GUN ADVOCATES THINK MORE GUNS ARE NEEDED TO END GUN VIOLENCE & I THINK THAT IS CRAZY

[fightthegoodfightnow]

GUN ADVOCATES THINK THE SOLUTION TO GUN VIOLENCE IS MORE GUNS NOT UNLIKE THOSE WHO THINK THE SOLUTION TO WAR IS MORE WAR. IN MY OPINION, THAT IS .................... CRAZY.

This from a "Christian" school who no doubt mistakenly think Christ's solution to gun violence is to carry a concealed pistol.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/20/cnnu.guns/index.html

From the article:

Amanda Covington, Utah State Board of Regents spokeswoman, would not comment on the current gun laws on school campuses. However, she said the regents are opposing a legislative proposal to allow people with concealed weapons permits to have the weapons visible in public. "We are worried that it may affect their willingness or desire to go to or teach a class on campus," she said.

AND THEN THERE IS THIS:

Griselda Espinoz states "I feel less safe knowing that a stranger sitting beside me in class may have a gun in his or her backpack," she said..

[zanne]

1. I absolutely agree.

Sigh; I wish I had the time, but I have a doctor's appointment. Fight the good fight!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

6. Thank You

I appreciate your words of encouragement.

[johnbraun]

2. Intolerance and bigotry towards guns and gun owners causes Dems to lose elections

...as Bill Clinton and the 1996 platform stated.

Hillary and Obama have also stayed away from gun control, because they want to win the support of Western Dems.

Why do you continue to go on about this? You are hurting Democrats' chances of winning the presidency.

And why do you continue to repost threads with inflammatory content after they get locked?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

5. I DON'T NEED TO 'TOLERATE' GUNS

......... and I sure as heck don't need you to tell me I do.

The notion that I am hurting the Democrats because of MY opinions or views regarding guns is CRAZY.

Talk about ridiculous. We are allowed to have different opinions in this political party.

[johnbraun]

8. Why are you posting in all caps?

You are making Democrats look bad on the issue of guns.

"We are allowed to have different opinions in this political party."

Yes, we are. My opinion is that your intolerance towards guns and gun owners hurts the Democratic Party.

According to the 1996 Dem platform and Bill Clinton's words, intolerance and bigotry towards guns and gun owners loses Dems elections repeatedly.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[johnbraun]

14. Indeed. The anti-gun shriekers are becoming a smaller and more insignificant part of the party.

nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

19. Right.......and that's why I'm 'Hurting" the Party

LOL.

[johnbraun]

22. The party is growing in relevance after having left the gun control albatross behind.

You're just making our party's progress towards relevance slower.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

40. Keep Telling Yourself That

If it helps you feel better and be in more denial, use the ignore feature.

I'm amused that I am having that impact on our party.

[johnbraun]

46. Both Clinton and Obama seem to have dropped the gun control albatross.

Why are you trying to saddle them with it again?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

77. They Have Both Outspoken Advocates for Ending Gun Violence in America

...... and certainly have offered more solutions and supported more initiatives than you have on this board.

[johnbraun]

79. Neither Obama nor Clinton have spoken a word about gun control on the pres. campaign trail.

Other than measures about keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill - which most if not all gun owners support.

They have dropped the albatross. None of the "solutions" they suggest have been shown to work, so it's better to propose no solutions or to roll back "solutions" than to implement those that don't work.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

82. Federal Law

You write: 'Other than measures about keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill - which most if not all gun owners support.'

And yet the medical records of a killer trained by the US government in service to his country was not reported to the states.

But alas, no calls for better enforcement or even reporting his mental illness.

[johnbraun]

84. Gun owners want existing laws enforced and mental illness ajudications entered into the NICS check.

I *AM* calling for better enforcement and reporting of mental illness.

I am not calling for bans on the type of gun he used.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

86. Good

Good.

[L1A1Rocker]

170. You MAY want to clarify or edit that statement.

It seems to say that any US service person should not be allowed to own guns. That's NOT what you were trying to say correct?

[sabre73]

295. And that is the fault of gun owners? LOL

Gun owners don't want these types (mentally ill, domestic violence violators, etc.) to be able to buy guns. That is why there are laws in place for that. It is not the fault of gun owners that agencies are not reporting these things to those who run NICS checks.

[L1A1Rocker]

168. No one is apposed to ending illegal gun violence

but those ideas and initiatives that you talk about do nothing but create more impositions on the law abiding.

News flash: crooks don't obey the law.

[L1A1Rocker]

166. You will be remembered

and held with all the adoration of Nero.

Thanks

[sabre73]

297. You are so right! But, I doubt that

any historic reference will do any good. I doubt that FTGFN knows that Nero was a loon who set Rome to flames and then blamed the "Christians" for it. FTGFN pays no mind to the mistakes of the past as seen in many of his/ her posts.

I wonder what Christ would say to his believers for fighting back against the lions Nero set upon them? Probably "Well done my good and faithful servant."

And I doubt he would bat an eyelash if they used a spear, sword, bow and arrow, or....... A GUN!!!
:applause:

[L1A1Rocker]

300. Thank you for catching the Nero reference

I figured it would go over FTGFs head but what the heck. BUT I have a growing suspicion that I am on FTGFs ignore list. I don't think he could handle the virtual ripping I gave him in his thread on serial numbers on bullets. Oh well.

[sabre73]

303. Well you would be in good company!

This round is on me!!:toast:

[L1A1Rocker]

163. Your continued

obsession with a politicly unpopular opinion is, YES.

[L1A1Rocker]

162. Yes but their Shrieking

is so much louder these days.

[L1A1Rocker]

161. Be careful

there. I once used that word "pathetic" to describe one of FTGF's crazy assertions. He complained and got my post deleted.

[SteveM]

275. Jesus, six in a row. I bet FTGF is jealous.

[L1A1Rocker]

292. LOL! and BTW

looks like I was right. That post got deleted.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

16. Guns and Party

You write: 'You are making Democrats look bad on the issue of guns.'

WOW ......... there's an idea........... a post on a message board is more dangerous than a ............ gun.

I believe that many gun advocates in this country are contributing to the gun violence in this country.

As for Bill Clinton, I didn't vote for his re-election in 1996. I voted for a different Democrat.

[johnbraun]

20. There, that's better. Less yelling.

"WOW ......... there's an idea........... a post on a message board is more dangerous than a ............ gun."

No, it's not.

"I believe that many gun advocates in this country are contributing to the gun violence in this country."

Well, the more guns there are in a country, the more gun violence there is. There was no gun violence in Rome in 34AD. This is why you have to consider the overall level of violence instead of focusing on gun violence. And the CDC did the largest study ever on gun laws and couldn't find enough data one way or the other to show that gun laws and restrictions actually reduced crime or violence in any way.

"As for Bill Clinton, I didn't vote for his re-election in 1996. I voted for a different Democrat."

Why? Did his position on guns affect your vote?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

27. A Good Idea

You write: 'No, it's not.'

An idea cannot be more dangerous than a gun???!?!?! Really. Is that your position? What ........ because it's ...according to you...... just an inanimate object?

You write: ' Well, the more guns there are in a country, the more gun violence there is.'

I think you are on to something. No doubt such violence is acceptable to you.

You write: 'Why? Did his position on guns affect your vote?'

No.

[johnbraun]

31. Again. There was no gun violence in 34AD Rome. This does not mean it was a peaceful society.

"I think you are on to something. No doubt such violence is acceptable to you."

Again. There was no gun violence in 34AD Rome. This does not mean it was a peaceful society.

Eliminating guns does not mean there will be *no* deaths and *no* violence, it just means that gun deaths and gun violence will go away, leaving total murders and violence unchanged - but now the murdered and assaulted are less able to protect themselves.

"An idea cannot be more dangerous than a gun???!?!?!"

To an individual, no. To a party, yes. An idea is not dangerous to a person but is a danger to the party.

[bossy22]

44. Hitler

had an idea....and look what happened

[fightthegoodfightnow]

156. ............ along with a lot of Guns

Ideas are dangerous and so are guns.

Bad ideas are very dangerous when coupled with guns.

Good ideas seldom need guns to win the argument.

[L1A1Rocker]

172. Bad idea

to get mugged by some lowlife punk.

Good idea to have Smith and Wesson along with you.

[johnbraun]

175. ...but good ideas are sometimes fought by bad people with guns.

Hence, good people with good ideas having guns is a good thing.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

182. You Might Want to Rethink that Peace Sign

I'm not getting that vibe from your post.

[johnbraun]

184. I am a very peaceful person.

Isn't it true though? Sometimes people with good ideas get shot by bad people with guns.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

190. Perhaps

I suspect their good ideas live far longer than the bad ideas of those who use force to convince others.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

57. Reality

You write: ' liminating guns does not mean there will be *no* deaths and *no* violence, it just means that gun deaths and gun violence will go away, ................."

AGREE UP TO THIS POINT. NEVER ONCE SAID PRE-GUN HISTORY WAS NOT WITHOUT DEATH OR VIOLENCE...DID I?

You continue: '........leaving total murders and violence unchanged - but now the murdered and assaulted are less able to protect themselves.'

RIDICULOUS. SO RIDICULOUS THAT'S ALL IT WARRANTS SAYING.

[johnbraun]

69. ...and all this is a moot point anyway, because you can't un-invent guns.

So we have to make laws (and repeal laws) that do not take this into consideration, and instead rely on the wishful thinking that one can actually get rid of guns.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

87. Huh?

.......oh nevermind.

[L1A1Rocker]

173. Reality

There were no car deaths in pre-car days.

[krispos42]

236. "RIDICULOUS. SO RIDICULOUS THAT'S ALL IT WARRANTS SAYING"

*cough*




What year did the UK ban and confiscate handguns again?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

247. What Does that Have to do with the Post

Nothing.

You wrote: " ............. leaving total murders and violence unchanged - but now the murdered and assaulted are less able to protect themselves.'

Perhaps you are aware that is not this country.

What gave you the impression that the UK is a country worth comparing to other than the fact that our homicide rate if almost four times greater. That's your evidence?

Heck, what gives you the impression that they are less likely to protect themselves?
Heck, who said anything about emulating their laws?

[krispos42]

252. Um... everything?

We have in the case of the United Kingdom. A Western country that, in a moral panic after a mass shooting in Hungerford in 1988, banned and confiscated all firearms that the Brady campaign would term "deadly assault weapons). Nine years later, in another moral panic after a mass shooting in Dunblane in 1997, the UK banned and confiscated all handguns.

And in the UK when your permit to own a rifle or shotgun gets renewed, the police have to come to your house and inspect your safe-storage area before they will renew it.

You wrote: " ............. leaving total murders and violence unchanged - but now the murdered and assaulted are less able to protect themselves.'

I didn't write that, but I agree with it. Murders in the UK are up as my chart shows, and firearm offences (particulary handguns) are up.


http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf page 39


Do you not advocate for fewer guns? Do you not decry the "gun culture" of America? Is not "gun crazies think the answer is MORE GUNS!" one of your battle cries? Do you not decry unregistered firearms? Does not he lack of of mandatory safe-storage laws make you worry about accidental deaths? Don't you think that banning handguns is a good idea? Doesn't being able to privately sell a gun to another person put your undies in a bunch? Don't you think banning "assault weapons" is a good idea? Don't you think allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns is bloody foolishness?

Am I wrong on my perception of your positions?

If I'm not, then LOOK ACROSS THE POND. All of that is in the UK, a nation completely surrounded by miles and miles of water.

And our homicide rate USED to be 12 times the UK's. Not only are WE getting better, THEY are getting worse. Their homicide rate is up 30% in the last decade.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

253. I Don't Support Their Position

I Don't Support Their Position. In fact, I don't think our country is similiar to theirs in many ways.

Next.......

Oh................ gosh............ ok................let's go through it if we must

Do you not advocate for fewer guns?

YES

Do you not decry the "gun culture" of America?

YES

Is not "gun crazies think the answer is MORE GUNS!" one of your battle cries?

THE BATTLE CRY OF MORE GUNS IS INDEED YOUR BATTLE CRY

Do you not decry unregistered firearms?

YES. YOU DON'T?

Does not he lack of of mandatory safe-storage laws make you worry about accidental deaths?

YES. DOESN'T IT WORRY YOU?

Don't you think that banning handguns is a good idea?

DEPENDS ON WHAT HANDGUNS AND WHO IS INITIATING THE LEGISLATION

Doesn't being able to privately sell a gun to another person put your undies in a bunch?

