HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Guns should not be kept i...

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:38 PM

Guns should not be kept in houses where children are present

I don't care how careful you are, we are all human, and we all make careless mistakes from time to time. Whether it's finding a set of keys, carelessly leaving the gun unlocked, or just sheer brute force, kids/teenagers manage to get ahold of guns all the time.

Perhaps gun ranges, National Guard armories, etc could set up a system whereby a gun owner could store their firearms and access them when they want to go hunting, target shooting, etc. Guns would be much safer from theft in these places, as these places tend to have very good security systems. You wouldn't have to worry about your kids somehow getting ahold of your gun and shooting themselves or someone else. You don't have to worry about little Johnny finding your gun and taking it to school for show-and-tell with his friends.

As far as home defense goes, if you have children in your house, you stand a much better chance of your kids getting ahold of your gun than you do some intruder breaking in.

Same thing would go for households with a resident who is mentally unstable, such as Adam Lanza. If you know that someone in your house is mentally unstable, you should NOT be keeping guns there.

171 replies, 8745 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 171 replies Author Time Post
Reply Guns should not be kept in houses where children are present (Original post)
Hugabear Jan 2013 OP
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #1
Hugabear Jan 2013 #3
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #126
Robb Jan 2013 #67
Warpy Jan 2013 #76
Bjorn Against Jan 2013 #151
JustAnotherGen Jan 2013 #2
Go Vols Jan 2013 #6
nick of time Jan 2013 #10
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #28
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #127
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #11
easttexaslefty Jan 2013 #78
ProdigalJunkMail Jan 2013 #81
easttexaslefty Jan 2013 #95
ProdigalJunkMail Jan 2013 #98
easttexaslefty Jan 2013 #99
ProdigalJunkMail Jan 2013 #110
easttexaslefty Jan 2013 #111
ProdigalJunkMail Jan 2013 #117
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #120
ProdigalJunkMail Jan 2013 #122
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #155
loyalsister Jan 2013 #83
Hugabear Jan 2013 #89
Sissyk Jan 2013 #58
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #128
bettyellen Jan 2013 #133
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #146
abelenkpe Jan 2013 #62
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #129
markpkessinger Jan 2013 #69
MynameisBlarney Jan 2013 #71
Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #90
JustAnotherGen Jan 2013 #91
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #130
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #103
Bjorn Against Jan 2013 #153
samsingh Jan 2013 #4
nick of time Jan 2013 #5
Hugabear Jan 2013 #9
nick of time Jan 2013 #13
Coyote_Tan Jan 2013 #48
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #52
nick of time Jan 2013 #68
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #7
Fresh_Start Jan 2013 #8
Igel Jan 2013 #18
subknave Jan 2013 #36
uppityperson Jan 2013 #42
Blue4Texas Jan 2013 #55
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #134
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #142
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #144
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #147
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #150
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #154
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #159
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #160
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #162
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #163
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #165
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #167
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #132
One_Life_To_Give Jan 2013 #12
Crepuscular Jan 2013 #14
nick of time Jan 2013 #16
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #135
Hugabear Jan 2013 #20
Crepuscular Jan 2013 #24
Hugabear Jan 2013 #27
NickB79 Jan 2013 #31
Starboard Tack Jan 2013 #145
subknave Jan 2013 #40
onenote Jan 2013 #72
haele Jan 2013 #75
Crepuscular Jan 2013 #46
onenote Jan 2013 #70
Coyote_Tan Jan 2013 #49
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #53
Crepuscular Jan 2013 #60
regjoe Jan 2013 #15
NickB79 Jan 2013 #17
Hugabear Jan 2013 #21
NickB79 Jan 2013 #25
Bake Jan 2013 #65
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #136
easttexaslefty Jan 2013 #96
cali Jan 2013 #19
Hugabear Jan 2013 #22
EarthWindFire Jan 2013 #37
Hugabear Jan 2013 #41
EarthWindFire Jan 2013 #47
Bake Jan 2013 #66
beevul Jan 2013 #73
EarthWindFire Jan 2013 #74
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #85
beevul Jan 2013 #100
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #112
beevul Jan 2013 #116
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #118
beevul Jan 2013 #123
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #125
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #139
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #141
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #143
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #148
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #149
beevul Jan 2013 #156
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #158
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #138
subknave Jan 2013 #43
Hugabear Jan 2013 #45
cali Jan 2013 #57
Sissyk Jan 2013 #59
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #86
beevul Jan 2013 #101
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #137
easttexaslefty Jan 2013 #97
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #23
LeftInTX Jan 2013 #35
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #115
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #26
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #29
justanidea Jan 2013 #82
The Straight Story Jan 2013 #30
quaker bill Jan 2013 #80
subknave Jan 2013 #32
arcane1 Jan 2013 #33
marions ghost Jan 2013 #93
guardian Jan 2013 #34
Luciferous Jan 2013 #38
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #39
obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #104
Taverner Jan 2013 #44
RB TexLa Jan 2013 #50
Zoeisright Jan 2013 #51
Comrade Grumpy Jan 2013 #54
meaculpa2011 Jan 2013 #157
abelenkpe Jan 2013 #63
ProdigalJunkMail Jan 2013 #77
friendly_iconoclast Jan 2013 #87
Blue4Texas Jan 2013 #56
DeadEyeDyck Jan 2013 #61
abelenkpe Jan 2013 #64
Crepuscular Jan 2013 #79
Politicub Jan 2013 #84
flvegan Jan 2013 #88
jambo101 Jan 2013 #92
madville Jan 2013 #94
guardian Jan 2013 #113
geckosfeet Jan 2013 #102
Common Sense Party Jan 2013 #105
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #106
texasmomof3 Jan 2013 #107
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #108
spin Jan 2013 #109
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #119
spin Jan 2013 #121
eqfan592 Jan 2013 #114
ileus Jan 2013 #124
BainsBane Jan 2013 #131
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #166
BainsBane Jan 2013 #168
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #169
BainsBane Jan 2013 #170
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #171
whistler162 Jan 2013 #140
Cleita Jan 2013 #152
chloes1 Jan 2013 #161
MH1 Jan 2013 #164

Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:42 PM

1. My wife's always saying, "When we have kids, you need to sell your guns"

 

To which I respond, "". I tell her I'll just get more safes to keep them in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:46 PM

3. You do know that safes are not foolproof

Keys can be left around or copied.

Combinations can be found.

Guns can be accidentally left unlocked outside of the safe.

Fact is, there are far too many children who somehow manage to get ahold of guns to take that risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:21 PM

126. Hell, a safe can fall through the floor into the living room below...

I think you're aim is to render citizens unable to defend themselves with deadly force against thugs who sometimes relish the use of same.

FYI, the gun-related accidental death rate for children has been going down for years; much more than the other causes of death categories. See National Safety Council.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:45 PM

67. Sell them and get dirt bikes.

Seriously. More fun with kids and your wife will have the same look on her face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:37 PM

76. I know a few very wise people who took their guns to family members

to store when the kids got old enough to be curious about them and retrieved them when the kids went off to college.

That seemed to work. The kids survived and so did everybody else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:35 PM

151. Maybe you could show a bit more concern for your wife's legitimate fears rather than laughing at her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:44 PM

2. My dad his guns

In the house when we were kids - we never touched them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:50 PM

6. Same here

when we were small,but by the time I was 10-12 I would get home from school,feed the cows and grab a gun and go hunting until supper time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Go Vols (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:54 PM

10. Pretty much my story also,

 

get home from school, do my farm chores, grab my .22 or .410 and go hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:32 PM

28. Similar here.

Not the after-school hunting part (urban childhood...), but I grew up with firearms in who house, a couple of which were mine. I never doubted that the very strict instructions about them - basically "never, ever touch one without an adult present" - were set in stone and inviolable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Go Vols (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:29 PM

127. Same for me when growing up in N. Florida. We didn't have cows to feed; maybe that's the diff!

We kids knew how to use guns by 10-11 yrs. old. When we got home from school, we would pot-shot squirrels for the family. Interestingly, each of us (by 13 yrs.) had our own .22 target revolver for which we had responsibility. The idea was if someone broke into the house, there were four rooms in which an armed family member dwelled. No panic, no hopped-up paranoia. Just a reasonable fallback if things went bad. BTW, we kids kept the revolvers unloaded. We could load up quite quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:54 PM

11. Same here. My dad and all my friends' dads just kep their rifles sitting in the closet.

 

Now, those same rifles sit in my closet... and someday they'll probably just sit in my kid's closet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 09:12 PM

78. And then there's the kids

who have something sucky happen at school, or their gf or bf break up with them or whatever, they get the gun and kill themselves.
Don't think "my child would NEVER do that".
Anyone's child COULD do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to easttexaslefty (Reply #78)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 10:07 PM

81. and they could just as easily

down a bottle of pills (seems to be a preferred method) or open up a vein or come up with some creative way to kill themselves. that's not seriously your argument, is it?

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #81)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:47 AM

95. Actually, no they could not just as easily do that.

Many times you don't die from an overdose or by cutting. Check the stats.
It's a subject I know just a little about so I'm quite serious. But thanks for the snark anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to easttexaslefty (Reply #95)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:18 AM

98. you are incorrect...

if someone WANTS to kill themselves and not just cry out for help, a bottle will work just as well as a pistol. i know you think you know a little about it... so do i.

you're welcome for the snark... you deserved it.

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #98)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:22 AM

99. Do you have a clue how many

attempt suicide with pills? And out of that how many are "successful"?
How many unsuccessful attempts are there with a gun.
A web site that may enlighten you:
www.afsp.org.
and btw, you can go pound sand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to easttexaslefty (Reply #99)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:38 PM

110. awww... you don't like that someone disagrees with you

isn't that sweet. unfortunately, the choice of 'method' is related to the actual desire to die vs. the desire to cry out. but hey, if you knew soooo much about suicide attempts you would know that... or maybe you do. someone who is truly bent on killing themselves will succeed. sometimes after multiple attempts. but you knew that, too. you just think guns are the only 'evil' out there in the suicide world...

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #110)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:13 PM

111. No, ignorant people don't really

get under my skin. Neither do mean people.
You are both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to easttexaslefty (Reply #111)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:38 AM

117. so... you have nothing to add

except name calling. got it.

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #117)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:20 PM

120. you lose that argument

of course gun suicide is faster and has a higher success rate. not even an argument, it is a fact.

AND could you please name ONE suicidal person that has taken out 20 or 30 OTHER people with a bottle of pills?

i'd laugh if the subject didn't SUCK so much. stop trying to blow smoke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #120)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:32 PM

122. ah... now you're moving the goalposts...

we were talking about people killing (or trying to) themselves. i missed the part where we were talking about the CT killings.

people who really want to kill themselves will pick what is available. yes, a gun is quicker and less likely to 'fail' in its given task.

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #122)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:01 PM

155. no, i'm calling you on your BS. 'guns not kept in homes' certainly applies to the CT shooting

a bottle will work just as well as a pistol.

no, it won't. how many of these in THE LAST 6 DAYS used other 'weapons' for suicide?

16% of gun owners leave their guns loaded and unlocked

View profile
and it is a lot faster and easier. simple physics, really.

what logic do you use that they DON'T? see the one that says 'leaving only questions'?

last 6 days (partial list)

Washington (DC) Post
Murder-suicide disturbing trend among the elderly
Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:35 PM EST

Phoenix (AZ) azcentral.com -
Police: Laveen deaths likely murder-suicide
Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:07 PM EST

Tampa (FL) Tribune -
Tampa police dispatcher victim of apparent murder-suicide
Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:10 PM EST

Buffalo (NY) WKBW -
93-Year-Old Man Accused of Killing 95-Year-Old Wife in Failed Murder-Suicide, Police Say
Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:21 PM EST

St. Petersburg (FL) Times -
Hillsborough deputies investigating apparent murder-suicide
Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:10 PM EST

Las Vegas (NV) Review-Journal -
Murder-suicide took ’Wonder Woman,’ leaving only questions
Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:19 AM EST

Kansas City (MO) KMBC -
Prosecutors charge husband in murder, attempted suicide
Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:18 PM EST

ABC News-National -
Murder-Suicide Cop Shot Wife, Child in Head
Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:20 AM EST

Kansas City (MO) KCTV -
Police: 1 dead, 1 injured in possible murder, attempted suicide
Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:18 AM EST

Las Vegas (NV) KLAS -
Woman had Affair Months Before Murder-Suicide
Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:19 PM EST

Boston (MA) Globe - Rhode Island - More Headlines
Police: husband called 911 before murder-suicide
Tue Jan 22, 2013 06:25 AM EST

Providence (RI) WJAR
Police: Warwick deaths treated as murder-suicide
Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:25 PM EST

Buffalo (NY) WKBW
Man Kills Estranged Wife, Self in Apparent Murder-Suicide During Daughter’s Birthday Party, Police Say
Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:21 PM EST

Sarasota (FL) Herald-Tribune
Parrish girl, 10, dead after apparent murder-suicide
Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:10 AM EST

Fort Worth (TX) Star-Telegram -
Estranged husband, wife killed in murder-suicide in Grapevine, police say
Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:27 PM EST

Philadelphia (PA) Inquirer -
Two dead in apparent S. Phila. murder-suicide
Sat Jan 19, 2013 03:24 AM EST

Jerusalem Post - Middle East -
Eritrean man nabbed over botched suicide, murder
Sun Jan 13, 2013 09:24 AM EST

Pocatello (ID) Idaho State Journal
Police ID couple in apparent murder-suicide
Sun Jan 6, 2013 5:11 PM EST

Madison (WI) WISC -
Apparent murder-suicide leaves 2 people dead
Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:20 PM EDT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to easttexaslefty (Reply #78)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 10:26 PM

83. two of my classmates did it

one 13 the other 15. A 6yr old cousin shot his 4 yr old sister

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:41 AM

89. So you keep rifles in your closet with kids in the house?

If so, that's just irresponsible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:50 PM

58. Yeah, me too.

My dadswere actually out in plain sight. An old gun rack hung on the wall in the living room and the guns were there. My brother and I knew they were not toys and never to touch them. We didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sissyk (Reply #58)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:34 PM

128. Some folks here not only distrust their kids, they distrust parental upbringing and authority. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #128)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:57 PM

133. we distrust those who pose their babies with guns, who left them unlocked and their kids are dead

now, or have shot others because of their recklessness- yes we do. Why would we feel any other way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #133)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:30 PM

146. I don't much care about posing with guns; I think in my distant past, there is one of me...

Parents who do not don't secure their weapons and train their kids in proper and safe use of guns DO have responsibility.

