Gun Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Fonebone wrote:
Also, what is your proposed plan for “spot checks”? Police at the door to look for unlicensed weapons at a time of their choosing? Thanks, but if that’s “public safety”, I’ll take freedom over “safety” any day.

Fonebone
[/quote]

Amen brother. government licensing is registration, registration can lead to confiscation. That’s why I’m a die hard supporter of the NRA.

“I’ve got a firm policy on gun control. If there’s a gun around, I want to be the one controlling it.”
~ Clint Eastwood

“There’s no such thing as a good gun. There’s no such thing as a bad gun. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a very dangerous thing. A gun in the hands of a good person is no danger to anyone except the bad guys.”
– Charlton Heston, FOX News Channel, 15 Sep 1997

“Strict gun control is an absolute necessity. Without it you just can’t hit what you’re aiming at.”
– anonymous

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
– Sigmund Freud, A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

“Tell the American people never to lose their guns. As long as they keep their guns in their hands, what happened here will never happen there.”
– A female student from Beijing, China, describing her parents last words to her.

“I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers… no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun. There can be no right of privacy in regard to armament… We seek a disarmed populace.”
– Prof. Dean Morris, Government employee, Director: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, in testimony to Congress
(Another bozo with a big mouth and no apparent brain!)

This one in particular is my favorite.

“We [The United States] can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles that we are unable to think about reality.”
– Bill Clinton, at a press conference in Piscataway, NJ, 1 Mar 1993
(Why not, Bubba? What’s more important than “preserving the rights of ordinary Americans”? More money from foreign lobyists? Another intern with knee pads?)

62

[quote]snipeout wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The original intent of my post was to attempt to point out that no matter how the government attempts to control law abiding citizens rights to own guns, the bad guys will always be able to get them on demand. Do I agree with background checks? Absolutely. Do I think that waiting times should be reduced? Definitely, with regards to quickly yet still safely completing the background check.

Why do waiting times need to be reduced? And if they can’t be reduced safely do you still support reducing them?

Why do law abiding citizens have to wait upwards of 20 weeks just to receive a permit to purchase when anyone can buy a gun same day off the street. The problem being that these permit papers sit on desks for months. Not a big deal unless you are say a cop in NJ who more or less needs to carry off duty and you have to wait 11 weeks just to get your permit to buy your off duty weapon.

Doesn’t sound like a big deal to non law enforcement but when you are forced to live in the same county you work in you tend to run into some of the scum you lock up or keep locked up when they are out on bail. I have to wait 11 weeks to protect myself and my wife but the same scum I keep in jail can get a gun 3 minutes after they make bail.[/quote]

Well, the administrative issues should be resolved (if possible-I’m sure it’s not easy and it’s a problem for many issues beyond guns). That has nothing to do with the time it takes to run an effective background check. It has to do with ill-equipped, poorly run organizations dragging their heals before actually begin to process applications. I agree that attention should be given to speed the process up so long as the same safety standards can be met.

I fail to see how being a cop comes into an issue. Why is their more immedicacy for cops to have off-duty access to a gun to protect their family than there is for me? Unless you are saying these criminals specifically remember the cops who apprehend them, find out where you live (follow you?), and pose a threat to your families. Which seems like a stretch. But maybe. Otherwise, the waiting period affects you no more than it affects me. The waiting periods would not affect any of us after the first gun. Waiting for a replacement does not make the gun any less serviceable or viable as protection. I don’t see why your family is not protected while your waiting for a new gun to come in when you have one already.

63

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Professor X wrote:
snipeout wrote:
We are not “required” to carry off duty, just respond to any incident we see take place wihle off duty. Take that for what it is worth, not to mention the amount of people who make bail and are not happy to see you and your wife out enjoying themselves.

You don’t keep your gun while off duty?

Due to departmental policy we can not carry our duty weapon off duty, they don’t want to assume the liability. I do get to take my duty weapon home I am just not authorized to carry it out of uniform.[/quote]

Well, as a practical matter, your family hardly goes unprotected then. The gun is in your home, you know how to use it, and alhtough the rules officially say you can’t ‘carry’ it, I am sure that you would not be fired if a criminal broke into your home and threatened your family at gunpoint and you used it to defend them.

64

I felt compelled to quote this liberal whore.