I LEAVE THAT VISUAL TO YOU.

Don't you think banning "assault weapons" is a good idea?

YES

Don't you think allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns is bloody foolishness?

NO. I SUSPECT WE JUST DISAGREE WITH WHO SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND WHO SHOULDN'T

----------------------------------------------
OF COURSE NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH 'ACROSS THE RIVER' EXCEPT MY CENTRAL POINT IS THEIR GUN VIOLENCE AND GUN OWNERSHIP IS SIGNIFCANTLY LOWER THAN OURS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN. WHY DON'T YOU GIVE THAT SOME THOUGHT AS TO WHY THAT IS.



















.

[krispos42]

254. Okay, so the UK has done almost every thing you agree with.

And yet they have realized no benefit from it other than being able to say "hey, only 56 people were killed by guns last year!"

But you think the result will be different if we try it here?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

256. That Presumes Your Questions are Relevant

We shouldn't try it here and of course, your questions and comparisons are irrelevant.

Did you miss the part where I asked you to consider why their murder rate is one forth ours with or without their ban?

[krispos42]

258. Nope, not at all

However I've addressed the question several times in other posts and feel it largely has to do with our "war on drugs" and the cyclical poverty and gang lifestyle it perpetuates. Lack of universal health care (including mental health care) is a factor as well.

We made great strides in the 90's with crime rates because of more police, a robust economy (at least in the short term; it's starting to really bite us in the ass now), and putting repeat, chronic criminals in jail for long periods of time. We can push it even lower, but we have to have the balls to legalize pot, institute universal single-payer health care, and either comprehesively cure addictive drug use OR legalize those drugs.

I'd rather have the prisons full of violent attackers and armed crooks than potheads.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

262. Well.........

I agree with much of that.

I'm wondering, however, how that explains the difference between the US and England to explain a murder rate that is one fourth ours.

[krispos42]

283. It has to be largely social and economic

During the drastic drop in homicides and overall violent crime during the 90s, there were no significant changes in the availability of guns to the average citizen. Nor of the type of guns. Nor of the ammunition. Nor of the magazines.

Heck, BenEzra has a civilian-legal AK-pattern rifle he bought during the ban!

Yet the homicide and violent crime rates plummetted 60% in about 6 years.

I believe that three-strike-and-you're-out sentencing warehoused a lot of repeat offenders, the "bad apples" known to the beat cops to be 75% of the crime problem in any given neighborhood.

I believe the economy flourished, opening up employment to a lot of people.

I believe that (presumebly) with more social programs run by progressives who believe in the cause (rather than BushBots with a destructive neocon agenda) actually helped the underlying causes of crime.

I believe that the previous two items reduced domestic stress and happier marriages.

I believe that 50,000 more cops on the streets arrested criminals sooner and more often.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

286. Don't Disgree with Most of What You Said

You are right. Those factors indeed contribute to lower gun violence. No question about it.

For my own education, how is it possible for BenEzra to buy a civilian-legal AK-pattern rifle during the 'ban'? Were existing legal assault weapons owned prior to the ban exempt from sale and transfer during the ban? Just asking.... no agenda.

[EricTeri]

287. It was legal because

the law was written by people who had NFC what they were talking about.

They banned rifles either by name or by scary-looking cosmetic features. Nothing more. Hence, an AK pattern rifle with a full stock, no flash suppressor and no bayonet lug was perfectly legal.

[krispos42]

288. The definition of "assault weapon" is arbitrary

In 1993, the Federal government decided that some rifles, handguns, and shotguns were "assault weapons". Regarding rifles, an "assault weapon" was a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine that had two or more of the following features (having just one was okay):

• Large capacity ammunition magazines
  
• Folding or telescoping stock
  
• Conspicuous pistol grip
  
• Bayonet mount
  
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
  
• Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

In the case of civilian-legal AK-pattern rifles, many of them were former military issue guns that had been bought cheap by an arms importer after the Warsaw Pact collapsed and dis-armed. The importers had the fully-automatic features and mechanical parts removed and replaced with semi-automatic parts and performing other necessary modifications insure that they could not be readily converted to full-auto again. The BATFE does the certification on this issue.

Once the "civilianized" rifles were approved for importation (I think there is also some rule that the rifle has to contain at least 8 American-made parts), they were sold here. Their other features, such as a flash supressors, and bayonet mounts, were left intact. Some also had folding buttstocks, a feature often used by paratroopers.

When the ban came into effect in 1994, the previously-legal guns had too many features now. So the flash supressors were cut off, the baynonet mounts ground off, and the folding stocks welded open. And ta-da, they were legal to sell again.

If you poke around, BenEzra has posted a picture of his rifle with the modifications highlighted and circled.

The publicity surrounding the features was pretty intense. The pistol grip, for example, was accused of enabling spray fire from the hip. Which is not really true. A pistol grip works quite well when you're holding the gun up to your shoulder and aiming properly, but shooting from the hip (which is a great way to turn ammo into noise but a piss-poor way to hit anything smaller than a van) is actually easier with conventional, traditional grip because you don't have to bend your wrist fully.

I've tried hitting things while shooting from the hip with a semi-automatic rifle with a traditional grip. I was trying to shoot a 5-gallon bucket from 25 yards away. It's not workable. It takes a half-dozen shots to "walk" your bullets to the general area of the target. All that stuff in the movies? It's bull.

The folding stock panic was pretty silly, too. Even with the stock folded, a rifle is still about two and a half feet long, whereas a decent-sized handgun is less than 8". Packing one under a jacket is pretty far-fetched, as is any hope of accurate shooting with the stock folded. Much more common is the old standby, the sawed-off shotgun.

Essentially, the ban was against guns that "looked" scary. For example...


Very scary:




Somewhat scary:



Not particularly scary:



Yet they are all the exact same gun, with the exact same serial number:




Just different furniture bolted on. But the first one was an "assault weapon" under the Federal ban, and the second one is an "assault weapon" under California's own ban.


:shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_assault_weapons_ban

[benEzra]

296. My ban-era AK was new production (it's a 2002 model)--these photos will explain.

For my own education, how is it possible for BenEzra to buy a civilian-legal AK-pattern rifle during the 'ban'? Were existing legal assault weapons owned prior to the ban exempt from sale and transfer during the ban? Just asking.... no agenda.

My ban-era AK was new production (it's a 2002 model). It is a Romanian SAR-1, my primary target/competition rifle at the moment. This rifle was made and imported in 2002 and I bought it in 2003, during the Feinstein-law era.



You have to understand that the Feinstein law didn't ban any guns whatsoever; rather, it

(1) banned marketing of new civilian rifles under any of 19 banned names (preban rifles exempt);

(2) imposed a features count limit on new civilian rifles (preban rifles exempt).

My rifle was not marketed under a banned name (it's a Romanian SAR-1, SAR standing for semi-automatic rifle), and it passed the features count limit by having a smooth muzzle (a preban rifle would have had a threaded muzzle) and by omitting the little protrusion on the bottom of the gas block (the slanty thing about halfway down the barrel that connects to the upper tube, which is the gas piston tube):



The Feinstein-law-compliant features are circled in red. A pre-1994 or post-2004 rifle, on the other hand, would have a threaded muzzle (for fitting of a recoil reducer, i.e. a muzzle brake), and the bottom of the gas block would stick out more. The standard 30-round magazine in the above photo came with the rifle, and went for about $9.99 in 2003; the compact 20-round magazine in the first photo was $5.99 in 2003.

Here are some photos of a post-2004 civilian AK, a Romanian WASR. If you look closely at photo "C", you'll see that the end of the muzzle has a slant brake on it; the bottom of the gas block is a little hard to see, but should be a little more sculpted than the one on my rifle. A rifle made before Sept. 1994 would look the same.



(Note--I generally don't use the NRA as a resource, but the only decent closeup I could find of a postban AK was from the American Rifleman, so I used it.)

I could find you similar ban-era and postban-era photos of AR-15's, if you'd like.

FTGFN, you are correct that all civilian AK's, AR-15's, etc. made prior to Sept. 1994 were exempt from the name ban and the features limit. However, more civilian AK's were made and imported into the U.S. 1994-2004 than in all the prior years combined (the "ban" probably tripled sales overnight), and the same is true of AR-15 type rifles and most other rifles affected by the law, so that ban-era rifles greatly outnumbered prebans. It was sometime between 1994 and 2004 that the AR-15 became the most popular target rifle in America, as far more AR-15's were sold 1994-2004 than in the previous three decades combined.

BTW, like all U.S.-market civilian AK's (regardless of when made), my rifle is non-automatic, and works just like a Ruger Mini Thirty deer rifle.

[krispos42]

307. Thank you, BenEzra...

That's exactly the picture I was thinking of.

So yours was not military surplus? It was a purpose-made semiautomatic Kalishnikov?

[benEzra]

308. Yes, mine is made from all new-production parts, except the magazine.

The trigger group/fire-control parts, gas piston, and handgrip are U.S. made to comply with the inane Bush I/William J. Bennett parts count rule (the original Federal AWB); the receiver is a Romanian-made civilian receiver (which will not accept full-auto fire-control parts). I believe they are made at the same factory (Cugir?) that Romarms uses to make AK's for the Romanian military and export, but they are not made from cut-up milsurps. The same is true of Saigas (Russian made), the Chinese AK's that used to be imported, and possibly the Yugoslavian guns that Century imports, but I'm not sure whether the latter uses milsurp barrels or not.

There are U.S. made civilian AK's made from milsurp parts kits; the excellent Romanian "G" AK's made by Lancaster and distributed by Atlantic Arms are an example. Those use U.S. made receivers and civilian trigger groups, but Romanian milsurp barrels and stocks.

[L1A1Rocker]

309. Finally! FTGF admits he doesn't understand the gun debate.

So you finally admitted you don't know WTF your talking about. Maybe someone will post pictures for you.

[krispos42]

319. He's trying to learn.

Let's be appreciative. :-)

[L1A1Rocker]

320. Yea, sure, right.

and if frogs had wings they. . . .

[krispos42]

49. Losing in 2000 killed 4,000 American soldiers...

and 2,900 American civilians. Not to mention about a million Iraqi men, woman, and children.

Yeah, I know about the election. But less than three hundred moderates in Florida who voted for Bush instead of Gore because Gore was perceived as no being a "gun" person tipped the scales once all the trickery and legal maneuverings were done.

They didn't vote that way because the police showed up to confiscate their firearms or they were held up at gunpoint the day before. They voted that way because of the perceptions they recieved from the mass media, of which message boards like the DU are a part.

[johnbraun]

54. Thank you.

That was a good explanation. We Dems need to be more careful than ever what we show to the public.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

80. BARF

Lot of good that did Bush or for that matter America.

Dissent is allowed in this party and this country.

[L1A1Rocker]

174. No one on this thread has said dissent was wrong

although many are saying you are wrong.

[L1A1Rocker]

310. FTGF goes off topic again.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

78. You've Got to Be Kidding

Never thought I would see on a DU board a DU member blaming the gun control crowd for the fiasco in Florida.

Give me a break.

You are right: Gore got more votes than Bush and who was more gun control?

[johnbraun]

81. Gore failed to carry TN because of his gun control views.

Another instance in which irrational gun bigotry caused a Dem loss.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

85. Gore Got More Votes

Anything else is speculation.

Gore didn't win Tennessee for a variety of reasons and to attribute that his support of gun control is just silly.

I find it funny you rally around 'appearances' and 'party unity' while criticizing the party nominee who got more votes than any other candidate.

[L1A1Rocker]

178. He failed to

win the electoral collage. Do you really want to bring up that subject or stick to the OP?

[L1A1Rocker]

176. Good point

[krispos42]

237. Officially, Gore Lost Florida by 524 votes

if memory serves.

That means that if 263 Florida voters had voted for Gore instead of Bush, Gore wins Florida's electoral college votes and therefore the presidential election.

Gore didn't get them.

He needed 525 votes more to defeat both Bush and the Republican election-stealing machinery. If the 2000 Democratic Party platform didn't have this in it:

They stood up to the gun lobby, to pass the Brady Bill and ban deadly assault weapons - and stopped nearly half a million felons, fugitives, and stalkers from buying guns.

I'm pretty sure that at least 263 blue-collar moderates who happen to like their guns and knew the AWB was a crock of shit designed solely to move the people towards gun confiscation would have voted differently.







You promote the hell of out your gun-banning agenda, then absolutely refuse to even contemplate that it might have a backlash or negative consequences. It's not an attractive quality in Bush and it's not one in you, either.

