GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Main forum for general non waterfowl discussions as well as general duck hunting information about travel, rules and regulations, and other duck hunting info along with the general topics.

Moderators: Tealer, Indaswamp, Dep6, steve-o, La. Hunter, Preacher1011, lostpup, #1wingnut

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:53 am

stdntoflkmre wrote:t baker

Say whatever you will. Under no circumstances can this argument currently be considered a totally "black and white" issue.
Case in point. Likely no one here thinks the mentally ill should be able to purchase firearms. No one here wants felons to buy guns. How young is too young to buy a gun? Why is full-auto OK/not OK? Are grenades fine for private ownership? Rocket Launchers? Etc. Etc. Questions that are certainly worthy of at least some consideration.

But you have proven you can not handle the conversation like an adult. Gee, how did I know the guy with the skull/AR15 avatar would represent himself this way?


STD,

What you failed to realize is that Baker was arguing that we need no further laws. What we need to do is enforce the ones currently on the books. All of your arguments have long been covered by laws that are already on the books.


:thumbsup:
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7482
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN


Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby OHIODUCKA5 » Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:18 am

stdntoflkmre wrote:t baker

Say whatever you will. Under no circumstances can this argument currently be considered a totally "black and white" issue.
Case in point. Likely no one here thinks the mentally ill should be able to purchase firearms. No one here wants felons to buy guns. How young is too young to buy a gun? Why is full-auto OK/not OK? Are grenades fine for private ownership? Rocket Launchers? Etc. Etc. Questions that are certainly worthy of at least some consideration.

But you have proven you can not handle the conversation like an adult. Gee, how did I know the guy with the skull/AR15 avatar would represent himself this way?



The first 3 letters of your screen name are STD. :no: :no: .
“The Blue Book says we've got to go out and it doesn't say a damn thing about having to come back.” -
Captain Patrick Etheridge, USLSS
User avatar
OHIODUCKA5
hunter
 
Posts: 9697
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:46 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby t_baker » Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:42 am

ivegottheclap...I would like to answer a few of your concerns.

stdntoflkmre wrote:t baker

Say whatever you will. Under no circumstances can this argument currently be considered a totally "black and white" issue.
Case in point. Likely no one here thinks the mentally ill should be able to purchase firearms.
Who determines who is mentally ill and who isn't? What qualifies a person to be mentally ill. A solider comes home from Iraq and suffers from PTSD, 5 years later he is cured. Is he still mentally ill?
No one here wants felons to buy guns.
One of my good friends is a felon, as I mentioned above. In the event of someone breaking into my house and I am not home, my wife knows to call him before the cops. He will handle it faster, and better than the police will. He can own all the weapons he wants IMO.
How young is too young to buy a gun?
I have had a gun in my hands since I was 5 years old. I shot my first goose at 6. By ten I was in the deer woods on my own. By 16 I was on the lake on my own. I have never shot anyone, had a misfire, or been in any sort of trouble with a fire arm. Because I was trained not to. A person double my age can be just as lethal with a fire arm as a 13 year old kid.
Why is full-auto OK/not OK? Are grenades fine for private ownership? Rocket Launchers? Etc. Etc. Questions that are certainly worthy of at least some consideration.
Are the impractical, certaintly. But if someone wants one, they will get one. Trust me. No law will ever stop that.
But you have proven you can not handle the conversation like an adult. Gee, how did I know the guy with the skull/AR15 avatar would represent himself this way?

Just like Bloomberg, Feinstein, and Obama. You automatically jump down the throat of a guy with a AR in his avatar. I can guarentee you that my AR's have killed more animals than any of your bolt guns ever have. And I guarentee your bolt gun can do the same damage or more than my little .223
User avatar
t_baker
hunter
 
Posts: 5644
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Harrod Ohio

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby T Man » Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:28 am

KyFowl20 wrote:In no place in the constitution does it state that there will be no regulations to this right. You can't add words to the constitution. Idc if everyone on here disagrees. Things evolve with time, and you have to make changes accordingly.