But the tone of the discussion seems to point to parents who may have lost control of their kids, but seek solutions by blaming those parents who have better control. Second Amendment proponents are often accused of "paranoia," when that descriptor seems more aptly applied to those who are so fearful of having guns under the same roof with kids. Somewhere in the thread, I posted data from the National Safety Council which showed that there were only a few hundred children (ages 5 - 14) who were killed by firearms (yr. 2008) in incidents of ALL types, not just by accident. This death rate pales when compared with any number of other categories of death-causing events. You can only pump up the data when you include ages 15 - 19 ("teens and young adults" is what NSC calls this age group). You can bet the media uses the latter age group!

Your picture-posing notion suggests a prejudice of some sort. Why is posing with a gun, even at a young age, so horrible?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:23 PM

62. My dad got rid of his guns when he had kids

and he was in the military. He would never bring a gun into our home when we were growing up because he knew a friend growing up who found his parents gun and accidentally killed his little sister. Never got over it. Broke my dad's heart.

Fast forward to today and it's my mom who owns all the guns and she has her three grandkids living with her. She believes all the tea party/birther/sandy hook was a hoax nonsense and expects the global economy to crash any day now ushering in rampant inflation blah blah blah. Her grandson has aspergers and is on drugs to combat depression. Situation is a ticking time bomb of irresponsibility and paranoid insanity fed by the likes of FOX news and freerepublic.

Honestly guns in the house are never hidden from children so if the kids are very small it's probably best to keep them out of the house. If they are older and you trust them not to mess with them and keep them safely then it's your call.

My husband is just like my dad because again, he had a good friend growing up who was messing around with his fathers gun and accidentally shot and killed his brother at the kitchen table in front of my husband and several other kids from the neighborhood. (The classic thought the gun wasn't loaded story.) His friends life was ruined. He went from having a scholarship to play basketball in college to going to jail for accidentally murdering his little brother in a moment of stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #62)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:39 PM

129. How do you "hide [guns] from children?" Well, we didn't. We learned how to use them safely...

in fact, we all had our own revolver in case some B & E thug were to smash his way in. The point is NOT TO HIDE GUNS, the point is to become familiar with them, and to safely store and use them. Takes all the tantalizing ver botten glamor out of of firearms, esp. if you use them with some regularity. And we did use them that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:58 PM

69. Same here...

...and ammunition was locked away in a completely separate location -- in one of those antique steel safes that weighs about 400 lbs., with a combination lock that only he and my mother had the combination to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 07:12 PM

71. I grew up around guns

They were never under lock and key either.
But I was taught at a young age to respect guns, and to never ever ever touch them unless I was with my dad and were going hunting or shooting bottles and cans at the quarry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:58 AM

90. Same here. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:15 AM

91. I see

Ive had some responses - would like to add - none of those guns were AR-15's. You can kill a squirrel or a bunny with one of those - but there won't be anything left to eat. He also kept his archery equipment in that closet. Next to that was all of our fishing equipment. Next to that (this was in the garage) were skis, xcountry skis and snowshoes. Above that was camping equipment (shelves above).

Outdoors as a family did not equate to time spent at the gun range. Sometimes in the Adirondacks it's fun to camp and have a deer cross your camp path. And there were always lots of bunnies to enjoy around Cranberry Lake.

And fishing in the Thousand Islands in the summer sure beats sitting up in a tree in Western NY in early December.

Funny - the Fishing equipment never got lucked up. I wonder why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #91)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:46 PM

130. No AR 15s, but a ten-shot semi-auto rifle (built in 1905) was in our household...

Actually, the most common chambering for AR-15s (.223) is suitable for varmints up to the size of coyotes. Would I use them for bunnies? No. But If I were on a hog hunt, yeah, maybe so.

We didn't go to the range, though some consider that family "outdoors" time. Our family members were out in the woods, hunting as well as exploring and fishing.

The reason why fishing equipment is never locked up is because it does not have the real potential of dangerous miss-use. Guns do. That's why time was spent on training us kids to use firearms at an early age (10 or so). No mystery here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:52 PM

103. Same here

They were locked up, but if we had ever even touched one with a pinky, man....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:43 PM

153. I am looking at all these responses from people saying guns were left in reach of them as children

And I am realizing how badly gun control is needed, no parent who would leave their gun in a place their children could access it is a responsible gun owner. Your parents are the reason gun control is needed, even if they did not mean harm they were seriously putting your lives in danger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:49 PM

4. i agree, but then i do see that some people will want guns for self -defense

they should be well managed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:49 PM

5. I grew up with 8 brothers and sisters

 

and guns in the house, we were all taught how to handle firearms, clean them, respect them, and never ever touch them without an adult present. Never had any problems in our household with firearms.

My sons and daughters all grew up with firearms present in our home and never had a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:52 PM

9. Well that's all fine, and I'm glad you never had any issues

But there are simply too many households out there who are NOT as careful, and children nowadays are becoming more and more resourceful. If a 16-yr old kid is determined to get into your safe, chances are that he'll figure out a way somehow. Many of these school shootings are planned well in advance - so how much more difficult would it be for a kid to steal his father's keys, or to figure out the combination?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:00 PM

13. I agree that there are too many irresponsible parents out there.

 

But you can't penalize all gun owners because of the irresponsible ones, like Ron White said: You can't fix stupid.
My gun safe is a biometric one, IE, it recognizes mine and my wife's prints only, it won't open on anyone else's prints.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:29 PM

48. Maybe they'll chop off my finger in the night...

 

... But beyond that I'm not worried.

Biometrics are an amazing thing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:34 PM

52. So?

Your story has nothing to do with the thousands of Americans who are killed by guns in the home every year. You are committing the logical fallacy of small sample size.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #52)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:56 PM

68. Small sample size?

 

I think not, millions of kids grow up around firearms without incident, the ones you hear about are the minority, not the majority.
Every kid lost to a firearm accident or otherwise is a tragedy, but it's not an epidemic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:51 PM

7. I found it was easier to lock my kids in the gun safe.

 

That way I'd always know where they were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:52 PM

8. When my step son was a teenager, he started sneaking stealing and drinking alcohol...

we got rid of the guns because he was out of control....
we got them again when he grew out of it...but now they are in a locked safe
while my current teenager is more sensible than the older son, why tempt fate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:08 PM

18. When I was a kid, a friend hamburgered himself.

And two friends.

He got into unsecured alcohol stores in his parents' house (does anybody *really* need to have more alcohol than can be safetly consumed by the adults in the house in one sitting?).

Then he got into the car with the unsecured car keys. He had his license. He was 16.

45 minutes later the car crossed the dividing line on a 4-lane road and hit a lamp pole doing over 100 mph. He and the passengers went through the windshield. Many yards later what was left of them came to a stop. Newton's 1st law will not be disobeyed. There was no stomach for an open casket at the memorial services.

Could have been worse. It happened between shifts at a steel mill, on the main access road. Had they been on the road 30 minutes earlier they'd have faced the shift change, with tired steel workers on their way home coming in the opposite direction.

Can't blame the kids. Does show that we need to have more stringent alcohol control laws and punish parents if they let their kids get into alcohol and they hurt anybody. Like I said, does anybody really need to buy a fifth of alcohol (much less several at a time) without showing proper justification?

Guns dangerous. We ask if somebody needs that particular right.

Alcohol dangerous. Nobody really *needs* alcohol, but okay. Lost that fight.

Cars dangerous. We don't need them as much as we think. But if we limited them, think of Detroit.

Heck, free speech is dangerous. Look at all the hate speech spouted by (R), not to mention racists and sexists. Do they need that speech to be free? Of course not. You need to justify rights considered inalienable.

M'eh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:12 PM

36. Why Not?

 

Why can't you blame the kids? He had a license, I am sure they had discussed drunk driving while he was getting it. He knew what he was doing so why not hold him accountable for his actions? Why do you want to blame the object (guns, alcohol, drugs) instead of holding the perpetrator responsible for their actions? When my cousin was putting heroin in her arm was it the Heroins fault or hers? I have yet to see a bottle of rum driving drunk or a gun shooting someone all on its own. How about we start making people responsible for their actions? Does your opinion extend to such things as lawn mowers? If I stick my hand under a running lawn mower is it (as you apparently would conclude) the lawn mowers fault for being evil and cutting off my fingers or would you blame the manufacturer because he didn't foresee someone being that stupid?

Guns are not inherently dangerous.
Alcohol is not inherently dangerous.
Cars, motorcycles, wood chippers, axes, and hammers are not inherently dangerous.
A irresponsible and/or foolish person IS inherently dangerous and will eventually injure ot kill someone.

Rights are god given. Privileges are earned. The rights enumerated in the bill of rights are a few among many. They can all be boiled down to you have a right to live and preserve that life, pursue your chosen route to happiness without government interference and the right to not be unnecessarily persecuted, detained or have your property confiscated by the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to subknave (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:27 PM

42. You do not think there should be restrictions on cars, no driving licenses or age restrictions?

Trying to clarify what you mean as that seems to be it. No regulations for owning or using anything because it should be just personal responsibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to subknave (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:39 PM

55. Because they are inherently dangerous the issue is, are the users responsible

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:58 PM

134. "You need to justify rights considered inalienable"? Not really. That's why they are inalienable.

Besides, who would I justify them to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #134)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:09 PM

142. another human being besides your own stubborn self, for starters

really.

'wayne lapierre told me to blather about a falsehood' doen't make something so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #142)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:19 PM

144. Inalienable. Speech, RKBA, assembly, etc. No justification needed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #144)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:43 PM

147. here we have a Senator who also thinks your attitude is "dumb", to quote him

SCHUMER: Heller also said that there should be reasonable limitations, that they’re allowed reasonable limitations. I don’t think that lady needs an assault weapon. I don’t think she needs a 100-round clip. I don’t think, for instance, that those things would help her in any way. So so to say she has a right to bear arms: yes. To say, just like on the first amendment — we say you can’t scream “fire” in a crowd falsely, we have anti-pornography laws, anti-libel laws. There are reasonable limitations. And the NRA , in many instances, doesn’t believe in any limitation at all. That’s not unconstitutional. That just is dumb.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/20/1474481/schumer-rips-ted-cruzs-pro-gun-propaganda-that-just-is-dumb/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #147)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:21 PM

150. One technical response: we've been in semi-auto stasis for, oh, 75 yrs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #150)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:53 PM

154. great. so allowing any yahoo to have a semi-auto has gone on for as long as marijuana prohibition

both really backwards things that are going to be changing soon.

good news.

more weed, less guns, happier people.

get with the program

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #154)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:57 AM

159. Telling, you should use a prohibition metaphor, but you miss the point...

All this talk about banning "military style assault" whatever is just a way of conjuring a new fear about an old technology. The fact remains, the civilian population has been stuck in a rut regarding weapons-types for generations. As long as someone has a clean criminal b.g. and hasn't been adjudicated mentally incompetent, they don't have to suffer someone's heel-kicking definition of "Yahoo" written into law.

If you have a better way of weeding out psycholigically dangerous gun-owners, let's hear it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #159)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:49 AM

160. conjuring new fear? 4 mass shootings since July? hello?

If you have a better way of weeding out psycholigically dangerous gun-owners, let's hear it.

there is only one way really. you have to know who is buying guns. look at the chart below and tell me why there are 14 states with no BG check, AWB, registration, licensing, waiting period, or carry restrictions. please.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/17/states-take-action/

The fact remains, the civilian population has been stuck in a rut regarding weapons-types for generations.

please read this unbiased article-
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/23/a-look-back-at-gun-control-history/

the rut you speak of is the gov. trying to pass any kind of sane law against the opposition of some plastic-gun, exploding bullet, and money loving lobbyists.

As long as someone has a clean criminal b.g. and hasn't been adjudicated mentally incompetent, they don't have to suffer someone's heel-kicking definition of "Yahoo" written into law.

you seem to think that nobody needs to be checked because humans are fundamentally good and trustworthy.
that has not been proven by the tides of history, to say the least.

innocent people who DON'T want guns shouldn't suffer death because gun fans are too paranoid to fill out a form even though they have done the same for their car and phone which both track GPS location throughout the day.

***

from the MSNBC link:
For example, Connecticut’s assault weapons ban allowed the Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle Nancy Lanza purchased and kept in her home, easily accessible to her unstable son. He used the gun to shoot 20 children and six educators dead. The state ban was modeled after the 1994 federal assault weapons ban.

Mother Jones researched the gun violence of the past 30 years and found that since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings. Twenty-five of these shootings occurred since 2006, and seven took place in 2012. What’s striking is that most of the killers obtained their guns legally.

Generally, the gun control versus the gun rights debate exists focuses on an individual’s right to bear arms and the government’s obligation to counter violence and crime. The wording of the Second Amendment–specifically “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”–seems unambiguous but in fact the interpretation of the law has evolved.

In the 18th and 19th century, armed civilians used guns as a means of survival and protection from foreign enemies. As westward expansion occurred, frontiersman used guns to arm themselves against Native Americans and potential threats in the uncharted territories. Then in 1927, Congress outlawed the mail-order sale of guns or concealed firearms after mob violence broke out from Prohibition. However, mob violence escalated so quickly with the usage of Tommy guns in gang wars that Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934, which taxed firearms under 18 inches and on machine guns and required gun registration. This act became the first federal gun-control law.

-skip-

Although the ATF was granted expanded power, the NRA became increasingly agitated, prompting the gun lobby to create a new lobbying branch, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, which aimed to nullify the 1968 law. In 1986, President Reagan signed the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act which eased the penalties from the 1968 law, banned a federal registry of gun owners, and disallowed the ATF’s power to inspect gun dealers.

But the gun culture changed again in 1981 when John Hinckley, Jr. tried to assassinate President Reagan and nearly killed his press secretary James Brady instead. He and his wife Sarah became activists. “You can begin to see a sea change of attitudes during this time,” said Sarah Brady. “The NRA was fighting against the cop-killing bullets and plastic guns, and we got into an alliance with law enforcement and we just got together and said, ‘What’s the first thing we should do?’ And we all said, ‘Background checks.’”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #160)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:17 AM

162. Your post confirms my contention that the selectiin

of firearms available to the American civilian population is in stasis; magazine capacity and attachability or not is an accoutrement and ultimately a numbers game, and has little bearing on crime (the VT killer just carried many mags of politically-correct limits).

I like the Fifth Amendment. You need warrants and writs signed by judges before rights are infringed. Meet that requirement first.