[sabre73]

298. Your belief is not founded in any fact whatsoever!

And in case you have failed to see the truth I will spell it out for you.

"The pen IS mightier than the sword(or gun)"

Don't believe it? Statistically more violent criminals are put away for most of their lives (based on the paperwork of the arresting officers) than they are put to rest by the officers pistol.

Not to mention that a post is far more dangerous then a gun, if it is stored the way you prefer (unloaded and out of reach is fine by you)

Please arise to the occasion and provide some "actual facts" to defend your assertion of: "....many gun advocates in this country are contributing to the gun violence in this country."

[slackmaster]

23. Nobody is trying to force you to buy or carry a gun, or to tolerate them in your home

What you do in your home and your own body is your own business.

I expect the same consideration from you, and I will tolerate nothing less.

[L1A1Rocker]

160. Um, yes you do.

It's in the constitution just like the 1A is in there.

[L1A1Rocker]

313. No responce FTGF? You understand now don't you?

[slackmaster]

3. Unfortunately for Griselda Espinoz, peoples' civil rights outweigh her feelings

http://www.hamienet.com/4849_Feelings.mid

She has a right to BE safe, but no right to FEEL any particular way.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

7. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY A GUN

............ in a church, school or bar.

The courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of such bans when imposed by a state.

[slackmaster]

10. Churches, bars, and private schools do indeed have a right to ban guns

Because they are private property.

Public schools have no such power.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

21. NOT ONLY THAT - States Can Ban Guns

......... in schools, churches and bars in their state.

Courts have upheld the constitutionality of such laws.

[johnbraun]

24. Sure they have.

And those laws are generally being rolled back. This is a good thing for Dems to get behind.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

29. No They Haven't

Most states have such laws.

[jmg257]

187. NY is a pretty restrictive state, yet allows carry in bars and churches. School grounds are

pretty much the only place they are unwilling to allow carry. 2 out of 3 isn't bad, but hopefully they will get over that useless "gun free school zone" crap eventually - I want to have the chance to protect my kids where/when ever I can.

Bars I can sort of understand, but I do not see why "church" is an issue one way or the other - just as easy to be a victim there as anywhere else, and these days maybe even more so.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

191. Well........ I Can't Help but Wonder Why Anyone Would Want to Bring a Gun to Church..

.......except for those who would want to do harm to others.

I'll leave you to characterize allowing guns in bars and churches as being 'good'.

I disagree.

Personally, I'm having a hard time visualizing Christ with a side arm. Call me silly.

[jmg257]

193. Because there is nothing about a church that makes it any safer then many other places.

In fact, religion is a very powerful motive for some in this world. Attacks happen in curches all too often, so why not be as prepared there as anywhere else? And you still have to get to the church and back - not always a good idea to just leave your firearm in a car.

Bars/restaurants are another place where your safety isn't guaranteed. Yes, alcohol COULD make someone less responsible - but depends on the person and what he is drinking and how much. People should know themselves and whether drinking suddenly makes them assholes or not. Having a beer with your dinner is not grounds for limiting your right to defense.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

194. Really?

Perhaps you need to consider what church you are going to.

I suspect most people come to church with a sense of holiness, grace, and humility none of which has anything to do with a gun.

I'll leave you to argue that alcohol contributes to the good judgment necessary for someone to own and operate a gun. I disagree.

[jmg257]

195. When I go it's typically a catholic mass. Like anywhere else I take nothing for granted

about my family's safety. It isn't "most people" I am worried about - but the wacko, extremist or other such nut job.

I don't argue that alcohol contributes to good judgement, I do argue there are many variables to consider then just whether "they serve beer here".

[fightthegoodfightnow]

196. Like I Said

I suspect most people come to church with a sense of holiness, grace, and humility none of which has anything to do with a gun.

Do you disagree?

The notion that you are going to be 'safer' by bringing a gun to church than having faith in your savior suggests you need to reconsider the importance of each.

As for alcohol, I would argue that alcohol does not contribute to the good judgment necessary for someone to own and operate a gun.

Do you disagree?

[jmg257]

199. Jesus had the ability to come back from the dead after 3 days, I don't...

I will take the responsibility on myself, thank you. "God helps those who help themselves". And again - it isn't "most people who go to church with a sense of..." I am worried about. While a little devine intervention would be welcome, I usually feel I will be safer trusting only myself for my family's security.


Yes, I would agree that alcohol does not contribute to good judgement. Having a gun isn't that big a deal - it requires responsibility, but it would take a LOT of alcohol to impair the abilitiy to own and operate one. They are fairly simple.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

201. Sure You Do

Your definition of life is of this world. No problem. I disagree, but it's what you believe and I get you believe a gun is going to give you the peace and grace you long for none of which you are going to find by trusting no one other than you and your family.

You think it's unusual for Christ to rise after three days. I don't.

You write: "Jesus had the ability to come back from the dead after 3 days, I don't." Really? You do understand that a fundamental premise of Christianity is life after death?

As for guns and alcohol, I can't help but wonder if you think it is 'responsible' to drink and carry a gun any more than it is to drink and drive?

[jmg257]

204. A gun doesn't give me peace and grace - it gives me peace of mind.

I trust plenty of people, I just usually don't like to leave our security in their hands - I KNOW what I am capable of. (sometimes I have no choice though)

I prefer to stay here on Earth as long as possible - an "afterlife" is a bit "iffy" for me to believe in. And I like hanging with my kids - I would REALLY miss them.


Again, depends on how much one drinks - for both. A person has to know their limitations on both, don't you think? Too many variables influence impairment - size, weight, food intake, alcohol intake, time period, etc.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

205. Peace from a Gun?

Doesn't sound like the peace of God I know.

I have no doubt you want to stay on this Earth as long as you can. So do I. But your 'security' has nothing to do with this world, does it?

[jmg257]

213. You MAY be confusing "God's grace" with "peace of mind" over safety.

If you trust God to keep you safe - I can see how that gives you peace of mind, and that is great. I explained how I feel I prefer to take a more active role.

Security has much to do with this world, and just may impact how long we get to stay here. I would like it to be a looonnng time, and would rather be able to keep some scumbag from trying to limit that time. Actually I would prefer to not EVER have to worry about it, but...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

214. OK....... I'll Leave You to Make Such a Distinction

Peace of mind to me is God's grace and I don't need parenthesis around any of those words to know they are one and the same.

[deathdog]

282. Just imagine if Jesus had had your attitude.

If he'd mowed down Herod and Pilate, well, things would be a helluva lot different, wouldn't they?! I wonder why he didn't.

[krispos42]

238. I suspect most people go to church....

because they're dragged their by their parents or spouses.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

246. Is that Why You Want to Have a Gun There?

To protect yourself against all those children?

[krispos42]

249. No

If carrying a pistol is going to be part of your routine, then why should churches be off-limits? I routinely carry a small folding pocket knife with me everywhere I go except, obviously, courtrooms and airports. "Just in case". I can use it for self-defense, even though I never have. Yet nobody challenged me on "why are you carrying a weapon into church?" on the occasions in my (now past) married life when I had to go to one.



Crime happens anywhere and being at a church does not make that less true or less common.

[Critters2]

289. Yeah, don't let that belief in eternal life get in your way.

Only a cretin carries a gun to church.

[L1A1Rocker]

311. Flame baiting? Shame Shame.

[deathdog]

281. Not to mention eternal life. Why would people who believe in eternal life

carry a gun? Especially to church?

[slackmaster]

25. And your point is?

:shrug:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

32. It's Legal for States to Ban Guns

.......... in certain situation where the public safety (or even an individuals safety) takes priority.

You do not have a constitutional right to carry a gun into a public forum to hear a Presidential candidate speak anymore than you do in a church, bar or school where a state has banned guns.

[slackmaster]

35. It's also legal for states to allow concealed carry in public places

Including public schools.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

59. True?

Your point?

[johnbraun]

12. Correct. It's a state issue.

And the states are doing this:



Being intolerant and bigoted towards guns and gun owners hurts the Democratic Party.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

17. I Don't Have to Be Tolerant of Guns or Gun Owners

............anymore than you have to be tolerant of me.

Equating guns to 'tolerance' is ridiculous when I have no tolerance for guns that kill, which is the antithesis to tolerance.

[johnbraun]

26. You're right, you don't have to be tolerant and no one is forcing you.

We are just pointing out that your intolerance is hindering the progress and electability of the Democratic Party and its candidates, both of whom are disowning the gun control albatross.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

37. Little Old Me is More Dangerous to the Party

.......... because of what I think.

WOW!

[johnbraun]

43. You and those like you are hurting Dems not by what you think but by what you say.

Your intolerance and bigotry hurts all Dems and their chances of getting elected, because you are putting your extremist views on a Dem website.

If you wrote your intolerant missives elsewhere without burdening Dems with them, then I and other Dems would have no problem with your views.

[bossy22]

50. the truth is

that pro-gun people care about the gun issue 100x more than pro-gun control people. It just makes more sense to drop it, you probably won't gain many votes for being an advocate of gun control- but you can lose many more. there are only about 50,000 people in the gun control movement with about 5 million in the pro-gun movement.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

62. 50,000?

Right......... and the number of students on the campuses of Virginia Tech and Univ of Illinois exceed that alone.

Heck, i think the truth is most people who own guns also favor most gun control legislation and are not representative of those on this board.

[EricTeri]

113. Perhaps there are more students than that

You are mistaken to assume they all support gun control and actively work for it.

There ARE ~5 million people who actively support the 2nd Amendment through membership in pro-gun organizations.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

114. Now You are on Safe Ground

You make a good point with the first sentence and I have no doubt the second sentence is true.

[EricTeri]

124. I've been on safe ground in this entire debate. N/T

[fightthegoodfightnow]

131. Ok ....... well keep telling yourself that

At least I'm honest enough to say when I'm wrong.

[L1A1Rocker]

321. Since when!!!!!!!!!!

[EricTeri]

329. Got a single example of that?

You've been proven wrong far more often than I care to count and I don't believe I've seen you acknowledge it once.

I freely admit I may have missed it, which is why I'm asking for a link.

[L1A1Rocker]

179. Um, yes you do

the 2A is in the Constitution. It's located right under the 1st one.

[L1A1Rocker]

312. No Responce FTGF? You must see that I'm right.

[Deep13]

36. It's nice that we in Ohio got rid of our pro-prohibition Republican governor...

...and replaced him with a pro-rights Democrat.

[johnbraun]

38. And Georgia is getting rid of their restaurant carry restriction.

Courtesy of Democrats.

[Deep13]

52. We haven't gone that far.

Business owners here still have a right to exclude weapons from their businesses.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

142. Well ............. BRAVO

But alas............ I'm sure some gun advocate thinks that is wrong.

[johnbraun]

148. No, not at all.

Private property rights. However, in most states there is no force of law behind the signs - carry there all you want, and if they see your gun they can tell you to leave. If you don't leave, they can call the police and press trespassing charges.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

140. One Less Crime to Charge

........those who rob restaurants.

[johnbraun]

150. ...because those that rob restaurants would heed a "No Guns" sign.

Ugh. Gun free zones make my skin crawl.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

151. Nah.......... Just Means Their Sentences Will Be Shorter

Ugh. Gun violence makes my skin crawl.

[sergeiAK]

167. So why not increase the sentence for armed robbery?

Or is robbing a bank less bad than robbing a restaurant that serves alcohol?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

177. I Do.........

and to answer the second question......... no, it isn't.

Of course, there is a higher risk of judgment being impaired anytime alcohol is involved.

[sergeiAK]

186. Generally the robber isn't drinking in the restaurant . .

As for CCW in restaurants that serve alcohol, I like Texas law. If the place is <49% revenue from alcohol, you can carry as long as you don't drink at all. If it's >51% alcohol revenue, no carry at all. A good compromise IMO.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

189. Sounds Reasonable

.

[jmg257]

188. Actually most states do NOT allow anyone to carry a gun with intent to commit a crime - an extra

charge isn't necessary.
NY Penal


S 265.03 Criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second
degree when, with intent to use the same unlawfully against another:
(1) He possesses a machine-gun; or
(2) He possesses a loaded firearm; or
(3) He possesses a disguised gun.
Criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is a class C felony.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

192. Right........... but that doesn't change the fact that now

..... it is no longer unlawful, according to this poster, to carry a gun into a restaurant that serves alcohol.

As I said, it just helps to reduce their sentence.

The crime you reference doesn't have anything to do with what I posted. It remains, as you say, in effect.