“I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say: Sorry, it’s 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” Rosie O’Donnell

Wait a second Rosie, what about the private security guy you had guarding your kid? Should he have been arrested?? let’ face it folks, Big Head, Big Mouth!

65

Flamer,

Instead of spouting off silly quotes, why don’t you address some of the strategies for curbing criminal use of guns in a way that doesn’t conflict with law abiding use of guns?

That is the entire trick, isn’t it?

Anything to add in that direction, or just more blatent liberals are evil diatribe without bothering to read what people are posting?

66

Wrong button. Woops.

67

[quote]vroom wrote:
Flamer,

Instead of spouting off silly quotes, why don’t you address some of the strategies for curbing criminal use of guns in a way that doesn’t conflict with law abiding use of guns?

That is the entire trick, isn’t it?

Anything to add in that direction, or just more blatent liberals are evil diatribe without bothering to read what people are posting?[/quote]

My bad Vroomie, I thought this was a topic on gun control. Were some of my quotes on gun control off base from that?
I’m sorry if my intelligent placement of relevent quotes offended you.

What was that you said about reading what people are posting? Or were you just intent on attacking me?

I can’t imagine why Rainjack has a problem with you. You’re such a pleasant fellow.

68

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
My bad Vroomie, I thought this was a topic on gun control. Were some of my quotes on gun control off base from that?
I’m sorry if my intelligent placement of relevent quotes offended you.

What was that you said about reading what people are posting? Or were you just intent on attacking me?

I can’t imagine why Rainjack has a problem with you. You’re such a pleasant fellow.[/quote]

What Rosie O’Donnell said 6 years ago is relevant to a discussion on gun control? You posted that quote as if it were the representation of “liberal mentality”. Can I now credit O’Reilly with mouthing your thoughts?

I still can’t believe you quoted O’Donnel and actually thought you had a point? What next? The mental masturbation of Big Bird? Wait, do you have another article about how Clinton gave AIDs to Africa? I ask because you seem to be on top of the “big stories”.

69

I don’t know flamer, I was reading along, offering some thoughts concerning how to make it tougher for criminals to carry weapons, and responding to criticism of those thoughts.

Your quotes had nothing to do with the conversation taking place… nor did it have anything constructive to add to a conversation, other than to decry some caricature of liberalism not espoused by anyone around here.

Call me a liberal all you want, but if you read my posts on gun control, I’d think you’d see I don’t have the “eliminate guns” mentality often ascribed to liberals.

I’ve repeatedly defended the right to bear arms and considered it a vital necessity based on its purpose within the constitution, but feel that ways to combat criminals use of guns are still needed.

I’d also like it if less children killed either themselves or other children, but don’t have many ideas for that beyond trigger locks or ensuring gun owners are taught what to be concerned about. I’m not thrilled with having guns unusable during a protective need event though, so thats a tough one.

70

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
snipeout wrote:
The original intent of my post was to attempt to point out that no matter how the government attempts to control law abiding citizens rights to own guns, the bad guys will always be able to get them on demand. Do I agree with background checks? Absolutely. Do I think that waiting times should be reduced? Definitely, with regards to quickly yet still safely completing the background check.

Why do waiting times need to be reduced? And if they can’t be reduced safely do you still support reducing them?

Why do law abiding citizens have to wait upwards of 20 weeks just to receive a permit to purchase when anyone can buy a gun same day off the street. The problem being that these permit papers sit on desks for months. Not a big deal unless you are say a cop in NJ who more or less needs to carry off duty and you have to wait 11 weeks just to get your permit to buy your off duty weapon.

Doesn’t sound like a big deal to non law enforcement but when you are forced to live in the same county you work in you tend to run into some of the scum you lock up or keep locked up when they are out on bail. I have to wait 11 weeks to protect myself and my wife but the same scum I keep in jail can get a gun 3 minutes after they make bail.

Well, the administrative issues should be resolved (if possible-I’m sure it’s not easy and it’s a problem for many issues beyond guns). That has nothing to do with the time it takes to run an effective background check. It has to do with ill-equipped, poorly run organizations dragging their heals before actually begin to process applications. I agree that attention should be given to speed the process up so long as the same safety standards can be met.