First: Educate yourself. The Bill of Rights is what gives us our rights as citizens.

Second: No words are needed to be added. It is pretty damn clear in it's own wording

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



US History 101

Third: According to your own picture you put up, you clearly dont understand dictionaries. What you cited as the definition is the etymology of the word. The definition, as used in the English language, is what is marked as #1.

Here, I circled it for you
Attachments
image.jpg
Botiz630 wrote:How much does an apostrophe cost down south? Must be quite a bit, based on how sparingly you use them.
User avatar
T Man
Super Moderator
 
Posts: 4978
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 7:42 pm
Location: Everywhere the English language is being abused...

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:57 am

KY,

So far we have 68,000 gun laws that are not stopping criminals from getting guns. We have random and capricious enforcement of many of those laws in many areas. We have in excess of 300,000,000 guns in this nation with roughly 90 million law abiding gun owners. We already know the existing gun laws don't work. Chicago, Detroit, D.C., etc..... All of them have draconian gun laws. They all have high gun crime rates, much higher than most other places in the US. Where is gun ownership highest? That would be rural areas. Where is gun crime lowest? That would be rural areas.

Now lets look at actual prosecutions based in firearms background checks. From the FBI website there have been 100 million background checks with 700,000 denials. At first blush that looks like a decent track record. Unfortunately it isn't. That is a 0.7% denial rate. Now lets look at why the denials are occurring.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/r ... 100313.pdf This will get you to the proper page for listed denials by the FBI.

I would like to note here that the number on this page does not match the 700,000 number from the FBI NICS check home page. There is a reason! What is that reason? One of the largest reasons for denials is based in someone having the same name. The fact they live across the country, etc.... doesn't change their denial. That is infringement of their rights the second it happens. Approximately 1 percent of all background checks are denied based on the information on federal denial.

Now looking deeper you see that in 2002, & 2003 the FBI forwarded 7,030 cases where a prohibited person recieved their firearm and 121,909 cases where the standard denial occurred.

Review of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Enforcement of Brady Act Violations Identified Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System

Report Number I-2004-006
July 2004

Since 1998, the ATF has made progress in screening standard denial cases referred by the FBI. However, we found that the Brady Operations Branch and the ATF division offices were still referring standard denial cases to the ATF field offices that lacked prosecutorial merit, thereby increasing the workload of already overburdened field investigators and delaying the investigation of prosecutable cases. Cases without prosecutorial merit were being referred due to the lack of sufficient USAO prosecutorial guidelines, inadequate screening by some ATF divisions, inadequate communication, and insufficient training and guidance.

The Brady Operations Branch was using broad guidelines synthesized from jurisdiction-specific guidelines prepared by multiple USAOs. As a result, ATF division office personnel were required to perform additional screening using more specific individual USAO guidelines in order to determine whether a case merited investigation. Further, we found that the ATF had not allocated sufficient resources to the Brady Operations Branch to enable it to fully execute its responsibilities. Insufficient staffing resulted in extensive NICS case backlogs, which delayed the referral process and affected the timeliness of investigations. Also, the ATF had not provided funds for technological modifications of its case tracking and referral system to improve the operational efficiency of the Brady Operations Branch.

Our review also found that few NICS cases are prosecuted. During CYs 2002 and 2003, only 154 (less than 1 percent) of the 120,000 persons who were denied during the NICS background check were prosecuted. Historically, USAOs have been unsuccessful in achieving convictions in many of these cases and consequently have been unwilling to expend their limited resources on prosecuting most NICS cases.

The ATF Does Not Always Make Timely Firearms Retrievals

We identified delays in retrieving firearms in 65 of the 188 cases (35 percent) we reviewed for which investigations were completed. In 28 of these 65 cases (43 percent), it took from four months to over a year to retrieve the firearm. We identified a number of reasons for these delays:


The Brady Operations Branch did not have the technological capability to transfer the delayed denials directly to the field and satellite offices, and instead routed the denials through the division NICS coordinators. Not all NICS coordinators were timely in forwarding these denials to the field offices.