[jmg257]

197. Robbing people in a restaurant is already a crime, as is using a gun to do so, AND

carrying a gun with intent to commit a crime. We don't need a law that keeps lawful citizens from carrying in a restaurant, which would otherwise allow them to defend themselves from that robber.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

198. Defend Themselves?

Lot of good having a gun did my restaurant boss who was killed because he pulled out a gun on his assailant after the robber locked me and others in a freezer. And for what? Money?

The presumption that having a gun is going to protect anyone is a false premise.

[jmg257]

200. The premise that everyone who has a gun for defense is going to die is false, as is the premise

that every robber will be content with only taking your money.

Way too many occurances show just the opposite.


The only real premise is those who choose to be helpless victims will always be just that - helpless victims.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

202. Helpless?

I'll leave you to characterize someone not having a gun as being 'helpless'. It doesn't surprise me since you seem to think having a gun is sure to 'save' you.

[jmg257]

206. Nothing is 100%, but I do know my odds are much better armed then not.

And even better if I am adequately armed - meaning with the largest caliber I can comfortably conceal, and the most effective ammo.

In matters of life and death it is smart to get every edge you can get - a percentage point might make all the difference between living and dying.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

207. Odds?

What 'odds' are you playing with by breaking one of the ten commandments?

[jmg257]

209. The odds that I live - I prefer to stack them in my favor. I have no problem

"breaking a commandment" in self-defense...though I actually do not think that IS breaking one.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

211. Which Is It?

Look at how Christ responded for the answer.

His 'self defense' suggested his life was not defined by 'stacking' things in his favor on this Earth.

[jmg257]

216. Good for Him, as said above He had a GREAT follow-up plan. And apparently He had VERY good reasons

to accept His fate.

His choice, but it is not mine, as I have more to do here.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

219. His Fate?

Do you believe in life after death?

[jmg257]

221. Not typically - I usually tend not to believe in it very much.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

208. Not What I Believe

You write: 'In matters of life and death it is smart to get every edge you can get - a percentage point might make all the difference between living and dying.'

Guess we have a different definition of life and death.

[jmg257]

210. Understood - and that is cool if you are willing to die. Good on you! (really!)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

212. Die? A Gun Can Never Kill Me

Mock me all you want.

It wouldn't be the first time and I suspect it won't be the last.

No problem. I'm sure you think it's 'cool' to see someone killed because their assailant broke a commandment you do not live by.

[jmg257]

215. Not mocking you - I said it is really OK that you would accept your death so readily.

I am not so willing, and yes, even having to shoot someone in defense is fine by me, though I would prefer it NEVER come to that.

Never cool to see an innocent die. Just nice you can accept it so readily - I can see how that gives you peace.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

217. It Does Give Me Peace

And I'll take you at your word.

I've been held up at gun point (not once but several times), been mugged, been hospitalized after being fag bashed, faced death, faced disease, and have survived on this Earth far longer than the odds of man or this world would or perhaps should allow. I'm grateful and know how precious it all is.

Perhaps that gives me faith far beyond the comprehension of most.

[jmg257]

220. Sincerly - that is excellent! My faith is a bit more...questionable. Has been for a while, which

does NOT make my wife happy!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

222. Well .......... as they say... without Doubt there is no Faith

...... and I don't mean to suggest I have never been without either.

Call this a good day. :)

[jmg257]

223. Yep - went up and down for quite a few years. Can't put my finger on WHY I question so much.

My wife get frustrated with me because of it, and how to deal with our kids when I don't always back her up re: church etc.

Hmm...I guess i sure have plenty to be thankful for! :)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

225. Well.........

............. no disrespect towards your wife, but I suspect that your questioning such things gives you a firm foundation in what faith means.

Kids and a wife are a blessing and so is faith. Church is not faith. Belief is.

Anyway, I sound like a preacher. Know this: I haven't been to church in months, but I suspect we are having it here.

[jmg257]

228. Very cool - I just got a BIG smile! :) Thanks!!

She went to Medjugorie and it has a BIG impact on her - like a...renewal for her I guess. It was nice to see actually!

[L1A1Rocker]

304. Well, I refuse

to be subjected to the misfortune you have endured. I'll fight back with the most efficient tool I can. .45 ACP!!

[jmg257]

218. Then why are you so anti-gun? You just don't like them?

EDIT: Shoot - I recall your experience - never mind the question!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

224. Good Question

I just don't think they serve any good purpose.

I have no problem with guns in and of themselves, but I do not believe your survival or anyone's is dependent on them either for protection or food.

[jmg257]

226. I will tell you then - besides the defense thing, I enjoy shooting them, collecting them

appreciating the engineering and quality, etc.

There is something about say an M1 Garand - that gets me melancholy over thinking about some young Marine (like my Pop) facing battle, going through all kinds of hardships to prevail - to overcome fear, to be willing to fight for his buddies. I like history too, so maybe THAT is part of it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

227. I Get That

I'm an Army brat born on an Army base and I know my Dad served his country well. I come from a military family.

Heck, if it wasn't for the ban, I would have probably been in the service.

We are all more complex than the simple stereotypes of the ideals we profess.

I fall short of my own every day.

[jmg257]

229. Agreed! OK - enough for tonight - need sleep! Cheers! nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

230. Night.........and Thanks.

I appreciate it.

[benEzra]

299. Nope. The robber won't have a carry license, and even if he did,

carrying a gun for the purpose of commiting a crime would void it, so he can still be charged with whatever you'd charge him with if lawful CHL holders were barred from restaurants. Which I suspect would be "armed robbery," not "misdemeanor violation of your CHL terms."

[RaleighNCDUer]

73. And for all these efforts, mass killings of random strangers by

idiots with guns is NOT decreasing.

They are, in fact, increasing.

Why, it's almost as if the more guns that are available, and easily accessible, the more mass killings there are!

Naw. Couldn't be.

[johnbraun]

89. Because creation of "gun-free zones" is also increasing.

Killers that want a high body count are going to go somewhere that they know people will be disarmed. Not too many mass shootings at NRA conventions or gun shows.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

105. GREAT QUESTION

GREAT QUESTION !!!!

Why, it's almost as if the more guns that are available, and easily accessible, the more mass killings there are!

[krispos42]

239. Guns have always been readily available in this country

Lee Harvey Oswald bought his rifle through mail order for next to nothing. After World Wars I and II the government sold surplus arms for next to nothing. Until 1934 you could buy a fully-automatic Tommy gun with a 100-round magazine through mail order. Up until 1986 you could buy a new fully-automatic firearm as long as you paid a $200 tax and registered the gun with the ATF. "Deadly assault weapons" such as the AR-15 and Mini-14 were around since the '60s, and available to the public.


The mass shooting, and the mass school shooting in particular, are recent phenomenon. Frankly, I think that we now make such a big deal about them that naturally teens are drawn to them. We know that abstinence-only sex ed doesn't work. Why should this be different?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

267. Ya Think

You write: 'Guns have always been readily available in this country'

I'll leave you to distinguish between the violent assasination of gosh President Kennedy (should be add MLK or BK, JR) and imply that it is somehow different from the mass shootings on campus today (have you ever heard of Ohio State?).

You write: 'Frankly, I think that we now make such a big deal about them that naturally teens are drawn to them. We know that abstinence-only sex ed doesn't work. Why should this be different?'

Not make a big deal out of them? Comparing a gun to sex? No problem, but don't be surprised if someone suggests you are trying to overcompensate by having a 'big gun'.

[L1A1Rocker]

314. Shameless flamebait!

[L1A1Rocker]

322. How disappointing.

[bossy22]

4. there is also

"Rob Morrison, a BYU student from Ontario, Canada, doesn't think that having guns on campus would necessarily stop a potential killer.

"The people that do it want to commit suicide anyway," Morrison said. "But it would give students a chance to defend themselves, and at Virginia Tech, it could have ended sooner than it did"


selective quoting i presume?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

9. Thanks for Pointing that Out

It's worth repeating: Rob Morrison, a BYU student from Ontario, Canada, doesn't think that having guns on campus would necessarily stop a potential killer.

[sergeiAK]

28. He also thinks they might have stopped the killing sooner.

Selective listening again. What a shock from you.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

33. And He Might Have Killed the Wrong Person

Thanks for pointing out that what might have happened.

[bossy22]

41. and a plane

might hit your house in 10 minutes


i mean no harm in that comment- just a what if scenario

[fightthegoodfightnow]

141. Statistically Speaking

You're more likely to get hit by a stray bullet.



Same Disclaimer: i mean no harm in that comment- just a what if scenario

[sergeiAK]

45. We were discussing what he thought of CCW on campus

He said it was unlikely to outright prevent a shooting, but might cut one short. You selectively quoted, and I pointed that out. Stop being obtuse.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

60. He Said It Would Not Have Prevented It

Didn't he?

[sergeiAK]

88. He said it "likely" wouldn't have prevented it

That is to say, it had a small chance of doing so. You say wouldn't have, which implies 0 chance.

He also said it could (again, implying a non-zero chance), cut a shooting short, thereby saving lives.

So, we can conclude that he believes CCW on campus has a small (though non-zero) chance of helping. That differs from your assertion that he said it won't help at all.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

103. I Said No Such Thing

Edited to correct title.
.

[L1A1Rocker]

315. Um, yes you did.

[L1A1Rocker]

323. And you FAIL to assert your position!!

[EricTeri]

125. So says one college student.

Tell me again why we should listen to the opinion of a Canadian student over the facts which can be presented by people who have studied this issue for years?

[L1A1Rocker]

324. That's one smart student! He gets an A+

[Deep13]

13. Why are you shouting?

Frankly, ending gun violence should not be the goal. Controling gun crimes and the victimization it causes should be. Further restrictions will reduce violence because victims will not longer have the ability to defend themselves, but it will not reduce gun crimes. There's nothing liberal about taking away a person's right to defend herself. There's nothing liberal about requiring someone to be a victim.

[johnbraun]

15. He's shouting because his other thread on "Gun Crazies" got locked because he broke the DU Rules.

And now he's upset about it.

Saying intolerant and bigoted things a different way does not make them any less intolerant or bigoted.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

18. What a Surprise

Can't stick to the issue.

[krispos42]

30. Christians being unChristlike?

Who'da thunk? The mind REELS from the shock of it all...




Gun advocates think the solution to gun violence in progress is to stop the person committing the violence by shooting that person.

Anti-gun advocates think the solution to gun violence in progress is to stop the person committing the violence by calling the police and letting them shoot that person. When they show up.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

70. Christlike?

You write: 'Anti-gun advocates think the solution to gun violence in progress is to stop the person committing the violence by calling the police and letting them shoot that person. When they show up.'

Nonsense. The solution to gun violence is to end gun violence and it takes a certain amount of naivete to think that can be done without involving who carries a gun or how they acquired one.

I'll leave you to argue it's Christ-like to pull out a gun and shoot someone for any reason.

[sergeiAK]

34. Here's what I said again

Here's my solution to gun violence, not strictly on campus: (I also included a few things designed to fix the BATF and national gun laws)

1. NICS Improvement was a good start. We need to continue this, by establishing a standard of what constitutes mentally ill, establishing due process to revoke the 2A rights of a person declared mentally ill and allowing for appeals, and make reporting such declarations of mental illness to NICS mandatory (this would've stopped VT).

2. Allowing CCW on campus has not been proven harmful. Outside of your paranoia and ridiculous "what if?" scenarios, CCW permit holders are law-abiding, responsible citizens. I believe that allowing CCW in most areas will help the issue. Utah has had 0 problems in several years of allowing it. Colorado has had the same experience. If you can find statistics showing CCW holders committing murder/violent crime at or above the general population, produce them. Likewise stories of shootouts between permit holders during an active shooter scenario. Same with your other "blood in the streets" scenarios. Put up or shut up.

3. The NFA registry needs to be audited. The BATF has lost so many NFA weapons that the registry is now useless, and many legit NFA owners could be in danger of being sent to jail for a weapon they legally possess because the BATF has lost the paperwork.

4. The NFA registry needs to be reopened. The closure of it was a backdoor ban, and destroyed a system that has been proven to work. I'd support removing the $200 tax as well, as nobody should have to pay a tax to exercise a right. I'd also like to see short barreled shotguns and rifles removed from NFA registration, as they didn't belong there in the first place.

5. The BATF needs a well defined set of criteria for whether a weapon is full auto or not. They have waffled on so many decisions (see Akins, the national guardsman with a bad AR, the shoestring=machinegun letter, and so on). This needs to be subject to judicial review and testing must be documented.