I fail to see how being a cop comes into an issue. Why is their more immedicacy for cops to have off-duty access to a gun to protect their family than there is for me? Unless you are saying these criminals specifically remember the cops who apprehend them, find out where you live (follow you?), and pose a threat to your families. Which seems like a stretch. But maybe. Otherwise, the waiting period affects you no more than it affects me. The waiting periods would not affect any of us after the first gun. Waiting for a replacement does not make the gun any less serviceable or viable as protection. I don’t see why your family is not protected while your waiting for a new gun to come in when you have one already.
[/quote]

Your last paragraph is a joke right? Do you know how many times I run into people on the streets? If you had any clue how many people out on the street have actually been to jail for more than just a traffic ticket your jaw would drop. Not a week goes by where I don’t see at least 3 people.

Do you not see the immediacy of them recognizing me and possibly having some problem with me? The home is one thing but running into an inmate on the street is where you are at your biggest disadvantage now throw in my wife or my nephew being with me and try and understand why I NEED to carry an off suty weapon. You being an average joe don’t really have to worry about angry inmate X because it’s just another face to you.

71

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Your last paragraph is a joke right? Do you know how many times I run into people on the streets? If you had any clue how many people out on the street have actually been to jail for more than just a traffic ticket your jaw would drop. Not a week goes by where I don’t see at least 3 people.

Do you not see the immediacy of them recognizing me and possibly having some problem with me? The home is one thing but running into an inmate on the street is where you are at your biggest disadvantage now throw in my wife or my nephew being with me and try and understand why I NEED to carry an off suty weapon. You being an average joe don’t really have to worry about angry inmate X because it’s just another face to you.[/quote]

-What kind of town do you live in snipe? You paint a pretty dark picture of it. I live in one of the largest cities in the country and know a few police officers, and can’t think of one who regularly carries while off duty. Keep in mind this is in a state where it’s legal for ANYONE to carry.

Are you in a really small crime-ridden town?
How do you keep running into previous lock-ups? I mean, if the number of inmates is jaw-dropping, I would expect you to be in a good-sized city.

In a previous thread, you mentioned you were a corrections officer, right? Have you had run-ins on the street before, with previous inmates?

72

[quote]vroom wrote:
Enough already.

I was not talking about registering gun owners, I was talking about having a license to own a gun. There is a big difference.[/quote]

You missed my point. Licensing leads to at least the POTENTIAL of the dreaded database you berate me for acknowledging.

Yes, and you also REGISTER your car, don’t you. Further, operating a car involves the use of taxpayer funded, public property (for you Palm Beach Democrats, that would be roads), which may justify one’s being subject to government regulation. The right to self defense involves no such taxpayer funded resources and should not require anyone’s permission. Driving is a privilege. Privileges can be taken away. Do YOU see the difference?

See above. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen. The (useless) Brady law in the US dictates that background check records be destroyed in 24 hours. However, under the wondrous Janet Reno, the Justice Dept. was caught keeping records for far longer, and possibly constructing just such a database. Just because you think privacy is neat-o doesn’t mean a corrupt administration has the same view. YOUR personal support of privacy means nothing to me.

It matters a great deal. Who gives a rat’s ass if it’s “fair” when it is unduly burdensome and intrusive. “Fair” is a relative term. Not to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you mean to say that it’s OK for the government to randomly search one’s car, home, or person, just as long as we aren’t PROFILING, right? To the government, “fair” means searching every fifth person to get on an airplane, be they businessman, senior citizen, or child. Gimmeafreakinbreak!

You mean like they did in Canada? Oh, hallelujah, brother, can I get me some-a-dat down here?

Don’t confuse my healthy distrust of government, which is strongly supported by history, with paranoia.

Interesting, you have all sorts of grand and “fair” ideas but no real plan.

73

[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t know flamer, I was reading along, offering some thoughts concerning how to make it tougher for criminals to carry weapons, and responding to criticism of those thoughts.

Your quotes had nothing to do with the conversation taking place…[/quote]

I’m sorry vroom, but I reread all of the quotes and I do beleieve they were directly related to gun control. I did not place those quotes there in an attempt to derail any of your arguments, Simply in general support of my positions on gun control.

What was it that pissed you off so much? Whas it the fact that it was me who chimed in on your debate with fonebone?

[quote]
nor did it have anything constructive to add to a conversation, other than to decry some caricature of liberalism not espoused by anyone around here.[/quote]

The catalyst for my posting was a statement made by fonebone, not you vroomie. I was simply in agreement with fonebone’s position. Read the dialouge below and tell me if I attacked you or your positions in any way.

