Roll Call *Shooting in Portland*

[Snapple]

You are right. They didn't plan on people owning "assault rifles" they planned on everyone owning or being able to own whatever rifle they wanted. The average joe citizen at the time was free to go out and buy a state of the art rifle, just the same as the army.

You talk about "faltering on your rights" in the same paragraph as saying that they didn't really mean what they wrote. You have to remember what was going on when the constitution was written. There was a rebellion. A bunch of what would today be called terrorists overthrew a government that they weren't happy with. Do you really think that they would make it a point to write "....the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" if they didn't mean all arms? Do you think that the founding fathers wanted us to be at a disadvantage should the government they were setting up not go as planned? Look at some of the things that they said. Most of them made it pretty clear that they thought that we should be able to control that government which they set up by whatever means were necessary.

and at some point we as the people of the government need to take it back or government from the corruption.. but the people in control want all or guns because we can not stand up for our rights if the government owns all the weapons...

Our constitution was written by Criminals. every-single one of them was a wanted man by to country the where in (England owned America) and if it did not work would have be executed for it... Our founding fathers said everyone has the right to bear arms.. this mean everyone. even criminals... the bad part is not everyone will do good with the tools they use even a gun... but in the end they should still have the right to bear arms.. any ways there is no where at the end of the constitution that was signed by or founding fathers that said that Amendments to fallow.. I personally do not believe any amendment to or constitution should stay.. half of them contradict or original constitution. the the laws the break our rights laid out in our constitution.

 

[BoringDave]

That he's a retard. And people like that give the AR a bad name.

 

[Snapple]

Shit if you think about it.... how many people have been killed by someone when driving? and most where cause by someone using there tool (vehicle) incorrectly or unsafely. same with a gun its a tool and can be used properly but when used incorrectly (killing unarmed person) can do harm to others...

in 2009 11 people died in car accidents for ever 100,000 residents
The U.S. national average was 10.2 deaths per 100,000 population in 2009 killed by a gun or other fire arm.

Still to high but there are more people killed by other drivers or them selves in a car then a gun.
what we need is better fire arm training. everyone that owns a gun should go threw and pass a education program. (not no weekend class) it take time to make a good habit. everyone that owns a gun should own a safe to properly secure there weapons. this should be a mandate.

 

[BoringDave]

60,000 people died this year in Mexico at the business end of a gun.. All guns are ban in Mexico...

Sweden had the lowest crime rate, they have a mandatory gun owning law.


There's a school by the North Pole, kids walk to school with rifles on ther arm and bring them to class. No school shooting EVER but at the mall There's a no Weapons sign in the window SHOOTING
At that movie theater there's a sign no weapons SHOOTING

did you know Connecticut has the fifth strictest gun laws in United States... School shooting....

Did you remember kip Kinkel and the school shooting he did in the middle of the weapons ban that was issued then...


Don't ban guns, it don't work.
Just keeps good guns away from good ppl

How do you stop a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun.

I'm not sure where most people get there info about Mexico but it not true. I work with a whole bunch of Latino dudes and asked them about that. They said you can have guns just like here but you have to have proper paper work to own them. They also said no one in Mexico other the drug runners and government can afford to buy them. They claim one would have to work non stop for a year to afford one and nothing else that's why they come here. One of them told me just yesterday that even a 10 year old could have a gun of any type and not get in trouble if he has paperwork for it.

 

[Snapple]

That he's a retard. And people like that give the AR a bad name.

Agree... he give everyone a bad name.

 

[BoringDave]

Agree... he give everyone a bad name.

That's my point I guess. Look on YouTube and see all the stupid people like that with the AR's and think of how many more of them dumb ass's there really are.

Will that idiot go out and shoot up a
Shcool? Probably not. Are there other guns that could be used to do so? Yes. But they are just attracted to that one for some reason. Them and Glocks.

 

[dfarmxj]

Drunk drivers give sober drivers a bad name, but nobody wants to take away cars or booze(they tried taking the booze away for a while, but it caused more problems tan it was worth)

 

[Snapple]

I went to a high school that had a gun club. and we could once a month bring our gun to school. when Coliban happen the school got a gun safe and we had to check our weapons at the office. Got to love redneck schools.

 

[crazymoose1990]

You are right. They didn't plan on people owning "assault rifles" they planned on everyone owning or being able to own whatever rifle they wanted. The average joe citizen at the time was free to go out and buy a state of the art rifle, just the same as the army.

