sneaky gun if it was.

Accidental firearm injuries (including deaths) have never been lower than they are today, yet there are many times more guns in people's hands (and being carried around loaded) than EVER in U S history, yet there is where you are about to hang your hat isn't it?

_________________
I don't always venture out into the sub-freezing darkness, but when I do, it is hunting season, and I carry a Browning. Stay hungry my friends.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 8:04 pm 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:20 pm
Posts: 18472
+1

_________________
The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price has faded from memory, Aldo Gucci

Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience, George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:30 pm 
Crown Grade

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:34 pm
Posts: 6814
Location: NE Oklahoma
Jim Miller wrote:
I am currently conducting an experiment here at home. I have a .357 Mag revolver in my safe and right beside it ammunition. I am waiting to see just how long it will take for that gun to load itself. It has been five years now and neither the gun or ammunition has moved. Conclusion? It is a people problem, not a gun problem. An inanimate gun, or any other object, is never the blame for anyone's death. The problem has to be solved by trying to control crime, not inanimate objects. When someone dies because of a drunken driver we don't blame the car. But, when someone is killed with any gun it becomes the guns' fault. Only liberals can think like that.

I've run that same test with a 1911 .45ACP. I got the same results and arrived at the same conclusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:28 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*

Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 10:25 pm
Posts: 2231
Location: NW, CT
It is really a game the liberals are winning. Maser mentioned "career criminals". What the hell is a career criminal doing walking around free? The revolving door of the criminal justice system is a tool to use to enslave the rest of us. No background checks are needed if all the people who cannot be trusted are locked up. There will be those few who go off the deep end without any prior criminal record, but those I think would be the exception. We have to live with all sorts of risks in life. This is just another.
For those who think a background check or another ban would bring safety, I say, be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it.

I for one do not want to live in a country where only the people in government have the guns.

Jim


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:04 am 
Crown Grade

Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:18 pm
Posts: 8964
Location: Mechanicsville IA
What is being mentioned boils down to the concept that it is society's fault that an innocent person is turned bad.
Remember the old commercials with the group of teen boys out and about when they see that some negligent person left their keys in a car and the message of, Don't let a good boy go bad.
There is a certain amount of evil in humanity and to enable and excuse such evil is in itself a minor form of mental illness.
Co-dependency is not healthy.
Quote:
Codependency is characterized by a person belonging to a dysfunctional, one-sided relationship where one person relies on the other for meeting nearly all of their emotional and self-esteem needs. It also describes a relationship that enables another person to maintain their irresponsible, addictive, or underachieving behavior.

https://psychcentral.com/lib/symptoms-of-codependency/

_________________
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' Theodore Roosevelt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:23 am 
Crown Grade

Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:01 am
Posts: 3288
Location: Newton Kansas
Vette Jockey wrote:
Jim Miller wrote:
I am currently conducting an experiment here at home. I have a .357 Mag revolver in my safe and right beside it ammunition. I am waiting to see just how long it will take for that gun to load itself. It has been five years now and neither the gun or ammunition has moved. Conclusion? It is a people problem, not a gun problem. An inanimate gun, or any other object, is never the blame for anyone's death. The problem has to be solved by trying to control crime, not inanimate objects. When someone dies because of a drunken driver we don't blame the car. But, when someone is killed with any gun it becomes the guns' fault. Only liberals can think like that.

I've run that same test with a 1911 .45ACP. I got the same results and arrived at the same conclusion.

I am now almost 9 yrs (or is it 10, not real sure) into a similar test involving a 1911, except that this one is loaded, in Condition 1 carry mode, 8+1 rounds of Mayhem (I love those commercials) ready to make noise.
The only firearm to sew as much panic and panty-wadding abject terror in a liberal as the AR15 is the Cocked And Locked Government Model .45.

That gun doesn't even have to load itself, all it has to do is fling itself out of my holster and start shooting people (one would likely expect me first so I do not interfere in it's nefarious plans).
My employer would frown mightily if I carried at work, but I have other business to attend to often before and/or after work, so every afternoon it winds up in a security-patrolled parking lot (keeps car thievery down) in either a glovebox or a console (depends on vehicle), and similalrly, in all this time it has not seen fit to shoot the car/truck, the car or truck next door, or the person walking by between cars.

If it weren't for folks like Geraldo Rivera who plainly stated an AR15 'alters your personality' just from getting one into your fingers, I'd think this test fairly conclusive that It Isn't The Gun, but, I keep hearing things said by People Who Claim To Know (Ptttttt).
I'm certain his Depends would never survive my saying hello to him in a Stop-N-Rob if he knew about Ol' Loudmouf under my clothing. It would look like he just dropped his Mountain Dew Big Gulp in the floor, except no ice.

I am also no fan of the AR, 13 yrs hauling one around the world for the govt, shooting and cleaning the sum-beach constantly, but you folks who are willing to give the Gun Banners the AR, and the Bump Stock(an even bigger POS), and every aftermarket Timney/Geissele/and everyone else aftermarket trigger (for your dad's Remmy 700 bolt action and 200 others), they will, ABSOLUTELY WILL, come for your Stackbarrel eventually.