6. The BATF needs to start giving a fuck about straw purchases. I've seen cops ignore them, BATF agents tell FFLs to go ahead with them, and a general lack of concern from Law Enforcement. This needs to change, with the establishment of a way for an FFL to report them easily and get local LE involved, resulting in actual prosecutions.

7. BATF agents need to know the rules. I've seen several agents unaware of the rights/responsibilites of an 03 (collector) FFL as compared to an 01 (dealer). Some of these agents threatened to falsely arrest an FFL holder over their misunderstandings. This is unacceptable.

8. We need rational, easy to understand laws. I have a rifle that could be made illegal by swapping a foreign made part (that is an exact copy of the current part) into them. That should not be a felony. We need to abandon the sporting purposes clause and concentrate on keeping weapons out of the wrong hands by enlisting the help of the dealers we've sought so hard to alienate all these years. They are the greatest allies we have, if we help them rather than threaten them with arbitrary laws, non-binding advisory letters, etc. If, as you suggest, we should antagonize all gun owners at every turn, prepare for them to be rather unsympathetic when your community is overrun with crime because you wouldn't listen when they told you how to fix it.


There's most of my solution.

Now post yours.

[bossy22]

39. BRAVO

excellent post my friend....i agree 150%

[sergeiAK]

42. Shame I can't get any of the ban-advocates to even address it.

I've posted it three times. Nobody has addressed it other than a few posts like yours.

[bossy22]

48. it makes too much sense

it also probably wouldnt make a good soundbite for ole' shmuck schumer

[fightthegoodfightnow]

76. Glad I Was One of Them to

......... address it.

[sergeiAK]

93. You're the first.

Congratulations. You win a funny letter, from our friends at the BATF:
|Shoestring Machinegun>

[fightthegoodfightnow]

99. Letter Speaks for Itself

Not sure what your point is?

Nevermind.

I'm sure you think there was some constitutional injustice in getting a response to a letter you sent about something you don't like.

[sergeiAK]

102. The point is that the BATFE is arbitrary in its decisions

I did not send that letter, nor do I have any connection to the man who did. But it shows the level of thinking the BATF uses when determining who to throw in jail.

Fortunately, the person who wrote that letter was an FFL/SOT, and thus allowed to build new machineguns, so he didn't go to jail.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

104. Arbitrary?

That was your point? The point is the person asked for a ruling and got one.
































.

[sergeiAK]

106. And the ruling was retarded.

Also, it wasn't binding on anyone except him. And it can be reversed at the BATFs will.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

108. Retarded? Then Why Was the Question Asked to Begin With?

Clearly the person felt the need to get clarification. If they don't like the response or expected another answer, then why did they ask to begin with?

There was nothing arbitrary about their response. It clearly stated the law and the reasoning for their ruling.

Like I said I'm sure you think there was some constitutional injustice in getting a response you and others do not like.

[sergeiAK]

118. Nothing arbitrary?

Then why was it reversed without the law being changed?

http://www.mp5.net/info/2007-06-25%20String%20Trick%20-%20ATF%20FTB%20Overrules%20Itself%20-%20redacted.pdf">reversal link

It's standard process to get a BATF ruling on any firearm that may be anywhere close to the line. Semi-auto versions of SMGs especially tend to be a contentious matter, with several models being declared machineguns though they only fired semi-automatically. The logic behind this was that they were "readily convertible" aka with a full machine shop and 8-10 hours, you could create a machinegun that looked similar. This also underscores the need for a standard, documented test to determine whether something is a machinegun. If we had that kind of test, things like this could be avoided.

Read up on the Akins Accelerator. They said it was legal, then, once he had tooled up for production and sold a bunch of them, the BATF says it's illegal, and requires destruction of any in private hands, without compensation. Tell me that's not arbitrary. Or that the customer's rights under the 5th amendment were not violated.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

123. Your Link

Your link has some malicious code which you may not be aware that tried to open my e-mail program so I cannot respond to any deserving consideration of its content.

If the ruling was overturned, so what? it's called judicial review for a reason. Rulings are based on the law and their interpretation and that can vary.

[sergeiAK]

126. No, it was overturned by the BATF itself

No judicial review involved. The link works fine for me in Firefox, sans malicious code.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

130. You Might Want to Get a Virus Program

There is code in the link and/or on that site.

[sergeiAK]

132. I run Linux. No need.

Here's another link though: http://www.bobernet.com/blog/2007/07/shoe_string_no_longer_a_machin.html "> complete story

[fightthegoodfightnow]

137. LOL.

OK........... keep telling yourself that. What do you think I'm running? Oh never mind.

I think your response is PERFECT and so is your computer.

LOL

[sergeiAK]

147. Ain't my machine.

The university says it doesn't need AV software. Since they've never had a virus affect these machines, I'm inclined to believe them. Care to address any other portion of that?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

149. No

I'm sure it's fine. Really.

[sergeiAK]

153. Got an example of a Linux virus?

Specifically one spread through a webpage?
It'd be a major issue to the IT dept here.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

154. Off Topic

No thanks.

[sergeiAK]

155. PM me then

Don't be obtuse.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

157. No Thanks

No interest.

[johnbraun]

47. Great great stuff!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

53. Some Agreement

YOU WRITE: 'Here's my solution to gun violence, not strictly on campus: (I also included a few things designed to fix the BATF and national gun laws)'

1. NICS Improvement was a good start. We need to continue this, by establishing a standard of what constitutes mentally ill, establishing due process to revoke the 2A rights of a person declared mentally ill and allowing for appeals, and make reporting such declarations of mental illness to NICS mandatory (this would've stopped VT).

AGREE.

2. Allowing CCW on campus has not been proven harmful. Outside of your paranoia and ridiculous "what if?" scenarios, CCW permit holders are law-abiding, responsible citizens. I believe that allowing CCW in most areas will help the issue. Utah has had 0 problems in several years of allowing it. Colorado has had the same experience. If you can find statistics showing CCW holders committing murder/violent crime at or above the general population, produce them. Likewise stories of shootouts between permit holders during an active shooter scenario. Same with your other "blood in the streets" scenarios. Put up or shut up.

THE CONCEALED WEAPONS OF THE GUN TERRORIST ON CAMPUS NOT WITHSTANDING. THE NOTION THAT HAVING A CONCEALED WEAPON WOULD IN AND OF ITSELF PREVENTED ANYTHING IS NOTHING MORE THAN 'WHAT IF' RUN AMOKE. IF YOU CAN PRODUCE STATISTICS THAT SHOW MORE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SAVED BECAUSE SOMEONE HAD A CONCEALED WEAPON ON CAMPUS (I'M SURE IT'S HAPPENED), THAN HAVE BEEN KILLED, PLEASE SHOW THEM.

3. The NFA registry needs to be audited. The BATF has lost so many NFA weapons that the registry is now useless, and many legit NFA owners could be in danger of being sent to jail for a weapon they legally possess because the BATF has lost the paperwork.

I HAVE YET TO HEAR THAT ISSUE EVER BE RAISED. IF THEY NEED TO BE AUDITED, THEN MY SUGGESTION IS YOU KEEP A COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS TO DEFEND YOURSELF. THE NOTION THAT THERE ARE SCORES OF LAWFUL GUN OWNERS BEING PERSECUTED BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT LOST THE PAPERWORK IS JUST SILLY. GO TO COURT.


4. The NFA registry needs to be reopened. The closure of it was a back door ban, and destroyed a system that has been proven to work. I'd support removing the $200 tax as well, as nobody should have to pay a tax to exercise a right. I'd also like to see short barreled shotguns and rifles removed from NFA registration, as they didn't belong there in the first place.

WHO PUSHED THE REGISTRY CLOSED? THE NRA!!! HOW IS REMOVING THE $200 TAX GOING TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE AGAIN?

5. The BATF needs a well defined set of criteria for whether a weapon is full auto or not. They have waffled on so many decisions (see Akins, the national guardsman with a bad AR, the shoestring=machine gun letter, and so on). This needs to be subject to judicial review and testing must be documented.

HOW IS THAT RELATED TO REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE?

6. The BATF needs to start giving a fuck about straw purchases. I've seen cops ignore them, BATF agents tell FFLs to go ahead with them, and a general lack of concern from Law Enforcement. This needs to change, with the establishment of a way for an FFL to report them easily and get local LE involved, resulting in actual prosecutions.

AGREE.

7. BATF agents need to know the rules. I've seen several agents unaware of the rights/responsibilities of an 03 (collector) FFL as compared to an 01 (dealer). Some of these agents threatened to falsely arrest an FFL holder over their misunderstandings. This is unacceptable.

AGREE....AND SO DO GUN OWNERS. GOOD NEWS IS YOU HAVE RECOURSE AND I WOULD RATHER HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING THAT GETS LAWFULLY RESOLVED PRIOR TO HAVE A LAW BROKEN BECAUSE OF OR DUE TO A GUN SALE.

8. We need rational, easy to understand laws. I have a rifle that could be made illegal by swapping a foreign made part (that is an exact copy of the current part) into them. That should not be a felony. We need to abandon the sporting purposes clause and concentrate on keeping weapons out of the wrong hands by enlisting the help of the dealers we've sought so hard to alienate all these years. They are the greatest allies we have, if we help them rather than threaten them with arbitrary laws, non-binding advisory letters, etc. If, as you suggest, we should antagonize all gun owners at every turn, prepare for them to be rather unsympathetic when your community is overrun with crime because you wouldn't listen when they told you how to fix it.

AGREE WITH THE FIRST SENTENCE.. BUT I DO NOT CHARACTERIZE LAWS AS ARBITRARY OR ANTAGONISTIC UNLESS OF COURSE, YOU SIMPLY DON'T LIKE THE LAW WHICH IS WHAT I SUSPECT.


-------------
EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION: ADDED "ON CAMPUS"

[johnbraun]

56. Why are you yelling again?

nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

58. I'm Not

No...... trying to distinguish text and quotes.

Got a problem ..........let me rephrase ...............got a problem with THAT?

[johnbraun]

61. Negative proof and proving innocence.

"THE CONCEALED WEAPONS OF THE GUN TERRORIST NOT WITHSTANDING. THE NOTION THAT HAVING A CONCEALED WEAPON WOULD IN AND OF ITSELF PREVENTED ANYTHING IS NOTHING MORE THAN 'WHAT IF' RUN AMOKE. IF YOU CAN PRODUCE STATISTICS THAT SHOW MORE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SAVED BECAUSE SOMEONE HAD A CONCEALED WEAPON ON CAMPUS (I'M SURE IT'S HAPPENED), THAN HAVE BEEN KILLED, PLEASE SHOW THEM."

Fail: Negative proof fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

"I HAVE YET TO HEAR THAT ISSUE EVER BE RAISED. IF THEY NEED TO BE AUDITED, THEN MY SUGGESTION IS YOU KEEP A COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS TO DEFEND YOURSELF."

If it is not in the BATFE's records, then any paperwork you have is moot - for all they know you have fabricated it and all the records showing you have talked to the BATFE ever. You can't ever prove your innocence if the records they have are incomplete.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

63. Actually No It Doesn't

Calling someone who uses a concealed weapon on a college campus to MURDER someone a TERRORIST does NOT violate any DU rule.

That's CRAZY.

[johnbraun]

65. Oh, I apologize.

I thought you were referring to lawful CCW holders.

I'm sorry.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

66. Accepted

Thanks.

[EricTeri]

67. How much can you get wrong in one post?

1) no need to address.
2) CCW holders are NOT terrorists. Do NOT characterize us this way. We are demonstrably the single most law abiding section of the population. This is a fact. There are at least two examples of CCW holders STOPPING crimes on campuses. They have been mentioned before. That you choose to ignore them doesnt make it any less true. It cannot be proven that legal CCW holders on campus save more lives than are harmed by the lack of them since most campuses ban CCW and one cannot quantify how many lives have NOT been taken. That whole proving a negative thing.
3) That you have not heard of an issue does not mean it doesn't exist. As far as abuses by the BATFE, the numbers are legion. How much data would prove it to you and from where would you like it sourced? I can provide this information from a variety of sources, Internet and otherwise.
4) The NRA did not push to have the registry closed. It was closed in 1986 by executive order of Ronald Reagan.
5) "Gun violence" statistics include ALL firearms related crime, and yes, paperwork mistakes are lumped into that category. Regardless, it is still one more example of why relying upon government maintained databases to protect you is foolish.
8) Laws which are enforced arbitrarily or are not based in any legitimate reason - such as the cosmetic provisions of the AWB, are wrong as they are not laws so much as whimsical punishments capriciously applied.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

74. Again

You write: '2) CCW holders are NOT terrorists. Do NOT characterize us this way. '

I'm not. You misinterpret. I'm characterizing the terrorist who used a gun to murder on a college campus that.