Insufficient staffing at some ATF field and satellite offices made it difficult for special agents to investigate the large volume of labor-intensive NICS cases in addition to conducting other high-priority investigations, such as those involving firearms trafficking, explosives, and arsons. In addition, the large geographic territories some of the field offices cover make retrieving a firearm a time-consuming process.

ATF special agents did not consider most of the prohibited persons who had obtained guns to be dangerous and therefore did not consider it a priority to retrieve the firearm promptly.

The ATF had not established timeliness standards for retrieving firearms and did not track the retrieval process.
These delays increase the risk that prohibited persons may use the illegally obtained firearm to harm others or to otherwise commit a crime. In one of our sampled cases, for instance, the prohibited person fired the weapon at another person's car and was subsequently charged by local law enforcement with aggravated assault.

ATF Field Offices Receive Too Many Standard Denial Cases That Are Unlikely to Be Prosecuted

The case management system used by the Brady Operations Branch does not identify cases by USAO jurisdiction. Therefore, the Brady Operations Branch applied broad guidelines rather than guidelines specific to particular USAOs when screening cases for prosecutorial merit. The result is that too many standard denial cases without prosecutorial merit are referred to the divisions and field offices. The case management system also cannot route referrals directly to the field investigators, thereby delaying retrievals. If the case management system was modified to identify cases by USAO jurisdiction and allow direct referrals to the field offices, the Brady Operations Branch could screen standard denials using specific USAO guidelines and then refer cases with prosecutorial merit directly to the field investigators, bypassing the NICS coordinators. This would eliminate the need for NICS coordinators to perform additional screening and therefore should improve the timeliness of the referrals to the field offices.

Our review identified other reasons why the field offices were receiving an excessive number of standard denial referrals that were not likely to be prosecuted:


The USAOs had not provided sufficient prosecutorial guidelines. We found that of the 25 USAOs included in our review, 8 had not provided written prosecutorial guidelines to the ATF. Of the 17 guidelines, 1 was not sufficiently specific to identify cases likely to result in successful prosecutions.

Not all ATF division offices screened NICS cases before forwarding them to a field office. We found that the NICS coordinators at 6 (35 percent) of the 17 division offices that receive referrals from the Brady Operations Branch were not screening referrals for prosecutorial merit.2 At these locations, the field offices had the burden of screening the cases.

The NICS coordinators lacked training and written guidance. The ATF had not held a NICS coordinator training conference since 2000. That conference was attended by only 6 of the 17 current coordinators who regularly receive NICS referrals. Further, the ATF had not provided the NICS coordinators with standardized written guidance on procedures for screening referrals.

The Brady Operations Branch was unnecessarily forwarding alien cases to the division offices. The GCA generally prohibits illegal and nonimmigrant aliens from possessing firearms. The Brady Operations Branch routinely refers NICS cases involving denials for aliens to the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, we found that the Brady Operations Branch also forwarded alien cases to the ATF division offices. The division and field offices often closed these cases without investigation because they did not involve other prohibiting factors. Our sample of 200 standard referrals included 22 alien cases, none of which contained any other prohibiting factors such as criminal records.

ATF field personnel did not provide feedback to the Brady Operations Branch or the NICS coordinators on referrals that did not meet USAO prosecutorial guidelines. We found that the division office NICS coordinators did not forward to the field offices 36 to 95 percent of the standard denial referrals they received from the Brady Operations Branch. In addition, several of the field office group supervisors told us that they did not investigate the majority of the referrals they received from their NICS coordinators. In both these of situations, the field office group supervisors failed to communicate to the NICS coordinators and the NICS coordinators failed to communicate to the Brady Operations Branch that these types of cases lacked prosecutorial merit. In the absence of specific prosecutorial guidelines, it is particularly important for the field investigators to provide feedback to the NICS coordinators or the Brady Operations Branch on the categories of referrals not being investigated. The information could have been used to reduce the number of cases without prosecutorial merit that they refer to the field offices.
Some Denied Persons Are Subsequently Determined by the ATF Not to Be Prohibited