Fonebone said, in an ongoing dialouge with vroom:
[i]Also, what is your proposed plan for “spot checks”? Police at the door to look for unlicensed weapons at a time of their choosing? Thanks, but if that’s “public safety”, I’ll take freedom over “safety” any day.

Fonebone [/i]

Bigflamer then stated, in general support of fonebone’s statement:
Amen brother. government licensing is registration, registration can lead to confiscation. That’s why I’m a die hard supporter of the NRA

[quote]
Call me a liberal all you want[/quote]

I didn’t.

[quote]
but if you read my posts on gun control, I’d think you’d see I don’t have the “eliminate guns” mentality often ascribed to liberals.[/quote]

Good for you.

[quote]
I’ve repeatedly defended the right to bear arms and considered it a vital necessity based on its purpose within the constitution, but feel that ways to combat criminals use of guns are still needed. [/quote]

I truly believe that MUCH heavier penalties on on ALL gun crimes, alongside a ZERO tolerance enforcement of those laws, will go a long way towards this end. However this will never eliminate guns in the hands of criminals. Therefore a never ending need to keep guns in the hands of law abiding citizens like me.

This is somewhat akin to your countries strict as hell enforcement of it’s game control and conservation laws. A good example of strict enforcement working.

[quote]
I’d also like it if less children killed either themselves or other children, but don’t have many ideas for that beyond trigger locks or ensuring gun owners are taught what to be concerned about. I’m not thrilled with having guns unusable during a protective need event though, so thats a tough one.[/quote]

That is indeed a tough one. However, I think that education is a key factor in that scenario. I personally don’t allow my son to play with toy guns at all. Ever. The only guns he will ever handle will be the ones that destroy things. This will, in my opinion, enforce the fact that guns are not toys.

And man do I get some shit for that! Some folks really think I’m crazy for never allowing my son to play with toy guns. But on the flipside, we shoot the hell out of real ones!

74

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What Rosie O’Donnell said 6 years ago is relevant to a discussion on gun control? [/quote]

To borrow some of your own vebage, " I hate to state the mega obvious". If Rosie O’donnel said something six years ago relevant to gun control, then yes it is directly relevant to gun control. Simple as that.

[quote]
You posted that quote as if it were the representation of “liberal mentality”.[/quote]

I certainly don’t think that Rosie speaks for all liberals. I was quoting Rosie O’donnal as a representation of her extreme liberal mentality. From what I’ve read, this is not the line of thought that you embrace, so why take such high offense if it doesn’t apply to you?

[quote]
Can I now credit O’Reilly with mouthing your thoughts?[/quote]

No. Although I generally do like Bill O’Rielly.

[quote]
I still can’t believe you quoted O’Donnel and actually thought you had a point?[/quote]

Again, I repeat. If the quote from Rosie (about gun control), was in line with the topic (gun control), than it did indeed apply. And maybe I wasn’t trying to make a direct point, possibly I was simply attempting to illustrate some of the obsurdity concerning the extreme left on this position. You’ve already stated that you’re not a liberal, and being a military member, you’re probably not too averse to guns.

[quote]
What next? The mental masturbation of Big Bird? [/quote]

I really don’t think I’ll have the time today, sorry.

[quote]
Wait, do you have another article about how Clinton gave AIDs to Africa?[/quote]

Let me reference my files. I’ll get back to ya.

Were you having a bad day when you read my post? Is it something about me personally that you don’t care for?

Either way, I gave it some serious thought.

An I’ve decided to forgive you.

75

Fonebone, I’ve suggested I see what you are saying, and I understand your concern. However, there are differences between the two issues.

In particular, the right to drive a car is not outlined in the constitution. The right to bear arms is.

If you are suggesting that nothing can be done which somehow possibly could lead to misuse, I’d really like to hear your stance on the patriot act or national ID systems.

Also, to get into the fine points, your argument suggests that most people aren’t asking for the right to carry a gun in public locations.

If you are talking self defence, you are talking about carrying and if necessary using a gun on public taxpayer property, often known as roads and sidewalks.

Again, I see your concern, but I suggest it is important to find some ways to curb gun misuse by criminals. If you cannot find a way to stop criminals from gun misuse, you will eventually lose the right entirely for the “sake of the children”.