You write: 'The NRA did not push to have the registry closed. It was closed in 1986 by executive order of Ronald Reagan.'

Right, when Wayne LaPierre was a legislative lobbyist for the NRA who helped elect Ronald Reagan. No disagreement there.

Would respond to the rest, but not sure what it has to do with me getting so much wrong in one post.

[sergeiAK]

72. Stop shouting.

"THE CONCEALED WEAPONS OF THE GUN TERRORIST NOT WITHSTANDING. THE NOTION THAT HAVING A CONCEALED WEAPON WOULD IN AND OF ITSELF PREVENTED ANYTHING IS NOTHING MORE THAN 'WHAT IF' RUN AMOKE. IF YOU CAN PRODUCE STATISTICS THAT SHOW MORE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SAVED BECAUSE SOMEONE HAD A CONCEALED WEAPON ON CAMPUS (I'M SURE IT'S HAPPENED), THAN HAVE BEEN KILLED, PLEASE SHOW THEM."

The old "turrists" argument. Show me some stats saying CCW holders have killed someone on campus.

With only two states allowing CCW on campus (and them fairly recently), I doubt any permit holders have been involved in a defensive shooting there. The idea that CCW permit holders can stop crimes in progress is truthful. It does not, however, mean that they're some (excuse the pun) "magic bullet". They help, but they aren't the be-all, end-all of crime prevention.

They have been proven more law-abiding than the general population, and less likely to hit a bystander than a police officer, so unless you can provide statistics showing something indicting CCW permit holders as the "terrorists" you claim we are, I'm going to conclude you have an irrational fear of us.

"I HAVE YET TO HEAR THAT ISSUE EVER BE RAISED. IF THEY NEED TO BE AUDITED, THEN MY SUGGESTION IS YOU KEEP A COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS TO DEFEND YOURSELF. THE NOTION THAT THERE ARE SCORES OF LAWFUL GUN OWNERS BEING PERSECUTED BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT LOST THE PAPERWORK IS JUST SILLY. GO TO COURT."

Fortunately, nobody has been arrested due to this. Keeping the records yourself is no good if the BATF doesn't have a copy, as they're the final arbiter of whether it's legal or not. It's not a big issue, but I prefer that we keep track of NFA weapons.

"WHO PUSHED THE REGISTRY CLOSED? THE NRA!!! HOW IS REMOVING THE $200 TAX GOING TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE AGAIN?"

The NRA supported the bill due to its other content, the registry closure was a midnight voice vote addition. The NRA has remained silent on the NFA since then. The NFA works, as proven by there having been all of 1 case of murder committed with a legal MG. That case involved a police officer as the criminal. I think it's safe to say that the NFA process works. Removing the tax would make it much more equitable, rather than making the Second Amendment a right of the rich and only the rich. I thought this was the party of economic justice, not special rights for the rich? Currently, NFA weapons are a toy for the very wealthy, not obtainable by the common man. Our standards for who can own a weapon should be based on the man, not his wallet.

"HOW IS THAT RELATED TO REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE?"

It's not, it's a BATF reform. Though it could make prosecuting criminals with illegal machineguns (rather rare already) easier, while protecting lawful owners. Basically, this is a step, like the reopening of the registry, that would protect the rights of the lawful, while keeping firearms out of criminal hands. It would also help to find NFA weapons that have been illegally purchased by those ineligible to do so. Granted, that's pretty rare.

"AGREE....AND SO DO GUN OWNERS. GOOD NEWS IS YOU HAVE RECOURSE AND I WOULD RATHER HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING THAT GETS LAWFULLY RESOLVED PRIOR TO HAVE A LAW BROKEN BECAUSE OF OR DUE TO A GUN SALE."

Owners, by and large, know the rules. With the BATF, recourse is likely to end badly for the citizen. I would rather not have to have a legal dispute, I would prefer that the enforcement agents know the law and not waste resources prosecuting someone who will win in court because the agent hadn't read the rules. I've had to educate a BATF agent on the rules before. In the end, I called his boss, informed his boss that he needed some education. The response: So what, nobody got hurt. That's bullshit.

"AGREE WITH THE FIRST SENTENCE.. BUT I DO NOT CHARACTERIZE LAWS AS ARBITRARY OR ANTAGONISTIC UNLESS OF COURSE, YOU SIMPLY DON'T LIKE THE LAW WHICH IS WHAT I SUSPECT.

I don't like the laws because many are arbitrary. For example, I have a semi-auto rifle, made in the US. It is legal. Were I to have the exact same rifle, stamped "made in Romania" (as the original design was), it would be a felony, worth a $250k fine and 10 years in jail. That's arbitrary and hostile to gun-owners. We have antagonized dealers, especially with the BATF trying to shut down the smaller dealers (who often charge less than the larger shops). We have made it hard to understand the law, and that needs to end. We also need to help FFL holders avoid straw purchases. We haven't, instead seeking to entrap them into aiding in such crimes (witness Bloomberg/Schumer/et al attempts). That makes many FFL holders think we're out to get them.

[Spoonman]

51. Being atheist I can't really relate, however

This from a "Christian" school who no doubt mistakenly think Christ's solution to gun violence is to carry a concealed pistol.

It appears from your statement that you have had some sort of communication with Christ and actually know where he stands on this issue.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

55. No Just a Christian Calling Christian Hypocrisy for What It Is When I See it

I suspect there is a certain amount of religious intolerance in your tone.

[Spoonman]

64. None whatsoever

I just ponder how someone can claim to be a christian, and do exactly what christians are taught not to do.

I find it to be a fascinating belief, it's just so filled with hypocrisy or is that hypocrites?.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

68. Is There Something Related to Guns in Your Post?

................ because I'm not reading it.

[Spoonman]

71. Yes

Tell us which side of the gun control fence is Jesus on.
You seem, or claim to have more enlightenment than I on the subject, so please feel free to explain.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

75. Look at His Life

When the mob stoned the prostitute, what did he do?

Heck, when he was betrayed and put on a cross, what did he do?

[Spoonman]

90. Is There Something Related to Guns in Your Post?

..............Because I'm not reading it!

Did you not understand the question, or did you chose to ignore it?

Your the one who made the statement as to knowledge of where he stood on the subject, so you should be able to answer the question.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

95. Look at His Life

It says it all.

You don't believe it. Fine. No problem.

Anyone claiming that Christ would pull out a gun on anyone simply does not know much about the man or his life.

You disagree. No problem, but stick to what you know.

[Spoonman]

107. With 5 Baptist Ministers (brother, cousins and uncles) in the family

I can probably head to head with anyone in a theological debate.

However, we are discussing the BoR, more specifically the 2nd amendment.

Maybe we should discuss the 1st amendment; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Because, by your assertion that we should do what Jesus would do. That would imply a change in the law based on PURELY Christian beliefs.

Lets just overturn Roe v. Wade while we're at it?

Are you sure you are on the right website?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

111. The Relevancy

...........is this is a Christian school with Christian students discussing their support for or against guns on campus.

Are you sure you are not on the right board since you seem to want to talk more about religion than guns.

[Spoonman]

117. Au contraire mon frair...

It was you that opened that box when you started this thread.

I simply pointed out the irrelevance of your premise.

If you dance around in the rain, don't bitch when you get wet!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

119. That's Right

I started the topic about a Christian school's debate about guns.

What exactly is irrelevant about that?

If you want to talk about what Christ's response to guns would be: fine.

I'm still waiting for you to give me anything in his life or his words that would suggest Christ would carry and/or pull a gun on anyone. He carried no weapons on him in his time. He defended others who were attacked physically. He died at the hands of the state on a cross because a friend betrayed him..... and what was his response in words and deeds?

If you have something to support a different conclusion, please bring it on. I welcome the conversation with an atheist claiming to know Christ's position on guns better than me.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spoonman]

127. Deleted, drats!

I'll try this again.

I can't answer a hypothetical question about someone I believe to be a hypothetical person.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

135. Sure You Can

Sure you can. You did when you wrote: 'It appears from your statement that you have had some sort of communication with Christ and actually know where he stands on this issue.'

It appears from your statement that you seem to know more about this so called hypothetical person than I do.

Regardless of what you think of his divinity, anyone who claims that Christ didn't walk this earth doesn't carry much weight with me about what he thinks Christ may or may not do.

[Wickerman]

136. thanks

:)

[EricTeri]

109. When I can be assured I will be resurrected 3 days later...

I'll be MORE than happy to stop thinking a firearm is a good tool. Until then, since I'm mortal, and would very much like to have a very long life, I'm going to stick with guns.

Look - you wanna be a scared ignorant sheep - go ahead. That is your choice. Do NOT presume to believe I feel the same way.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

112. You Seem to Miss the Point Again

I don't need a gun.

I'm not the one scared.

[EricTeri]

133. No, YOU keep missing the point

And you insist upon projecting your beliefs onto others regardless of what you are told.

I do not live my life scared of others, and that was never a motivator for purchasing firearms in the first place.

Since that begs the question, the reason I bought them is because after becoming interested in the whole 2nd Amendment issue, and realizing the anti-gun side of the argument was based virtually entirely upon lies, feelings, misrepresentations, half-truths and emotion, i figured it was time to own one - not just support ownership of them. From there, i decided that having a CCW was of further importance because it allowed me to understand exactly what the process was to obtain one, and to be able to speak from a position of personal knowledge on the general behavior of CCW holders.

Fact is, I only own 2 firearms - one 9mm Taurus and a relatively inexpensive .22lr rifle. Thats it. Girlfriend owns far more than I do and much larger calibers at that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

138. Those Who Live in Fear

........often rely on guns to make them feel safe. I certainly know that is a false premise as is your accusation of who you think I am. If you do not own a gun out of fear despite your claims and advocacy of owning a gun to protect and defend oneself......... fine. I'm just having a hard time believing it.














PS - I don't have a gun and many people who live in fear do.

[ManiacJoe]

203. Now we are getting somewhere.

1. Some gun owners own guns for reasons of fear.
2. Some gun owners own guns for other reasons.
3. Some non-owners live in fear.
4. Some non-owners do not live in fear.

You try to claim that the membership of group 1 greatly outnumbers that of group 2 with nothing to support such a claim.

We DU gun owners, while admitting that group 1 has a membership greater than zero, believe is an extremely small group, if for no other reason than we do not know of anyone who is in that group. We know of no evidence that supports a claim that group 1 is a large group.

If one does live a life where they have legitimate fear for the need to defend himself, a gun certainly is a good tool to have with them. However, if it is the only tool they have, they are greatly selling themselves short on the options they should be considering.

For those of us who do not live in fear, we understand that our personal protection is our responsibility not the police's, that guns are an excellent tool for self defense in some circumstances, and the due to their relative ease of carry that it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it. Having a gun does not protect you from harm like a force shield. Having a gun gives you another option for escaping a deadly encounter that you did not otherwise avoid.

[jmg257]

83. SO WHAT? THEN DON'T CARRY A GUN - IT'S YOUR CHOICE!!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

91. Choice?

To be put in danger because someone is carrying a concealed weapon on a college campus who might get into an altercation merely because he doesn't like queers like me.

No thanks. That's not a choice.

[johnbraun]

94. Fail. Appeal to emotion

CCW holders have in all instances shown themselves to be 20 times more law-abiding than the average citizen. You are safer around a permitholder than a normal citizen.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

96. According to You

I've seen evidence otherwise.

One of my co-workers husbands pulled out a gun on another man at a party that involved drinking because he didn't like how someone was looking at his wife.

PS - I didn't feel safe. Call me emotional.

[johnbraun]

98. Anecdotes are not data.

The data from Kleck and the MI CCW permit office indicate that permitholders are 4 times less likely to commit a gun crime, 200 times less likely to commit a violent crime, and 20 times less likely to commit any crime than the average citizen.

If the man that pulled a gun wasn't a permitholder, then he was more likely to commit the crime of assault with a deadly weapon.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

101. Personal Experience Trumps Your Data Any Day of the Week

That's called.......... survival.

PS - What did the police do since you seem to think they weren't called?

[johnbraun]

152. Ignoratio elenchi.

QED

[sergeiAK]

100. He can cite nationally published studies. Can you?

Statistically, permit holders are more law-abiding than the general public. Prove that wrong or admit it's right.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

115. Code

Got it. I'm used to it. Nothing personal indeed.