We found that 69 (35 percent) of the 197 delayed denials and 16 (8 percent) of the 200 standard denials that we sampled were applicants who subsequently were found not to be prohibited from possessing a firearm. This situation occurred for several reasons: (1) the subject's firearm rights had been restored under state law, (2) the subject's prohibition for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence did not meet the federal criteria, or (3) a protective order had expired or was about to expire.

Erroneous denials in which a person is found not to be prohibited cannot always be prevented or detected easily. These denials are usually due to incomplete information in the states' automated criminal history records and require the ATF to review states' records to determine whether prohibiting factors exist.



What does all this mean? The FBI and ATF are not handling things according to the law. They are enforcing the exising laws in a sloppy and poorly managed way. Amazingly a country that is 17 trillion in debt can't afford to properly train or fund the very people we rely on to enforce the existing background check laws. Now you think we are going to do better with more laws? They will suddenly be enforced properly and completely? Are you kidding here? Criminals do not go to gun stores to buy guns. They get them on the street from other criminals who either stole them, or are illegally selling them to criminals knowingly. Which makes that person a criminal in and of itself.


My answer to your questions as to wether or not we need background checks is a simple no. There should be no background checks. Criminals will always get guns one way or another. Background checks are not stopping that from happening. You are inconveniencing and tramping the rights of every legal gun buyer for no good reason.

Insanity : When people or organizations repeat the same process over and over with failed results, yet keep expecting the results
to change.

Stupidity : When people see insanity at work and then think you should add more regulation to the failed process.

Sooner or later you have to step back and go wait a minute. This has failed we need to do something else. That something else is usually the opposite of what you have bee doing. For example 17 trillion in debt. Instead of borrowing more you would as an intelligent person choose to live within your means or better yet below them and pay off your debts. In that case of guns and background checks you would get rid of them. They are a billion dollar boondoggle that does nothing.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby T Man » Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:23 am

KY, I pose this question to you looking for a real answer.

What would you suggest be done? You have posed this question to everyone who differs from your view point, but have offered nothing of substance to solidify yours. Where should the line be drawn? Should we ban AR's because they are semi-automatic? The case can easily be made that per round a 3" with 00 Buck does far more damage than a .223, so should we ban semi-automatic shotguns as well? You cant pick and chose what parts of it you like and what parts you disagree with. Personally, I dont see a need for a fully automatic weapon, HOWEVER, I refuse to infringe upon someone else's right to. The case is often made that you dont need hi-cap magazines for hunting, and with a few exceptions it is true however, the Bill of Rights says NOTHING about hunting.

The mental health of our country needs to be addressed. In 60 years we have gone from a country that respects firearms to only seeing them as a way to solve a problem. The constant anthropomorphism used to vilify firearms is off base to a sick degree. Pure and simple, a gun is a tool, It cannot load itself, it cannot aim itself, it cannot pull its trigger, and it carries no malice with it. It is the person doing these actions that needs to be vilified, not the tool they are using.


On a side note, I respect the hell out of the author of the Guns & Ammo article. I wholeheartedly disagree with it, but it takes guts to stick up for what you truly believe in when you know the consequences may be career ending.
Botiz630 wrote:How much does an apostrophe cost down south? Must be quite a bit, based on how sparingly you use them.
User avatar
T Man
Super Moderator
 
Posts: 4978
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 7:42 pm
Location: Everywhere the English language is being abused...

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby clampdaddy » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:44 pm

wanapasaki wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:
KyFowl20 wrote:I agree that there is no way to stop private sales to people who want to use them in a negative manner. But seriously, there has to be some control. If you said no to my question, then what else is there to do?


