HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Governor Pat Quinn's &quo...

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:46 PM

 

Governor Pat Quinn's "Assault Weapons" Ban Defeated (Illinois)

November 28, 2012 (SPRINGFIELD, Ill.) -- A proposed assault-weapons ban that Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn announced in August with great fanfare has fizzled without discussion in the Senate.

The Senate voted 49-4 Wednesday to override Quinn's amendatory veto that rewrote legislation to prohibit the sale or possession of semi-automatic rifles, high-capacity magazines and .50-caliber guns.

Quinn's action came after a mass shooting at a suburban Denver movie theater.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/illinois&id=8901319


If, on the heels of a mass shooting you can't even pass an old-fashioned "assault weapons" ban in ILLINOIS... Well let's just say gun banners aren't doing as well as they think.

128 replies, 9733 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 128 replies Author Time Post
Reply Governor Pat Quinn's "Assault Weapons" Ban Defeated (Illinois) (Original post)
TPaine7 Nov 2012 OP
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #1
Berserker Nov 2012 #15
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #2
ileus Nov 2012 #3
krispos42 Nov 2012 #4
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #5
DonP Nov 2012 #6
PavePusher Nov 2012 #24
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #27
Clames Nov 2012 #7
trouble.smith Nov 2012 #9
krispos42 Nov 2012 #21
ileus Nov 2012 #17
derby378 Nov 2012 #8
oneshooter Nov 2012 #18
petronius Nov 2012 #23
DonP Nov 2012 #10
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #95
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #11
Clames Nov 2012 #12
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #28
Clames Dec 2012 #63
DonP Nov 2012 #13
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #26
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #29
derby378 Nov 2012 #14
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #30
gejohnston Dec 2012 #36
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #37
gejohnston Dec 2012 #40
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #41
gejohnston Dec 2012 #42
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #44
gejohnston Dec 2012 #47
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #49
gejohnston Dec 2012 #50
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #51
gejohnston Dec 2012 #64
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #66
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #70
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #78
DonP Dec 2012 #38
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #39
DonP Dec 2012 #43
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #45
Pacafishmate Dec 2012 #72
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #86
Pacafishmate Dec 2012 #125
sir pball Dec 2012 #123
derby378 Dec 2012 #126
sir pball Dec 2012 #127
Dr_Scholl Nov 2012 #16
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #20
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #31
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #77
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #83
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #88
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #90
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #91
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #35
Decoy of Fenris Dec 2012 #53
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #55
Decoy of Fenris Dec 2012 #57
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #56
Decoy of Fenris Dec 2012 #59
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #85
Decoy of Fenris Dec 2012 #92
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #93
Dr_Scholl Dec 2012 #76
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #84
Clames Dec 2012 #97
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #98
Clames Dec 2012 #121
spin Nov 2012 #19
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #32
spin Dec 2012 #62
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #99
DonP Dec 2012 #100
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #102
DonP Dec 2012 #106
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #109
gejohnston Dec 2012 #112
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #114
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #118
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #119
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #120
DonP Dec 2012 #122
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #124
spin Dec 2012 #115
bobclark86 Nov 2012 #22
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #33
MicaelS Nov 2012 #25
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #34
Straw Man Dec 2012 #46
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #48
Straw Man Dec 2012 #52
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #54
Straw Man Dec 2012 #60
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #67
spin Dec 2012 #58
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #68
spin Dec 2012 #71
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #82
spin Dec 2012 #89
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #79
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #81
Jenoch Dec 2012 #65
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #69
beevul Dec 2012 #61
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #80
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #87
Recursion Dec 2012 #94
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #104
Decoy of Fenris Dec 2012 #108
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #110
Clames Dec 2012 #73
gejohnston Dec 2012 #74
Clames Dec 2012 #75
Straw Man Dec 2012 #96
DonP Dec 2012 #101
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #103
gejohnston Dec 2012 #105
DonP Dec 2012 #107
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #113
spin Dec 2012 #116
DonP Dec 2012 #117
sir pball Dec 2012 #128
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #111

Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:55 PM

1. By a 49-4 vote in an overwhelmingly Democratic state Senate.

That inconvenient truth needs to be brought up the next time a self-appointed "guardian
of Democratic purity" starts their "no TRUE Democrat..." schtick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:59 PM

15. This statement is

 

FRICKIN AWESOME ! +1,000,000
A self-appointed "guardian
of Democratic purity" starts their "no TRUE Democrat..." schtick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:55 PM

2. That was a really lopsided vote.

That has to be a major embarrassment for Quinn. I wonder how much political capital it cost him.

It now goes to the IL House where similar action is expected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:10 PM

3. Because those 50 cals are REALLY dangerous...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:47 PM

4. all those Americans killed by 50s every year!

Like, 1 per decade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:01 PM

5. 'Cause every thug wants to go put a $2 cap in people's asses with a $5000 rifle. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:47 PM

6. ... that's 5 feet long and weighs 60+ pounds ... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:17 AM

24. Where are you getting $2/round .50 BMG?

 

Investing minds want to know....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 08:06 AM

27. It fell out of my butt hole. :) n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:55 PM

7. If that much.

 

Think more have been killed by .70 caliber black powder rifles that by .50 BMG in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:41 PM

9. shhh, they'll want to ban those next.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:31 PM

21. You'll upset Hannity and the TeaBaggers!

All that talk about Black Power Rifles.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:40 PM

17. I suppose there may be a few blackpowder deaths per year.

98% 0f bp rifles are 50's...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:27 PM

8. Well, well, well...

This is certainly welcome news, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:41 PM

18. One of mine is a .62cal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #18)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:11 AM

23. Whoah! That's like, um, 24% more deadly than a .50

How do you avoid accidentally shooting down airliners and stuff with a WMD like that?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:07 PM

10. The original bill he amended was to allow intrastate mail order ammo purchases

Today I can order ammunition from Midway, Natchez and all the usual sources. But I can't order any from an Illinois vendor and have it shipped to me.

The original bill Quinn cocked up was a bill to allow that within the state. So he took a basically pro gun bill and totally revised it to a major gun control bill instead.

The good news is the house will probably over ride him too and the original bill will go into effect without his signature.

The bad news is that 49 to 4 vote has more to do with pissing off the Illinois Senate by ignoring them than it does any sudden shift by Chicago Senators to a pro gun mentality.

