Larry Warner

However, facilitating access to weapons to law abiding citizens also facilitates access to non law abiding citizens. The NRA position to "arm everyone" is rediculous, destructive and shows that the NRA is not part of the solution to gun violence. Jesse Jackson is no more radical than the NRA solution to gun violence.

 

Furthermore, the NRA compels memberships from gun owners like unions compel memberships from labor.

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

Who has called someone racist on this board? It's been a long time since I have seen that and it wasn't even related to the government when it happened. Name names. Who said it? Who is calling people racist?

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

I will agree on the musical instruments.

 

Zero chance he sings well or writes well.

 

Perfect example of living off of his dad.

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.

Hank Jr is devoid of any talent.

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:

The UT athletic dept for one.

Perhaps wearing orange is one of the noted activities.

Why does what matter?

 

I'm not an advocate for any ban on guns. I'm just saying the "conspiracies" are wrong. The State Police have released what guns were found where.

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.

And I am not opposed to legal, responsible and trained gun ownership. Especially hand guns and guns used for sport. But there are a lot of weapons out there whose use for self defense cannot be justified. The framework for gun registration needs to be streamlined so that the enforcement costs are reasonable.

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.

If existing gun laws are insufficient to prevent the acquisition of weapons by those with hostile intent, then the consequences of the existing laws needs to be elevated.

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

Your logic and reasoning are not correct. If you want to reduce gun violence, eliminate the war on drugs. And yes, I would support capital punishment for the possession of an unregistered automatic weapon.

 

The Single Best Anti-Gun-Death Policy? Ending the Drug War - Noah Smith - The Atlantic

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?

The State Police have already stated what guns were found in the school. A rifle (bushmaster) and two pistols were located in the school. A shotgun was found in the trunk of the car. These conspiracies are from people who choose to ignore those facts.

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.

What do you consider registered?

 

There is a paper trail that can be followed if you have the guns serial number. There is no national data base that you can go into and enter my name and see what guns I own. Each store that I have purchased a gun at has a paper record of my purchase, but to see what I or most anyone owns, you would have to know where the gun was bought and when to find out what I bought.

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.

Really? You don't think if the possession an unregistered gun were made a capital crime that this would be a deterrent? Private gun sales are almost completely unregulated and untracked.

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?

Ditto.

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.

Sorry, but whether or not the proposed ban would save lives is a matter of opinion, not fact. You can present facts to support your opinion, but it is still opinion. With regard to the constitutionality of a gun ban, your opinion may be of interest to you, but beyond that it carries no weight. The Supreme Court has ruled that some restrictions are permissible. I have no doubt that any bill that might be passed will face review by the Supreme Court.

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.

You seem like a person who absolutely hates attorneys.

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

WOW So your definition of lying is when someone that favors one side of an argument fails to present the arguments against their position. They need to change the name of the debate team to the liars club. If you have facts to counter what she proposes, fine, but to call her a liar because she doesn't make your argument for you, especially when you also fail to make her argument for her is a little beyond reason.

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.

I don't address that question because I don't have a good answer. And by the way, that is a different thread. That is why I don't favor the AR ban as it has been presented. I think a ban on some weapons would pass constitutional review, but as I understand the last AR ban, as fast as you could put a weapon on the list the manufacturers would modify it to get around the list. I don't want any law that people can get around that fast. I do favor background checks on all sales or transfers. I do favor magazine limitations. I do favor mental health reviews as part of the background check. As far as the rhetoric being offensive, yes I find it offensive. To me it sounds like something you would have heard in 1860 South Carolina. (How did that work out?) Nothing is to be gained by constantly questioning the motives of anyone that disagrees with you. Senator Feinstein has been very clear about what she wants to do. How can that be a misrepresentation? I've asked before for you to show me the lies and misrepresentations. So far you haven't even tried. You just choose to say she is scum. Okay, thanks for the inciteful and intelligent discussion.

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.

There are already limits on free speech, for instance. You can't libel, yell fire in a crowded theater......

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

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.

:lol: I don't need no friends with guns. :lol: Can you just imagine? I'm pretty sure I'm on some BGP hit lists...what if I had to meet that poster with 48 guns to his name! :eek: Not feelin' that friendship. :lol:

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.

.

If he wants to show off his guns that's on him. I didn't ask to see them. I don't care that he has them. He said let me show you my guns. Forgive me for questioning why anyone would need that big of a gun. I question EVERYTHING in life and always will. Just the way it is.

 

Criminals will never be limited. If the 2nd Amendment stated it was in place to protect you from criminals then I'd understand. That's not in the literature.

 

The problem isn't the guns it's the people with the guns. I don't trust people I don't know with guns. Criminals or law abiding. I really don't care if I don't sound supportive of the 2nd Amendment. If nothing changes then I'm cool with that. If restrictions are put in place I am cool with that too. If that is me not supporting the 2nd Amendment then so be it.

 

Wasn't there an Amendment saying blacks were 3/5 of a person? Why is that one okay to change when the times dictate it but it's not okay to change others when the times may dictate it? I'm still having a hard time believing interpretation of the law in 1776 means the same in 2013.

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

While I agree somewhat there has always been a feeling that these laws do have a racial agenda and the government's inability to reform these laws hasn't done anything to relieve that belief. A non-violent two time drug offender shouldn't be sitting in prison for 15 years.

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

the-war-on-drugs-is-the-new-slavery

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

When you look at the fact that a person can go to jail for 3-5 years for carrying a few crack rocks on them but get probation for carry the same amount of powder that would produce 3-5 rocks there is a problem. Add in the fact that the crack rock form of cocaine is/was prevalent in the inner city and that powder users tend to be in the suburbs..well....then....there you have it.

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.