I agree with you. There need to be some sort of control. I will never accept a felon owning a firearm. That is pretty much the only exception I believe in, oh yeah and fully automatics... Just pointless..

You forget what the second amendment is meant to do.

Protect you and yours from others not excluding the government.



I agree with you. But I can count on both hands how many people I know, that shouldn't have fully automatic guns :lol3:



How many people have they killed with the semi autos that they own?
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3361
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby wanapasaki » Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:52 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:
WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:
KyFowl20 wrote:I agree that there is no way to stop private sales to people who want to use them in a negative manner. But seriously, there has to be some control. If you said no to my question, then what else is there to do?


I agree with you. There need to be some sort of control. I will never accept a felon owning a firearm. That is pretty much the only exception I believe in, oh yeah and fully automatics... Just pointless..

You forget what the second amendment is meant to do.

Protect you and yours from others not excluding the government.



I agree with you. But I can count on both hands how many people I know, that shouldn't have fully automatic guns :lol3:



How many people have they killed with the semi autos that they own?



Fortunately, I believe they don't own any kind of firearm at this point in time
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby wanapasaki » Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:55 pm

t_baker wrote:
KyFowl20 wrote:
t_baker wrote:Ky. GTFO. Really. Go. We have no use for you. If there was a serious symbol I would use it. I want to bitch smack you.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

Your ridiculous If you truly feel there needs to be no gun laws.

Go. Delete your account. Just leave. We are done here.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2



Ky, this is a completely logical defense... :lol3:
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby slowshooter » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:39 pm

IMO the author getting fired is as much an over reaction as a bunch of old biddies seeing a young babe go to church in her daisy dukes. The guy had an opinion. So what?

Buncha pansies can't take a different opinion without crying.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby WoodyWhiffingMG » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:53 pm

slowshooter wrote:IMO the author getting fired is as much an over reaction as a bunch of old biddies seeing a young babe go to church in her daisy dukes. The guy had an opinion. So what?

Buncha pansies can't take a different opinion without crying.


No, his opinion was not the same as its readers or the company.
User avatar
WoodyWhiffingMG
hunter
 
Posts: 7482
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Back in SW MICHIGAN

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby wanapasaki » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:57 pm

Does it have to be the same?
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby copterdoc » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:03 pm

wanapasaki wrote:Fortunately, I believe they don't own any kind of firearm at this point in time
So, you can count on both hands the number of people that you know, that shouldn't have fully automatic firearms.
And those same people also don't have any firearms.

What the hell are you talking about?
User avatar
copterdoc
hunter
 
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:55 pm

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby wanapasaki » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:06 pm

copterdoc wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:Fortunately, I believe they don't own any kind of firearm at this point in time
So, you can count on both hands the number of people that you know, that shouldn't have fully automatic firearms.
And those same people also don't have any firearms.

What the hell are you talking about?


Yes they do not own firearms, and I am glad they don't. Nor should they ever be able to own one
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby wanapasaki » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:09 pm

copterdoc wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:Fortunately, I believe they don't own any kind of firearm at this point in time
So, you can count on both hands the number of people that you know, that shouldn't have fully automatic firearms.
And those same people also don't have any firearms.

What the hell are you talking about?



Just because they haven't been deemed incompetent enough to own a firearm by a licensed psychologist doesn't mean they should own any
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby Botiz630 » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:10 pm

slowshooter wrote:IMO the author getting fired is as much an over reaction as a bunch of old biddies seeing a young babe go to church in her daisy dukes. The guy had an opinion. So what?

Buncha pansies can't take a different opinion without crying.


Obama wants us to be communists. It's just his opinion, so what?
This is the Internet. This is serious.
User avatar
Botiz630
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 15227
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:24 pm

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby OGblackcloud » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:10 pm

:violin:
User avatar
OGblackcloud
hunter
 
Posts: 10491
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 12:38 pm

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby copterdoc » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:19 pm

wanapasaki wrote:Yes they do not own firearms, and I am glad they don't. Nor should they ever be able to own one
There are lots and lots of people that probably shouldn't have firearms.
And those same people also choose to not have firearms.

