I have read a lot of sarcastic and condescending posts in this thread. :lol:

Well, it is P&R.

Think about this statement for a second. How exactly will a new set of more restrictive and stringent regulations help catch thugs who are obtaining one illegally outside of these regulations? A criminal already knows he just can't walk into a gun store and purchase a gun, as a result of background checks required by the Brady Law. He has to find some other means (buy on the street, steal it, etc..). This new law - or ANY law - will have absolutely no impact on him at all. He'll still get the weapon in same fashion regardless of the Brady Bill, the new law, or any other law the anti-gun group wants to enact.

We have a winner! Why is that so many don't understand this?

I have loved this shirt since first seeing it in "Happy Gilmore".

 

 

I stated this earlier in this thread...

We have a winner! Why is that so many don't understand this?

 

I honestly believe that some people think more laws are the answer simply because they want to believe in our government administration. They still don't think our government will lie to us. I personally don't care which party is in charge at the time, they will all skew the facts to get what they want. The new administration has caused gun sales to rocket to an all-time high in the last four months. :thumb:

I stated this earlier in this thread...

 

Oops, sorry didn't read the whole thread. This is just first thing I thought of when I saw thread title.

And what would they hurt? I'm trying to understand that one.

 

The "what would they hurt" response is always great. If there is no reason to truely support something (like this proposed law) someone always seems to come up with "What would it hurt."

 

A law abiding citizen of this country should not have to submit their fingerprint to purchace an item that is legal by our constitution to own. The government has no right to track them. If the money that has already been spent on creating the current 22,000 gun laws had been put into law enforcement and fighting crime perhaps things would be a little better.

 

Perhaps we should just fingerprint everybody and have a database of everybody. What would it hurt?

The "what would they hurt" response is always great. If there is no reason to truely support something (like this proposed law) someone always seems to come up with "What would it hurt."

 

A law abiding citizen of this country should not have to submit their fingerprint to purchace an item that is legal by our constitution to own. The government has no right to track them. If the money that has already been spent on creating the current 22,000 gun laws had been put into law enforcement and fighting crime perhaps things would be a little better.

 

Perhaps we should just fingerprint everybody and have a database of everybody. What would it hurt?

 

At birth, your finger and footprints are recorded.

Your social security number is on record just about everywhere you can think.

Your cell-phone records can be subpoenaed without your knowledge.

Your credit report is available to just about anyone who wants to subscribe to the service to access it.

You have to have a license to practice medicine, drive a car, practice law, be an anesthesiologist, be a pharmacist, be a HAIR DRESSER.

 

I'm just not sure it matters if they have my fingerprints. I really don't mind if they do. They pretty much know anything and everything about me now.

My whole point is to point out the fallacy that the reason we should have guns is to stop criminals from doing their thing. Its not a deterrent to crime.

 

Actually I think there are statisics that say it does.

 

 

http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/ccw.pdf

 

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm20.htm

 

http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm

 

http://www.everycowgirlsdream.com/righttocarry.html

At birth, your finger and footprints are recorded.

Your social security number is on record just about everywhere you can think.

Your cell-phone records can be subpoenaed without your knowledge.

Your credit report is available to just about anyone who wants to subscribe to the service to access it.

You have to have a license to practice medicine, drive a car, practice law, be an anesthesiologist, be a pharmacist, be a HAIR DRESSER.

 

I'm just not sure it matters if they have my fingerprints. I really don't mind if they do. They pretty much know anything and everything about me now.

So with 22000 laws , just 10 or 15 more will catch the criminals ? WOW we're getting closer !:thumb:

Which makes him and you, since you admittedly agree with him, anti-gun. We gun owners don't need this kind of mentality infringing on our rights, in fact, we're quite tired of it.

I'm not anti-gun at all, no matter how much you might wish to portray my position.

So were they remove for political correctness? Next they come for your guns. Then they arrest you for reading the wrong book or watching the wrong TV show. They will be able to this because society has lost its abilitity to stop an abusive government.

Such exaggeration does nothing to bolster your position ...

I think what he was getting at is that it starts here. Then 3-4 years down the road they tighten gun laws a little bit more, then a couple years later they do it again, and again, until it eventually leads to confiscation.

 

 

How exactly would that work? There is a big difference between what is being proposed and confiscation. Confiscation would clearly require a Constitutional amendment. These kind of bogie man suggestions do little to advance the discussion and a lot to stir up the gun nuts...

How exactly would that work? There is a big difference between what is being proposed and confiscation. Confiscation would clearly require a Constitutional amendment. These kind of bogie man suggestions do little to advance the discussion and a lot to stir up the gun nuts...

 

The original no-smoking law was to not allow smoking on flights of less than a certain distance. A very reasonable request.

 

The intent of the non-smoking proponents was to ban cigarettes entirely. We're almost there.

 

I'm not saying this in support of smoking, I'm just using it as an example.

 

The anti-gun people want to ban guns entirely. The approach is always to do something that is reasonable. Then take a little more and a little more until they take all of it.

 

Over the years we have seen our rights infringed on by by small reasonable amounts over and over again. Gun advocates know this is how liberties are lost and will continue to fight every infingement with fervor.

The original no-smoking law was to not allow smoking on flights of less than a certain distance. A very reasonable request.

 

The intent of the non-smoking proponents was to ban cigarettes entirely. We're almost there.

 

I'm not saying this in support of smoking, I'm just using it as an example.

 

The anti-gun people want to ban guns entirely. The approach is always to do something that is reasonable. Then take a little more and a little more until they take all of it.

 

Over the years we have seen our rights infringed on by by small reasonable amounts over and over again. Gun advocates know this is how liberties are lost and will continue to fight every infingement with fervor.

 

I have to say that this is one of the best posts that I have seen on this issue. :thumb:

I'm not anti-gun at all, no matter how much you might wish to portray my position.

With all due respect, it's not I that's portraying you that way, it's you. I can't remember one time you've taken the gun owners side on any gun issue here on BGP...