Is that really ALL you have to say about the post in which I wrote: 'One of my co-workers husbands pulled out a gun on another man at a party that involved drinking because he didn't like how someone was looking at his wife.'

I'm not sure how you translate my condemnation of that into rights being violated. How do you FEEL about that situation?

[L1A1Rocker]

306. So

was he carring legally or a thug crook that should have been put down with a legally carried firearm.

I believe it was Robert Heinlein who said that "An armed society is a polite society"

This guy felt free to pull his heater because he was confident that his was the only one in the room.

[L1A1Rocker]

325. Care to respond to the question?

[Spoonman]

97. You make a good point,

it's sort of like a womans right to choose, some people don't want YOU to have a choices.

Kind of makes you wonder where they actually sit on the political compass doesn't it?

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[johnbraun]

120. Exactly, and that is why we have concealed carry permits!

And those citizens who get a permit to carry a loaded gun in public are EXTRAORDINARILY law-abiding, 20 times more so than the average citizen.

We already have a process to ensure that those we license to carry guns in public are not a threat to the public - and as we have found, they are not.

[sergeiAK]

121. Carrying one does not involve public safety

Whereas use does. Laws against discharge of a firearm in public (with the appropriate exemptions, ie self defense, at a range, etc) are perfectly reasonable and supported by every gun-owner I've met.

The act of carrying a gun, provided that you do not brandish (which is a crime), fire (also a crime), or use it to intimidate (also a crime), is not harmful. We already have laws to deal with these crimes.

Also, thanks for the personal attack. It's always nice to be stereotyped as a dumb redneck.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

129. Nothing Personal Said About You

Too bad you or anyone else took it that way.

I was referring to people who think there is no expectation that the government has a responsibility to insure public safety. Some on this board have made that argument as a way to turn the tables and say the government has no responsibility to insure safety.

Such gun advocates remind me of the stereotype I made.

If you took that personally, then I apologize.

[sergeiAK]

134. You appeared to be lumping permit holders in with criminals

Also, a suggestion. If you're talking about CCW permit holders, say so. If you're talking about criminals, say criminals. Saying that those who carry weapons (which, to a law abiding permit holder, means him and similar law-abiding people) are a public threat implies that you are blaming the permit holders for crime. Statistically, you couldn't be much more wrong there.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

139. Here's One for You

If you want help distinguishing between those two populations more clearly, I would suggest you find ways to accommodate the legitimate concerns of law abiding gun control advocates who often view gun advocates, because of their positions regarding guns, as enablers of criminal activity , whether intentionally or not, rather than as fellow law abiding citizens.

[sergeiAK]

143. I have no issues distinguishing between them

You appear to. I have suggested ways to help curb gun violence. Also, as for legitimate concerns, we're more likely to be law abiding than the general population. That's a fact. There is no way for me to accommodate someone who just thinks all guns should be banned. They wish to take a right from me. That's not acceptable.

How should I try to accommodate their fears, without compromising my own rights?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

144. Not Me

You write: 'Also, as for legitimate concerns, we're more likely to be law abiding than the general population. That's a fact.'

Oh good grief. Of course you are and every marriage is based on love. Whatever.

You write: 'There is no way for me to accommodate someone who just thinks all guns should be banned."

That's not me.

You ask: 'How should I try to accommodate their fears, without compromising my own rights?"

Don't know. You have to ask them.

Let me repeat: 'If you want help distinguishing between those two populations more clearly, I would suggest you find ways to accommodate the legitimate concerns of law abiding gun control advocates who often view gun advocates, because of their positions regarding guns, as enablers of criminal activity , whether intentionally or not, rather than as fellow law abiding citizens.'

[sergeiAK]

145. Statistically, we are. As has been posted countless times before.

As to me personally, I've been able to pass background checks for firearms ownership, a Federal Firearms License, a Concealed Carry Permit, and will be beginning my Security Clearance (should I get the job I interviewed for), so there's a fair chance I'm less of a risk than you. Doesn't mean such people are risk-free, but statistically, anyone who goes through that kind of trouble to get the permits and licenses is pretty damned safe.

As for you, I've never seen you oppose a gun-control measure. No matter how silly, how ineffective, how pointless. So what do you think? Tell me where you think the line should be drawn on a national level.

As for asking "them", who are "they"? Anyone who is anti-gun? If so, I've had a remarkable amount of luck just explaining the law, taking them shooting, and showing them where politicians are mis-informed. It's also rather amazing what happens when you point out where the media lies. Some cling to their fears, but most realize that we're not some big, bad, scary gang out to get them and eat kittens. But then again, what do I know, according to you, I must be some dumb redneck drinking 'shine.

Another random question. Have you ever shot a gun?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

146. More

You write: 'As to me personally, I've been able to pass background checks for firearms ownership, a Federal Firearms License, a Concealed Carry Permit, and will be beginning my Security Clearance (should I get the job I interviewed for), so there's a fair chance I'm less of a risk than you'

Based on what? You don't know me. Speak for yourself but please don't compare your background checks to the presumption I have never had or passed any.

You write: 'As for you, I've never seen you oppose a gun-control measure. No matter how silly, how ineffective, how pointless. So what do you think? Tell me where you think the line should be drawn on a national level.'

When a control measure is introduced that I oppose, I'll be sure to let you know. I joked on another board that I might oppose a law that criminalize pink guns, but then a gun supporter showed a video story about gun manufacturers making guns to look like toys. I stated at the time I would withhold judgment, but I'm having a hard time seeing the constitutionality that protects a manufacturer from making and marketing pink guns as toys to deceive police who think they are toys. That is an example of something I think most Americans would prefer legitimate law abiding gun owners to distance themselves from and be outspoken against. My real objection is to the inconsistencies not only in laws between states but in their enforcement. Given our federal system, I doubt much will change about the first and I'm not optimistic much could be done about the second.

How about you? Is there any existing or proposed gun control law you support?

You write: 'Another random question. Have you ever shot a gun?'

Yes. Numerous times all for sport....and if I do say so myself, I was pretty darn good to the surprise of a friend whose experience is far more extensive than mine. He bought the beers afterward. :) I've also been fortunate enough to go hunting with a professional Chef who made one heck of a great dinner later that night from our hunting (although I almost chipped a tooth on a pellet). It was one of the best meals and days I've ever had.

[sergeiAK]

158. That's why I made no definitive statement.

I don't know your credentials, you haven't posted them. From your attitude, it's unlikely that you hold an FFL or a CCW permit or have ever filled out a 4473. That's why I said "a fair chance", not definitively stated.

Got a link to that video? The only reference I've seen to "guns made to look like toys" were Bloombergs attempts to ban durakote and other colored coatings. As for pink guns, I saw a pink, Hello Kitty adorned AK at the range one day. The girl shooting it loved it; it was a gift from her father. It didn't look anything like a toy. I support the orange tip requirement for toy guns, but as for style restrictions on real guns, I've never seen one that could be confused for a toy. Again, if you have that video, I'd like to see it.

As for gun control laws I like, I addressed that earlier. Parts of the NFA, excluding the closed registry making it a ban, were a fine idea. I supported the NICS improvement bill, and would like to see mental health issues further addressed by NICS.

As for the last bit, that's why I don't hunt birds :P Too easy to miss a pellet when cleaning them and end up going to the dentist. Plus they're just a pain to clean.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

164. Follow Up

Attitude? Oh good grief. Really. Come on. You should know better.

I could not find the original post I responded to, but did a search of 'pink guns' in the DU search and I found a board with this link

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/02/19/resnik.painted.guns.kpnx

Thanks for supporting those gun measures.

As for bird hunting, you are very right on both counts.

[sergeiAK]

171. Hahahahha

That video was fearmongering at its finest. I still see no reason to legislate (other than the sheer ugliness of some of those abominations :P).

As for your thoughts about gun control, I said that means you probably don't have a CCW permit or an FFL. Do you have either?

Or was it my use of the word "attitude"? If so, I meant opinions/thoughts/etc.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

180. See - That's What Drives Me Crazy

Do you NOT see the danger of this practice?

Why are you defending painting guns pink and lime green to make them look like toys?

What good can come from that to balance the bad consequences of it.

May only be window dressing but when I hear folks dismiss and characterize such things as fearmongering, my mouth drops. Is this really the line in the sand that you want to draw?

CCW permit or FFL - no, but doesn't mean I'm less of a law abiding citizen than you as you implied.

[sergeiAK]

185. Eh, they all looked like guns to me.

Perhaps that's only because I'm used to the differences, but I could easily recognize the guns. I liked the pink AK I saw, and it in no way resembled a toy. The only "danger" I see from this is children thinking it's a toy, but children + unsecured guns = bad idea regardless.

Personally, I think it's silly to paint a gun, but to each his/her own. I don't think it's a good idea to paint one, but I see no reason to ban it. I see no real effect (positive or negative) from it, therefore I dismiss the idea that we need legislation to combat it.

It is windowdressing, and the newscaster was a Bush-class fearmonger. They also got several facts wrong and couldn't even identify the guns they showed. I'm guessing that these people (like many reporters) don't know what real guns look like.

As for the CCW/FFL making one more law abiding, it's a statistical thing. You (speaking singularly) may be a perfect citizen, but it has been shown that those who have permits are more likely to not commit crimes. Therefore, on a general level, we're more likely to be good citizens. I meant no implication about you in particular.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

159. I Answered Your Question

Here's one for you: Have you ever seen a friend bleed to death from a gun related crime?

[sergeiAK]

165. Not a friend.

But a person. Seen someone get hacked at with a machete. Seen the cops shoot some crazy bastard with a knife too. All of those were within two blocks of where I lived or went to school at the time.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

169. YIKES

Hope you didn't see that as a kid going to that school.

See my friend bleed (before the age of cell phones and having the phone ripped from the wall) was hard. Your reaction is to stay with your friend but you know you have to get help. Terrible. Only way to describe it.

[sergeiAK]

181. Middle school, and college

The guy with the knife was shot in the head with a shotgun by the police outside my middle school. I was watching from the window of the science class. Really didn't shock me that much, it was a rough neighborhood, and we saw lots of violence there. Most of it was more petty in nature though.

The others were from a driveby shooting ~200ft from my current house, and the machete attack was in the middle of the road my house is on. Did I mention I've only been here 2 years?

Full story on all:
Guy with knife rushed the cops when they kicked his door down on a drug bust. He got outside, went after the cop with the shotgun, the rest is history.

Machete: Guy A is fighting with Woman in the middle of the road. We call the cops. Guy A busts a 40oz over her head, both run. Guy B comes tearing down the street with a machete, chasing Guy A. Catches him ~300ft later and gets a few hits in, then both run off further. Cops arrive. We tell them what happened. Guy B comes back, covered in blood (his own and someone elses). Dunno what happened from there, but the cops were talking to him.

Driveby: Drug deal gone bad. Guy got shot at the corner of the street my house is on and the main road (~150 ft from me). Cops found the perpetrator, he used a gun he stole from a burglary nearby. This event spurred me to buy a better safe.

Other misc events: Armed robbery attempt nearby, guy comes into stop-n-rob with a brick, tries to get cash. Store owner KOs him with a metal bat. Store owner had a shotgun, but elected to use non-lethal force this time. Shotgun has been used before. Many random hand to hand fights between customers and owners of the nearby crackhouse. Cops arrive too late to all of them. Cops eventually bust crackhouse, but it simply moves.

My condolences for the loss of your friend.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

183. Well......... I Hear You

Lots of things contribute to street violence. No doubt about it. None of it good. Glad you survived all of that.

The machete brings up bad memories. I was attacked on the street and hospitalized for six days due to a fag bashing attack with ...... of all things...... a machete. Caused quite the gash on my head. Because it was a head wound, I passed out from the blood and woke up in the hospital.

Thanks for your condolences about my friend. Still haunts me decades later.

Anyway.........

[WWFZD]

231. Your post caused me to recall something

I read on a forum a couple of years ago. it was on the website of a group called the "Pink Pistols". A lady remarked that she found it much easier to come out as a gay American to other "gun nuts" than to come out as a "gun nut" to other gays.
Glad you were able to rebound from that horrific and despicable attack. If that should ever happen to you again (another "fag bashng" attack) I sincerely hope that you don't endure another machette wound and that you exercise your 2A rights and put a .40 round into that ignorant bigots head.
Go to a range sometime, try an XD, you'll find out how enjoyable your 2A rights can be.
Luvs my XD-40.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

232. Nah.....

............thanks but that's not my belief system.