That isn't a problem, that demands government intervention and additional regulation.

However, there are also lots of people that don't want to own firearms, and because they have so chosen to disarm themselves, are afraid of others owning firearms.

Since they refuse to take personal responsibility, they want everybody else disarmed too.

I'm sure that deer would prefer that predators ate vegetables instead of meat.
But, they don't.
And no amount of legislation is going to get a Lion to take up eating salads.
User avatar
copterdoc
hunter
 
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:55 pm

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby wanapasaki » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:30 pm

copterdoc wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:Yes they do not own firearms, and I am glad they don't. Nor should they ever be able to own one
There are lots and lots of people that probably shouldn't have firearms.
And those same people also choose to not have firearms.

That isn't a problem, that demands government intervention and additional regulation.

However, there are also lots of people that don't want to own firearms, and because they have so chosen to disarm themselves, are afraid of others owning firearms.

Since they refuse to take personal responsibility, they want everybody else disarmed too.

I'm sure that deer would prefer that predators ate vegetables instead of meat.
But, they don't.
And no amount of legislation is going to get a Lion to take up eating salads.


Those people only chose not to own firearms because the right chain of events haven't come into play. A person that may have a mild form of schizophrenia might be able to control him/herself without any medical attention, but than at any given time, drugs or alcohol may overrule any kind of logical sense they have. Do you want those people to maintain those rights? What about a bum that is angry at the world for his/her life's outcome. You think he should have a right to a full auto? There's a million different scenarios/reasons why people shouldn't have full autos. Think that sort of stuff needs to be used in combat theaters by military personnel only. Hell, I remember people in Iraq getting their weapons confiscated COMPLETELY... In a combat theater.... One time I was at 5 dogs shooting range in Bakersfield and a guy with a historian collectors license came out with some sort of hip shooting Gatling gun. Everyone with their their semi's left the range including myself. :lol3:
i think you'd be amazed to find out what an animals diet consists of in a crisis :lol3:
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby slowshooter » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:36 pm

WoodyWhiffingMG wrote:
slowshooter wrote:IMO the author getting fired is as much an over reaction as a bunch of old biddies seeing a young babe go to church in her daisy dukes. The guy had an opinion. So what?

Buncha pansies can't take a different opinion without crying.


No, his opinion was not the same as its readers or the company.



Show me where he said ban guns.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby slowshooter » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:37 pm

Botiz630 wrote:
slowshooter wrote:IMO the author getting fired is as much an over reaction as a bunch of old biddies seeing a young babe go to church in her daisy dukes. The guy had an opinion. So what?

Buncha pansies can't take a different opinion without crying.


Obama wants us to be communists. It's just his opinion, so what?


Yeah. So what?
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby copterdoc » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:44 pm

wanapasaki wrote:...Those people only chose not to own firearms because the right chain of events haven't come into play. A person that may have a mild form of schizophrenia might be able to control him/herself without any medical attention, but than at any given time, drugs or alcohol may overrule any kind of logical sense they have. Do you want those people to maintain those rights?
I don't believe that it is right to regulate everybody, because of what one person might do someday.

wanapasaki wrote: What about a bum that is angry at the world for his/her life's outcome. You think he should have a right to a full auto? There's a million different scenarios/reasons why people shouldn't have full autos. Think that sort of stuff needs to be used in combat theaters by military personnel only.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It is the existence of armed American Citizens that maintains control over the Government.

wanapasaki wrote: Hell, I remember people in Iraq getting their weapons confiscated COMPLETELY... In a combat theater....
I spent a year and a half in Iraq and Kuwait. Every day, the chow hall was full of hundreds and hundreds of disgruntled and unhappy individuals, packing every sort of fully automatic weapon that you can imagine. They had fully loaded high capacity mags filling every pouch. Hell, a few even had belted ammo for their M249's and 240's.