I have no objection to everyone going through NICS, but there is that commerce clause thingy. Got any suggestions as to how to get around that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #162)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:16 PM

163. you post shows that you get your 'law ideas' from a pro-gun site

and not the supreme court or reality. blah blah your 'right' isn't absolute, and having to register a gun isn't 'infringing' anything.

are your rights to drive infringed by having a license?

get off it.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #163)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:26 PM

165. So many words, so little addressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #165)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:37 PM

167. you've got to read them to catch the meaning of the words.

or don't. whatever.

i'll i've gotten from your 'ideas' is 'yay! more gunz!'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:54 PM

132. Sounds like a wise, responsible course of action. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:58 PM

12. In rural america it has been common to have guns in the house

Hunting rifles have been kept in the houses of my immediate and extended family for many generations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:01 PM

14. So

So I assume that there should not be cars or liquor kept in homes where children are present, either?

Because it's not all that uncommon for some of those determined 16 year old's to steal some booze from their parents liquor cabinet and take the family car for a spin and the sad reality is that such occurrences sometimes end in tragedy. So unless we are simply being arbitrary and selective in our prophylactic measures, then better get rid of the car's & booze, too, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:03 PM

16. We snuck into our parents liquor cabinet, not the gun cabinet.

 

Much more fun then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:00 PM

135. You would bring that up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:10 PM

20. You gun lovers never fail to disappoint

So predictable. You're more concerned over your fast and easy access to your guns than you are the lives of children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:23 PM

24. So

So using your logic, people that keep their cars and booze at home are equally unconcerned about the lives of children?

Your assumptions are just plain silly. My children have all been taught gun safety and none of them have access to my firearms. Responsible gun owners take adequate precautions. Some people don't and then tragedy can result. That's the case whether you are talking about a kid drinking a toxic chemical that was stored under the sink, or falling into a swimming pool when the gate was left open, or crashing the family car after drinking some booze taken from the family liqour cabinet. Sometimes bad things happen, as unfortunate as that may be. Should we ban private swimming pools? After all, nobody needs one, right? If they want to go swimming, make them go to a public facility where there are lifeguards. If it saves one childs life, it's worth it, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:31 PM

27. Cars and booze are not designed to kill other people

Guns, on the other hand, are primarily designed to kill people.

Do you believe we should have ANY gun laws at all? After all, we don't need to worry about "responsible" gun owners, and criminals don't obey laws anyways. So in your opinion, do we even need any gun laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:53 PM

31. Yet they kill more than guns, every year in the US

Whatever you think they're designed for.

If you're truly concerned about the safety of our children, why don't you see this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:29 PM

145. If the numbers were reversed, would your view change?

Because right now, they are in a dead heat and gun deaths are about to surpass vehicular deaths.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Can't you see that what each is designed for is highly relevant. Cars are designed to transport humans as conveniently and SAFELY as possible.
Guns are designed to be efficient at KILLING.

For decades we have fought for safer cars, resulting in a huge reduction in fatalities. There are more cars on the road at any one time than there are gun owners.

Makes one wonder what you might not be seeing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:26 PM

40. Short answer NO.

 

The US had NO gun laws for almost 150 years and didn't feel the need. Then they decided to ban alcohol which resulted in a bloodbath of violence until the government of the time stepped in with a tax law which placed massive (for the time) taxes on machineguns, sawed off shotguns, hand grenades and silencers among other things. For another 40 years these were deemed adequate and since few people felt the need for a machinegun (and if they did they would pay the tax, meaning only the rich could afford them) or hand grenade. You could purchase a firearm through the mail. After WWII you could buy a surplus gun at the hardware store for $20.00 (a M-1 Carbine which was classified as an "assault weapon in the 1994 ban). Then Kennedy was assasinated and "we have to do something" so the current restrictions and system of licenses and dealers was put into place. These were extended in 1994 with the background check system. Do you honestly think that if we got rid of ALL gun laws the picture of violence in the US would radically change? We still have criminals using machineguns occaisionally, we still have bank robberies, we still have the ban on drugs fueling turf wars and violence in our cities. Other than the amount of government paperwork stored in files around the country what has any of these laws changed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to subknave (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 07:15 PM

72. To the extent that getting rid of the existing gun laws wouldn't result in an uptick in gun violence

(and I don't know that is the case nor do you), it merely proves that the gun laws we have now are ineffective.

Before you set your hair on fire, understand that I'm not advocating broadly banning guns. I think that there are categories of guns and magazines that should be restricted. I think that there are steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of gun violence or gun accidents by requiring training and background checks.

You seem to think that the solution is simply to punish those that use guns to harm someone rather than take steps to prevent that harm. Do you support the same approach to automobiles? After all, we don't have to require people to prove they know how to operate a car and force them to get a license. We could just let anyone, of any age, drive and if they happen to get in accident, we can punish them for that. We don't have to make it illegal to drive while under the influence. Not everyone who gets behind the wheel after a few drinks or a joint causes an accident. Most don't. We could just let folks drink as much as they like and unless and until they actually hurt someone, say that's okay. Speed limits -- same thing. Let everyone drive as fast (or slow) as they want. Most of the time they won't be hurting anyone and when they do , we can get them.

Can you honestly say you'd feel safer in a world in which no effort was made to prevent harm before it occurs? We can't and shouldn't try to prevent any harm from occurring -- but we can take steps, as we do when it comes to the roads, to reduce the risks in a reasonable way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to subknave (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:34 PM

75. Wrong - there were always plenty of gun laws in the US from the beginning.

While an individual living out on the frontier might have carried an arsenal because there was no one living around him/her/them, in many towns and small hamlets, guns were restricted to the home. "Gun Checks" were common in most frontier towns, to ensure that when people came in to town to drink and socialize, all they had to worry about was being knifed in a fight. In some towns, business owners had to get permission to keep firearms on their business for protection only.
And yes, historically, violence decreased in those towns that had gun laws that would be considered pretty restrictive by today's standards - when only the police force of the area were allowed to carry firearms in public, and in most cases, kept them locked up in the town jail/police station. The "Wild West" and restriction-free gun usage only existed in movies and penny-dreadfuls and in the NRA; as usual, reality was pretty bland and pedestrian, and frankly, most people were too overwhelmed trying to get their farms and businesses to thrive on the frontier to worry about gun rights - and certainly not the rights of the drifters and cowboys that might occasionally come into town looking for a little bit of civilization.


You will find that until a state court ruling in 1822 (Bliss v. Commonwealth of KY), the Second Amendment was not seen as protecting an individual's right to bear arms - prior to that, it was legally understood by the states and federal entities as only relating to the regulation of state militia forces and their ability to maintain sufficient arms. Even in that ruling, it was understood that there were "reasonable" restrictions that states and communities could put on that right, such as statutes against concealed carry, confiscation for type weapon or irresponsible usage, communal "gun checks" or storage requirements in common areas, and prohibitions against certain persons carrying guns. The Supreme Court only got involved with the Second Amendment starting with very flawed US v. Cruikshank in 1873 - which gave the states and locals for gun control. So basically in the US, the idea of the individual right to own firearms for protection was morphed out of the Second Amendment only in the early 19th century, and even then, the ability to restrict firearm activity (the regulation portion of the 2nd Amendment) that was outside "self" protection or militia purposes as determined by a community was not prohibited.

Gun Control and Gun Rights in the US have never been "simple", except when people think they should be the ones that determine what those rights are.

Haele

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:07 PM

46. Not so

No, guns are not primarily designed to kill people. Sorry, but that just is not true. Guns are designed to shoot a small projectile at high rates of speed. That result has a number of different purposes, one of which may be to kill people but it's certainly not the primary or even the most common result of shooting a firearm. I've owned guns for about 35 years, have fired tens of thousands of rounds and never shot at or killed a human being.

Do I think we should have any gun laws? Sure, I have no problem with most of the gun laws that we currently have. I'd also support making all sales go through an FFL license holder and increasing the penalties for violating existing gun laws. What I don't support is banning certain types of weapons based primarily on cosmetic features, for reasons that have nothing to do with functionality or which won't have any tangible impact on actually reducing the potential for gun violence.

As with many things, there are going to be a certain number of deaths resulting from lack of proper precautions or due to the fact that some people are simply idiots. Unfortunately, sometimes innocent victims die as a result of the acts of those irresponsible individuals. But I don't believe you can legislate for every degree of idiocy and still enjoy the type of society that we do. 3 times as many kids die every year due to accidental drownings in swimming pools, as are killed accidentally by guns. I don't think banning either swimming pools or guns is the answer, I think education and the adverse impact of resulting civil liability is a far better means of addressing those problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 07:08 PM

70. While guns are capable of killing people, that is not their only or even primary use

More guns are used more often for hunting and target shooting than for killing people.

Accidental drowning and accidental poisoning are more frequent causes of accidental death among children than firearms. But no one suggests that it should be illegal for someone with a child to have a swimming pool or to keep toxic materials (including medications, cleansing products, weed killer, pesticides etc.) in their homes.

We need to do a better job of regulating firearms, including more affirmative actions aimed at assault-type weapons, large magazines, etc. We need background checks, mandatory firearms training etc. But we will get nowhere with blanket calls to ban all firearms from people's homes. Its ridiculous and only fuels the crazies that claim we are coming to take away their guns.

For the record, I have devoted a portion of my career to providing pro bono legal assistance to one of the nation's leading gun control organizations. That experience as much as anything has taught me to focus on the possible rather than the impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:31 PM

49. My kids are good...

 

If I spend my time worrying about other people's stupidity I'd never get anything else done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:34 PM

53. God, you gun nuts are bad at logical reasoning.

That's a false equivalency. Cars and liquor don't kill when used as directed. Guns do.

Christ on a crutch I'm sick of this stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #53)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:20 PM

60. Fail

Guns can kill, as can cars or booze. 99% of the time that guns are used, however, they don't kill. Your perception of both the purpose and the reality of gun usage in this country is substantially flawed. But don't let facts get in the way of a good prejudice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:01 PM

15. Thanks Dr. Spock

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:07 PM

17. Let's just keep them in plastic bubbles until they're 18

This is really just ridiculous. I could walk around my house and find 50 things that could potentially seriously injure or kill a child. Cabinet under the sink full of cleaning chemicals? Antifreeze in the garage? Butcher knives on the kitchen counter? A large flat-screen TV or bookshelf that's not secured to a wall? A grape or piece of hotdog they could choke on? A flight of steep basement stairs? A 2nd-story balcony that they could fall off of? An uncapped electrical socket they could stick a fork into? A yew bush full of poisonous yewberries in the backyard? A swimming pool? A busy street outside my front door? A large dog? A brown recluse spider hiding under the woodpile?

I went through the "babyproof EVERYTHING" stage a few years ago, and almost drove myself insane in the process. As much as we all want it to work, it's completely unrealistic to expect we can protect our children from every one of life's possible dangers. We lock up what we can, teach them what they can and can't touch, and grow eyes in the back of our heads, just like millions of parents before us did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:11 PM

21. When was the last time a kid used cleaning chemicals to kill several people?

You gun nuts are so damned predictable in your opposition and wild comparisons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:23 PM

25. When was the last time a kid used alcohol to kill several people?

Every. Fucking. Day.

Every day in this country, a teenager gets behind the wheel and kills himself or someone else, often multiple someone elses. I knew a family who was killed by a drunk high schooler coming home from an all-nighter in the 1990's.

If you want to address the leading cause of mass murder committed by kids and teens (drunk driving), I'd suggest you need to re-evaluate your priorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:41 PM

65. And you're so predictable too, in your zeal to ban guns.

You're looking for any argument to get rid of them. Not just assault weapons, ALL weapons -- can't have 'em in homes with children.

I wonder how I survived childhood, given that my father had guns. I knew where he kept 'em too. And if he even suspected I touched them, he'd have tanned my hide.

And oh, by the way, if we're all "gun nuts," then you must be a "gun grabber."

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:57 PM

136. So you have "predictable" insults stemming from a "predictable" post?


"Children Killed by Guns
How many children are killed by guns is a complicated question. The answer depends on a number of factors, including age range, and whether homicide, suicide and/or unintentional-injuries are included in the figure. If the age range is 0-19 years, and homicide, suicide, and unintentional injuries are included, then the total firearms-related deaths for 2008 is 2,966 . This is equivalent to over 8 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists. The 2,966 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 breaks down to 123 unintentional, 748 suicides, and 2,037 homicides, 39 for which the intent could not be determined, and 19 due to legal intervention. Viewed by age group, 88 of the total firearms-related deaths were of children under 5-years-old, 288 were children 5-14 years old, and 2,590 were teens and young adults 15-19 years old."

http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/Resources/res_stats_services/Pages/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx#question12
_______________
The National Safety Council acknowledges the figures "commonly used by journalists," but when a reasonable definition of "children" is used (5 -14) we find 288 TOTAL deaths-by-firearms occurred in year 2008. Only when you stretch the definition of "children" (termed "teens and young adults" by NSC) do you get a total of 2,590 for the age group 15-19. This age group is also one where children are emancipated, more likely to be out of a parent's supervision, and more likely to engage in risky behavior, such as homicides. IMO, to use that "teens and young adults" group is to skew the data of childhood deaths to support a narrative of the dangers of guns in the household.

Peruse the NSC data on other sites, and you will see that children are far, far more likely to be killed by other means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:55 AM

96. Your thought process

is extremely naive'. Good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:09 PM

19. sorry, I think that's ridiculous

Millions upon millions of children have grown up safely with responsible gun owner parents. Personally, I know dozens and dozens of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:13 PM

22. Maybe we shouldn't have any gun laws at all then

Because after all, "millions upon millions" of adults are "responsible" gun owners, and criminals don't obey gun laws anyways, so why have ANY gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:16 PM

37. you anti-gunners

 

are so predictable in your responses, everytime someone disputes what you claim should be law you automatically go to the extreme in saying "maybe we shouldn't have any gun laws, since everyone is responsible" and so on. You guys are such "delicate flowers"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarthWindFire (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:26 PM

41. Seems to me that gun lovers oppose new gun legislation on that exact basis

For example, on the issue of banning large-capacity magazines. Gun lovers have been steadfast in their opposition to this, saying that there are perfectly legitimate uses for 30-round magazines, that people can just make their own clips, and that criminals won't obey that law anyways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #41)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 04:18 PM

47. do you think

 

it is impossible for someone to manufacture their own magazines? I have no problem with banning those "high capacity" magazines, but define high-capacity, is my 14 round magazine in my S&W .40 CAL defines as high capacity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarthWindFire (Reply #47)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:44 PM

66. Exactly.

My 9 mm holds 15 in the magazine. How many magazines will they let me own?