You talk about "faltering on your rights" in the same paragraph as saying that they didn't really mean what they wrote. You have to remember what was going on when the constitution was written. There was a rebellion. A bunch of what would today be called terrorists overthrew a government that they weren't happy with. Do you really think that they would make it a point to write "....the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" if they didn't mean all arms? Do you think that the founding fathers wanted us to be at a disadvantage should the government they were setting up not go as planned? Look at some of the things that they said. Most of them made it pretty clear that they thought that we should be able to control that government which they set up by whatever means were necessary.

I never said they didn't mean what they wrote.
Your the one that's saying if they ban assault rifle and high capacity magazines, and the government wants you to drop them off, youll merrily go skipping down to your local police station to drop them off, not me.
All is your stating is your opinion. As I'm stating mine. Just like the anti gunner citizen voice there's, doesn't mean there right but they have that right. This is also my opinion, more like speculation. I think the reason they never have required a full ban, where people were required to turn in there assault rifles is because there afraid of the results.

 

[dfarmxj]

You are right about people having the right to their state and argue opinions.

What I meant about people turning in guns is that most gun owners obey the law and don't want to make waves. All of the gun control we have now came into effect because law abiding gun owners followed the rules. Sure, somewhere there is an un-regestered machine gun tucked away in the basement of an otherwise law abiding gun owner (there are always exemptions ),but that isn't really a consequence, or even a result to the government, or the people, just a hunk of metal that has no use but to sit and collect dust for fear of getting caught with it.

These kind of discussions are hard to have, because they usually happen around some kind of tragedy that gets people upset.

The anti gunners see people upset, so they try to take advantage of the people that would normally use logic, but make decisions based on emotions. I mean after all, when crazy stuff happens, who wouldn't want some "common sense control" on the items that are in the spotlight at the moment (that is a sarcastic comment taking a poke at the antis always talking about "common sense gun laws").

When anti gun people are upset and start talking about gun bans, pro gun people get upset with the antis and then we get discussions between two upset people who think that they are right. And to a point, they both are.

Would I like to never hear about a mass shooting again? You betcha. I just know that the answer isn't taking away guns from the people that were never going to use them will solve nothing. Thousands of so called "assault rifles" sit around day in, day out and never cause a problem. The problem comes from trying to keep them out of the hands of the crazies that don't have a record yet. That becomes a slippery slope that ends with a person getting to make a decision for someone else. What if you had to apply to own a motorcycle, or a jeep, or a pickup truck when a compact car will do everything you "need" to do with a vehicle. What if the person that got to make the decision for you to get your jeep or not was a tree hugger that didn't think people should be able to drive off road? How many applications for the ownership of off road capable vehicles do you think that person would approve?

I'm also confused by the logic that says "its against the law to take a gun in a school, its against the law to shoot a gun in town, it's against the law to steal a gun, and its against the law to murder people, I think if we make a law that says that people can't have a gun with certain cosmetic features, it will stop these crimes." I can't see that passing a law to keep people from braking other laws will help anything at all. Of all the questions id like answered this one is very close to the top of my list. Lol

 

[dfarmxj]

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com...ew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

This is a pretty good read on this topic

 

[crazymoose1990]

You are right about people having the right to their state and argue opinions.

What I meant about people turning in guns is that most gun owners obey the law and don't want to make waves. All of the gun control we have now came into effect because law abiding gun owners followed the rules. Sure, somewhere there is an un-regestered machine gun tucked away in the basement of an otherwise law abiding gun owner (there are always exemptions ),but that isn't really a consequence, or even a result to the government, or the people, just a hunk of metal that has no use but to sit and collect dust for fear of getting caught with it.

These kind of discussions are hard to have, because they usually happen around some kind of tragedy that gets people upset.

The anti gunners see people upset, so they try to take advantage of the people that would normally use logic, but make decisions based on emotions. I mean after all, when crazy stuff happens, who wouldn't want some "common sense control" on the items that are in the spotlight at the moment (that is a sarcastic comment taking a poke at the antis always talking about "common sense gun laws").

When anti gun people are upset and start talking about gun bans, pro gun people get upset with the antis and then we get discussions between two upset people who think that they are right. And to a point, they both are.

Would I like to never hear about a mass shooting again? You betcha. I just know that the answer isn't taking away guns from the people that were never going to use them will solve nothing. Thousands of so called "assault rifles" sit around day in, day out and never cause a problem. The problem comes from trying to keep them out of the hands of the crazies that don't have a record yet. That becomes a slippery slope that ends with a person getting to make a decision for someone else. What if you had to apply to own a motorcycle, or a jeep, or a pickup truck when a compact car will do everything you "need" to do with a vehicle. What if the person that got to make the decision for you to get your jeep or not was a tree hugger that didn't think people should be able to drive off road? How many applications for the ownership of off road capable vehicles do you think that person would approve?