That only brings me down to their level. I mean no disrespect, but that's not me.

I can appreciate other gays who think differently. I get it. I understand their rage. Believe me I do.

But I've spent a lifetime resisting any temptation to resort to their level or identify with their anger.

Not saying it's easy. It's not.

[WWFZD]

233. I hate to quote a movie

but the flick "Mississippi Burning" comes to mind. The young GMan says to the old sheriff (paraphrasing), "I won't let you you drag me into the gutter Mr.XX, The old man says " These people crawled out of the sewer Mr. YY, maybe the gutter's where we need to be".

[fightthegoodfightnow]

234. I've Been in the Gutter

..... but as Oscar Wilde says........ We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.................

[Tejas]

242. Those aren't stars.......

those are bullet holes in your anti-BOR statements.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

248. Leave It to You to Compare a Star to a Bullet Hole

Pathetic.

Oscar Wilde had another quote that comes to mind: 'In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.'

[Tejas]

271. Sorry, truth hurts sometimes :) n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

276. Sorry?

Of course you are, but your apology is not unlike your posts........... meaningless, insincere and unrelated to the board you are participating on.

[WWFZD]

277. Dude, nobody's suggesting

you become like Death Wish and start hunting those you perceive to be a threat or that you live in fear.
You seem to be of a mind that there is no difference between the measured application of controlled, deliberate, reasoned violence and mayhem such as the terrible attack you suffered, and for a detestable reason - as you put it "fag bashing". You don't reason with the scum that assaulted you any more than a black man should reason with a lynch mob or a woman should reason with a rapist.
The most expedient way to defend yourself is with a gun. That doesn't mean that you "resort to their level or identify with their anger". If you aren't already angry or at their level a simple tool won't cast a spell on you and cause you to run amok.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

278. Nonsense

You write about the 'application of controlled, deliberate, reasoned violence.'

Is that what you think violence is or can be?

I'll leave you to pit my experience against someone being raped or lynched. I make no such comparison.



























................................................dude.

[WWFZD]

279. You don't understand that?

You don't get that swinging a bat into the head of someone is violence? Now let's say that person you hit was in the process of raping your elderly neighbor and for all you know he would have killed her.
If you don't understand, and can't discern the difference between deliberate, controlled violence and a violent crime perpetrated on the innocent then I have nothing more to add.
Live your life however you want but keep your mitts off my BoR, dude.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

280. Talk About Rage

You write about the 'application of controlled, deliberate, reasoned violence.'

Is that what you think violence is or can be?

I'll leave you to pit my experience against someone being raped or lynched. I make no such comparison.

There is nothing 'controlled, deliberate or reasoned' about rage against injustice.

[L1A1Rocker]

316. Now THAT was ridiculous!!

Dude.

[L1A1Rocker]

317. Absolutely ridiculous

Dude.

[L1A1Rocker]

326. Ridiculous to the extreme. . . . .

DUDE!

[Tejas]

240. sergeiAK, meet FTGFN

FTGFN blames the rest of the world on a regular basis for everything from DC voting rights to the price of beans in China. Want to really get him going, just mention his beloved 30-year old DC gunban and how it has been a FAILURE, not only in providing an excellent example of civil rights being trampled but also how it hasn't erased murders from DC (imagine that!).


Get used to FTGFN, the rest of us have.

:)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

243. Sad

Too bad your personal animosity has colored your judgment so much so that you prefer to talk about me rather than any given issue.

The great citizens of DC support our gun laws passed by your city council and Mayor some 30 years ago and nothing you say can dispel the truth that gun crime in our city is less today than the before it was enacted. Heck, even if it were higher, which it is not, the merits of your arguments have done nothing to win over the people of DC who actually have to live in the city you know nothing about.

I'll leave you to argue that the right to vote or the right to govern oneself has something to do with the price of beans in China. Certainly that's the value of your currency. Reality is the right to vote and self government are priceless gems in our national treasure.

[Tejas]

268. Don't be sad, we still love you!

Given issue? Your worthless 30yr old ban was mentioned and what gem do you toss out there?

"nothing you say can dispel the truth that gun crime in our city is less today than the before it was enacted"

"less"

Less than what? Appears you are perfectly happy with your murder rate in DC, in this case LESS is MORE than necessary. Rest assured the SCOTUS is going to change that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

272. Thanks............ I Think.................... ........................LOL.

"Worthless" gun ban?

Why does what happens thousands of miles from where you live make you sooo angry?

Less means there are fewer annual deaths today than there was before the legislation was introduced. Of course, I'm not happy that people are being killed by ................GUNS...................... but I'm grateful that fewer are today than 30 years ago. Aren't you?

[L1A1Rocker]

302. LOL ha ha ha LOL!

[L1A1Rocker]

301. Right on cue!!!

LOL






















































.

[L1A1Rocker]

318. Irrelevant post

please stay on topic.

[beevul]

235. Get it right.

"I was referring to people who think there is no expectation that the government has a responsibility to insure public safety. Some on this board have made that argument as a way to turn the tables and say the government has no responsibility to insure safety."

No one here has said that "there is no expectation that the government has a responsibility to insure public safety". Not a single perso0n. If you think otherwise, id like a quote please.


What HAS been said, is that the governmetn - police - has NO responsibility to insure the safety of ANY individual not in protective custody. That is real, true, and verifiable via legal precedent.



Therefore it IS common sense that protecting public safety should not "blanket" interfere with an individual attempting to in sure his/her own safety via firearm.


Thats the argument. Dispute/refute it if you must, but at least understand whats being said, so you don't end up refuting something nobody said in the first place.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

244. Got It

I'm glad you agree with me that the government has a responsibility for public safety leaving open the question of whether or not that includes the consequences of gun trade, gun usage, gun safety and gun violence.

[L1A1Rocker]

327. Yea, Sure.

[aikoaiko]

92. its not so much "more guns" as it is allowing people to carry in current "gun free zones"

The same number of guns used and carried differently.

[Irreverend IX]

128. Oh boy...

[Tejas]

241. The 30yr DC gunban has shown how your position is fallible

The ban hasn't worked, you STILL have 160+ murders every year, so give it up and let everyone have guns and see what happens. Despite your rants, the Potomac will not flood its banks due to a catastrophic inflow of blood from the streets of DC.

Feel free to prove otherwise.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

245. More Nonsense

Nonsense.

I've shown numerous times that the murder rate per capita is less today than it was the year before the law was enacted.
I've shown numerous times that there has been NO initiative whatsoever to have a recall of the legislation.
You've volunteered that you do not live here and have no first hand knowledge of the issues in our neighborhoods or communities.

Feel free to prove anything otherwise.

[sergeiAK]

250. How about the Heller case?

Is that not a challenge to the ban?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

251. Too Bad You Didn't Dispute One of my Three Statements

Didn't prove otherwise did you?

I've shown numerous times that the murder rate per capita is less today than it was the year before the law was enacted.
I've shown numerous times that there has been NO initiative whatsoever to have a recall of the legislation.
You've volunteered that you do not live here and have no first hand knowledge of the issues in our neighborhoods or communities.

[slackmaster]

255. The Heller case is an initiative to recall the legislation

Obviously.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

257. No........ it's a Court Case

An initiative would be a referendum.

[slackmaster]

259. Referendum is only one kind of initiative

A court case like Heller is another way of getting the same result, and using the noun initiative to describe it is perfectly valid.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

260. If You Say So

I suspect that when you have not used all of the legislative initiatives available prior to going to court, there is another term for it: judicial activism.

[slackmaster]

261. One person's "judicial activism" is another person's justice

Your whole tone in this thread has a narcissistic quality.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

263. Oh Good Grief

You got all of that from a post.

Must have hit a nerve.

Stick to the issue.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

264. Judicial Activism

I'll leave you to argue that the solution you seek should be put before a court prior to being put before the people.

[slackmaster]

265. This is about the interests of a minority of the people

Minority interests are often not supported by majorities. That's why we don't use direct democracy to decide every issue.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

266. Good Point

.......... but minorities should and do put their case before the people based on the premise that justice comes from the wisdom of the majority. If and when that fails, there are the courts.

NO attempt was ever made to get the issue on the ballot, which by the way, does not require anymore than 5% of the voters wanting the issue on the ballot.

[Tejas]

270. You are the one that failed to dispute (again)

I put to you your murder rate, you side-step the issue and simply throw your standard "you don't live here, it's none of your business" along with "it's so much better now" out there.


Quit failing, try countering with answers instead of random meaningless questions, your accusations will not hide your lack of ammo when faced with realities such as the daily news in your fine city.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

273. Here are the Facts

Didn't prove otherwise did you?

I've shown numerous times that the murder rate per capita is less today than it was the year before the law was enacted.
I've shown numerous times that there has been NO initiative whatsoever to have a recall of the legislation.
You've volunteered that you do not live here and have no first hand knowledge of the issues in our neighborhoods or communities.


Still waiting............................................................

[krispos42]

305. And what did the murder rate do in the intervening years?

If it did what the US overall rate did, it looks something like this:




It would be higher than the average US rate, of course, but roughly follow the same curves.

[Tejas]

269. your "per capita" is moot

Law-abiding citizens have been strangled for 30 years by your ban, you still have murders committed by criminals with guns.

Criminals with guns sounds like a pretty good initiative to me, but then again what do I know :sarcasm:


Proof?

Okay: 160+ murders in DC and law-abiding citizens are forbidden to possess the means to defend themselves.

ps: cell phones don't count as a means of defense, got it?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

274. Proof?

Like there are .........FEWER................. that's right .................... FEWER.......... gun deaths today than the year prior to the legislation.


PS - I'll leave you to argue that cell phones are not weapons of self defense. If it's your position that cell phones coupled with gun control are valid weapons against gun violence, good for you. I just never thought that a gun advocate would argue the merits of a ........... cell phone.



Kind of makes you wonder if a gun is necessary when according to you a cell phone has lowered gun violence.

[Tejas]

284. You're slipping away again

No earthly clue as to how you some of the impressions from posts that you get.


"when according to you a cell phone has lowered gun violence"


Who are you quoting/paraphrasing there, care to show how you came to that dilusio......er.......conclusion?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

285. Right.........

........that's why it was brought up by who?


LOL.

[bossy22]

290. you're conclusions dont make any sense

because they ignore thousands of other factors in the 30 years it has been since the ban was put in place. The start of the crack-cocaine epidemic, the end of the crack cocaine epidemic, gentrification, different policing strategies, economic ups and downs.

what you fail to realize is that murders increased after the ban (probably due to the crack cocaine epidemic) and then fell (at the same time the crack-cocaine epidemic seemed to quiet itself down)

you are right that murders are lower than they were before the ban- but you are just silly to believe the ban is the reason that it is lower, it it were, we'd see a nice slowly decreasing rate, not a rate that decreases, then skyrockets up, then decreases again.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

291. You Have Valid Points

............ but the suggestion that the gun ban did not help or contribute is as silly as suggesting none of those other variables did not also have an impact.

[benEzra]

294. That statement is equally true of the states that did NOT ban handguns.

Like there are .........FEWER................. that's right .................... FEWER.......... gun deaths today than the year prior to the legislation.

The same is true of the states that did NOT ban handguns or the lawful possession of a functional long gun in your home. There are fewer gun deaths in those jurisdictions today than there were then, as well.

Nationwide stats (noting that the U.S. at large did NOT ban handguns and functional long guns in 1976):

[L1A1Rocker]

293. Hey FTGF the nonsence is yours

[L1A1Rocker]

And I dare you to assert your position!!

[L1A1Rocker]

And I dare you to assert your position!!

[L1A1Rocker]

328. And I dare you to assert your position!!

[TaxUser]

330. Allow people to own and carry guns if they choose but ...

If caught red handed using a gun and someone is shot then don't drag out the appeals give them the death penalty within a month of being found guilty. Make it very clear gun violence will not be tolerated in this country. Promote the safe use of guns and make them available to protect you and your family. You can't have exclusionary laws and expect them to work. For example if you make a law that no person is allowed to have a gun in the State of New York and if I'm a person that wishes to rob people guess what State I'm headed to. If Texas allows people to carry concealed guess what state I'm staying out of. If I'm going to raise a family and be safe I would move to Texas where if a nut planning on killing everyone comes into a restaurant, where me and my family are, I would have a fighting chance even if I didn't have a gun maybe someone would. In New York you would see our pictures in the obituaries. :(