Oh, for the benefit of that shrinking handful still declaring any pro gun activity must be a GOP/NRA plot ... the entire Illinois legislature is D dominated with a veto proof majority in both houses. Any vote that makes it to the floor is Dem drafted and Dem approved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 12:05 AM

95. Sen. Frosh tried that trick here

Last edited Sat Dec 8, 2012, 12:52 AM - Edit history (1)

There was a bill to exempt police officers from the free online training requirement for handgun (and certain rifle) purchasing, and it had passed the House of Delegates unanimously. A few days before sine die, Senator Brian Frosh (HUGE gun control advocate, and chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee) amended it to remove the no cost requirement for the training, and add an additional undefined training requirement for handgun permits, to be established by the state police. They tried similar schemes before, and their hope was to create a training regime so expensive, complicated, and inconvenient that people would give up on trying to legally purchasing a handgun. The (exaggerated) example I gave was "three days of appointment-only training at a single MD-certified residential facility west of Cumberland which runs one class of ten students every three months Monday through Wednesday, at a cost of $1,500 per student, not including gun or ammunition. OR, an online safety video for those deemed eligible by the Secretary of Police or his designee."

Anyway, Maryland Shall Issue jumped on it and absolutely flooded the General Assembly with phone calls, letters, e-mails, and visits. Every single legislator knew exactly they were being watched, and took the politically sensible route of not voting on it. The amended bill never passed either chamber. That's grassroots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:25 PM

11. Either That.....

.....or people have simply and regrettably come to accept group shootings as a way of 'life' and 'think' the status quo of of mass murders is acceptable and that no further preventative action is required.

The fact that people are more concerned about keeping their assault weapons and articulating what they think are legislative wins (such as this) rather than reducing or even offering alternative solutions to gun violence, in my opinion, shows how off target such thinking is.

So...go ahead and celebrate if you want an assault weapon for deer hunting (such sportsmanship!) and remember next time you buy that Powerball, you have a far greater chance of being shot by a crazy with an assault weapon.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:43 PM

12. Go read the bill...

 

...then try and square it with the notion that it would have any effect on crime.


Yes, I will celebrate the demise of a worthless piece of legislation that does nothing to impact violent crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:10 PM

28. One of Seven Responses and NONE Address This

The fact that people are more concerned about keeping their assault weapons and articulating what they think are legislative wins (such as this) rather than reducing or even offering alternative solutions to gun violence, in my opinion, shows how off target such thinking is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:43 AM

63. Waaaaambulance is one thread down.

 

The fact that alternative solutions are nothing you want to discuss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:24 PM

13. A few Illinois facts

We have no rifle season for deer hunting, so no "assault weapons" in the field. There's a black powder and archery season, then a shotgun season. So there isn't any one going hunting with an "assault weapon" (Made up term anyway). I'm not sure if we have a handgun season for deer.

The states that do allow a rifle season limit most rifles to 3 rounds in the gun.

Most states don't allow deer hunting with the .223/5.56 round used in most AR's or the AK equivalent rounds, because they are just too weak for a humane one shot kill. In general the century plus old 30-30 lever action or a 30-06 bolt action is used far more than anything else for North American game.

For your own gratification look up how many actual crimes and murders have been committed with a "dreaded" 50 caliber rifle. You'll be able to count them nationally for the last decade on one hand and have plenty of fingers left to pick your nose, should you choose to. But again, it gets ignorant (small i) people worked up and reaching for their checkbooks with feigned outrage over something that doesn't exist.

The Aurora Colorado shooting, the only recent one I can recall that used a rifle of any kind, had the rifle jam with the stupid beta mag knock off, and most injuries were from the plain vanilla shotgun he had. How come no one is trying to control them now? Probably because it's hard to whip up a moral frenzy over grandpas old 12 gauge pump, but something called an "assault weapon" that looks evil ... boy, that gets everybody excited.

I use the AR's I built for target shooting in matches. 200 and 600 yards. FYI, only about 20% of all gun owners hunt at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #13)


Response to DonP (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:11 PM

29. Two of Seven Responses and NONE Address This

The fact that people are more concerned about keeping their assault weapons and articulating what they think are legislative wins (such as this) rather than reducing or even offering alternative solutions to gun violence, in my opinion, shows how off target such thinking is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:18 PM

14. What's an "assault weapon?"

You talk about reducing gun violence, but it sounds more like reducing gun ownership. We've had that conversation before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:13 PM

30. Three of Seven Responses and NONE address this

The fact that people are more concerned about keeping their assault weapons and articulating what they think are legislative wins (such as this) rather than reducing or even offering alternative solutions to gun violence, in my opinion, shows how off target such thinking is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:25 PM

36. it will do nothing to reduce gun violence.

Mostly because "assault weapons" are rarely used in crime.
A better solution is closing the income inequality gap. There is a stronger correlation between wealth inequality and various social ills, including violent crime and gang violence.
But then, do Chicago and other big city politicians actually care about dealing with the real problems instead of theater?
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #36)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:34 PM

37. Huh?

Assault weapons are seldom used in crime but often used to prevent them??????

Does that even make sense?

No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:43 PM

40. who said anything about prevention?

BTW, what exactly is an "assault weapon"? It is a political term coined by Josh Sugarmann to describe scary looking rifles. He coined it partly as "newspeak" to get people to think they are more lethal and automatic. The other part is to find a term to replace the oxymoron "semi-automatic machine gun" he and Sarah Brady used in their speeches and were ridiculed for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:45 PM

41. I Did

I did.

The fact that people are more concerned about keeping their assault weapons and articulating what they think are legislative wins (such as this) rather than reducing or even offering alternative solutions to gun violence, in my opinion, shows how off target such thinking is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:49 PM

42. more people are killed with bare hands

than all long guns combined, including "assault weapons", which is not a real term. I fail to grasp why anyone would cling to using a meaningless propaganda term, even after pointing out FBI statistics that such rifles are very rarely used in crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #42)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:52 PM

44. Notice

Not a SINGLE idea on how we as a society can reduce gun violence and death.

Just another cost we endure for competitive target shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:01 AM

47. I have listed them, it simply doesn't serve

the purpose of your culture war. Mine does work, yours has never worked anywhere in the world. Others have also offered solutions, which you either do not bother to read while pasting an inane statement by some politician, or have read them but would rather be closed minded if not dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #47)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:13 AM

49. Right

Yours works?

Works for who?

The innocent folks killed so you can target practice?

And you say I'm engaged in a 'culture war?'

But heh, I might appreciate 'your culture', if you had any respect for my culture.

Not a SINGLE idea on how we as a society can reduce gun violence and death.

Just another cost we endure for competitive target shooting.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #49)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:19 AM

50. gun bans do not save lives,

they don't reduce violence. There never has been a society that passed one that benefited. It it were true, British Virgin Islands, Brazil, and Mexico should be violence free instead of having the highest murder rates in the world. Fact is, El Paso, for whatever reasons, is the safest large city in North America. DC? welllllllllllllllllll. Minnesota and Manitoba have about the same murder rates. Manitoba was slightly higher.

The often quoted claim about the Brady Bill and Mass. used by propagandists forget to mention that the downward trend began two to three years the laws were passed.

Competitive target shooting is the national sport in Switzerland, Norway, Czech Republic. Yet, they don't have the violence or gang problem. Why is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:30 AM

51. Good Grief

If you do not know the difference between DC and Minnesota, let me help you.

One consistently votes in the range of 85-95% democratic.
One is entirely urban with gosh....what a surprise...urban issues of class, poverty, education and crime.
Oh, yea, and one has voting representation in Congress on national gun legislation.

But heh, none of that is as important as the 'culture war' of protecting your target practice.

I'll leave you to compare either Minnesota or DC to Switzerland, Norway, Czech Republic. I know the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:26 AM

64. none of which is relevant to the discussion

that is why I used Manitoba as an example.

If you do not know the difference between DC and Minnesota, let me help you.
DC has complete bans, and I was not comparing DC to Minnesota. I was comparing the state with their Canadian neighbor.

One consistently votes in the range of 85-95% democratic.
that's not relevant to the discussion. But if urbanites were not so busy using rural gun owners as scapegoats for their gang problems, perhaps folks in Minnesota would vote 95 percent Democratic too.
One is entirely urban with gosh....what a surprise...urban issues of class, poverty, education and crime.
and gang violence but you are making it sound as though gun laws are the major issue,

Oh, yea, and one has voting representation in Congress on national gun legislation.
that's not relevant to the discussion.

But heh, none of that is as important as the 'culture war' of protecting your target practice.
which amounts to blaming the farmer in Montana for DC's or Chicago's gang violence. Other than being absurd, it creates a couple of other problems. It distracts from the real issues, and it pisses voters off creating problems for local Democratic parties.

I'll leave you to compare either Minnesota or DC to Switzerland, Norway, Czech Republic. I know the difference.
DC has stricter gun laws than all of them, and has an astronomical murder rate. Switzerland is the lowest, the other two are closer to Minnesota's. The real differences are economic inequality and political corruption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:19 PM

66. Yes, it does make sense.

Assault weapons are too big to carry concealed so criminals rarely use them.

However, assault weapons can be easily kept at home where they can be used against intruders. So they are used more often against criminals than by criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #66)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:59 PM

70. Wishful Thinking

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #70)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:32 PM

78. How so? Do you doubt the FBI's figures on rifle use in crime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:39 PM

38. That's because it's another of your straw men

A Democrat run state senate and house told Quinn to go stuff it.

The Democrat written and sponsored bill passed with majorities in both houses as originally written and allows us to purchase ammunition in state by mail, just like we can with 49 other states.

It was only about so called "assault weapons" because Quinn tried to make it one. One man does not overrule the elected officials in the entire state.

(... And if you think that's where the gangs are getting their ammo you are out of your mind.)

As for my four "assault weapons" I'll continue to use them for target shooting and high power competitions, how about you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:42 PM

39. Nah

I don't use assault weapons for 'target' shooting or 'competition'.

Not when they are being used to kill people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:49 PM

43. Too bad, you might actually learn something and enjoy it

But my rifles don't seem to be killing anything, except large black and white bullseyes and "sitting dog" targets.

Among other things it takes self control, intense concentration, breath management, reasonable physical fitness and practice.

Iron sights, no scopes or other optics, 200 and 600 yards for most matches, standing (offhand) sitting/kneeling and prone. Slow fire and rapid fire segments with 10 shots in 60 seconds with one required reload.

The low recoil makes the AR15 the rifle of choice for most competitors, including male and female judges, cops, firemen, lawyers and some folks with real jobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #43)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:53 PM

45. Number Nine

The fact that people are more concerned about keeping their assault weapons and articulating what they think are legislative wins (such as this) rather than reducing or even offering alternative solutions to gun violence, in my opinion, shows how off target such thinking is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #45)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 10:11 PM

72. Its a Violence problem, not a gun problem.

 

Why not separate all murder weapons into their own categories? When oh when shall we address the growing epidemics of knife violence and hammer violence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 07:10 PM

86. Right

Because the two are so mutually exclusive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #86)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 08:51 PM

125. It's illogical to assume a correlation.

 

Guns are a tool, it's illogical to demonize them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:39 PM

123. Ugh, fine, here ya go

1. All firearms sales, even intrastate private sales (I don't know how to square that with the Commerce Clause but there's some carrot-and-stick to be had, I'm sure) go through an FFL and are recorded on a 4473 in their bound book. Create a new class of FFL that is only allowed to mediate sales, not sell directly - perfect part-time kitchen table job for retirees! Establishes a complete paper trail of every firearm to the last legal owner, as well as immunizing me from what somebody I sell a gun to does with it.

2. Absolutely draconian, nonnegotiable Federal charges for having anything to do with a gun during the commission of a violent crime. E.g. 5 1st/15 2nd/25 ta 3rd, and that's just for having one on you. God help you if you use it. Makes the cost far outweigh the benefit.

3. I'm even open to a nationwide FOID card, that will also allow CCW after appropriate training and skill and knowledge tests. Anybody who already has a CCW can't really challenge this; if TPTB know I have a license to carry a firearm, it's a good bet I probably own one. Doesn't really have any advantages that I can think of but it's a concession I'll reasonably make.


It's not "ban all handguns&self-loading rifles, license, register, and regulate the hell out of the rest of them" that many whose views differ from mine propose as a solution, but we clearly need to find some middle ground here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #123)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:15 PM

126. FOID = permit

I can't go that route. I don't need a permit to exercise my other Constitutional rights, why this one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #126)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:44 AM

127. It's more registration and less licensing

It would be free for the asking and shall-issue; pass an NICS check and its yours. Get it when you sign up for a driver's license, exactly the same as registering to vote. With some training and testing, add a nationwide CCW endorsement.

As I've said before, I can't argue too much with it since I have held several CCWs and am fine with the concept of both a de facto FOID, and permits in general. Carrying is a great power, greater (in an immediate sense at least) than speech or voting, which comes with great responsibility. As long as the system is open, e.g. shall-issue, and not end-ran with fees or impossible requirements, it doesn't bother me one bit to have to prove my worth to exercise that power.

Then again, I also think a basic civic knowledge test should be a requirement to vote..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:00 PM

16. Why do antis always bring up hunting when trying to justify gun control?

 

"You don't need an AR-15 to hunt deer" or some other bullshit.

Most gun owners don't even hunt. Only about 25% do, if that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr_Scholl (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:42 PM

20. Because they believe that hunting is the ONLY legitimate reason to own a gun.

(with exceptions for Olympic shooters, cops, and those that guard 1%ers and/or 1%ers money, of course).

They used to get some support from Fudds, until the Fudds mostly realized that their 'traditional
deer rifles' were actually 'deadly sniper rifles' which would be next on the antis Prohibition
lists...

Of course, most antis don't realize (or choose to ignore) that people *do* hunt with AR-type guns.

Change the barrel and magazine to 6.8mm, 7mm/08, 7.62x39, or .308 and you're good to go
in locales that allow it. Funny thing is, those AR and AK style hunting weapons would
most likely be nowhere near as popular as they are if the numpties banging on about
"assault weapons" had shut their pieholes to begin with...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:14 PM

31. Four of Seven Responses and NONE Address This

The fact that people are more concerned about keeping their assault weapons and articulating what they think are legislative wins (such as this) rather than reducing or even offering alternative solutions to gun violence, in my opinion, shows how off target such thinking is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:31 PM

77. There's no need to offer 'alternatives' to gun Prohibitionists- gun violence in the US is decreasing

Frankly, Quinn and his ilk do not deal honestly- what need to parley with them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #77)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:53 PM

83. Tell That To The Dead

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #83)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 08:39 PM

88. Ah, the appeal to emotion appears...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #88)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:45 PM

90. Nah.....

.....just tell it to the dead.

They have no emotion and it's clear many who ignore the consequences of gun violence join them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #90)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:12 AM

91. Sooner or later, we'll *all* join them...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr_Scholl (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:19 PM

35. WHOOPS

Eight of Eight Responses and NONE Address This

The fact that people are more concerned about keeping their assault weapons and articulating what they think are legislative wins (such as this) rather than reducing or even offering alternative solutions to gun violence, in my opinion, shows how off target such thinking is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:33 AM

53. Addressing it: Any time a blanket ban is defeated, it is a victory for liberals and Democrats.

The reason gun violence is not considered: Because assaults on the Constitution for the sake of "safety" are every American's civic duty to combat, Republican or Democrat alike. Gun violence has no bearing on the deconstruction of a fundamental and foundational civil liberty, and in most ways, is more pressing and urgent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:34 AM

55. Right

...and yelling fire in a theater is a first amendment right regardless of who gets killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #55)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:13 AM

57. Yelling fire in a theater when there is no fire is illegal, yes.

There is no ban on yelling "Fire" if there actually -is- a fire, which is what a blanket ban is supporting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:42 AM

56. Libel Laws Not Withstanding

...the First Amendment.

Not.

HECK- what about copyright laws?!?!?

Nevermind.

To you, the crazies get guns nevermind the carnage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #56)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:21 AM

59. Copywrite and libel are exclusive, not inclusive.

Laws are written to elaborate, not delineate, illegality. Therefore, certain patterns of behavior can be excluded through legislation if said patterns of behavior are routinely and universally destructive. Libel is in place to protect individuals from simply having their name tarnished because any person in the country feels like lying; Copyright laws are put in place to protect individuals or groups from their intellectual property being used for gain by a third party. Both libel and copyright are in place solely to protect against destructive behavior.

As it has been pointed out on several occasions, the firearms industry is hardly all destructive; Of the three hundred and fifty million guns in America, only nine thousand will take lives without justifiable reason. To put it into perspective: 15,000 people die each year in India due to trains, and yet no one has suggested banning trains. Why? Because there is a beneficial property to trains. The same is true for firearms.

That is why, when an encompassing legislation designed to broad-brush an economic or personal choice is defeated, it should indeed be trumpeted.


As I told someone else earlier, the carnage is irrelevant. .0003% of America's population is killed by firearms yearly; I have more important things to worry about, like the crazies attempting to erase a constitutional right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 07:09 PM

85. Blanket Ban?

Right because the right to bear arms includes any and all arms?

Not. Not even close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #85)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:28 AM

92. Um... Well, pretty much, yes, it does.

I could, with a bit of legwork, purchase and own a 1992 AERO L-139. I would call "military jet-engine aircraft" pretty solidly an "Arm", and there's nothing you can do about it. Likewise, I could pick up anti-infantry mortars, mines, anti-tank recoiless rockets, tanks, jeeps, APCs... The list goes on. Are there regulations on how such items must be sold? Yes, but that applies across the commercial spectrum regardless of product.

Do you want to know why I can purchase and legally own these things? Because of the 2nd Amendment. Essentially, "If it's being sold, you can own it."

ON EDIT: I'm guessing you don't care to respond to the posts elsewhere in this subthread where I deftly and effortlessly dismantled your arguments? I don't blame you for not trying, but I'd like clarification regardless, if only for the other people waiting for your response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #92)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:01 PM

93. Yawn

I'm sure you 'think' you 'deftly and effortlessly dismantled' my arguments.

Glad you feel good about that.



That's what your response warrants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:42 AM

76. So, your plan for reducing crime...

 

is to go after the guns least used IN crime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr_Scholl (Reply #76)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:54 PM

84. Sounds like you THINK that is my plan or even true

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #84)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:19 AM

97. Sounds like your plan is to do nothing but whine.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #97)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:41 AM

98. Right

How about I just lie or mischaracterize what you say and then complain when you whine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #98)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:12 PM

121. Well you do that for others here already.

 

That's called par for the course when you are involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:49 PM

19. You mention hunting with an assault style rifle. ...

In most states where this is allowed for hunting game such as deer there are limitations on the size of the magazine that can be used (usually 5 rounds).

Obviously those who wish for another assault weapons ban never mention the magazine size limitation and prefer to insinuate that those who hunt deer with black rifles have 20, 30 or 100 round magazines in their weapons. When you have an agenda it may suit your purpose to ignore facts, exaggerate or flat out lie. (To be fair both sides of the gun control issue all too often use such tactics.)

Now I am not a hunter but I often listen to those who are. Many hunters use bolt action or lever action rifles for hunting while some use semi-auto rifles. I can see the value of a follow up shot while hunting but obviously there is the law of diminishing return when firing more than two or three rounds at a running deer. In fact any hunter that does so may endanger other hunters in the area. Therefore the five round magazine restriction is reasonable an in my opinion slightly generous.

Hunters are beginning to realize that black rifles actually do offer significant advantages over the older semi-auto rifles that have been used for hunting for generations. They are very accurate and can be easy modified to improve performance. Obviously the caliber of the ammunition normally used by the military is underpowered to take some game but black rifles are available or can easily modified to fire a more powerful and suitable round.

Wild hogs are commonly hunted in many areas of our nation and are considered pests. I believe that many states do not impose magazine limitations on the weapons used while hunting feral hogs. Wild hogs do a tremendous amount of damage to the environment as they are not native to our nation. Their meat is very tasty when prepared properly. Some hunters will tell you that hunting wild hog does involve some serious risk as they have rather sharp and nasty tusks. I have know several hunters who have told me that they had to climb a tree to avoid an angry hog. Usually the hunter who does have to climb a tree leaves his rifle or shotgun on the ground. I've talked to several wise hunters who carried a large caliber revolver as a backup. (If I ever decide to take up hunting feral hog, I may just decide to carry my S&W .44 magnum revolver as my prime weapon. Of course many people who oppose firearms will tell you that nobody hunts with a handgun.)

But you may have realized that people have used semi-auto rifles for hunting for many years and merely feel that it is not as sporting as using a single shot or a bolt action rifle. I will agree but I will point out that the biggest concern of any responsible hunter to cleanly and humanely kill game. A rapid follow up shot may stop the animal from needless suffering and is much easier to accomplish with a semi-auto rifle than with a lever action, bolt action or single shot rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:15 PM

32. Five of Seven Responses and NONE Address This

The fact that people are more concerned about keeping their assault weapons and articulating what they think are legislative wins (such as this) rather than reducing or even offering alternative solutions to gun violence, in my opinion, shows how off target such thinking is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #32)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:38 AM

62. I personally have never owned an "assault weapon."

However most of my shooting friends own a "black rifle" or a semi-auto pistol with several "hi-capacity" magazines.

I am a "wheel gunner" and personally prefer S&W revolvers for target shooting, self defense and concealed carry. I do own several Colt .45 automatics but they have magazine capacities lower than 10 rounds and i use them for target shooting at the range. I also own a Ruger .22 caliber target pistol with a ten round magazine and a .22 cal S&W Model 41 target pistol which I also use for target shooting as they have excellent accuracy and are inexpensive to shoot.

I have never had any real interest in hunting. If I ever do move to a more rural area, I may purchase a "black rifle" to hunt feral hog but will probably chose to use my S&W .44 magnum revolver or my bolt action Swedish Mauser rifle.

However I see no real problem with "assault weapons" as long as they are owned by responsible and honest citizens. Obviously if they are owned by criminals or those who have serious mental issues, such weapons pose a significant danger.

It is my opinion that most gun owners favor laws and the required enforcement which would help to insure that as much as possible firearm ownership is limited to honest, responsible and well trained individuals.

I feel that both sides of the gun control issue can work to together to improve our firearm laws. Of course that would require both the NRA and the gun control groups to be willing to sit down in a room and compromise. Unfortunately compromise is a lost art in our nation at this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #62)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 12:31 PM

99. You Write

You write

It is my opinion that most gun owners favor laws and the required enforcement which would help to insure that as much as possible firearm ownership is limited to honest, responsible and well trained individuals.

I feel that both sides of the gun control issue can work to together to improve our firearm laws. Of course that would require both the NRA and the gun control groups to be willing to sit down in a room and compromise. Unfortunately compromise is a lost art in our nation at this time.


Well, my initial response and thought was to agree until I realized that any attempt to enact any new gun control law is almost always met with universal condemnation by not only the NRA but by Democratic gun enthusiasts on this board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #99)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 01:55 PM

100. That's because gun controll supporters don't understand the word "Compromise"

We've learned the hard way that when they say "let's reach a compromise" they really mean we want you to give this much up now and we'll take the rest later. For an example see California's gun control history.

Compromise in the real world actually means both sides giving a little to reach an agreement.

For example, can you give us an idea what current gun control laws you'd personally be willing to forgo, in return for another more restrictive AWB?

We'll wait, but won't hold our breath.

When gun control is willing to come to the discussion with some ideas on what they'd give up, we can talk. Until they do we'll all continue to push for repealing more restrictive gun laws and gun control will continue to die a slow death for lack of any grass roots support and funding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #100)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:02 PM

102. Forgo?

Compromise is modifying .... Not forgoing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #102)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:43 PM

106. Thanks for the confirmation on your definition of "compromise"

Let's take that example or "compromise" and apply it to gay rights or a woman's right to choose and see how everyone likes it.

The GOP "only wants a reasonable compromise" on those issues.

No, I don't think so.

But you've done a better job than I ever could of displaying why gun owners have no interest in even talking to gun controllers about new laws. You only want to take rights away from us.

Let's see ... you have no grass roots support, no support in the legislature or in the judicial systems. You haven't had a Federal gun regulation passed in over 15 years now and you've been reduced to celebrating a single lower court decision that just delays a new gun right until it reaches the appellate level.

I see no reason we shouldn't just continue to just keep rolling over the gun control movement, since you have no interest in good faith discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #106)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:26 PM

109. So You Don't Want To Compromise?

Let me know when you find any new gun control law that you would be willing to 'compromise' on.

THEN....we can have the good faith conversation you think you are having.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #109)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:41 PM

112. How is this for a compromise?

we give you moving .50 BMG rifles to Title II/NFA , French style regulations on silencers in exchange for repealing the Hughes Amendment and moving all short barreled rifles from Title II/NFA to Title I. The reason being, a single shot rifle with a 16 inch barrel is just a rifle. That same rifle with a 15 1/2 inch barrel is falls under the same regulation as a machine gun. That doesn't meet my definition of "common sense".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #112)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:46 PM

114. New?

Let me know when you find any new gun control law that you would be willing to 'compromise' on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #114)


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #114)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:24 AM

119. What you seek is appeasement, not compromise.

Compromise means all parties modify their demands so that agreement can be reached.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #119)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 10:29 AM

120. Right

Got it.

You will NEVER compromise on any new gun control law.

Which is exactly my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #120)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 01:13 PM

122. We can discuss that the next time you actually have a gun control law that goes through Congress...

...and is signed by the President.

Face it, "compromising" on new gun laws means you actually have some new gun laws.

But it's been almost 15 years, so you don't mind if we do other things while you and your like minded brethren whine online, do you?

We have matches to shoot, new guns to buy and money to donate to state and national associations that think like we do.

Good luck with those new laws, do let us know when you have one ready for the House or Senate. But I wouldn't count on Harry Reid to let it reach the floor, he's NRA A rated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #120)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:44 PM

124. You've yet to show that the new gun control laws you want are necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #99)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:33 PM

115. The lack of faith that gun owners have in the motivations of many of those who favor ...

strong gun control is based on several decades of history. There is no doubt that many in the movement favored an incremental approach to reaching their goal of banning and confiscation of all civilian firearms.

Had the leadership of the gun control movement merely wished to improve existing laws to stop the sale of firearms to violent criminals and those who suffer from serious mental issues, we might live in a society with far better and more effective gun laws today. Responsible gun owners also want to see a decrease in gun violence.

However gun owners began to realize that the gun control movement would never be satisfied until they managed to impose gun laws similar to those in Europe or Japan. They decided to stop trying to appease the gun control movement and started to vote politicians into office at the state and federal level that would support gun rights.

Several factors contributed to the success of the gun rights movement:

1) Many gun owners have a significant amount of money and time invested in their hobby. Since those who favored banning firearms rarely owned such weapons they had little financial reason to support the gun control lobby. Often (for good reason) they mainly had only strong emotional support.

2) Unlike nations in many developed areas of the world, the United Sates has a STRONG gun culture. A high percentage of citizens have owed firearms throughout our history. Many Americans are also patriotic and for some reason to them the Second Amendment and patriotism go hand in hand.

3) Americans have always harbored a significant distrust of government. They have believed that if not for our right to own firearms, our democracy might have been by now replaced by a dictatorship or a tyrannical and oppressive regime. It is also their opinion that if gun rights are lost and citizens disarmed, we will become slaves rather than free men. This may be debatable but many seriously believe it.

4) The Republican Party which had often favored strong control sensed an opportunity to use gun control as a wedge issue. This, in my opinion, was a very smart move and allowed Republicans to win many seats at the state and federal level. I know a good number of gun owning Republicans who agree with me on most issues but absolutely refuse to vote for any Democrat.

I still feel compromise is possible but the gun control movement has to reassure gun owners that they have gave up on schemes designed to ban and confiscate weapons. Admittedly this is a daunting task. Many who wish for strong gun control still wish to a return of their glory days and are empowered by a media who does it's best to do away with the Second Amendment even when it means ignoring its responsibility under the First.

I had hopes that Obama with all his charisma would be the leader to get the two sides of the issue to sit down at a table and hammer out some improvements to our current gun laws. I really hate to say this but I am forming the opinion that Obama is a truly great campaigner but he still has a way to go in developing his leadership skills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:06 AM

22. How about...

instead of regulating something that is statistically not even part of the problem, we focus on real change? How about increased educational opportunities, or lowering penalties for low-level drug offenses so a kid with a couple Oxy pills doesn't wreck his entire life with a jail sentence? How about we actually let him have a chance instead of having to knock off liquor stores at gunpoint to survive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:17 PM

33. Six of Seven Responses and NONE Address this

The fact that people are more concerned about keeping their assault weapons and articulating what they think are legislative wins (such as this) rather than reducing or even offering alternative solutions to gun violence, in my opinion, shows how off target such thinking is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:21 AM

25. The purpose of the RKBA is not hunting..

Or target shooting or gun collecting. The purpose is to be able to own guns to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones from criminals. Since SCOTUS has held on more than one occasion that the individual does not have the right to protection by the police, unless the individual is in police custody, the ultimate responsibility for your own safety lies with yourself.

You don't like guns, don't own them. But you are not to going to prevent me and others from owning them because you don't like guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:18 PM

34. Seven of Seven Responses and NONE Address This

The fact that people are more concerned about keeping their assault weapons and articulating what they think are legislative wins (such as this) rather than reducing or even offering alternative solutions to gun violence, in my opinion, shows how off target such thinking is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:59 PM

46. Addressing.

The fact that people are more concerned about keeping their assault weapons and articulating what they think are legislative wins (such as this) rather than reducing or even offering alternative solutions to gun violence, in my opinion, shows how off target such thinking is.

I suggest addressing the causes of violence rather than inventing specious categories of scary weapons and then using these categorizations to ban the most popular rifle platform in the country while doing virtually nothing about actual crime.

Let's try addressing the logjams in NICS reporting by the states. Let's make NICS available to private sellers. Let's get non-violent offenders out of our prisons to free up some space in which to keep violent offenders locked up for a long, long time.

Or we could just keep whining about scary rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #46)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:09 AM

48. Well

Thanks for actually posting an idea that actually addresses my post.

I agree we need to address the causes if not actually addressed by you.

I agree we need to 'make NICS available to private sellers.'

I agree we need to 'get non-violent offenders out of our prisons to free up some space in which to keep violent offenders locked up for a long, long time.'

So why then do you resort to characterizing me as 'whining about scary rifles?' Are you 'whining?'

Perhaps rather than build consensus, is your purpose is to distract from the fact assault weapons kill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #48)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:31 AM

52. Yes, you are whining.

So why then do you resort to characterizing me as 'whining about scary rifles?' Are you 'whining?'

Perhaps rather than build consensus, is your purpose is to distract from the fact assault weapons kill?

All firearms are capable of killing. Surely everyone realizes that, despite my supposed attempts at distraction. What I characterize as whining is your monomaniacal insistence that there is something to be gained by banning the most popular rifles in the country, despite the fact that they are seldom used in crime. I believe that my position is reasonable. I believe that yours is fanatical. Abandon that absurd and extreme position, and then we can begin to talk about consensus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 01:33 AM

54. So

We don't agree on somethings all evidence to the contrary?


LOL. Have an argument with a 'straw man'!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #54)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:23 AM

60. I don't even know what that means.

We don't agree on somethings all evidence to the contrary?

Try that again. As it is, it is unintelligible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #60)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:49 PM

67. See Post 48

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 02:16 AM

58. I have often proposed alternate solutions which gun control advocates have largely ignored. ...

I favor:

1) Improving the NICS background check system by requiring the states to more timely input data on those who should not be allowed to own firearms and providing the federal funding to accomplish this task.

2) Requiring the states to also input data to the NICKS background check system on those legally adjudged as having serious and dangerous mental issues that should prohibit their owning firearms.

3) Requiring an NICS background check for all private sales of firearms for a reasonable fee which should be roughly what is charged for an NICS background check ran on a new purchase.

4) Strong law enforcement of existing law and severe penalties for anyone who is caught carrying a firearm illegally or trafficking in the straw purchase of firearms or their smuggling to our inner cities or foreign nations. I favor long sentences for these activities and not light slaps on the wrist.

5) Requiring all high school students to pass a firearm safety course which actually introduces them to the basics of common firearms and how to safely handle them. This course should mention both the good and bad side of firearms. While they are very dangerous tools, firearms can be used by responsible citizens for hunting, target shooting and even for self defense. (In a nation where firearms are present in almost every other house, this only makes sense.)

6) At the completion of a gun safety course the graduate should receive a card which he must present to buy a firearm or ammunition.

7) We should admit that our war on drugs is and been a TOTAL failure and has led to the formation of criminal gangs that often misuse firearms to fight over turf and consequently elevate the level of firearm violence in our nation. We should legalize some drugs and use the taxes generated to provide assistance for those who are addicted.

8) We need to improve our educational system to be better prepared to work in well paying jobs that require a high level of training. We can do this by moving our educational system into the current century and using modern technology to assist teachers to better prepared their students.

Many of these ideas will be opposed by the NRA. Still i feel they are reasonable and have a good chance of being accomplished.

I find it distressing that many of those who favor strong gun control favor the implementation of useless feel good laws such another AWB, banning large capacity magazines or the registration of all firearms with the federal government. Such grand schemes have little or no chance of ever becoming law in the near future or even in a decade or two.

What will probably happen is that those who favor gun control will continue to push for gun bans or other impossible to achieve goals and little headway will be made in finding ways to reduce firearm violence to even lower levels than we have in our nation today. Of course the gun control group has a hard time admitting that the level of firearm violence has dropped to levels last seen in the late 60's according to FBI statistics. (I am willing to admit that despite the fact that while violent crime has decreased in the same time frame that firearm sales have skyrocketed and "shall issue" concealed carry has become the law in many states -- we can do better.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #58)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:57 PM

68. Agree With Most

Agree with all but #5

Assault weapons 'feel good' only to those using them. That's what 'feels good'.

Your suggestion that gun violence has dropped and somehow related to having more guns is downright silly.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #68)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:17 PM

71. I find it interesting that you oppose firearm safety training in high school. ...

Perhaps you feel it is far better for our youth to learn firearm safety from the movies and TV.

FBI statistics do show that gun violence has dropped to levels last seen in the late 60s. There are many reasons for this drop and I don't attribute the entire drop to an increase in civilian ownership of firearms.

However for years those who oppose gun ownership stated that more guns = more violence. Obviously this HAS been proven totally false.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #71)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:52 PM

82. You Assume

...that everyone wants to own or operate a gun in high school. They don't and those who do where I live do so not for sport but for crime.

More unlawful, unlicensed, unregulated guns create more crime, violence and unnecessary carnage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #82)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 08:56 PM

89. Unfortunately almost every child in our nation ...

will be exposed to a firearm in his lifetime. Having some idea of how a firearm should be safely handled might actually save some lives.

One time I was cleaning a firearm when a young teen aged girl entered the room. She asked me some questions about firearms and then told me of some of her male friends who also had access to handguns.

I quickly realized that her friends had little or no knowledge of firearm safety and thought that firearms were "cool" and even fun to play with. The way she described them handling a semi-auto pistol caused me to cringe.

I gave her a short course on basic firearm safety and how to check if they are unloaded or loaded. Her tale had led to believe that her friends had the misconception that if you dropped a magazine from a pistol, it was safe. Some pistols do indeed have a magazine safety and a magazine has to be in the weapon before it will fire. This is not true of all pistols. I also pointed out that any safety is simply a mechanical device and might fail. I emphasized how important it is to practice muzzle safety and NEVER point any gun at something you would not want to destroy!

Basic firearm safety comes down to:

All guns are always loaded.
Never point a gun at anything you are unwilling to destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Know your target.
Keep your gun at the minimum level of readiness.

I told this young girl that if she was in a home with her friends again and they were playing with another firearm to mention what I had taught her and if they laughed to leave the home and never return. I also had a long talk with the girl's mother.

I have no idea if my efforts at educating this girl had any effect. Young people often feel that they are far wiser than their elders. I admit that I suffered from the same delusion when I was a teenager.

It is my opinion that a high school course on gun safety might help reduce needless tragedy. Another fact you might want to consider is that often high school courses turn off students. For example I used to enjoy reading Shakespeare as a youth but lost all interest after having been forced to read and http analyze Macbeth in high school.

I personally believe that every high school student should also be qualified in first aid. I feel this would save even more lives than a course in gun safety.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:36 PM

79. It's not a 'suggestion'- gun violence in the US *has* dropped.

Only a Prohibitionist could be upset by that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #79)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:49 PM

81. Upset?

And you 'think' I'm upset about that? Shows what you 'think'!