I don't have a problem in theory with banning hi-capacity magazines, but it all depends on the definition of hi-capacity!

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #41)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 07:32 PM

73. Heres why we oppose many new regulations.

We've met you half way across the room. Yes, we really have.

The national firearms act of 1934.

The gun control act of 1968.

The brady law.

Thousands of state and local gun laws. Yes, thousands.

You had an assault weapon ban for ten years and you had a chance to show what it did, and how effective it was after it expired. You failed to show that it did anything.


We generally agreed with most of those things, and every single one of them, were sold to us on the basis that they would decrease x amount of violence, or increase public safety or some such similar sentiment. Now the gun control advocates and the gun banners in their ranks want more. That crowd is busy demonizing us, the group that have already walked halfway across the room - you know that "compromise" we're always hearing about - and gotten NOTHING in return. Calling us extremists and absolutists, pretending that those things I listed above do not exist, and acting as if WE haven't already walked halfway across the room.

Its blatantly offensive, completely dishonest, and factually devoid of reality. It invites...no...begs opposition.

Now that same bunch wants us to walk farther across the room. Wants us to give up more, give our blessing to further restrictions that we KNOW will not change anything for anyone beyond restricting we who aren't the problem to begin with. Labels us individually and as a group "extremists" and "absolutists" if we oppose it. And like the restrictions previous - we get nothing in return. All while spouting blanket untruths and ridiculous distortions about our position out the other sides of their mouths. Compromise, particularly under those terms and conditions, has never been beneficial to those that value their rights, in this debate or any other.

Thats a valid and reasonable position, whether you see it that way or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #73)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 07:47 PM

74. Wow

 

I couldn't of said it better myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #73)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:01 PM

85. here's why we oppose you.

there are 4 million NRA members, maybe 100 million gun owners. ( i am one, by the way)

that makes 200 million non gun owners.

Some 58 percent favor strengthening gun laws in the United States. Just 5 percent felt such laws should be loosened, while 35 percent said they should be left unchanged.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/gun-control-poll_n_2486116.html

so that's ~ a 2:1 ratio pro gun regulation.

do you realize the new proposals are about stopping the 30-40% of gun sales that are illegal? and not taking away anything?
even the feinstein thing, there are 900 guns allowed and 120 military-style banned. that sounds pretty fair.

your whole 'position' IS absolutist- if you are defending the NRA, that is really the offensive thing here.

if you are defending yourself, you are misinformed (probably by the NRA)

thousands of laws? do you realize the NRA helped pass the NFA and GCA? when they were good people?

and this chart shows a lot less than 1000 laws. i count 14 states with ZERO gun laws.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/17/states-take-action/

you have more guns than cars or people, on what planet is that NOTHING you so dramatically capitalized?

you are the one avoiding facts. you KNOW sensible guns laws are bad bad bad? that isn't an extreme statement?

who is asking you to give up anything? that is a dishonest statement right there.

plus, you seem to completely ignore the Supreme Court: (Heller)
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #85)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:47 PM

100. Uh huh.

"Some 58 percent favor strengthening gun laws in the United States. Just 5 percent felt such laws should be loosened, while 35 percent said they should be left unchanged."

Some things are not up to the whims of a simple majority.

"do you realize the new proposals are about stopping the 30-40% of gun sales that are illegal? and not taking away anything?"

I don't buy those cooked percentages. The anti-gun movement can not state numbers without cooking them. The history of the movement is replete with examples, should you need any.

"even the feinstein thing, there are 900 guns allowed and 120 military-style banned. that sounds pretty fair."

The restrictionist side ALWAYS thinks their proposals are fair. Show me one single example of something they have pushed for that they didn't think was fair.

"your whole 'position' IS absolutist- if you are defending the NRA, that is really the offensive thing here."

And thats where your mask comes off. One who agrees with current law, but doesn't agree with new laws CAN NOT by definition, be absolutist or extremist, because of all the laws he or she DOES agree with. I'll give you credit for your attempt to change the meaning of absolutist on the fly though, regardless of how transparent it may have been.

"if you are defending yourself, you are misinformed (probably by the NRA)

Uh...I don't know exactly what message this sentence is intended to convey...but...I am a pretty simple gun owner - I own a single functional handgun, and a single functional .17 caliber traditional rifle, and have no aspirations to own anything more - I have what I need. Unlike so many others, I will not presume to judge, measure, weigh, or decide gun ownership on the part of others however, when it comes to their wants and needs. Its as simple as standing up for constitutionally protected civil liberties as far as I'm concerned, and a matter of principle. A quaint notion these days, I know.

"thousands of laws? do you realize the NRA helped pass the NFA and GCA? when they were good people?"

I'm aware they did. That however dioes not invalidate anything i've said.

"and this chart shows a lot less than 1000 laws. i count 14 states with ZERO gun laws."

And this is where you on the other side of the issue lose. Every time. Do you REALLY believe there are NO gun laws in those states? Really? If you don't, you admit to dishonesty by posting something that makes it appear that there are no gun laws in spite of knowing to the contrary. Thats called misrepresentation.

If you really DO believe that...well, then you didn't bother to take the time to educate yourself.

So you tell me - which was it in your case?

I used to live in AZ, so I KNOW that your "14 states with no gun laws" is false in that state alone. Go ahead and google "X gun laws" where X is any of those states you mentioned. Go ahead. You'll see not a single one of them has ZERO gun laws. Not a single one. Its anti-gun noise which you seem very eager to buy into.

"you have more guns than cars or people, on what planet is that NOTHING you so dramatically capitalized?"

That wasn't "nothing", it was "nothing in return". Everything the pro-gun movement has gotten such as CCW laws, has been in spite of the anti-gun contingent, not because any of it was part of any compromise. Compromise with the anti-gun movement, has ALWAYS meant "if you meet us half way on this, we'll be content this year, and wait until next year or the year after to come back for more, and you'll get nothing in return then either". Thats a fact jack, and one you seem very eager to ignore.

"you are the one avoiding facts. you KNOW sensible guns laws are bad bad bad? that isn't an extreme statement?"

I have yet to see any new gun law proposed that would actually prevent another mass shooting, or even has any reasonable likelyhood of mitigating one. I do not believe that any law can be made from the gun ownership end of the equation, that can or would. You can fault me for that all you like, but thats what I think and believe.

"who is asking you to give up anything? that is a dishonest statement right there."

Give ground. To a movement, that is chock full of people that:

A. Don't give a shit about gun owners or their rights

B. Blames gun owners for all the things bad people do with guns (you have seen the posts saying "gun owners have blood on their hands" as everyone else here has so don't go there)

C. has been attacking gun ownership for decades

D. Has used every dishonest trick in the book to try and get their way, and proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be dishonest and untrustworthy


"plus, you seem to completely ignore the Supreme Court: (Heller)"

I don't ignore it at all, in fact you are the one leaving something out:

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.


2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf


If you think that semi-automatic weapons both military and non-military looking, and standard capacity magazines in both handguns and rifles are not in "common use" right now, I got a bridge to sell you.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #100)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:27 PM

112. you are living in a strange world, for sure

Some things are not up to the whims of a simple majority.

so why then does the NRA seems to think it is in charge of (not) writing any and all gun laws?
because they are extremists.

I don't buy those cooked percentages. The anti-gun movement can not state numbers without cooking them. The history of the movement is replete with examples, should you need any

http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/nij-guns-in-america-national-survey.pdf
try the ^^^ dept. of justice, maybe.

i don't want examples. i also don't want to hear your 'opinion'.
About 211,000 handguns and
382,000 long guns were stolen in
noncommercial thefts in 1994.

so today its more like 500,000. good reason to have them registered and licensed.

Evidence suggests that this survey
and others like it overestimate
the frequency with which firearms
were used by private citizens to defend
against criminal attack.

Target audience: Criminal justice
and public health researchers and
practitioners. Legislators and policymakers
at all levels of government.


Slightly more than half of all privately
owned firearms were stored
unlocked; 16 percent of firearms
were stored unlocked and loaded.


all three of the above suck, and need to be address by REGULATION. not banning so don't get your shorts in a knot.

The restrictionist side ALWAYS thinks their proposals are fair. Show me one single example of something they have pushed for that they didn't think was fair.

perhaps because they are completely fair.

And thats where your mask comes off. One who agrees with current law, but doesn't agree with new laws CAN NOT by definition, be absolutist or extremist, because of all the laws he or she DOES agree with. I'll give you credit for your attempt to change the meaning of absolutist on the fly though, regardless of how transparent it may have been.

great, 14 states have basically NO gun laws, and you agree with that.
so what if you are happy with your state's laws? what is good? what laws do you 'agree' with? free access to sniper rifles?
you think everything is hunky dory all over america, and all the laws are just perfect the way they are?
that is simply preposterous. of course you are being extreme- "all facts are doo doo and i know exactly how things should be" sounds pretty non-compromising to me. and to the MAJORITY of people, who don't really give a crap about defending guns or some warped version of the 2nd amendment.

Unlike so many others, I will not presume to judge, measure, weigh, or decide gun ownership on the part of others however, when it comes to their wants and needs. Its as simple as standing up for constitutionally protected civil liberties as far as I'm concerned, and a matter of principle.


trying to impose your 'concerns' on an entire country is foolish. especially when you have all the guns you need. you are standing up for millions of strangers, many of them CRIMINALS.
aren't the people getting shot dead literally every 45 minutes strangers, too? so why don't you care about them? some are criminals. some are little kids. way too many little kids. and please don't post any crap about using kids for politics, that crap is inhumane.

I'm aware they did. That however does not invalidate anything i've said.


yes, it does. the NRA used to be a group of good people (the leaders of the org)
1. “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” said NRA President Karl T. Frederick, a 1920 Olympic gold-medal winner for marksmanship who became a lawyer, praising state gun control laws in Congress. He testified before the 1938 federal gun control law passed. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/7_uncovered_quotes_that_reveal_just_how_crazy_the_nras_become/

compare that with:
2) “There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

3) “iolent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster, and you’ve got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/21/1372001/the-10-craziest-quotes-from-the-nra-press-conference/

i'm seeing a bit of a mental disconnect, there. in lapierre and elsewhere.

Do you REALLY believe there are NO gun laws in those states? Really? If you don't, you admit to dishonesty by posting something that makes it appear that there are no gun laws in spite of knowing to the contrary. Thats called misrepresentation

Arizona gun laws are found mostly in Title 13, Chapter 31 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. There is no registration or licensing of non-NFA firearms in Arizona. In fact, Section 13-3108 subsection B prohibits any political subdivision of the state from enacting any laws requiring licensing or registration. According to state law, a person must be 18 years of age to purchase any non-NFA firearm from any source; however, there is a federal age limit of 21 years on handgun purchases from federal firearms licensees.
Open carry

On foot, any adult person who is not a "prohibited possessor" may openly carry a loaded firearm visible to others in a belt holster, gun case or scabbard. Generally, a person must be at least 18 years of age to possess or openly carry a firearm.

from wiki

The Ohio constitution acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms. Ohio law provides very few additional restrictions on gun ownership and transactions than the restrictions provided by Federal Law. Ohio gun law relates mostly with the carrying and transportation of guns.

it isn't my job to explain the gun laws that you don't seem to give a crap about. YOU look it up, there are 14 states on the chart, completely blank.

only TWO of them are 'blue' states, which might make you think, if you were more open-minded.

what are the gun laws in AZ? you have to be 18 to buy a rifle, 21 for a handgun. and you can't drink when you bring your gun into a bar.

we aren't living in the wild west anymore (which actually had more gun control laws than we do)

Compromise with the anti-gun movement, has ALWAYS meant "if you meet us half way on this, we'll be content this year, and wait until next year or the year after to come back for more, and you'll get nothing in return then either". Thats a fact jack, and one you seem very eager to ignore.

why would i take your opinion as a fact? what about the fact that the NRA opposes all gun laws? it must be a fact, its on their site.

what does 'you get nothing in return' mean? you already said you have all the guns you want.

this leads me to believe you are a representative of the gun industry.

my point is 'we get nothing' sounds foolish. how many guns can you possibly want? oh, right, its a multi-million dollar industry, so in reality your drmatic invokation of human rights is about $$$.

a lot of which go out of the country (russian ar-15s, big business). good for you, what a patriot!

I do not believe that any law can be made from the gun ownership end of the equation, that can or would. You can fault me for that all you like, but thats what I think and believe.


ok, sure, not extreme in the least. go ahead and believe it if you want.

smoking laws stopped people from smoking in bars. that is an actual addiction, whereas guns are kind of a fetish.
the NFA seems to have stopped murders committed by fully automatic machine gun pretty well.
so try and be a little more informed.

A. Don't give a shit about gun owners or their rights

oh, all those poor millions in CA and MA being oppressed! there will be a revolt! for sure!

B. Blames gun owners for all the things bad people do with guns (you have seen the posts saying "gun owners have blood on their hands" as everyone else here has so don't go there)

the people that do the bad things own the guns, so... you are projecting something somebody typed on a chatboard into a vast conspiracy.

C. has been attacking gun ownership for decades

more conspiracy.

D. Has used every dishonest trick in the book to try and get their way, and proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be dishonest and untrustworthy


again with the conspiracy.

I don't ignore it at all, in fact you are the one leaving something out:

no, you underlined two things and COMPLETELY ignored the rest:

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.


this was from 1939, you legal whiz, and says that not just the 'militia' has the right to guns, all people do. they have the right to use the same guns as the militia. those in common use. in 1939. NOT the type used by the MILITARY, by the way.

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.


you have to read the whole sentence to get at the meaning there! the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.


that seems pretty self-explanatory...

semi-auto for hunting is disgustingly unsportsmanlike, in my book.

had to all all the way to 31 to find one with an external mag. guess which kind?

i saw maybe 1 more of those silly guns on that list, so not really that common. or good, i guess.

Despite the recent enthusiasm to create AR-style rifles for deer-size and larger game, the concept isn't without its problems. At the top of the list is the weight of the rifles chambered in rounds adequate for the task. Compared with similarly configured bolt guns, they are bulky and uncomfortable to carry
http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/2011/05/best-hunting-rifles-decade

Highest capacity for a semi automatic hunting rifle? - Yahoo!7 Answers
au.answers.yahoo.com › ... › Sports › Outdoor Recreation › Hunting
9 answers - Mar 12, 2008
Most states limit the magazine capacity to five rounds, and many semi-automatic hunting rifles have only four round magazine capacity. If it has ...

that;s why nobody is banning things in 'common use', you are just spouting more conspiracy.

dangerous + unusual = made to take a 30 or 100 round mag, which are easily gettable for $30.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #112)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:09 AM

116. Yes, its called reality. Some people like it, others deny its existence.

"so why then does the NRA seems to think it is in charge of (not) writing any and all gun laws?
because they are extremists."