I'm also confused by the logic that says "its against the law to take a gun in a school, its against the law to shoot a gun in town, it's against the law to steal a gun, and its against the law to murder people, I think if we make a law that says that people can't have a gun with certain cosmetic features, it will stop these crimes." I can't see that passing a law to keep people from braking other laws will help anything at all. Of all the questions id like answered this one is very close to the top of my list. Lol

I Agree, its funny you brought up applying to own a certain kind of car. Something similar was brought up by mayor Bloom Berg, who was seething mad about how lax the gun laws are, he said something to they effect that people have to abide by traffic laws when driving a car, and I yell out loud in the how's that driving a car is a privilege not a right. Maybe he thinks the second amendment is a privalage also.

I'm sure this debate is going on all over the US right now. I'm sure whatever happens there will still be the slaughter of innocent people.

I think the govener of Texas said they took down all the signage that claimed gun free zones, and guess what no more gun violence in those area's.

 

[chero-car]

The ban will not make anyone turn in their rifle or high-cap mag, it will ban the SALE of such items. Just like in '94, you can still have the (pre-ban) items. But no one will know until they say what they are going to do.

 

[yhateanxj?]

I'm not sure where most people get there info about Mexico but it not true. I work with a whole bunch of Latino dudes and asked them about that. They said you can have guns just like here but you have to have proper paper work to own them. They also said no one in Mexico other the drug runners and government can afford to buy them. They claim one would have to work non stop for a year to afford one and nothing else that's why they come here. One of them told me just yesterday that even a 10 year old could have a gun of any type and not get in trouble if he has paperwork for it.

Article Two of the Federal Law of Firearms allows possession and carrying of handguns (pistolas) in calibers of .380 or less, although some calibers are excluded, most notably .357 magnum and 9mm parabellum. Shotguns (escopetas) are permitted in 12 gauge or smaller. Rifles (same word in English and Spanish) are also permitted, in .30 caliber or smaller.

Gun permits, for a one-year term, are issued by the military department of defense, SEDENA (Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional). The SEDENA subdivision in charge of gun licensing is the Dirección General del Registro Federal de Armas de Fuego y Control de Explosivos. 10 In Mexico, the military plays a leading role in domestic law enforcement.

An applicant must belong to a shooting club in order to obtain a permit. If he does, it is straightforward to obtain a permit to own one handgun for home protection.

A person may, in theory, obtain a permit for up to 10 firearms. All guns must be registered with the Ministry of National Defense within 30 days of acquisition. Licensees may only buy ammunition for the caliber of gun for which they are licensed.

To apply for a permit, a person must go to the nearest military base. The military is legally required to issue or reject a license within 50 days of the application. A license applicant must be at least 18 years old, must have fulfilled any obligation of military service, must have the physical and mental capacity to use firearms safely, have no criminal convictions involving firearms, must not be a consumer of drugs, and must have an “upright” way of life.

There is only one firearms store, UCAM (Unidad de Comercialización de Armamento y Municiones). It is owned and operated by the military, and located in Mexico City.

Private sales of long guns are legal, but the buyer must register the gun within 30 days with the military’s arms registry.

By police fiat, possession of firearms above .22 caliber is severely restricted.
A separate license is necessary for the transportation of firearms. Guns in transit must be unloaded and contained in a case.

 

[BoringDave]

Article Two of the Federal Law of Firearms allows possession and carrying of handguns (pistolas) in calibers of .380 or less, although some calibers are excluded, most notably .357 magnum.

That must be why one of the Mexican dudes at work said he wanted a .357

 

[RedJeep2.0]

 

[BoringDave]

Just got back from my local bi-mart, I was going to pick up another pack of target ammo. Don't think so! They didn't have anything in .380 9mm .40 .223 7.62x39 even the .22 shelf was empty! Sold out of 10/22's and all the 25 round mags.

The counter dude said its been a mad house this last week. He said its just like 2008 all over again.

 

[NW-ZJ-SCOTT]

Just got back from my local bi-mart, I was going to pick up another pack of target ammo. Don't think so! They didn't have anything in .380 9mm .40 .223 7.62x39 even the .22 shelf was empty! Sold out of 10/22's and all the 25 round mags.

The counter dude said its been a mad house this last week. He said its just like 2008 all over again.

Lets just put it this way, Background checks usually take 5-20 mins.

I applied for one at 1pm today, it will be tomorrow morning before it clears..

 

[BoringDave]

Lets just put it this way, Background checks usually take 5-20 mins.

I applied for one at 1pm today, it will be tomorrow morning before it clears..

What's ya getting?

 

[crazymoose1990]

Can't be an assault rifle, everywhere is pretty much cleaned out.