They were also wrapped head to toe in body armor.
And they never did a damn thing "bad" with all of that firepower.

And neither would 99% of the civilians in the U.S.
User avatar
copterdoc
hunter
 
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:55 pm

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby wanapasaki » Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:01 pm

copterdoc wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:...Those people only chose not to own firearms because the right chain of events haven't come into play. A person that may have a mild form of schizophrenia might be able to control him/herself without any medical attention, but than at any given time, drugs or alcohol may overrule any kind of logical sense they have. Do you want those people to maintain those rights?
I don't believe that it is right to regulate everybody, because of what one person might do someday.

Not saying that we have to regulate everybody, but we need to be more extensive in who can own firearms and come to terms that everyone is 'constitutionally right' in owning a fully automatic is ridiculous.. I've seen to many cases in which negligent gun owners have let their firearms fall into the wrong hands.. Columbine, and many other events..

wanapasaki wrote: What about a bum that is angry at the world for his/her life's outcome. You think he should have a right to a full auto? There's a million different scenarios/reasons why people shouldn't have full autos. Think that sort of stuff needs to be used in combat theaters by military personnel only.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It is the existence of armed American Citizens that maintains control over the Government.

I absolutely agree with you here, no argument. So, why hasn't anyone opposes congress and declared that all automatic weapons are destroyed? The government already limits who can own automatics through state standard regulations, why can't we limit theirs?

wanapasaki wrote: Hell, I remember people in Iraq getting their weapons confiscated COMPLETELY... In a combat theater....
I spent a year and a half in Iraq and Kuwait. Everyday, the chow hall was full of hundreds and hundreds of disgruntled and unhappy individuals, packing every sort of fully automatic weapon that you can imagine. They had high capacity mags filling every pouch. Hell, a few even had belted ammo for their M249's and 240's.

They were also wrapped head to toe in body armor.
And they never did a damn thing "bad" with all of that firepower.

And neither would 99% of the civilians in the U.S.


Gotta call you on this one though. Plenty of cases about fratricide in combat theaters. LOTS. Plenty of famous cases too. Pat Tilman, etc.. Military had one thing in common overseas. They were all fighting for a similar reason. US Civilians all have different agendas and are in no way focused on the same goals in this country. You know that every 5 seconds an OEF/OIF vet commits suicide? You think those that are actively seeking help and feel a lack of well being in themselves should have access to full autos? They fought for the right and defended the constitution..
Give a man a duck... Feed him for a day... Teach him to fowl hunt... Feed him for a lifetime...Teach him in your spot... Learn to hunt a different spot....
User avatar
wanapasaki
hunter
 
Posts: 2295
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Tehachapi, CA

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby jehler » Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:16 pm

Kentucky=stupid, you'all act surprised lol
Buy it, use it, break it, fix it,
Trash it, change it, mail - upgrade it,
Charge it, point it, zoom it, press it,
Snap it, work it, quick - erase it,
Write it, cut it, paste it, save it,
Load it, check it, quick - rewrite it,
Plug it, play it, burn it
User avatar
jehler
thread hi-jacking expert and a great guy
 
Posts: 17081
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Traverse City, MI

Re: GUNS AND AMMO SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL

Postby copterdoc » Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:17 pm

wanapasaki wrote:Gotta call you on this one though. Plenty of cases about fratricide in combat theaters. LOTS. Plenty of famous cases too. Pat Tilman, etc.. Military had one thing in common overseas. They were all fighting for a similar reason...
Dude, I was there. We were all on stop-loss, and had been extended WAY beyond our re-deployment date multiple times.

We were all armed and really angry, all the time.
And we also didn't see any sort of reason for being there. So, your "fighting for similar reasons" is a load of crap.

There were no instances of intentional fratricide while I was there.
There was one, that occurred in Kuwait, while we were stateside.
User avatar
copterdoc
hunter
 
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Honey Hole

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: OGblackcloud, OHIODUCKA5, okbucksnducks, tmclaimerFL and 25 guests