Oh, so now the definition of "extremist" is powerful lobby group...Mkay...better let AARP and the other powerful lobby groups know.

"i don't want examples. i also don't want to hear your 'opinion'."

Then don't read my posts.

You could always spend spend time on the brady "were not a gun ban group, we dont support gun bans" campaign website reading about how they're sup

"so today its more like 500,000. good reason to have them registered and licensed."

Registration of firearms at the federal level is against federal law, per the firearm owners protection act of 1986. Go ahead and do away with it so you can register them, and you do away with the hughes amendment allowing brand new fully automatic weapons to be sold. Have fun with that.

"perhaps because they are completely fair."

Exhibit A.

"great, 14 states have basically NO gun laws, and you agree with that."

"Basically". LOL. Weasle worded sophistry, nothing more.

Anything short of registration and licensing is "basically no gun laws" in your view. Thanks for letting me and everyone else know where you stand.

"it isn't my job to explain the gun laws that you don't seem to give a crap about. YOU look it up, there are 14 states on the chart, completely blank."

Yes, isn't it special? The thing is, my friend, the chart may be blank, but that doesn't mean the state has ZERO gun laws. In this thing we call reality, a place in which I'm firmly rooted, and you appear to be peeking in and making ill informed and factually devoid observations, those states DO have gun laws. Just not the gun control crowds chosen gun laws. Welcome to reality in America. Most states don't have "gun control supporter" approved law packages. in fact, besides CA, NY and NJ, you're just shit out of luck for the most part. The elected representatives of most jurisdictions are told by their bosses - the people they represent - that such things are not desired. See, thats how things work, in reality.

"only TWO of them are 'blue' states, which might make you think, if you were more open-minded."

Non-sequitur. The divide on the gun issue is far less red vs blue than it is rural vs urban.

"so what if you are happy with your state's laws? what is good? what laws do you 'agree' with? free access to sniper rifles? you think everything is hunky dory all over america, and all the laws are just perfect the way they are? That is simply preposterous. of course you are being extreme- "all facts are doo doo and i know exactly how things should be" sounds pretty non-compromising to me. and to the MAJORITY of people, who don't really give a crap about defending guns or some warped version of the 2nd amendment."

It is far less preposterous than your inability to punctuate, spell correctly, or form coherent paragraphs. Continuing to try to paint as extreme, people that have already walked half way across the room - already compromised - as extremists and uncompromising, I see. Have fun with that. It isn't working, here, or nationally.

"why would i take your opinion as a fact? what about the fact that the NRA opposes all gun laws? it must be a fact, its on their site."

Dont take my word for it. I really don't care if you do or not. That doesn't change the reality of the matter, that it is factual truth.

The nra opposes all gun laws? Bwahahahaaa. Another fact devoid statement lol. At least you're consistant.

"we aren't living in the wild west anymore (which actually had more gun control laws than we do)"

And another factually devoid statement. Do you really think they had background checks back then? Maybe they had NICS checks over the telegraph wire right? You think they had restrictions on violent offenders, or prohibitions on domestic abusers? How old did one have to be back then to buy a handgun hmm? Do you think airplains in flight explosively decompress when shot with a bullet too? You think "cop killer" bullets are an issue?

Heres some free advise - get your history from somewhere other than movies.

"what does 'you get nothing in return' mean? you already said you have all the guns you want."

Wow, I guess you really don't get it.

Here, I'll give you an example of getting something in return:

Pro-gunners: "We gun owners will agree with restrictions that say no more than 30 rounds on a rifle magazine, and "natural capacity" only, on handguns (that means mags which basically fit flush to the bottom of the handgun and do not protrude more than 1/2 inch) IN RETURN, we get national concealed carry." (for example)

What normally happens and is historically factual time and time again, however, is this:

Anti-gun lobby: "Ok gun owners, were going for an assault weapon ban, magazine ban, We'll be back for more next legislative session, and you get nothing in return, go suck an egg."

So as I said:

Compromise with the anti-gun movement, has ALWAYS meant "if you meet us half way on this, we'll be content this year, and wait until next year or the year after to come back for more, and you'll get nothing in return then either". Thats a fact jack, and one you seem very eager to ignore. Me, I think thats JUST the way you like it and want it.

"this leads me to believe you are a representative of the gun industry."

Snort. I actually LOL'd when I read that. I'm a mostly retired former machinist, who runs an MMO gaming guild on an everquest EMU server, raises small furry loveable animals, and lives out in the middle of nowhere, in a state that as far as I know has no gun manufacturers.

That you would say such a thing, does confirm something to me though:

The thought of anyone supporting gun rights, based on principle, is completely alien to you.

"my point is 'we get nothing' sounds foolish. how many guns can you possibly want? oh, right, its a multi-million dollar industry, so in reality your drmatic invokation of human rights is about $$$."

I never said I wanted any more guns, in fact, if I recall correctly, I said I didn't want any more, and that I had all I need. Go put that shoe on someone who it actually fits lol.

"a lot of which go out of the country (russian ar-15s, big business). good for you, what a patriot!"

OMG I can't stop laughing hahahahahaha. I actually had to clear the tears from my eyes because i was laughing so hard.

Sincerely, thank you for that.

"this was from 1939, you legal whiz, and says that not just the 'militia' has the right to guns, all people do. they have the right to use the same guns as the militia. those in common use. in 1939. NOT the type used by the MILITARY, by the way."

LOL. Another armchair lawyer. Miller is part of the legal underpinning of Heller, which says:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretationof the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.

Incidentally, that is also supported by the preamble to the bill of rights which reads:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution


The decision goes on:

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts
and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the
late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—
in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Get someone to explain what that means, if necessary.


"semi-auto for hunting is disgustingly unsportsmanlike, in my book."

Thats nice. I feel the same way about your book, as you do about my opinion. And, I don't hunt, fwiw. 4 out of 5 gun owners dont, in fact.


"smoking laws stopped people from smoking in bars. that is an actual addiction, whereas guns are kind of a fetish the NFA seems to have stopped murders committed by fully automatic machine gun pretty well.
so try and be a little more informed."

I bet you really believe nobody smokes in bars anymore in spite of the prohibition, too.

Fully automatic weapons were never commonplace for the average gun owner. Semi-automatic weapons are. Rather than tell me to be a little more informed, could you tell me more about those russian ar-15s that are such big business? I'll just bet its a cool story bro.

"oh, all those poor millions in CA and MA being oppressed! there will be a revolt! for sure!"


Non-sequitur.

"the people that do the bad things own the guns, so... you are projecting something somebody typed on a chatboard into a vast conspiracy."

In some cases, not in all. And its a tiny tiny percentage that misuse them. Three hundred million plus guns, 80 plus million gun owbners. Less than 1 percent misuse them, according to stastics. But some blame ALL gun owners, which you seem to give your blessing.

"C. has been attacking gun ownership for decades"

"more conspiracy."

Yeah, these folks were only kidding, right? Good grief you really do live in an alternate reality:


In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.")

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993

Yeah, I guess those folks were just kidding, and its all just a wacked out conspiracy theory that gun ownership has been under attack for decades.

"again with the conspiracy."

The brady "were not a gun ban group, we don't support gun bans" campaign is supporting the newly proposed "assault weapon ban". They were either lieing then, or they're lieing now. You tell me which one it is, and how that doesn't qualify as dishonest or untrustworthy.

Next.


"you have to read the whole sentence to get at the meaning there! the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Oh I did. it says prohibit the "carrying", not prohibit the "ownership".

"Most states limit the magazine capacity to five rounds, and many semi-automatic hunting rifles have only four round magazine capacity."

Only when hunting, chief. Not where ownership is concerned.

And hunting has fuckall to do with this debate.

The second amendment wasn't written to protect hunting. If you didn't hunt or fish back when it was written, you starved more often than not. Hunting was a given back then.

"that;s why nobody is banning things in 'common use', you are just spouting more conspiracy."

A ban on standard capacity magazines is by definition a ban on something in common use.

Mags of between 11 and 19 rounds are STANDARD equipment for most of the handguns in America. Thats a fact.

30 round mags are STANDARD equipment on modern sporting rifles - that is, rifles which some folks call "assault weapons".

You can argue all you like, but 30 round rifle mags exist in the hundreds of millions in America, and that makes them by definition "in common use".

And lastly this little gem:

"trying to impose your 'concerns' on an entire country is foolish. especially when you have all the guns you need. you are standing up for millions of strangers, many of them CRIMINALS. aren't the people getting shot dead literally every 45 minutes strangers, too? so why don't you care about them? some are criminals. some are little kids. way too many little kids. and please don't post any crap about using kids for politics, that crap is inhumane."

Oh, but trying to impose your concerns isn't? LOL. pot meet kettle. Yes, thats right, I'm standing up for complete strangers, some of them criminals, just the same as when I stand up for freedom of speech, or when I stand up for a womans right to choose. I stand for those things, based on something called principle. Principle dictates that I stand up for freedom of speech, even though on occasion, the kkk benefits from it. The ACLU, of which i'm a member, agrees with that.

Just because I'm principled doesn't mean I don't care. It means there are some things I wont agree to, in spite of the fact I care. Thats about as text book a definition of principled as you can get.











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #116)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:04 PM

118. what a load of hooey

Oh, so now the definition of "extremist" is powerful lobby group...Mkay...better let AARP and the other powerful lobby groups know.

see lapierre's 10 craziest quotes. nobody is saying 'pry my social security card from my dead hands.'

because is sounds so silly. to normal people. the members of the NRA don't even elect the board of directors. because they are clueless sheep, following an outdated and disgusting ideology.

Registration of firearms at the federal level is against federal law, per the firearm owners protection act of 1986.


there you go with not reading whole sentences again.
It just means that the federal government cannot require that records be kept by a state - I'm not sure it bears explanation in the article, it's in the plain meaning of the statute: "No such rule or regulation... may require that records... be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof." It refers to federal rules and regulations, not state statutes

wiki. it means the feds can't require states. NOT no federal reg.

"Basically". LOL. Weasle worded sophistry, nothing more.

see how you completely ignore the facts and type childishly? i say 14 states have no gun laws, which is correct, and you accuse me of weaseling.

in, reality, AZ says 18 year old can buy any sniper rifle they want, with no reg. or license. 21 for handguns

on the other hand, MA says:
Massachusetts Law requires firearm owners to be licensed through their local Police Department or the Massachusetts State Police if no local licensing authority is available. A license is required by state law for buying firearms and ammunition. An applicant must have passed a State approved firearm safety course before applying for a license.

All applications, interviews, fees, and fingerprinting are done at the local Police Department then sent electronically to the Massachusetts Criminal History Board for the mandatory background checks, and processing. All approved applicants will receive their license from the issuing Police Department. All licensing information is stored by the Criminal History Board. Non residents who are planning on carrying in the state must apply for a temporary license to carry (LTC) through the State Police before their travel.

so you are really just ignoring my correct statement that 14 states have crap for gun laws.
you have absolutely no facts to back you up, so you descend to BS and name calling. weak.

The elected representatives of most jurisdictions are told by their bosses - the people they represent - that such things are not desired. See, thats how things work, in reality.

here is an actual reality of an NRA board member (not elected by members) blatantly admitting in public that they are total whackos and work constantly to block all sane regulations, like a city council guy doing buyback: (rathner being the board member)

Rathner says the NRA will ask for an accounting of every weapon turned in and then go to court to stop the firearms from being destroyed. If that doesn't work, Rathner says they'll change the law.

"We just go back and we tweak it and tune it up, and we work with our friends in the Legislature and fix it so they can't do it," Rathner adds.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926749/nra-vows-to-stop-tuscon-from-destroying-guns

let me warn you that link contains a pic of a big box of GUNZ that got SHREDDED, so you might want to grab your hanky b4 u click!


Non-sequitur. The divide on the gun issue is far less red vs blue than it is rural vs urban.

steaming crock of BS, there. more like conscience vs. immorality

Continuing to try to paint as extreme, people that have already walked half way across the room - already compromised - as extremists and uncompromising, I see. Have fun with that. It isn't working, here, or nationally

they put out an ad using obama's kids. 99% of people find that completely deplorable. there you go ignoring reality AGAIN.

The nra opposes all gun laws? Bwahahahaaa. Another fact devoid statement lol. At least you're consistant.

We believe that if neither the criminal nor the political class is limited by magazine capacity, we shouldn’t be limited in our capacity either.
We believe in our country. We believe in our Bill of Rights. And we believe in our Second Amendment, all of our Second Amendment.
Because we believe in the freedom and safety that it, and it alone, guarantees absolutely.
Mister President, you might think that calling us “absolutists” is a clever way of “name-calling” without using names. But if that is “absolutist,” then we are as “absolutist” as the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution … and we’re proud of it!


you get one guess who said that. first name starts with W. response to inaugural. total whack job. your boss?

i wouldn't even say you are digging your own hole even deeper-
more like you are already at the bottom of the hole, and you are spinning around and yodeling dizzily. "whee! mor gunz!"
honestly, it sounds, from my end, like you are prejudiced against commonsense gun regulations.
beyond narrow minded, more of a militant.

And another factually devoid statement. Do you really think they had background checks back then? Maybe they had NICS checks over the telegraph wire right? You think they had restrictions on violent offenders, or prohibitions on domestic abusers?


http://www.politico.com/...

The irony ... is that Tombstone lawmakers in the 1880s did more to combat gun violence than the Arizona government does today.
For all the talk of the “Wild West,” the policymakers of 1880 Tombstone—and many other Western towns—were ardent supporters of gun control. When people now compare things to the “shootout at the OK Corral,” they mean vigilante violence by gunfire. But this is exactly what the Tombstone town council had been trying to avoid.

In late 1880, as regional violence ratcheted up, Tombstone strengthened its existing ban on concealed weapons to outlaw the carrying of any deadly weapons within the town limits. The Earps (who were Republicans) and Doc Holliday maintained that they were acting as law officers—not citizen vigilantes—when they shot their opponents. That is to say, they were sworn officers whose jobs included enforcement of Tombstone’s gun laws.

Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle to Bear Arms in America, concurs:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Yet this is all based on a widely shared misunderstanding of the Wild West. Frontier towns -- places like Tombstone, Deadwood, and Dodge -- actually had the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation.

In fact, many of those same cities have far less burdensome gun control today then they did back in the 1800s.

Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."

A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.

Anti-gun lobby: "Ok gun owners, were going for an assault weapon ban, magazine ban, We'll be back for more next legislative session, and you get nothing in return, go suck an egg."


see how silly that looks all by itself? boo hoo, you are so oppressed...

I never said I wanted any more guns, in fact, if I recall correctly, I said I didn't want any more, and that I had all I need. Go put that shoe on someone who it actually fits lol.


then WHY do you spout standard gun lobby doo doo at a semi-automatic rate?

me:"a lot of which go out of the country (russian ar-15s, big business). good for you, what a patriot!"

OMG I can't stop laughing hahahahahaha. I actually had to clear the tears from my eyes because i was laughing so hard.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/business/a-kalashnikov-factory-in-russia-survives-on-sales-to-us-gun-owners.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

yuk it up, laughing boy...
i think it is weird how you think you are valiant defender of the 2nd amendment, even though you don't want mor gunz OR understand laws.

like the way you completely ignored the common use thing and the 1939 thing and posted a big hunk of nothing.

got it, i'm an armchair lawyer, but your experience in the machine shop and with fuzzy animals makes your expert opinion hold more weight than actual facts that i post.

cukoo!

Fully automatic weapons were never commonplace for the average gun owner. Semi-automatic weapons are.


the majority of semi-auto owners are ex-military who think the guns are more comfortable.

the 'average' gun owner obviously would say the semi-auto military fetishists are not average.

some testosteone-addled gun 'expert' saying an ak-47 is better for self defense doesn't really fly with soccer moms and old ladies who want a gun in their purse. get it?

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF MY RESPONSE:

that whole huge block of crap you posted was lifted from an ar-15 chat board, which kinda proves that you are a gun lobby shill. are you also this guy? or did you just paste his crap?

Originally Posted By ghostwalker:
I have been and the result is the following.


get it? that whole block of crap? was it yours or not? and why post it?

you proved that you are a 'save our gunz' sycophant really well there, thanks!


Yeah, I guess those folks were just kidding, and its all just a wacked out conspiracy theory that gun ownership has been under attack for decades.


just give up. it is responsible gun ownership and regulation that is 'under attack', not the misguided needs of some semi-auto fetishists.

Oh, but trying to impose your concerns isn't? LOL. pot meet kettle. Yes, thats right, I'm standing up for complete strangers, some of them criminals,

you are standing up for the hysterical notion that 'they are coming to take our gunz' without even knowing what is proposed or citing any real facts or statistics.

completely unprincipled or misguided or whatever.

"No weapons will be taken from anyone," she emphasized. "The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban_n_2541743.html?ref=topbar

so stop wasting your time crying about a false pretense. i've posted a few links with real statistics. you are off in some alternate reality of NRA induced panic.

i find it a bit amusing, which is the only reason i'm wasting time replying to you.

the parts of your previous post, for instance, that i ignored- i don't see how they are even worth a response...




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #118)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 08:05 AM

123. Its been mildly entertaining, watching you prattle ignorantly...

"i say 14 states have no gun laws, which is correct, and you accuse me of weaseling."

No, I would characterize it more as being ignorant of the truth of the matter, and therefore completely disconnected from reality, and using weaslewording as a means of attempting to distract in the hopes that nobody notices.

Those 14 states, that you mention - are not completely devoid of gun laws. No state is. Everyone know this except you. Thats where part of the mild entertainment factor comes from.

"in, reality, AZ says 18 year old can buy any sniper rifle they want, with no reg. or license. 21 for handguns"

I thought you said AZ had no gun laws. Let me scroll back...Ah yes, here we go ""i say 14 states have no gun laws, which is correct". But now you're saying AZ says people have to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 to buy a handgun. So now they DO have gun laws? Make up your mind already.

"so you are really just ignoring my correct statement that 14 states have crap for gun laws."

No, your statement was "...14 states have no gun laws...". not "crap for gun laws, but "no" gun laws.

Goalpost move, and a poorly executed attempt at it no less. How quaint. Expected, to be sure, but quaint none the less.


"It just means that the federal government cannot require that records be kept by a state - I'm not sure it bears explanation in the article, it's in the plain meaning of the statute: "No such rule or regulation... may require that records... be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof." It refers to federal rules and regulations, not state statutes"

You have your opinion, and the author you quoted has his, and I have mine. Whats not opinion, is that your "registration" does not apply to criminals. Settled case law. Something about the 5th amendment, and self incrimination.



"We believe that if neither the criminal nor the political class is limited by magazine capacity, we shouldn’t be limited in our capacity either.
We believe in our country. We believe in our Bill of Rights. And we believe in our Second Amendment, all of our Second Amendment.
Because we believe in the freedom and safety that it, and it alone, guarantees absolutely.
Mister President, you might think that calling us “absolutists” is a clever way of “name-calling” without using names. But if that is “absolutist,” then we are as “absolutist” as the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution … and we’re proud of it!"

Except that does not substantiate your statement that "The nra opposes all gun laws".

Whats the matter, can't find a cite?

"honestly, it sounds, from my end, like you are prejudiced against commonsense gun regulations."

From my end, I can't see you making paragraphs that can be characterized as coherent even by the loosest definition of the word, so i rather doubt your grasp at "common sense" gun laws would hurdle a bar set any higher.

"beyond narrow minded, more of a militant."

Yeah, people who are highly principled get that alot. Your loss.

"Anti-gun lobby: "Ok gun owners, were going for an assault weapon ban, magazine ban, We'll be back for more next legislative session, and you get nothing in return, go suck an egg."

That was an explanation of the definition of compromise as it has played out historically with the anti-gun crowd, and while I see you engaging in mockery, I don't see you saying its untrue. Hmm...


"steaming crock of BS, there. more like conscience vs. immorality"

Thats only true, if one measures conscience ONLY by willingness to capitulate, as you do.

"yuk it up, laughing boy..."

Uh, a Kalashnikov rifle is not an ar-15. Yuk yuk yuk.

"then WHY do you spout standard gun lobby doo doo at a semi-automatic rate?"

And there it is. Anyone that disagrees with you is saying "gun lobby talking points". At least you're consistant.

"i think it is weird how you think you are valiant defender of the 2nd amendment, even though you don't want mor gunz OR understand laws."

I'm sure. Principled people are often seen that way by people who aren't. I'll get over it...last year.

"like the way you completely ignored the common use thing and the 1939 thing and posted a big hunk of nothing."

Its only a big "hunk of nothing", because you neither understood that which you posted, nor that which I responded to you with. Not uncommon for people on the anti-gun side of the agument.

"got it, i'm an armchair lawyer, but your experience in the machine shop and with fuzzy animals makes your expert opinion hold more weight than actual facts that i post."

I haven't seen you post many actual facts. When you are old enough and/or experienced enough, you'll learn to tell the difference between things you believe are facts, and things that actually are.

"the majority of semi-auto owners are ex-military who think the guns are more comfortable."

Heres a good example of something that is asserted as a fact, without one shred of substantiation, by you. Oh, yes, I'm sure you believe its a fact, but it really isn't. It is, in fact, the most laughable thing I have ever seen you post. In fact, if theres a bright center of the universe where factualness resides, that post is the point that it is farthest from.

"the 'average' gun owner obviously would say the semi-auto military fetishists are not average."

You wouldn't know the "average" gun owner if he bit your ankle. Keep the pejoratives coming though. I like them. Their presence is indicative of a losing argument on your end.

"some testosteone-addled gun 'expert' saying an ak-47 is better for self defense doesn't really fly with soccer moms and old ladies who want a gun in their purse. get it?"

Sez you, with no substantiation. Just like everything else you try to claim as fact. How unsurprising.

(I'm going to condense your next words into an actual paragraph, because word salad takes up space)

"THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF MY RESPONSE: that whole huge block of crap you posted was lifted from an ar-15 chat board, which kinda proves that you are a gun lobby shill. are you also this guy? or did you just paste his crap?Originally Posted By ghostwalker: I have been and the result is the following. get it? that whole block of crap? was it yours or not? and why post it? you proved that you are a 'save our gunz' sycophant really well there, thanks!"

That entire list, was created by me. I researched them. I checked them for validity. Whoever posted them at arfcom stole them from me. Thats the fact of the matter, and proof of it can be found in the original posting of those names in that order in the guns forum here on DU. I guarantee you that anywhere else you find that list posted exactly as it is here in the guns forum, was posted AFTER it was here. So I guess you're wrong again. A+ for being consistent though.


"just give up. it is responsible gun ownership and regulation that is 'under attack', not the misguided needs of some semi-auto fetishists."

Ahh yes more pejoratives. Good. Very good.

"you are standing up for the hysterical notion that 'they are coming to take our gunz' without even knowing what is proposed or citing any real facts or statistics."

I haven't cited any facts or statistics, true, but you're really not interested in any, are you? You're more interested in demonizing and destroying anyone that disagrees with you as a means of getting your way. You anti-gun types always are. As fas as "knowing whats proposed"...please...Its always the same thing with you anti-gun types. Its not like theres really anything new for you to invent. I knew what the anti-gun types wanted well before sandy hook. Or the CO shooting. Or before 2008. Or before 2000. The song remains the same. Has remained the same. Nothing has changed.

You want the end of all private firearm sales.

You want federal licensing and registration.

You want a ban, ranging somewhere between a ban on semi-automatic weapons, and a "assault weapons ban".

You want a ban on standard capacity magazines, and things limited to an artificially low numeric magazine capacity.

Do you really think anyone hasn't been paying attention? really?

""No weapons will be taken from anyone," she emphasized. "The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time."

Time-release confiscation. Can't leave them to a family member in your will, and they must be destroyed or turned over to the authorities at that point, if I understand the legislation correctly. Not that that really matters, that bill doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of passing anyway. too many pro-gun Democrats in the senate will prevent it most likely, not to mention the repubs that would never let it through the house.

" so stop wasting your time crying about a false pretense. i've posted a few links with real statistics. you are off in some alternate reality of NRA induced panic."

Its not waste of time arguing with you. I rather enjoy it, as I rather enjoy arguing with people that automatically think because they post a link, that makes them right - as you seem to.


"i find it a bit amusing, which is the only reason i'm wasting time replying to you."

That makes two of us.

"the parts of your previous post, for instance, that i ignored- i don't see how they are even worth a response..."

Yes. I can see that.

Me, If I had to argue against a principled person...the kind of person who is principled enough to fight for women to have independent control of their own uteruses, in spite of not having one himself...The kind of principled person who would, like the aclu, fight for some of the most vile forms of free speech to remain lawful, in spite of having no intentions to speak such vileness himself...the kind of principled person that believes in the 4th amendment in spite of the criminals it very clearly protects, and in spite of having no criminal intent himself...the sort of principled person who fights to maintain the legality of firearms and magazines he has no intention of owning...


Then yeah, I'd ignore it too.

I got nothing on that.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #123)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:17 PM

125. not entertaining at all, you are a NRA drone, wake up and join society-you wouldn't know principles

if they bit you @ the ass.

I thought you said AZ had no gun laws. Let me scroll back...Ah yes, here we go ""i say 14 states have no gun laws, which is correct". But now you're saying AZ says people have to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 to buy a handgun. So now they DO have gun laws? Make up your mind already.

stop being childish. you know exactly what i mean.

i posted you a chart, because you seem to have trouble with words. you still don't get it.

i personally, wouldn't qualify 'anyone over 18 gets a sniper rifle' as any kind of law. it is a glaring lack of laws, especially when the GUY WHO MAKES THE SNIPER RIFLES is ON THE NRA BOARD: RONNIE BARRETT .50cal SNIPER RIFLE AVAILABLE IN 48 STATES.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/nra-board-members-selleck-nugent?page=2

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/nra-board-newtown-bushmaster?page=1

14 states have BASICALLY NO GUN LAWS. any sane person with eyes can see that by looking at a simple chart.

you are bascially saying the entire populations of CA and MA are weaklings and dumb for allowing themselves to be oppressed.
real mature.

from that point on, i didn't even read your crap, because it is another big jumble of plagiarized groupthink.

Thats the fact of the matter, and proof of it can be found in the original posting of those names in that order in the guns forum here on DU. I guarantee you that anywhere else you find that list posted exactly as it is here in the guns forum, was posted AFTER it was here. So I guess you're wrong again. A+ for being consistent though.


hardy freaking har. some guy on an NRA chat board stole your carefully prepared 'positions'?

you are so full of it i can smell it thru the internet.

i personally think you ARE that dude you claim stole your shit, so WTF are you doing? really?

your shill is really shrill, that's about all i have to say.

i'm done with ya, but here's some stuff for other people to read.

i really couldn't care less what you say you 'think' about guns, stop wasting my time!

and stop defending the NRA, they are a bunch of greedy assholes!

http://swampland.time.com/2013/01/24/fact-check-the-gun-registry-red-herring/
"He wants to put every private, personal transaction under the thumb of the federal government, and he wants to keep all those names in a massive federal registry. There are only two reasons for that federal list of gun owners —to tax them or take them."-Wayne LaPoopoo

Obama has not proposed a federal gun registry, which is currently barred under federal law. But LaPierre’s words–part fact, part falsehood, part paranoia–require careful parsing.

***

SCHUMER: Heller also said that there should be reasonable limitations, that they’re allowed reasonable limitations. I don’t think that lady needs an assault weapon. I don’t think she needs a 100-round clip. I don’t think, for instance, that those things would help her in any way. So so to say she has a right to bear arms: yes. To say, just like on the first amendment — we say you can’t scream “fire” in a crowd falsely, we have anti-pornography laws, anti-libel laws. There are reasonable limitations. And the NRA , in many instances, doesn’t believe in any limitation at all. That’s not unconstitutional. That just is dumb.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/20/1474481/schumer-rips-ted-cruzs-pro-gun-propaganda-that-just-is-dumb/

***


In a Wall Street Journal article, allegedly substantiating his more-guns-less-crime thesis, Lott presents statistical “evidence” containing an incredible implication: a 33 percent increase in gun ownership would eradicate violent crime (i.e. reduce this crime rate to 0).
http://www.ahwatukee.com/opinion/article_6708c04e-59b2-11e2-bcd6-0019bb2963f4.html

***

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/debunking-the-gun-culture_b_2332088.html
REALITY: Nope. Not true. I'll let conservative analyst and former Bush speechwriter David Frum take this one:

A gun in the house minimally doubles the risk that a household member will kill himself or herself. (Some studies put the increase in suicide risk as high as 10 times.) An American is 50% more likely to be shot dead by his or her own hand than to be shot dead by a criminal assailant. More than 30,000 Americans injure themselves with guns every year.