Consider allowing systems that target criminals specificaly, while not unfairly impeding the law abiding, because in a society (which is about imposing rules on the populace) that is about the best it can get.

Beyond that, you are really sounding like a fanatic. I’m not trying to take away guns. I don’t support anyone who wants to take away guns. However, like a car, who says you should be able to carry a gun in public if you haven’t proven you know how to do so safely?

There are (hopefully) reasonable limitations on just about anything done in public.

Anyway, it would be easy to work with gun ownership proponents to craft legislation which forbade the collection of gun purchase details, while requiring the verification of a license to actually own a gun.

If you can allow absolutely zero method of fighting the misuse use of guns, then you are probably on the wrong side of the issue… just as you are on the wrong side of the issue if you feel that there is no appropriate reason for people to carry a weapon.

Both are too extreme.

–

Flamer, I was under the impression the title of the thread had given way to some conversation. My bad. Carry on with your drivel then.

76

[quote]Bad John wrote:
The problem with children getting firearms and killing themselves or others, can be cured with education. Most kids are never taught how to use a firearm, or what a firearm will do. Educating kids about them will take away the mystique, and show them that they are just another tool. [/quote]

Couldn’t agree more with this passage! I’ve been shooting guns since I was 3, but we certainly never had any sort of firearm accident in my house! Guns were literally left lying around on countertops in my house and we NEVER touched them unless Dad or Mom was around, because we KNEW what they did! For that matter, as kids our friends never touched them either! If we wanted to touch the gun, we asked, plain and simple, and this is where the parents come in, the answer always has to be…“Yes, wait for me, I’ll be right there.”

And, I’d just like to say that if children were educated about guns, then there wouldn’t be any “accidents” because every “responsible” gun owner knows that all guns should be treated as loaded…ALL THE TIME, and they teach their kids the same thing.

77

Growing up, my dad had the best gun control in our house. We had loaded guns in our house and he never locked them up. His version of gun control was, “If I ever catch you touching these guns without my permission, I will fucking kill you!” The fear of and respect of my father kept me from touching any loaded gun in our house.

Guns don’t kill people, stupid-ass or lack-of parenting kills people.

Gun control laws won’t do shit to stopping gun violence. Many of the guns used in domestic violence cases and school shootings were originally obtained legally by honest citizens. The ones used in criminal acts, robberies, murders, rapes etc., were 9 times out of 10 obtained illegally anyway. Criminals do not follow the law, that’s why they are called criminals.

That’s my $0.02.

78

And like you, all kids show excellent judgement at all times and never partake of illicit substances that might alter their judgement.

Thanks goodness for that!

79

[quote]vroom wrote:
And like you, all kids show excellent judgement at all times and never partake of illicit substances that might alter their judgement.

Thanks goodness for that![/quote]

Wow! I never thought I’d actually be on the other end of one of these smart-assed comments. Hey ZEB, snipeout, rainjack, hedo et al! You see this? I guess I can’t be allowed to join this club either.

Despite the wisecrack, I will, however, answer this remark with an actual response.

I never said that all kids show excellent judgement at all times and never partake of illicit substances that might alter their judgement. We know that many do and that wasn’t my point. My point was that there are too many parents in America trying to be their children’s friend instead of their parent. No amount of gun control laws will change poor parenting and stupid parenting decisions. Even if you take the guns away, stupid kids with stupid parents will always find ways to do something harmful.

BTW, my father also had a fully stocked liquor cabinent that he never locked and also smoked cigarettes. My siblings and I didn’t touch those either for the same reasons. I didn’t take my first drink on my own until I was in college and I never even had the desire to smoke a cigarrette. Good, strong parenting can prevent a great deal of stupid shit from kids.

Finally, the gun control laws are written in such a way that the law-abiding citizens get treated like crap. It doesn’t deter criminals. If there was some way to make these gun control laws magically deter all criminals as well as affecting law-abiding citizens, I’d be the first one for them.

80

Al, I had actually posted my wisecrack at a previous poster, but you echo’d similar sentiments anyway before it got posted…

Apparently, the shoe did fit anyway.

:wink:

I would say that children do deserve some protection in our society, because we don’t in fact hold them responsible as adults and we can’t count on their parents to be reasonable people – and it isn’t their fault if they have crappy parents.