Larry Warner

Why is the idea of arming every law abiding citizen not part of the solution? Statistics say different.

I remember posters making reference to Mountain Ref's ideas as being racist.

The over 100 hits that he has written and sang throughout his career would beg to differ. Let's also not forget the long list of awards that he has recieved long after his father's death, including grammy.

He can play any instrument well that you will find on his stage, write well, sing well, and has to be one of the best performers in the history of country music. Other than that, he has no talent:eyeonyou:

Perhaps wearing orange is one of the noted activities.

I can agree with that totally. The problem seems to be people using misguided information to stir up emotion on both sides. If we would use statistics, facts, law, and common sense, this would no longer be an issue.

Those weapons can easily be justified. You seem to be wavering on your belief system. You deem that one crime, which affect far less people and cost far less lives in this country every year should be made a capital crime, while you feel that another which statistically cost far more lives every year should be made legal. You are not making sense, and you seem ignorant to how many crimes are comitted a year with an unregistered automatic weapon. The second amendment has nothing to do with self defense, it has to do with the right to keep and bearing arms being a Constitutionally protected right. If someone wants to change that protection, they should try to make another amendment to the Constitution. Otherwise, it is protected. Thankfully, it seems that the majority of our legislators are going to feel the same way.

The consequences are already huge, just not well enforced. The same can be said for drugs. No doubt, simple economics.

By your logic, why not just make drug use a capital crime? Also, when is the last time an unregistered automatic weapon was used in one of these shootings, or sold at a gun show for that matter?

I have to ask again, why does it matter? A criminal committed an illegal act, and the answer provided is to take the tool used from law abiding citizens. It simply doesn't make sense.

You can have any police officer run a serial number check on a gun. It will show if it has been reported as "illegal," like being part of a crime or stolen. I can't believe someone thinks possession of a weapon should be a capital crime.

So you want to kill an American that owns an unregistered gun? That will NEVER be on the table. Why not take something that brings much larger harm to society, like drug use, to that point before gun ownership. Why should they be regulated? I have bought many legal weapons through private gun sales. I have called in the serial number on every weapon I have bought, just to make sure it wasn't hot. I have never bought an illegal weapon and won't. However, this didn't require new laws or government assistance. It required following CURRENT laws that are already in place. It is my responsibility not to buy illegal or stolen property.

It really doesn't matter gentlemen. Firearms were used by a criminal to committ an illegal act. Trying to limit firearms will not limit an already illegal act. It doesn't matter which type of firarms were used. I own a Henry Goldenboy lever action .357 and two single action .357 revolvers that I shoot cowboy competition with. This same act could have easily been comitted with that set of weapons. The key is to uhold laws, like keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally insane. Gun control keeps guns out of the hands of people who follow the law, and its unconstitutional. When are these sheep going to wake up and see the real issue and statistics concerning the situation?

Many parents do teach their children these values. I also think there are parents that teach their children that they should act any way they feel like acting because they are just a little better than having other's rules placed upon them. Basically, a sense of entitlement. It sounds like this group of parents clearly expressed a sense of entitlement to Guru, which I am afraid is becoming more and more common.

No doubt, my opinion carries no weight past my vote. However, you were just asking for the reasons behind the opinions of posters on this issue. I was giving you the reasons behind my opinion. How can solid statistics that link gun control with incresed violent crime and greater carry and ownership of firearms freedom with a reduction in violent crime be an opinion. People try to call it opinion who want gun control, but it is a set of statistics, not opinions.

I have a few that are friends, but I certainly don't agree with many of their actions.

She is without a doubt lying. Her entire basis is that taking assault weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens will save lives. Multiple statistics show that this is not true. She is trying to deceive the section of the Amercian public that is ignorant to the operation and use of firarms, and the actual statistics concerning their unlawful use. False representation and omission of facts are lying. She is not using news cameras as a base for debate, she is using them as a platform to present false information to the American public. No one is there to argue the point when she is giving a press conference. BTW, if you asked your signifigant other if she cheated on you with your best friend and she said no, would you consider her a liar if she said no but she was cheating on you with someone else. You can lye through omission of the facts. Also, I would personally consider anyone trying to institute gun control through any means except a new Amendment to the Constitution as attempting to achieve their goals through a backward, subversive process. There is an Amendment protecting these rights. It should require another Amendment to take these rights away.

Let me make this statement very clear. I find it extremely seedy and slimy to use the shooting in the Northeast to push an agenda that she, and several others, have had on the plate for a long time. However, I suppose that is politics, and it is seedy and slimy. She is misrepresenting information to the media. Especially the fact that she is keeping crime statistics using these so called "assault weapons" out of her discussions. If you want to present a point of view on a subject, lets at least look at all the facts concerning the subject. The fact is that far more crimes are comitted using knives than "assault weapons" in this country every year. She would be a lot less seedy if she would bring these facts up to the media, but say that "assault weapons" have a larger death potential. At least then she would have a leg to stand on. As it is, she is lying by intentionally ommitting several facts that are pertinent to the issue.

For small game it is no doubt my Winchester Model 12 sixteen gauge pump. There is no doubt it is the sweetest gun I have ever carried in the woods for squirrel or rabbits. For waterfoul and turkey I prefer my SBE2 twelve gauge or my Browning Gold 10 gauge auto, depending on the situation.

Those limits come when someone hinders the rights of others. How does carrying a concealed weapon hinder the rights of others? They won't know it is happening unless the person pulls the weapon. If they pull the weapon they will either be defending themselves or breaking a law that already exist.

Once again RM, you would have nothing to worry about from that poster with 48 guns to his name. Who knows, someone like him might wind up saving your life in a public place someday. If someone wanted to take a weapon into any of these places to use it illegally, a law would have never stopped them. I just will never understand your aversion to a law abiding citizen having the opportunity to carry a weapon.

. . I agree. It was changed through a three fourths majority. Gun control advocates are attempting to bypass that process. Therefore it isn't legal.

Its for another thread, but I disagree. It seems like if they are a two time offender the first punishment didn't work.

Come on marvel, drug use is the new slavery. Drug use is a choice that carries multiple consequences.

True, they were attacking crack. However, I don't believe that these laws have been upheld through some sort of racist agenda. They arrest criminals who engage in drug crimes.