The most clear example in current weeks is the desire to "only ban Miltary Style Weapons".
Every firearms the world has ever seen (that was successful) was designed as a Military Arm.
Not just the A15/AR10/SR25.
The Garand, and every other semi-auto action in existence.
The Bolt Action (the Mosin Nagant, the Enfield, The Mauser, the 1903 Springfield, the Remmy 700, and ll their decendants).
The semi-auto shotgun.
The PUMP shotgun.
And, gloriously, the single shot AND double-barreled shotguns (all a Stackbarrel is is a SxS laid up on it's side).
Then there's the Revolver, followed by the self-loading pistol.

In some cases military sales to governments made the companies (large, successful sales allowing the companies to grow and develop more guns).

California is trying to pass (I fully expect the worst from Commiefornia (as well as New York/Jersey)) a law that requires background checks and waiting periods (and face-to-face-only sales) on "firearm precursors".
What is that?
Gun PARTS.
Not just receivers/frames, heavens no.
Barrels, triggers, stocks, bolts, hammers, springs, cylinders, choke tubes, magazines, and on and on.
Already done it on ammunition, at what point will they figure out that ammunition has "precursors" you & I buy?????
Is there REALLY a difference between a shotgun barrel and a length of steel pipe?

Eventually, they'll regulate or ban IT ALL, because they have clearly stated this as their final goal.

No.
We have given away too much already.
There is no legal product industry that is as heavily regulated/restricted as guns ALREADY.

No more.

NONE of the 20,000 gun laws already on the books do anything to 'make you safer', not any more than being effectively strip-searched to board an airplane these days makes you any "safer".
Some people buy into "security drama" though, and they are willing to let more and more of it take over too.

The government who people want to "protect" them, went to court a decade or more ago (likely closer to 2) in order to prove, legally, beyond any doubt, that The Government has absolutely ZERO legally binding requirement to "protect" anyone.
They won, US Supreme Court.

They DID admit to "having a job to do", and that 'job' is to show up after the carnage is all done, pick up the pieces, figure out who did it, and try to find them so they can be given a fair trial, if any laws were broken.

A guy in Tortonto Monday drove a rental van 13 blocks (or so, 1.4 kilometers) ON THE SIDEWALK, killing at least 10 people who couldn't get out of his way.
Was it The Van?
Can we get some Common Sense Van Controls?
Restrictions on powerful engines, restrictions on allowed fuel capacity, only allowed to rent 2 vans a year, only allowed 5 gal. of gas a week, universal background checks and 5-day waiting periods on all rentals and possession transfers. I could think up more on a whim.
Is it not already against the law to drive a van on the sidewalk?
Is it not already against the law to deliberately crash into/run over people with a van, particularly ON THE SIDEWALK?????
From the first hit to his arrest, when the van was stopped,, 26 MINUTES!!!!!!!!

When the delivery truck in Stockholm Sweeden rammed the Christmas Shoppers back in 2016, there was ACTUALLY a city legislator who proposed banning trucks in the city streets at any times when "people were likely to be out and about", basically 5AM-ish to 3AM-ish or so. They could deliver to businesses for that couple-hour overnight window.

This is the same idiot bunch who decided to give Gender Preference for snow removal that winter.
"More men drive than women, more women walk or bicycle. Thus, the sidewalks were cleared FIRST, and the streets LAST.
Google up the results.

"Gender Equal Snow Removal"


No, not a thing more for the Gun Banners, and in fact I want stuff BACK because of laws that do not work.

_________________
I don't always venture out into the sub-freezing darkness, but when I do, it is hunting season, and I carry a Browning. Stay hungry my friends.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ever Been Called Anti-Gun?
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:51 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 8159
Location: Kansas
I can see it now! Background check on buying a cord of firewood in California because someone could make a bump stock out of a piece



_________________
"We pulled the trigger, the safety went forward, both barrels fired almost together, the gun opened, ejectors kicked the fired cases over our shoulder ...the most completely automatic gun we ever fired" Elmer Keith- Shotguns by Keith


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Registered users: 737Mech, Action, Barmaleykin, Bing [Bot], blacksmithdog, Brad F, cheecho1960, clayaddiction, COOTCOMMANDER, DallasCMT, dfw_bill, Diddle, dogchaser37, drawdc, dubob, Fitasc2, fullgallon, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], iceman95, ithacanut, jwbducks, Keperkey, LarsJ, leftex, lesharris, Majestic-12 [Bot], mikko12, nikko12, No Recoil, Number6, oneounceload, oregunner, paracord, railroad, rgonzo, Road Man, Rooster booster, Shaker, Sporting Fan, STS hunter, SuperXOne, SWPAMike, The Drake, trappertom, trdjohn, up4ducks, uplanddan, vaskeet, Virginian, Warren11050, wasthestumper


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
© 2017 Carbon Media Group Outdoors    - DMCA Notice