And here's Science Daily:

In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

Need more? Here's the American Journal of Lifestyle:

Author David Hemenway studied the various risks of having a gun in the home, including accidents, suicide, homicide, and intimidation. Additionally, the benefits of having a firearm in a household were also examined and those benefits included deterrence, and thwarting crimes (self-defense). From this in-depth look, it was concluded that homes with guns were not safer or deter more crime than those that do not. In fact, it was found that in homes with children or women, the health risks were even greater. "Whereas most men are murdered away from home," wrote Hemenway. "Most children, older adults, and women are murdered at home. A gun in the home is a particularly strong risk factor for female homicide victimization."

***

Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds

Sep. 30, 2009 — In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

***

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/12/nra-propaganda-shootings-newtown
The document's text and its illustrations are so over-the-top that when they were first leaked by Wonkette, there was speculation that they were a hoax. But the NRA confirmed they were real, though it maintained they were from a stolen draft of a publication that has still yet to be publicly released.

In their introductory note, NRA president Waye LaPierre and chief NRA lobbyist Chris Cox warn of "the coming confrontation" between the "pro-freedom voting bloc" and "the gun-ban crowd." Though they focused on the threat of anti-gun legislation carried out under the guise of fighting terrorism, LaPierre and Cox also anticipated the calls for action that might follow an event such as the Newtown massacre:

***

Guns were last straw for me with GOP
By Steve Kozachik, Special to CNN
updated 5:43 PM EST, Tue January 22, 2013

Steve Kozachik organized a gun buyback in Tucson, the city where Gabby Giffords was shot
He was vilified and threatened by pro-gun people, who staged a "Cash for Guns" flea market
This spurred Kozachik to leave the GOP, which he says is beholden to gun lobby
Kozachik: Discussion of sensible reforms is drowned out by extremists

Editor's note: Steve Kozachik is vice mayor and a member of the Tucson City Council.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/opinion/kozachik-gun-buyback/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

***

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2013/01/22/who-knew-the-leading-cause-of-gun-death-is-suicide/




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #125)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:23 PM

139. Your reply title says all we need to know about your approach to debate...

You become your own enemy
In the instant that you preach.

Bob Dylan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #139)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:03 PM

141. arguing with a fool who is spouting lies doesn't count as debate

debate involves facts and reality.

if by 'we' you mean the you and your NRA buddies, great, because i already know the leaders are immoral lunatics.

the times they are a-changin'

also dylan- bad choice of source for quotes!


Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks....
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul


BOB DYLAN, "Masters of War"



If I had rubies and riches and crowns
I’d buy the whole world and change things around
I’d throw all the guns and the tanks in the sea
For they are mistakes of a past history


BOB DYLAN, "Let Me Die In My Footsteps"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #141)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:15 PM

143. Google up Bob Dylan on Guns. Let me know what you think. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #143)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 04:44 PM

148. he is smart enough to know they are dangerous, i reckon


"The big bugs in the press kept promoting me as the mouthpiece, spokesman, or even conscience of a generation. I felt like a piece of meat that someone had thrown to the dogs," he says.



He says his family was the most important part of his life and that "even the horrifying news items of the day, the gunning down of the Kennedys, King, Malcolm X ... I didn't see them as leaders being shot down, but rather as fathers whose families had been left wounded."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #148)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:17 PM

149. I agree with him. Celebrity, once again, leaves you with the splendid mundane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #125)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:11 AM

156. Hardly. I'm just someone that sticks to his principles.

"stop being childish. you know exactly what i mean."

I know exactly what you SAID. Say what you mean, or don't complain that people should know what you mean.

"i posted you a chart, because you seem to have trouble with words. you still don't get it."

Wait - I have problems with words? I'm the one that can't be bothered to even attempt to use paragraphs or punctuation or say what they mean and mean what they say? Really? Thats a mighty bad case of projection you have there, I must say. Beyond that...I get it just fine. You posted a chart in support of your assertion that there are "14 states with NO gun laws. Not "weak" gun laws, or "lacking" gun laws. No gun laws. You know you're wrong, I know you're wrong, and now you're trying to stealth backpeddle.


"I personally, wouldn't qualify 'anyone over 18 gets a sniper rifle' as any kind of law. it is a glaring lack of laws, especially when the GUY WHO MAKES THE SNIPER RIFLES is ON THE NRA BOARD: RONNIE BARRETT .50cal SNIPER RIFLE AVAILABLE IN 48 STATES."

Being that the "sniper rifles" you're referring to basically aren't used in crime, I don't see what your problem with them is. A solution in search of a problem is about all I can extrapolate about your views on them, from that screed.

"14 states have BASICALLY NO GUN LAWS. any sane person with eyes can see that by looking at a simple chart."

Exhibit A. First it was "no gun laws" now its "basically no gun laws". Textbook backpeddling, with a side order of "i didn't mean what I said".

"you are bascially saying the entire populations of CA and MA are weaklings and dumb for allowing themselves to be oppressed. real mature."

I said nothing of the sort.

"from that point on, i didn't even read your crap, because it is another big jumble of plagiarized groupthink."

Lol. My positions are mine. I formulate them, based on my own thinking. Not from of any groupthink.

"hardy freaking har. some guy on an NRA chat board stole your carefully prepared 'positions'?"

Those are examples of public officials and statements, of those who want to ban all guns who came out and said so. The list was created for the purpose of reminding ignorant people that yes, indeed, there are those that DO want to ban all guns. Nothing more, nothing less.

"you are so full of it i can smell it thru the internet."

I bet you can tell what people are thinking too.

"i personally think you ARE that dude you claim stole your shit, so WTF are you doing? really?"

Look, I've been an active poster and reader on DU since 2004, and I really don't care what you think. The dates and timestamps prove that what I claimed was true, is true. If you don't want to check it out for yourself, and would rather base your opinions of me on your own prejudice, well, that says alot more about you than it does me.

"your shill is really shrill, that's about all i have to say."

I'm not shilling for anyone or anything. I state my opinion, and spell out my position, and I've been far more pleasant and far less insulting, arrogant and abusive doing it in this subthread than you have.

"i really couldn't care less what you say you 'think' about guns, stop wasting my time!"

Save yourself the time and don't bother responding to me then. Blame yourself rather than someone else if you can't stop yourself from doing so. This IS a discussion board, not your personal space.

"and stop defending the NRA, they are a bunch of greedy assholes!"

I haven't really defended the nra. In fact, its essentially you thats been talking about them. Maybe if you adressed my actual positions, rather than contriving one and assigning it to me, we could have a discussion.

Look buddy, I've been a poster on DU for a very very long time. I make no effort to hide the fact that I lean pro-gun rights, and I'm not about to, just to make you happy. I've seen people playing the games you are. The "I said x but I meant y" game. Trust me, you aren't coming up with anything new here. Its all been seen and done before, and recognised for what it is. Eventually, those that play the "I said x but I meant Y" game go the way of iverglas.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #156)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:49 AM

158. you are sticking to someone else's principles. the NRA's. which is why you look so foolish.

Look buddy, I've been a poster on DU for a very very long time. I make no effort to hide the fact that I lean pro-gun rights,

but you make EVERY effort to disguise the FACT that gun laws SUCK, even thought you have all the guns you want.

the only reason i can figure is that you have blinders on. i hope you are being well compensated for your efforts, because it seems to be a huge waste of time from this end.


I haven't really defended the nra.


yes, it seems that you also deny that they have any bearing on this subject whatsoever, yet continue to spew their talking points.
perhaps that is also part of your contract.

and would rather base your opinions of me on your own prejudice, well, that says alot more about you than it does me.

I bet you can tell what people are thinking too




you're the one who posted a bunch of crap ^^^ from a used glock sales site.
i'm sure that 'wisdom' has been floating around for longer than you have been posting here. whatever.
power to the people? please. (that is the 'caption' for that wonderful pic. DEAD BAND GUNS DOT COM! really?)

The list was created for the purpose of reminding ignorant people that yes, indeed, there are those that DO want to ban all guns.


that kinda sounds like you DIDN'T make the list. good for you. nice pasting.

You posted a chart in support of your assertion that there are "14 states with NO gun laws. Not "weak" gun laws, or "lacking" gun laws. No gun laws. You know you're wrong, I know you're wrong, and now you're trying to stealth backpeddle.


the chart- 14 states with NO-
licensing for dealers, gun registration, background check, waiting period, AWB, or carry restrictions.

all of those states allow you to use a gun against someone WITHOUT one.

nice talking to you, i hope you don't cry when your buddies can't play rambo anymore!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #73)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:16 PM

138. Well, knock one out of the park, next time. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:43 PM

43. Can you dispute it?

 

It is a fact that there are about 300 million guns in the US. Even accounting for people that have large collections of 50 or more that would still equate to millions of gun owners. If they were not responsible and their guns were used to kill (since you say that is their only purpose) it follows there would be thousands of people PER DAY killed with firearms including accidents and suicides. Those numbers are not even close to becoming a reality therefore these gun owners must be using them responsibly. Even the Gun Policy institute says there were a little over 32,000 gun deaths last year the majority suicides. So assuming each death was by a different gun that means 0.011 percent of guns were used in a gun death and if we further assume that all gun owners are legal owners (not likely) and that each death was committed by a separate person that means .5% of gun owners were involved. Any gun law affects 100% of the citizens of the USA. Is that really what we want to do or do we want to find out why these people are shooting each other, who is doing it and fixing that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to subknave (Reply #43)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:47 PM

45. And here I thought we had a major gun violence problem in our country

Silly me. I don't know where I ever came up with that notion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:43 PM

57. silly shit. Of course reasonable gun laws are in order. It is fucking stupid to

beyond belief to think that a law against anyone having guns in the house if they have children is in any way shape or form, reasonable. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:04 PM

59. Gun owners do not think there should not be laws.

I applauded the President with each item on his agenda in regards to EO's and what he would approach Congress on.

However, I don't agree with you on this. That doesn't make me a gun lover, or against all laws. You can not make all gun owners the "bad guys" for the wakos that go on shooting sprees across the country. Just like you can't blame drinkers and alcoholics for the deaths caused by drunk driving (of which there are way way too many).

The majority of us are not gun nuts, gun lovers, or delicate flowers. We are just gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sissyk (Reply #59)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:17 PM

86. But if you don't want what *they* want, they'll claim you don't want ANY.

That lot has been transparent for years on this matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #86)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:49 PM

101. Right on the money F_I.

Our position has been misrepresented like no other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:11 PM

137. And that response is "predictable."

You accurately summed up things pretty well...

"'millions upon millions'" of adults are "'responsible'" gun owners, and criminals don't obey gun laws anyways,"

...but fail to acknowledge that we do need gun laws which go to the root of most homicides in this country: Most homicides are committed by veteran felons.

I suggest stricter and surer punishments for those breaking gun laws, esp. repeat felons. Do you agree with this?

Those using a gun in a crime should get additional prison time. Do you agree with this?

We should institute sentence diversion for those "starting out" on violent crime paths: Either get into a program to avoid jail time, or be prepared for double-digit sentences when you decide to punk-out. Do you agree with this?

Universal NICS testing (if it can be done constitutionally) for all gun purchases. Do you agree with this?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:58 AM

97. Sadly, I know dozens and dozens

who have blown their brains out with their parents guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:19 PM

23. There have been guns in the homes of my family for as far back as I can trace back

Each generation is taught awareness and safety around firearms from an age so early that I have no recollection of not knowing what a gun is, what one will do, and what I was to do and not do in a variety of situations if I came across one.

What we need is mandatory safety and awareness programs in all schools, starting at grade K or head start and continuing throughout and no there should be no opt out and I don't hold with one for sex education either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:06 PM

35. They taught us a bit about guns in drug awareness classes

I learned: Never ever play Russian Roulette
Always assume a gun is loaded
Never pick up a gun if you find one
Guns should always be kept in a locked case

This was in the 1970s

I've never owned a gun. I think we spent about an hour on this, but it made an impression. It wasn't heavy on details, but I got the idea. The Russian Roulette movie made quite an impression, but so did the other stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftInTX (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:04 PM

115. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure.

Ignorance is the most dangerous element available.

There have been many a damn slow coach that with a little knowledge have overcome a shit ton of none too bright by basic knowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:31 PM

26. I know I don't want guns in my house when my kids are home. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:46 PM

29. A gun just does not work for "home defense" when kids are around.

If a gun is accessible enough to be grabbed quickly to confront an intruder, it is too easily accessible for the kids.

And even if your kids are responsible and well educated about guns, what about when they have friends over to visit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 10:23 PM

82. Not really.

 

There are small "quick access" safes which can secure a gun so that a child can not get it while still being suitable for home defense.

The gunvault comes to mind. Secure steel construction and a quick combination system with spring loaded door. The buttons are placed inside finger grooves so that you can find them at night. It even has an automatic disable if more than a certain number of false codes are entered. They also make a biometric version.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:47 PM

30. Obama has guns in the white house and he has kids

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 09:50 PM

80. And everyone who has access to them

is psychologically screened and monitored in ways that would make a real gun nut's head spin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:54 PM

32. You need to assess the risk.

 

There are millions of households in the US with guns and children. Thankfully very very few end up with someone getting injured or killed. It is up to the parent to make sure the child knows the risks and responsibilities associated and that the child is not allowed to do anything with a gun unless supervised and permission is given. Most children wouldn't just hop in and drive the family car, or use dads power saw without permission but there are always those few that would. A parent is in the best situation to assess that. If your child is prone to such activities you may not want a gun in the house and keeping it at a range or friends would be sensible. If you have a mentally disturbed and potentially violent individual in your home you really should see about getting them the help they need but definitely should not be leaving guns in a closet or in a safe where they can access them.
I have a daughter and keep my guns locked up but I also have taken her out and showed her how to use them and the destruction they can inflict. She knows it isn't like the violence in video games and neither she nor I have any interest in killing anything. The majority of gun violence is in the larger cities and associated with other types of crime. Universally they have strict gun laws in Chicago, LA, New York, etc. The obvious conclusion is that these laws are not successful in stopping criminal violence. The currently proposed ban will do even less. Pres. Obama's suggestions on background checks and mental health to be included may do a little good but the truth is that most criminals likely to do violence will steal or kill to get a gun and not go through a background check. Anyone considering selling a gun to a "suspicious character" will more than likely ignore any requirement for a background check. Will it really be consoling to be able to put someone in jail for selling a gun to the person who killed 10 or 15 or 20 people? Shouldn't we be more focused on making sure our schools have safety officers, doors that lock, and security systems? Shouldn't we be focused on stopping the PERSON instead of worrying about the means used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to subknave (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:56 PM

33. We should also lock customers inside movie theaters, grocery stores, malls, etc n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:39 AM

93. We are heading there

I do believe that all those places will have armed guards and checkpoints and constant surveillance. Hospitals already do.

And Americans will accept this as normal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:05 PM

34. It's no different than

 

keeping other potentially dangerous things. Bleach, antifreeze, rat poison, poisonous plants (e.g., Oleander, Daphne, yew, etc.), iron pills, or prescription medicines can all kill children if misused.

You can't fix stupid. Parents who won't secure their firearms probably are not securing other dangerous things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:19 PM

38. My husband wanted to get a gun, but I refuse to have one in the house with kids.

I like the idea of leaving them at a gun range.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:20 PM

39. It is all about risk management.

Dangerous tools need to be properly stored to prevent unauthorized access. The levels needed will depend on your circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:54 PM

104. Best post in the thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:44 PM

44. Nope - they shouldn't

 

Yet another reason why I don't own a gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:32 PM

50. Never caused a problem in my home growing up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:33 PM

51. All of these "well, we had guns in my house growing up and we never had a problem"

blah blah blah mean nothing. That's anecdotal evidence and small sample size, people, and has no meaning in the real world. A gun in the house is far, FAR more likely to be used against a member of that household instead of the myth of "self defense."

It's time that logical reasoning flaw was pointed out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #51)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:38 PM

54. Sorry you're disturbed by real world experiences, however anecdotal.

I, too, grew up in a home with guns in the house.

Many, many millions of us have. The vast majority, I'd wager 98% or above, didn't get shot.

By the same logic as the OP, people with children shouldn't have prescription medicines in the house, or dangerous cleaning solvents, or any number of other items that can hurt you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #54)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:42 AM

157. Or stairs, or bathtubs, or swimming pools...

or steak knives, or power tools, or hammers, or Twinkees, or.........

I've got the safety kooks up to here.

I grew up in an extended family and my uncles were hunters and fisherman. They kept their rifles, pistols and shotguns in a locked display rack in the living room.

My mother was super overprotective and wouldn't let me go hunting or fishing (might shoot myself or fall off the Coney Island Pier and drown) with her brothers. The only thing she protected me from was having fun. They risked her wrath and took me with them on the sneak. So it was rabbits and squirrel or local fishing close to home. But when it was time for a weekend hunting deer or bear, my cousins went along and I stayed in Brooklyn.

Was I scarred for life? No.

BTW: I was thirty before I screwed up enough courage to let my mother know I'd been riding a motorcycle since 14. I used my confirmation money to buy a 1947 Harley. When I cracked up my Honda a couple of years ago (age 60) she took one look at me, in casts and body braces, and asked: "Still having fun?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #51)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:33 PM

63. Your post reminds me of these emails my family forwards

every so often lauding the days before car seats and bike helmets. I remember when we took my son back east to visit my parents when he was one they laughed at me for bringing his car seat across country saying: "You survived without one!"


Yes I did. But many did not and many more have been saved since we started putting kids in car seats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #51)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:47 PM

77. small sample size?

you have got to be shitting me. of all the gun owners in the USA with children in the household, what percentage, do you think, have gun related deaths either on purpose OR by accident?

talk about flawed logic...

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #77)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:18 PM

87. Thank you for pointing that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 05:41 PM

56. Or where the mentally ill have access

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:21 PM

61. My dad had guns in our home since

I was born. He often packed. My sis and I learned to shoot early on.
But our lives were far from typical having a SgtMaj Green Beret for a father.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeadEyeDyck (Reply #61)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 06:35 PM

64. Your screen name is perfect given your story :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 09:45 PM

79. Risk

Risk is relative. My children (some of whom are now adults) have been thoroughly trained in the proper handling of firearms. I don't have any reservations standing next to them or watching them shoot guns. By comparison, even though I taught them how to use a chain saw and how to be careful, it still scares the hell out of me as a parent watching them cut down a tree. 100 times more nerve wracking then watching them shoot a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 10:27 PM

84. Studies show that kids are more at risk for injury or death in the home

When a firearm is present.

I posted links to the research shortly after Newton. It's easy to find peer-reviewed studies with a quick google.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:46 PM

88. You are right, if you're an idiot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:51 AM

92. Brother kills brother.

A tragic murder here in Montreal this week had a 12 year old shooting his older brother.
I gotta wonder what the dad is now thinking of his decision to have a gun in the house presumably to protect his family..
http://www.canada.com/news/Dorval+teen+death+year+charged+with+manslaughter+possession/7856507/story.html
Had there been no gun in the house one of his kids would probably still be alive today..
..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:59 AM

94. I had my own wood gun cabinet in my room when I was 10

It was a Christmas present to keep my .22 and .410 in.

We were also allowed to have hunting rifles/shotguns in our vehicles at the high school as long as they were not visible, like in a gun rack in the window.

We just looked at guns differently, something has changed with the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madville (Reply #94)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:40 PM

113. As a teenager

 

I had

1. .410 shotgun
2. .22LR pump rifle with 4x scope
3. 22-250 bolt action rifle with a 15x scope

I kept all three in my bedroom on a wall gun rack with plenty of ammo for each. I had already attended a full day NRA gun safety course by the time I was 13. Several of my friends had guns too. We would regular carry guns to each others houses and go plinking or varmint hunting or use a hand trap for clay target practice. We'd also go duck hunting and eat the ducks (I'd borrow my friends 20GA as my .410 as underpowered).

It was not unusual to see rifles or shotguns in the parking lot of school. Nor was it unusual to see students walking the hall in cammo with an orange vest as they came to school straight from early morning hunting. We also had a shooting club at school and they would practice on school grounds behind the woodshop next to the football field (and while the football team was practicing) at a firing range set up where they fired with a hill as a backstop.

I never shot anyone. None of my friends ever shot anyone. There were never any shooting in school. There were never any instances of anyone brandishing or threatening anyone with a gun at school.

The only gun deaths I ever heard of were during deer season and all were ruled accidental. Personally I never went deer hunting and stayed out of the woods during deer season. We lived in Upstate NY and you would get these fools from NYC that would come out to go hunting. They were dangerous idiots that knew nothing about anything. They would shoot at any sound in the forest and look to see later what they hit. I remember one group of city fools that had shot a Holstein and had strapped it to the hood of their car. They didn't know the difference between a deer and a dairy cow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:51 PM

102. Concern duly noted.

Thanks for the lecture update.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:00 PM

105. My son is, by your definition, mentally unstable. He's severely autistic and mentally retarded.

My guns are safely locked up and he wouldn't know what to do with them even if they were right in front of him. But, because I am cautious, I have them safely stored away where I can access them, if I need to.

Now go ahead and tell me what a bad parent I am.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:14 PM

106. Guns should not be kept in houses.

There that reads much better. With or without children present the rest makes sense though. I just don't see discriminating against people with children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:15 PM

107. and computers shouldn't be kept in houses with idiots either....

Seriously....I don't use the word stupid a lot but this is just stupid. Why don't you send this idea to Chicago. They had over 300 children shot there state wide last year most due to gang violence. Why don't you go door to door and take those guns out first. You could also make them hug while you are there. Thats all it takes...oh and a smile!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:52 PM

108. I grew up with guns.

Dad gave me a shotgun when I was age 11. (I still have it at 66.)Every family that I knew had guns. Most kept the guns on a gun rack or gun cabinet. Some just propped the gun in a corner of the closet. I never knew anybody who had a gun safe. Our families taught us gun safety as part of growing up. None of my childhood friends was ever injured by a gun.

The key is education.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:35 PM

109. Responsible parents should consider making their homes gun free ...

and if they decide to own firearms to make sure that they are properly stored. If firearms are in the house the parents need to teach their children gun safety as they mature.

I see no major problem with your idea of allowing gun owners to store their firearms at gun ranges or national guard armories if they choose. If that option was available a fair number of people might use it as long as the cost was reasonable.

One possible problem is that firearm should be cleaned after use. I used to shoot at a range that was 30 miles from where I lived. After shooting I would have to return home to clean my firearms and then drive to and from the range to return them to storage. Of course the range could provide a facility where a shooter could clean his firearms or charge a reasonable fee to accomplish this task. While I carefully clean and oil my firearms after use it's about as much fun as washing the dishes after you make a big meal.

Of course any such facility would require a good deal of security including well trained and heavily armed guards 24/7. The storage facility would also have to have a considerable amount of insurance in case of fire or theft.

I would oppose any law requiring such storage and it would never pass at a national level. In some high crime areas of our nation many people feel a firearm in the home is necessary and they might be right. Even so, you can live in a gated community you can be a victim of a home invasion.

Realistically a firearm will do you little good if you can't get to it when the bad guys kick your door down. That's why it is wise to have layers of security if possible. A good alarm dog may be one of the best but not all dogs are alarm dogs. The Boston Terrier we own now is absolutely worthless as an alarm dog but that is merely because he is used to many people visiting our home. We have owned other Boston Terriers who were excellent alarm dogs but they were not raised in our current home. Of course dogs can be a pain in the ass and often have expensive Vet bills. Dogs are not for everybody. For example my family has owned friendly Pit Bulls who were good watch dogs but non aggressive. Much depends on the level of training and the owner.

Living in Florida for many years I have experienced times when I was basically on my own when a strong tropical storm or a hurricane struck the area I was at. You may not be able to contact the police and if the wind is too high they may not respond even if you do call them. Even after the storm the police may not be able to reach your home as the roads may be impassible. Predators sometimes do take advantage of an emergency. A firearm in the house might conceivably help in an emergency when no authorities can respond to your calls.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #109)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:15 PM

119. i nominate you as the coolest gun owner on this board!

i think the OP is addressing the statistic that 16% of gun owners leave them loaded and unlocked. (like mrs. lanza and mr. griego)

http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/nij-guns-in-america-national-survey.pdf

thanks for another great, honest post!

i sometimes think you might be my wife's uncle from Fla., but then you go and say something nice about obama...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #119)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:31 PM

121. Thanks for your support. ...

In passing, I have no nieces or nephews.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:46 PM

114. Pools should not be allowed in neighborhoods where children are present.

In fact, they should be banned all together. They do, after all, lead to the deaths of many children each year.

Seriously tho, your opinion is based on a study that has been discredited about a billion times over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:19 AM

124. I take plenty of measure to keep my guns safe from my children.

Typically if there's a firearm unsecured it's in my OWB holster. At night I remove two from security (500 & 9c) and they remain bedside. All other times all firearms are secured.

Who has more concern for my family? You? Uncle Sam? County SS?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:53 PM

131. I'm far from a gunner, but that's too much

I wouldn't allow a gun in my own home, but I think people have a right to keep guns at home as long as they are locked away in a gun safe that children cannot get in. I do believe that people who fail to secure weapons should be held criminally responsible for any crimes or accidents that result from someone getting their hands on the gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #131)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:36 PM

166. what up, dude? it is too much, but what we have now isn't enough...

in 1994, 16% of owners kept their gats UNlocked and loaded, probably worse now!

http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/nij-guns-in-america-national-survey.pdf

that one ^^^ is pretty interesting- i like the part about the lady who claimed FIFTY TWO self defense uses in 1 year throwing off the statistics.

http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/aquired.htm

http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/trafficking.htm

and there were like 500,000 or so stolen last year.

what a mess!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #166)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:56 PM

168. so make it a felony to keep a gun unsecured.

banning people with children from owning guns won't pass SCOTUS review.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #168)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:20 PM

169. i'm not saying i agree with the OP totally. but be idealistic for a minute...

of course, the OP is like saying 'hunters can't have babies'...

but i'd be all about a federal program to fund smart guns for parent who want a gun in the house, voluntarily. why not?
if there are safes with fingerprint recognition, why not guns?

but it is a felony in CT. like i said, what a mess...

Sec. 53a-217a. Criminally negligent storage of a firearm: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of criminally negligent storage of a firearm when he violates the provisions of section 29-37i and a minor obtains the firearm and causes the injury or death of himself or any other person. For the purposes of this section, "minor" means any person under the age of sixteen years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #169)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:24 PM

170. smart guns would be good

but I'm not happy with taxpayer dollars funding them. The gun industry makes enough money to fund their own product development.

I'm not sure what the right approach is. It's an unusual situation for me to be defending gun owners. All the gun zealots on this site hate me with a vengeance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #170)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:18 PM

171. ya, there's an irish dude seems to have the things ready to go

When Irish gun entrepreneur Robert McNamara learned of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, his immediate reaction, like that of most people, was one of horror, shock and sadness. But there was something else, too.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/21/us-usa-shooting-smartguns-idUSBRE8BK0GD20121221

the thing i don't get is why the gun companies don't want them (end of article)

i guess it would reduce illegal gun sales, and their profits, which is a pretty shitty reason.

"McNamara said he has spoken with some U.S. gun makers, which he did not name, about licensing his technology. He said they were reluctant to be the first to move ahead with personalized guns.

"The attitude is, ‘We understand this technology is coming down the track and we'll deal with it when we have to,'" he said. "They're concerned about the liability aspect. When you put it in one gun you'll have to put it in every gun.""


the gun bunnies are everywhere, aren't they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:32 PM

140. You need to ask the NRA for more pay!

You are doing them a great service acting like a foaming anti-gun nut!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:39 PM

152. I'm all in favor of gun depots where owners can store their guns when not in use

especially if they have children. I don't approve of keeping firearms in private residences. Even if the gun owner is law abiding and responsible, they still can be stolen in a burglary. I really don't buy the need for owning a gun for protection argument. I have managed to get through a long life and in some dangerous neighborhoods and work situations without any need for a gun for protection. There are so many other ways to insure security in your home if you really explore all options.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:08 AM

161. How kind of you to dictate how others' must live

tell me, who died and made you G*d?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chloes1 (Reply #161)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:26 PM

164. Since when is stating a point of view "dictating" or acting like "God"?

(and just curious, why do you put the asterisk there like "God" is a swear word and can't be spelled out?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread