Another shooting....

[87manche]

I almost want to add Urban Yan on facebook. The gun control crowd over there seem to have run out of things to reply with vs me and Nate :laugh2:

as I stated before, when they're quiet I know I'm winning.

I did get him to admit that banning hi cap mags was pointless with the columbine facts, and then they just disappeared.

 

[Beezil]

Here is a thought. 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right ot have guns, the Supreme Court has already ruled once on private ownership of weapons. I think we all agree on that, it's pretty clear in The Constitution even if the past administration once said it was only a piece of paper and the current administartion doesn't care for it either.

What if one permit for one gun was issued to every citizen over a certain age. That citizen could use their permit one of three ways. either (1) Purchase one weapon of their choosing. (2) Sell their permit to another citizen who could then own two guns because they would have two permits. (3) Sell their permit to the local PD for a $100 gift card aka gun buy back.

2nd Amendment is upheld, a citizen could still have a gun, those that want to own more than one weapon still have the ability, and those foolish enough to turn in weapons for gift cards still have that opportunity.

HUH?

 

[sardo_67]

420 is just making stuff up.

law enforcement most definitely, without question, supports private gun ownership and possession by civilians in and outside the home (carry).

no they don't, well a lot of them do not. i have talked to many local CT guys who have been pulled over, while getting their ID out the cop sees their CT Pistol permit in the wallet. Cop imminently steps back and puts his hand on his side arm while asking "sir, are you or anyone in the car carrying or have weapons" and starts to treat them like a criminal. WTF!?!?!
someone who has a permit is the LAST person you should worry about, not that is not 100% of LE but a lot of them are like that.

 

[sardo_67]

as for the number of guns, the more guns a person has the less likely they are to use them in a crime i believe.

who are you going to be worried about,
the guy who just wants one gun and 10 rounds?
or
the guy who collects them as a hobby?

look at the typical drug dealer stereotype, a gun to him is a tool, not a hobby or fun past time like the rest of us. he is going to use his "tool" to conduct his business, intimidating other people with the threat of shooting them, also as protection from other criminals who also have guns. he only needs one gun and a few rounds, he doesn't go to the range to practice, he keeps it on his person and illegally concealed carries where he goes regardless of the law. they usually have small piece of shit hand guns not worth more than $50, one of the Corpsman in our unit is a paramedic in New Haven CT (#3 high national gun murder city 2010) and treated more gun shot wounds there than he did in Afghan. they are all small caliber shots, 22lr, 25cal, 32 auto and a few 9mm but mostly from cheap piece of crap guns.

 

[XJEEPER]

I've had the exact opposite experience. I've been pulled over a few times in the past serveral years and when the officer notices my permit, which I keep in my wallet under my DL, they have never questioned whether or not I was carrying. In fact, I've only gotten warnings.......being in a Western state that values the 2nd Amendment likely has a lot to do with this, plus I don't act guilty or threatening.

 

[DrMoab]

I've had the exact opposite experience. I've been pulled over a few times in the past serveral years and when the officer notices my permit, which I keep in my wallet under my DL, they have never questioned whether or not I was carrying. In fact, I've only gotten warnings.......being in a Western state that values the 2nd Amendment likely has a lot to do with this, plus I don't act guilty or threatening.

Same exact experience here. I always hand them my license and my CCW at the same time. The only questions I've ever been asked was if the gun was on my person or in the vehicle. In ten years of carrying I've probably been pulled over 10-15 times and I've never got a ticket.

 

[urban yan]

Urban Yam doesn't understand the issues involved here. It's pretty plain.
It's like he is a high school drop out burger flipper trying to argue about the existence of quarks with a theoretical physicist. He's just totally out of his league.

That would hurt my feelings if I had any.

no, it's the fact. Why should I compromise my rights and my hobby for no gain? If we ban boosting 4.0's it will make all 4.0's appear less environmentally damaging, we should ban boosted 4.0's.
See how easy it is to pick out something and ban it arbitrarily?

Are we doing the car comparison thing again?
Cars have a myriad of EVOLVING rules and regulations (seatbelts, crash test and fuel economy standards); moreso -- as a responsible car owner -- I don't feel threatened by reasonable regulations (even regarding performance upgrades). In comparison, guns have very few regulations (somehow, I know you will misconstrue this comment as a blatant attack on the 2nd amendment).

You're out of your mind, gun designs are copied with slight modifications all the time.
There are no truly new features.
3d printers would be a copyright/patent issue anyway, not something the NRA would ever become involved in.
That's like saying that Ford would start suing everyone that built their own motor.

Copyright laws did very little to protect the music industry; and it's perfectly conceivable that the NRA will lobby the government for stricter gun regulations to protect their biggest supporters - the gun manufacturers. Hey, you're the one that daydreams of futuristic tyrannical dystopias; indulge me - for a moment - to make my own predictions (based on my share of experience with the dmca).

BTW, this wouldn't be the first time the NRA lobbied for a fatter, more bloated government. Where do you think the money for all those armed guards at schools will come from?

you can down load the 3D CAD files of most guns, i found the files to make an AR-15 4 or 5 years ago, this is nothing new. it's not illegal anyway, they make "80%" receivers that you buy then finish machine yourself. not illegal.

thinking that 3D scanners bring something new to the table is just wrong. i have access to a 3D printer as well, i could have a receiver printed out in less than a day.

I hear you, but my point's that this technology isn't mainstream; the debate will change when economies of scale put a 3D printer in everyone's home.

it's the world we live in, deal with it. there are much more important things to deal with than gun laws or regulations, oh idk.... say maybe the debt this country is in? economic growth? i mean ya thats a good idea, unemployment is stupid high so lets make gun laws that shut down a billion dollar a year industry, force millions into unemployment, loss of tax revenue, and the many many other things no one thinks of.

That's something I can wrap my mind around; however, the reoccurring argument within this thread's more preoccupied with future tyrannical dystopias rather than the present economic/social dystopia.

What about those of us responsible gun owners who like to collect them? Not to horde them. Not because we believe the world is ending but for the plain and simple reason that we appreciate high quality, well made machinery. Why should we have to go through the added expense and stress of searching for someone's permit that's for sale.

I'm of the mind that laws --albeit unpleasant at times-- are a necessity of a functioning and healthy society. Law abiding citizens shouldn't fear reasonable laws. I think it's more productive -- as a law abiding citizen-- to engage the argument from a cost/reward standpoint instead.

I almost want to add Urban Yan on facebook. The gun control crowd over there seem to have run out of things to reply with vs me and Nate :laugh2:

Awesome, my facebook username's RictusErectus69

as I stated before, when they're quiet I know I'm winning.
I did get him to admit that banning hi cap mags was pointless with the columbine facts, and then they just disappeared.

Maybe, or maybe it's because I'm employed - often - with little time or interest to refute your unrelenting repetitive comparisons.

 

[Boatwrench]

Ryan, There are collectors, enthustiasts, hoarders and abhorders. Collectors don't bother me, enthusiasts don't bother me the last two groups do. The Constitution needs to be protected and extremists on either end of the debate are waht puts it in jeopardy. I put a compromise out there for the sake of discussion.

I told my darling wife last night on the drive home, 23 innocent children were killed at school, but hundreds of thousands made it home from school safely the same day.

 

[DrMoab]

Why do people who horde guns scare you? Most of them do it over the irrational fear they might lose their right to own them or they are survivalists or they have a notion that the world is coming to an end. Not one of those things make them violent and 99.99999999% of the time they have no intention of hurting anyone unless they are screwed with. So where is the problem?

 

[420BlackXJ]

OK, so how about this.
Mandatory liability insurance for gunowners.
You can own ANY gun you want. ANY number of guns you want. You are responsible, in civil court, for ANY damages caused by your gun(s), while registered to you. If your gun is stolen, YOU are civically responsible for damages, so hence, mandatory liability insurance. This protects/compensates victims of gun violence. The criminal who used your gun to commit a crime goes to jail.
Your ins. agent could underwrite a policy based on a number of things, like gun safety education/demonstration, gun storage, and other measures of responsibility of the owner. I suspect Dr. Moab and others would have no problem demonstrating responsibility, and would find a cheap policy. I am not worried about gunowners like that, just about what happens if their guns ever fall into the wrong hands.

I would have to buy a policy for my six shooter:laugh3:in a safe place.

How about the rest of you?

 

[87manche]

Copyright laws did very little to protect the music industry; and it's perfectly conceivable that the NRA will lobby the government for stricter gun regulations to protect their biggest supporters - the gun manufacturers. Hey, you're the one that daydreams of futuristic tyrannical dystopias; indulge me - for a moment - to make my own predictions (based on my share of experience with the dmca).
I don't daydream of our country falling apart, but why should I not be prepared? It's not like we've seen civil unrest and mobs of looters after natural disasters and the like. You want to restrict my ability to defend my property and my life after a natural disaster?
BTW, this wouldn't be the first time the NRA lobbied for a fatter, more bloated government. Where do you think the money for all those armed guards at schools will come from?

The NRA offered to pay for it all chief. ust like they fund the gun safety programs that used to be in every school. never heard of the eddie eagle program?
http://eddieeagle.nra.org/



I hear you, but my point's that this technology isn't mainstream; the debate will change when economies of scale put a 3D printer in everyone's home.
people have been building ak's and AR's for a long time in home shops. What changes when you get plastic printers?


That's something I can wrap my mind around; however, the reoccurring argument within this thread's more preoccupied with future tyrannical dystopias rather than the present economic/social dystopia.

I am far more concerned with our fiscal collapse than any tyranny, but how do you think we arrive at tyranny? You don't think marshal law gets declared after a fiscal collapse and the masses turn on each other for basic needs like food? Before you dismiss this as a possibility I'd like to to do some research on recent history, like the economic collapse in Argentina and how people had to survive there.

I'm of the mind that laws --albeit unpleasant at times-- are a necessity of a functioning and healthy society. Law abiding citizens shouldn't fear reasonable laws. I think it's more productive -- as a law abiding citizen-- to engage the argument from a cost/reward standpoint instead.

The people that are law abiding are also the people that don't need laws to know right from wrong and how not to infringe on another persons rights.

The new executive orders are going to cost the federal government another 500 million dollars. Exactly what is the reward for that money? Do you really think that gun violence will be affected by this?

 

[DrMoab]

OK, so how about this.
Mandatory liability insurance for gunowners.
You can own ANY gun you want. ANY number of guns you want. You are responsible, in civil court, for ANY damages caused by your gun(s), while registered to you. If your gun is stolen, YOU are civically responsible for damages, so hence, mandatory liability insurance. This protects/compensates victims of gun violence. The criminal who used your gun to commit a crime goes to jail.
Your ins. agent could underwrite a policy based on a number of things, like gun safety education/demonstration, gun storage, and other measures of responsibility of the owner. I suspect Dr. Moab and others would have no problem demonstrating responsibility, and would find a cheap policy. I am not worried about gunowners like that, just about what happens if their guns ever fall into the wrong hands.

I would have to buy a policy for my six shooter:laugh3:in a safe place.

How about the rest of you?

Why do liberal minded people like yourself always want to throw the blame on everyone BUT the person committing the crime? I shouldn't have to take extra steps to keep some thug from breaking into my house and stealing my stuff.

I keep most of my guns locked up only because A. I don't want to lose something valuable and B. because my kids have friends over.

Once someone commits a crime by breaking into my house, my responsibility should end.

 

[420BlackXJ]

Why do liberal minded people like yourself always want to throw the blame on everyone BUT the person committing the crime? I shouldn't have to take extra steps to keep some thug from breaking into my house and stealing my stuff.

I keep most of my guns locked up only because A. I don't want to lose something valuable and B. because my kids have friends over.

Once someone commits a crime by breaking into my house, my responsibility should end.

Not throwing blame, just mandating responsibility. Remember, you DON"T go to jail. Your insurance pays any damages.
I just compromised a whole lot on gun control. You should compromise a little too.
Still want to hoard guns if this policy was law?

 

[87manche]

OK, so how about this.
Mandatory liability insurance for gunowners.
You can own ANY gun you want. ANY number of guns you want. You are responsible, in civil court, for ANY damages caused by your gun(s), while registered to you. If your gun is stolen, YOU are civically responsible for damages, so hence, mandatory liability insurance. This protects/compensates victims of gun violence. The criminal who used your gun to commit a crime goes to jail.
Your ins. agent could underwrite a policy based on a number of things, like gun safety education/demonstration, gun storage, and other measures of responsibility of the owner. I suspect Dr. Moab and others would have no problem demonstrating responsibility, and would find a cheap policy. I am not worried about gunowners like that, just about what happens if their guns ever fall into the wrong hands.

I would have to buy a policy for my six shooter:laugh3:in a safe place.

How about the rest of you?

we already have laws prohibiting a federal registry.

There are already violent crime victim funds. (ever been the victim of violent crime? I have, and it's a key reason why I carry and am prepared to protect myself.)

There are already many states with negligent storage laws on the books, in fact MN was one of the pioneers in that regard. Why don't you learn a little about existing laws before you propose new ones.


Again, it should not be a burden to own firearms, it is a natural right. What happens if someone falls on hard times and can't afford the insurance? Do you come and take their firearms? Do they become a felon?

What happens if the insurance company (a private entity under no obligation to insure anyone) doesn't want to insure you? What if the civil cases threaten to bankrupt them and they stop offering gun owner's insurance?

oh, and we already have laws that protect the manufacturers from lawsuits resulting in the misuse of their product, so why do they get protection but the average citizen is on the hook? Double standard much?

 

[cracker]

The new executive orders are going to cost the federal government another 500 million dollars. Exactly what is the reward for that money? Do you really think that gun violence will be affected by this?

LOL. I work in Compton, CA. I can get almost any drug and gun I want here....any laws by the federal goverment or by the liberal slunts in California will not change the availability here.

So with the possibility of a certain gun ban, I don't see how it would make any difference.

 

[87manche]

LOL. I work in Compton, CA. I can get almost any drug and gun I want here....any laws by the federal goverment or by the liberal slunts in California will not change the availability here.

So with the possibility of a certain gun ban, I don't see how it would make any difference.

exactly.

now lets add in the fact that I can still legally buy a firearm that functions identically to a banned one, takes the same mags, fires the same rounds and has the same internal parts.

Then you realize that a ban is pointless.

 

[kastein]

Liberals approach gun laws the same way the previous owner of my MJ approached rocker panel repair... the last layer didn't work? quick, slap another fugly layer on top of that!

 

[87manche]

Liberals approach gun laws the same way the previous owner of my MJ approached rocker panel repair... the last layer didn't work? quick, slap another fugly layer on top of that!

this is QOTD material right here.

 

[Fullsizexj]

Not throwing blame, just mandating responsibility. Remember, you DON"T go to jail. Your insurance pays any damages.
I just compromised a whole lot on gun control. You should compromise a little too.
Still want to hoard guns if this policy was law?

Why should we comprimise, this is a God given constitutional right, we are not the ones committing these crimes and I will not be the one who is punished for them. The court system is the one that needs to get it's act together, the guy that killed the firemen had been in prison for killing a family member, gets released and kills another family member, then sets the house on fire and waits to start shooting fire fighters, the kid that did the shooting in conn kills mom to get guns and then goes and kills kids in a school, why should my rights as a law abiding citizen be limitted by the actions of evil people. Explain that one to me.

 

[XJEEPER]

Not throwing blame, just mandating responsibility. Remember, you DON"T go to jail. Your insurance pays any damages.
I just compromised a whole lot on gun control. You should compromise a little too.
Still want to hoard guns if this policy was law?

1-The 2nd Amendment should not be compromised.

2-Your "plan" has no merit, as it assumes that the majority of legal firearm owners are not alredy responsible. The intent is to place additional financial burden on firearm ownership by forcing people to buy extra insurance in order to store their firearms in their home, beyond the insurance which they already carry to insure their posessions?

3-See #1