Nah, I think you are crazy to think that's relevant to those who are impacted by gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:52 PM

65. If the laws

already on the books are enforced then much gun violence would be reduced. Mandatory prison sentences for anyone using a gun in a crime would help, but we better build more prisons. Or, even better, release many non-violent drug offenders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:58 PM

69. Agree

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 03:21 AM

61. I'll address it, but you aren't going to like it.

The fact that people are more concerned about keeping their assault weapons and articulating what they think are legislative wins (such as this) rather than reducing or even offering alternative solutions to gun violence.

Thats what you want addressed right?

Did you support the original assault weapon ban? If so, you need look no further for reasons why this state of affairs exists as you perceive it and described it in the above paragraph. I doubt this will change until those who claim to want to prevent gun violence, distance themselves from those that want to limit/prevent/make difficult to own guns ...because they're guns.

The fact that so called gun violence prevention groups and their supporters have NOT distanced themselves from the anti-gunners, particularly in light of the history of the intentions of the anti-gun movement, combined with the fact that so called "gun violence prevention" groups seem as interested in "going after guns" as the anti-gun groups did, pretty much seals it.

We - gun owners who care about our rights - dont trust you - "gun violence prevention" proponents.

I mean...here, let me rephrase what you originally wrote:


The fact that people are more concerned going after assault weapons and articulating what they think are anti-gun priorities (such as the ones often posted in this very forum) rather than kicking the extremists from their movement so that a real dialogue can be had which might lead to reducing or even offering alternative solutions to gun violence, in my opinion, shows how off target such thinking is.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #61)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:52 PM

80. "Gun violence prevention advocates" are largely gun Prohibitionists.

There are easy 'tells' when an "antiviolence" advocate is really a crypto-Prohibitionist

If their reaction to violent crime is to propose more restrictions upon legal gun ownership- well, there's your gun Prohibitionist. Another 'tell' is an insistence against evidence that gun crime is rising.

For example:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/1/?single_page=true

In 2004, the Ohio legislature passed a law allowing private citizens to apply for permits to carry firearms outside the home. The decision to allow concealed carry was, of course, a controversial one. Law-enforcement organizations, among others, argued that an armed population would create chaos in the streets. In 2003, John Gilchrist, the legislative counsel for the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, testified, “If 200,000 to 300,000 citizens begin carrying a concealed weapon, common sense tells us that accidents will become a daily event.”

When I called Gilchrist recently, he told me that events since the state’s concealed-carry law took effect have proved his point. “Talking to the chiefs, I know that there is more gun violence and accidents involving guns,” he said. “I think there’s more gun violence now because there are more guns. People are using guns in the heat of arguments, and there wouldn’t be as much gun violence if we didn’t have people carrying weapons. If you’ve got people walking around in a bad mood—or in a divorce, they’ve lost their job—and they get into a confrontation, this could result in the use of a gun. If you talk to emergency-room physicians in the state, see more and more people with gunshot wounds.”

Gilchrist said he did not know the exact statistics on gun-related incidents (or on incidents concerning concealed-carry permit holders specifically, because the state keeps the names of permit holders confidential). He says, however, that he tracks gun usage anecdotally. “You can look in the newspaper. I consciously look for stories that deal with guns. There are more and more articles in The Columbus Dispatch about people using guns inappropriately.”

Gilchrist’s argument would be convincing but for one thing: the firearm crime rate in Ohio remained steady after the concealed-carry law passed in 2004.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #80)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 07:11 PM

87. Not Me

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:05 PM

94. You mean the shootings that are at a 40-year low?

Look, whatever we're doing to reduce shootings over the past 20 years is working. Why change it now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #94)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:29 PM

104. Because Gun Violence

....continues to kill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #104)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:48 PM

108. So do refrigerators tipping over.

BAN ALL THE THINGS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #108)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:28 PM

110. Right

I'm sure you think refrigerators tipping over have killed like guns. Such is the folly of some gun enthusiasts. No reasoning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Clames (Reply #73)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:53 PM

74. a lawyer who moonlights as an armed security guard

for a company that has them carry a .25 ACP. Something is not right with this picture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:29 AM

75. Yeah, Beretta Tomcat I think.

 

Don't think anyone hired as a security guard is using that for anything more than a back-up. Always interesting the hypocrisy of someone who has voted for AWB's and is probably a staunch supporter of Chicago's gun bans. Interesting but far from surprising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #75)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 12:47 AM

96. Tomcat is a .32

The .25 would be a Bobcat (also available in .22). If it's an older gun, it could be a Jetfire or one of those pre-PPK James Bond pistols, whatever they were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #96)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:02 PM

101. You know what they say?

"Shoot somebody with a .25 and if they ever find out about, they're gonna be pissed off."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #101)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:13 PM

103. Really

That's what they say?

So only some people shot ...with a 22 .....are pissed off? Not others?

And only if they find out what they were shot with....... And by whom?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #103)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:35 PM

105. it is joke referring to the round's low power

One of my brothers was a cop in a town near the Wind River reservation. He knew a reservation cop that had a run in with some thug who thought he could play "cowboys and Indians" with a .25. One bullet was stopped by the officer's shirt pocket memo pad and the other bounced off his badge. The Native American officer had a .357. Big city (a .25 is a city gun, back then small pistols in general were city guns) white boy didn't fare as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #105)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:47 PM

107. Don't understand the technology - don't get the jokes

Smallest book in any library "The Gun Controllers Big Book of Humor", 2 covers stitched together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #107)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:44 PM

113. Guns are funny.....

...enough to fill a book?

Hhmmmmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #107)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:42 PM

116. It's obvious that many people who want strong gun control do not understand ...

gun tech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #116)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:02 PM

117. And they wear their ignorance proudly

One of them told me off a few months ago, then ran and hid in Meta.

He learned all about guns and the gun laws from reading about it using Google. Then he claimed he could walk into any gun store and walk out with a machine gun or buy a kit for $5 to make his own.

I asked him if he ever saw or filled out a 4473 or ever actually set foot in a gun store of any kind or a gun show, he got all pissy and called me a technogeek about guns and, of course, an NRA shill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #116)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:49 AM

128. Well to be fair, "strong gun control"

Generally doesn't really require knowledge of the tech.

Handgun or self-loading rifle = TEH EBILZ! BAN BAN BAN!

Anything more is irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #105)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:29 PM

111. Well

I think anyone shot with a gun is probably pissed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread