Mass Killing Theater

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
So you mean the laws we already have are OK?

So there aren't any straw purchasers in Illinois, Minnesota, or Pennsylvania? People don't have guns stolen in those states?

Per capita? Yes, those states don't contribute to gun trafficking across state lines. Read my post above for which states do (West Virginia is the worst culprit).

Is there a point at which you will admit that the solution to violent crime isn't more gun control, or more laws making crimes extra-extra-super-duper-illegal?

We will never stop violent crime, we can only make it more inefficient.

You're not a politician. You don't need to pander to idiots to show you're tough on crime, or that you have done something (anything) to make schools safe.

Not pandering to anybody. Fewer guns on the streets would make every urban citizen safer. Maybe the equation flips for rural folk, but **** y'all. (See? Not pandering. :D)

Gun control is security theater at the expense of law abiding citizens. It's less effective and a greater infringement of citizens' rights than anything the TSA does.

Which, I'll note, you seem to recognize for the absurdity it is. Here too. :)

I am opposed to security theater, and some poorly thought out gun control laws fall into that category.

Gun control in general does not.

You could easily reduce gun-related violence by limiting the supply of guns and tracking the rest.

If we tracked guns as carefully as we track fertilizer, I doubt Holmes would have ever reached the theater.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I am opposed to security theater, and some poorly thought out gun control laws fall into that category.

Gun control in general does not.

You could easily reduce gun-related violence by limiting the supply of guns and tracking the rest.

If we tracked guns as carefully as we track fertilizer, I doubt Holmes would have ever reached the theater.
:thumbup:
 
You people can post away on this thread but you won't change many opinions. I believe it is my constitutional right to bear arms. I believe outlawing guns only helps criminals and govt (are they the same?). Govt must fear its citizens and that is the reason why we need AR15s, AK47s and other weapons. We must never disarm.

As for this lunatic killing innocent people he chose to use an AR15 instead of a bomb. He had enough material to blow up the entire theater. Did outlawing bombs and other dangerous materials to prevent crimes stop this lunatic from getting explosives?

The answer is more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens to keep criminals and tyranny at bay.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Quotation: "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."



The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.



When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.
 
Last edited:
Herald Tribune 2012-07-22: AURORA, Colo. - Killing a dozen people and wounding more than 50 others was apparently not enough. A sophisticated series of explosive booby traps in an otherwise ordinary apartment had been set to detonate whenever anyone came into the apartment, devices so intricate that the police struggled to disarm them. Enlarge Explosives from the apartment of James Holmes are loaded, with sand, into a dump truck for disposal Saturday in Aurora, Colo.ASSOCIATED PRESS / ALEX BRANDON James Eagan Holmes, the suspect who the police say brought terror to this Colorado community, had been a shy, awkward boy who once seemed... more »
 
You people can post away on this thread but you won't change many opinions. I believe it is my constitutional right to bear arms. I believe outlawing guns only helps criminals and govt (are they the same?). Govt must fear its citizens and that is the reason why we need AR15s, AK47s and other weapons. We must never disarm.

As for this lunatic killing innocent people he chose to use an AR15 instead of a bomb. He had enough material to blow up the entire theater. Did outlawing bombs and other dangerous materials to prevent crimes stop this lunatic from getting explosives?

The answer is more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens to keep criminals and tyranny at bay.

:thumbup: Joining a state militia isn't exactly for everyone. But, I will promise you that those contemplating further compromizing individual freedoms and violating the Constitution will at least pause to consider those "crazy" folks drilling in the woods over the weekend with their assault rifles. "crazy survivalist wackos"? Or innocent defenders of YOUR liberty?
 
second_amendment.jpg
 
Last edited:
Blade, the endless pictures you post in gun threads just make you look like a fanatic.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

1. Gun Sales are way up this year as well. Millions of guns are being sold in 2012.
Americans like their guns.

2. All Americans should be FANATICS about the Constitution. I realized this in 2008 and want to say THANK YOU BARACK OBAMA for the wake-up call.

3. All political parties need to be help to the same standard: The U.S. Constitution and limited Federal government.

4. Over the last 100 hundred years we have lost our way as a nation; we have moved away from our founding principles; the ones that made us a great nation different from the rest. The time has come to RESTORE these principles.

While you may view gun ownership and these pictures as "fanaticism" the true threat to Liberals is item number 4. No weapon is as powerful as the truth and the ideas they promote.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Take a look at this graph (if you can read graphs) and just imagine July 2012 gun sales:

nssf_06_jun12nics.jpg

I appreciate the personal attack, but I don't understand the relevance of this graph to what I said. Also, whoever made that graph needs a lesson on labeling axes, because apart from you saying "gun sales" in your post, there is no way to tell what the heck it is showing.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile
 
I appreciate the personal attack, but I don't understand the relevance of this graph to what I said. Also, whoever made that graph needs a lesson on labeling axes, because apart from you saying "gun sales" in your post, there is no way to tell what the heck it is showing.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

I've made my points entirely clear. The pictures show U.S. Citizens like their guns, value the second amendment and are buying new guns in record amounts. I expect July to be an all time high for gun sales or darn close.

Perhaps, it is you who are the Fanatic here? The vast majority of U.S. Citizens don't support your liberal views and that is why your Socialist friends haven't brought up the issue this election cycle.
 
I've made my points entirely clear. The pictures show U.S. Citizens like their guns, value the second amendment and are buying new guns in record amounts. I expect July to be an all time high for gun sales or darn close.

Perhaps, it is you who are the Fanatic here? The vast majority of U.S. Citizens don't support your liberal views and that is why your Socialist friends haven't brought up the issue this election cycle.

I doubt you're familiar enough with my opinions to level the claims you have.

Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile
 
If you are liberal, and your views are consistent with the liberal agenda, you would like to use the power of the federal government to disarm citizens. Is this not correct? You advocate for less guns via government regulations and action.


I doubt you're familiar enough with my opinions to level the claims you have.

Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile
 
If you are liberal, and your views are consistent with the liberal agenda, you would like to use the power of the federal government to disarm citizens. Is this not correct? You advocate for less guns via government regulations and action.

The view that Blade, pgg, and possibly yourself (?) hold is that there should be no regulation or control whatsoever of firearms. This is a view of extremes, whether you want to admit it or not. The opposing "liberal" extreme view is a complete removal of guns from private ownership, and this is not a view I hold. I hold a position of moderation, recognizing both the need for personal ownership of firearms and also the need for regulation to the necessary extent in the interest of public safety. Most people do not subscribe to the extreme views.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile
 
I doubt you're familiar enough with my opinions to level the claims you have.

Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile


Liberals will start with the 100 round drums, then the 30 round clips, then the 20 rounders then my AR-15 and finally my .22 range gun becomes illegal.

Once the Liberals start on guns they won't stop until everything possible related to firearms is banned. I will end up in California like situation. No Thanks. I'd rather fight for even the thing I hate if it preserves the U.S. Constitution and my right as a U.S. citizen. This is the reason we tolerate so much "hate speech" online and in public.

The Liberal agenda is UnAmerican and Anti-U.S. Constitution. One man's supposed Fanaticism is another man's main stream views as espoused by the founders of this great nation.

My pictures have NOTHING to do with guns and everything to do with Liberty.
 
The view that Blade, pgg, and possibly yourself (?) hold is that there should be no regulation or control whatsoever of firearms. This is a view of extremes, whether you want to admit it or not. The opposing "liberal" extreme view is a complete removal of guns from private ownership, and this is not a view I hold. I hold a position of moderation, recognizing both the need for personal ownership of firearms and also the need for regulation to the necessary extent in the interest of public safety. Most people do not subscribe to the extreme views.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

The problem with Constitutionalists is that they rarely like to bargain away their rights.
So you may view my view as "extreme" but I believe it is backed up by the U.S. Constitution. I believe that States like Califlornia have long crossed the line of personal liberty; and yet, no one is there to stop the tyranny of government as the Courts have failed us.
 
The problem with Constitutionalists is that they rarely like to bargain away their rights.
So you may view my view as "extreme" but I believe it is backed up by the U.S. Constitution. I believe that States like Califlornia have long crossed the line of personal liberty; and yet, no one is there to stop the tyranny of government as the Courts have failed us.

Strict Constitutionalism effectively kills what was intended to be a living document. I call your position extreme not a a judgment on your character but as a literal description of the position in relation to the issue spectrum. There is no further to go past unlimited allowance of guns. I would suggest free provision of guns by the government to the people, but no doubt the modern American conservative would call this an entitlement program.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile
 
Strict Constitutionalism effectively kills what was intended to be a living document. I call your position extreme not a a judgment on your character but as a literal description of the position in relation to the issue spectrum. There is no further to go past unlimited allowance of guns. I would suggest free provision of guns by the government to the people, but no doubt the modern American conservative would call this an entitlement program.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

You have a right to OWN guys not a right to be Provided with FREE STUFF from the government. The Government is there to preserve the rule of law, provide for defense and regulate commerce. It isn't there to BUY YOU ANYTHING OR GIVE YOU STUFF; it exists so you may pursue you right to life, liberty and happiness on your own.
 
Shut your 3/5th of a mouth!


The Constitution has been amended several times since its creation. This includes the Unfair Income Tax which I despise but is CONSTITUTIONAL.


In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations

Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html/#ixzz21ssiQouu
 
Shut your 3/5th of a mouth!



Jul 28, 1868:
14th Amendment adopted


Following its ratification by the necessary three-quarters of U.S. states, the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing to African Americans citizenship and all its privileges, is officially adopted into the U.S. Constitution.



The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (for example, slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.
 
I guess I'm not for no regulation - just that we have enough and I don't like the idea of having more. For example- my understanding is that civilians cannot own fully automatic weapons or weapons such as a 30mm grenade launcher. I may be mistaken because I have never sought out those types of weapons. But if it were true that those were not allowed for the average civilian I'm okay with that.

I just want to stay where we're at. Where I can carry my revolver when I go camping, drive etc. or able to have my 12g shotgun at home to protect my family. I feel like from the rhetoric espoused by some liberal congress that they would like to diminish that right.


The view that Blade, pgg, and possibly yourself (?) hold is that there should be no regulation or control whatsoever of firearms. This is a view of extremes, whether you want to admit it or not. The opposing "liberal" extreme view is a complete removal of guns from private ownership, and this is not a view I hold. I hold a position of moderation, recognizing both the need for personal ownership of firearms and also the need for regulation to the necessary extent in the interest of public safety. Most people do not subscribe to the extreme views.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile
 
Last edited:
The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html
 
I guess I'm not for no regulation - just that we have enough and I don't like the idea of having more. For example- my understanding is that civilians cannot own fully automatic weapons or weapons such as a 30mm grenade launcher. I may be mistaken because I have never sought out those types of weapons. But if it were true that those were not allowed for the average civilian I'm okay with that.

I just want to stay where we're at. Where I can carry my revolver when I go camping or for a drive and have my 12g shotgun at home to protect my family.

Which is why we must hold our ground here. Don't give an inch or they will take a mile.
That has always been the history of the Federal government; they start small and then in 50 years the beast is even bigger.
 
Look up this FACT: In 1913 when the Liberals/Progressives passed the Federal Income tax the rates were very low. Less than 1% of the population paid any income tax at all. Here were the INITIAL rates set by our Progressive friends in 1913:

$440,000 (today's dollars)= 2 percent

$11 million dollars today= 7 percent


In 2013 our Progressive/Socialist friend Obama wants me to pay an effective rate of over 43% on all my income over $250,000. I'm not paying my fair share until OBama gets ALL OF MY MONEY over $250K.

Progressives always start small or as big as they can get away with; ObamaCare is the next multi-trillion dollar death sentence to health care as we now know it. Some of you may like Socialized Medicine; the rest of us are going to be stuck with it.

My point is that all Progressive ideas are expensive and come off the backs of those who pay taxes. The moochers keep mooching until the system collapses.
 
A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

Thomas Jefferson
 
The same Progressive Government which wants to REDISTRIBUTE YOUR WEALTH wants to restrict your second amendment rights. Well, at least they had to pass a Constitutional Amendement to steal your money while they think they can just legislate away your right to bear arms.
 
Strict Constitutionalism effectively kills what was intended to be a living document. I call your position extreme not a a judgment on your character but as a literal description of the position in relation to the issue spectrum. There is no further to go past unlimited allowance of guns. I would suggest free provision of guns by the government to the people, but no doubt the modern American conservative would call this an entitlement program.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

The Document is "Living"because we can AMEND it and not because 9 Justices can change the words or their meanings as written by the Framers. That is why we had to pass the 14th and 15th Amendements and not just wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to become "Progressive."

Want to steal my Money and give it to those who refuse to work? You needed an Amendement to do that type of thievery.

Want to restrict my right to carry a rifle or handgun? You need an Amendment to do that as well despite what you have been told by the Liberal Left.
 
The view that Blade, pgg, and possibly yourself (?) hold is that there should be no regulation or control whatsoever of firearms.

That's not quite an accurate representation of my position.

I favor background checks for all purchases. I don't have a strong opinion on legal person-to-person sales, because so few of those guns end up used in crimes (0.7% per the DOJ), but I don't object to those laws that require such sales to take place at a licensed dealer to facilitate background checks.

I favor prohibiting persons with violent felony convictions and mental illness. Though to be honest I don't have a good solution to how significant mental illness can be consistently caught during a background check without all sorts of privacy issues. Unfortunately I think this may be an unsolvable problem - and a risk we have to accept in exchange for our 2nd Amendment protections.

What I don't favor is more gun control than we have now. With the exception of the 1994-2004 period when the federal assault weapon ban was in effect, we presently have the most restrictive laws in the entire 200+ year history of our nation. Gun control laws have NEVER reduced violent crime, and there's no reason to think they ever will. I'm gratified to see some of that being incrementally rolled back.



yappy said:
I guess I'm not for no regulation - just that we have enough and I don't like the idea of having more. For example- my understanding is that civilians cannot own fully automatic weapons or weapons such as a 30mm grenade launcher. I may be mistaken because I have never sought out those types of weapons. But if it were true that those were not allowed for the average civilian I'm okay with that.

Civilians can own fully automatic weapons in most states. 40 mm grenade launchers too.

The short version:

The 1934 National Firearms Act regulated several broad groups of firearms and accessories, including
- short barreled rifles (weapons with a stock meant to held to the shoulder with barrels under 16")
- short barreled shotguns (under 18")
- select-fire weapons (ie, full auto or machine guns)
- suppressors (any device intended to reduce the sound of a firearm)
- destructive devices (certain explosive devices, and guns with greater than .5" bore, except shotguns)
- another group of oddball weapons that I won't go into in much detail, the "any other weapons" or AOWs

Interestingly, the only reason short-barreled guns are on that list is because the original draft of the NFA also included handguns, and the authors forsaw people cutting down rifles to get around the handgun ban they really wanted. Handguns were removed from the law before it was passed, but short barreled rifles and shotguns stayed in.

To legally acquire any of these weapons, you must first live in a state that does not specifically prohibit them. You need to pay a $200 tax (the stamp) to the ATF and undergo a background check. These days, this background check amounts to a rough 6-8 month waiting period. You need to get the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of your locale to approve and sign off your application. (If you have money to burn and a lawyer you can form a Trust to own these weapons, and thereby skip the CLEO signature.)

If you're patient and not poor, you can generally get whatever you want.



So I ask the people who wonder why I hold such "extreme" views as to oppose essentially any and all new gun control measures:

You want another example of why gun control is idiotic, capricious, and punitive only to law abiding people?

For over fifty years, private ownership of machine guns had a nearly spotless record. There was exactly ONE crime committed with a lawfully registered machine gun between 1934 and 1986 - a police officer murdered someone in 1934. As of 1986 there were roughly 200,000 lawfully registered machine guns in the United States.

And what was the gun control lobby's response to this? Hysteria and the Hughes Amendment in 1986 (signed by Reagan of all people ... reportedly because he assumed it couldn't stand up to judicial challenge). This closed the machine gun registry, and since then no civilian has been able to register a NEW select fire gun.

Transfers of existing guns first registered before 1986 is still legal, but the result of a fixed supply and increasing demand has led to extremely high prices. Today, a piece of aluminum worth maybe $60 (a simple AR lower receiver) will sell for $20,000+ if it has a pre-1986 transferable serial number on it.

Since 1986, privately owned machine guns STILL have a nearly spotless record. The first person to use one in a crime since that police officer in 1934? Another police officer, who killed an informant in 1988 with a .380 MAC-11.


Hardly the scary picture of AK47s and M16s and blood on the streets, is it?


So, let's review.

1934 NFA passed to impose $200 tax ($3200 in today's dollars) on machine guns, to prevent poor people from owning them, without inconveniencing rich people too much. (Back in those days, they didn't bother to give lip service to "protecting the children" or any crap like that. It was just to keep poor people, especially doubly undesirable poor minorities, from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.)

50+ years pass, essentially without incident.

Gun control advocates suddenly freak out and with tears in their frightened eyes, get the Hughes Amendment passed in 1986, closing the registry.

Another 25+ years pass, essentially without incident.

Throughout this time, criminals have had absolutely no difficulty acquiring illegal full auto guns, or modifying guns to be fully automatic.


End result: law abiding citizens, with 50 years of documented collective good behavior and 200,000+ registered machine guns in circulation, were subjected to arbitrary and pointless new regulations and restrictions that more or less restricted ownership to rich people starting in 1986.

That's right, the spirit of the 1934 NFA (keep the scary guns away from dirty poor people) was renewed by "enlightened" gun control advocates in 1986.


Stop being so afraid of guns.

Stop trying to influence criminals' behavior by infringing the rights of all citizens.

And for the love of god, recognize gun control for the racist and classist abuse that it has always been.
 
For those who would like to go machine gun shopping ...

Here's an Uzi for $9000.
Here's a Thompson M1 submachine gun for $18,000.
Heer's a M16 that'll get bid up past $20,000.
Here's a Steyr AUG for $15,000.
Here's a 1914 BSA Aircraft .303 Lewis Gun for $32,500 ... more of a collector's item though.
Here's a nice MP5 that'll go for a hell of a lot more than its current $18,500 bid.


Gun control wasn't meant to apply to rich people. The wealthy can have whatever they want. Keep pretending it's about safety ... it's really about control.
 
Sorry to misrepresent your position, pgg. I must say I still take issue with your statement about the acceptability of massacres and the justification of civilian armament as an equal force to the military's.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile
 
:confused:
They come from straw purchasers.

Crack down on Straw Purchasers. I don't care if it's the death penalty. Give them a reason NOT to do this. Next.

That's where almost all illegal guns come from.
Not guys selling $4000 .50 cals person-to-person in parking lots.

Pgg, (rhetorical question, but nevertheless) are you an BATF agent as a side job?

Probably not. Listen to who is feeding you this horseSHI T everyone. An anesthesiologist.
With no criminal investigation (unless you did 26 weeks at FLETC Pgg?) training in the world, a 2nd amendment, gun loving dude who will feed you ANYTHING to justify his right to purchase and lawfully shoot at beer cans in the backyard with weapons that can be used in crimes of UNIMAGINABLE proportions.

D712
 
Obama's never going to attempt anything with gun control. He doesn't have the spike for it.

Actually, he already made a statement on the need for change this week, I posted the quote I think. Pretty gutsy considering the POWER of the all important NRA.

D712
 
Most prohibited persons get their illegal guns through old fashioned, essentially undetectable straw purchases. A non-prohibited family member or friend buys the gun and gives it to the criminal.
Spoken by a true ATF agent. Oh wait, nope. [/QUOTE]

How would you propose we cut off the flow completely? Ban legal sales?
Nope. Nor should you EVER practice preventative medicine. More on this later.

“This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”
This is called politics Pgg, if you vote, you should understand this. Let him win or lose,
and then make his gun control push. Seems smart to me.

What exactly are you proposing? Like so-called "assault" weapon bans, the devil's in the details.

I'll get to Blade and PGG's harping on the term "assault weapons" nonsense. In a little. If all on this thread could see through their nonsense with wordplay, and what PRECISELY they are hanging their hats on, while we ignore the TRUE FACTS of what these guns are capable of....PLEASE.

And the people who write gun control laws never, ever get the details right, either as a result of simple ignorance (we gotta ban barrel shrouds!) or deliberate malfeasance.
This coming from our resident Political Scientist PGG, who 3 pages ago, decided to BACK AWAY and CONCEDE the Constitutional/Intent/Framers debate with me. Lemme just say, if THAT WERE ME, I'd step away from the entire thread. Like that other troll on the thread recently, what PGG says hereon re: Constitution and Politics should have NO WEIGHT. NONE.

More Legal brilliance from PGG. Let's break this comment down. He's mentioning surrendering civil rights, and then said that someone who has a weapon STOLEN/TAKEN/BORROWED/LENT/POTENTIALLY GIVEN by/from them, shouldn't be looked at, or potentially, convicted of a crime. Let's look even closer. What PGG is saying here is that leaving a gun on a counter and having a person take it from you, (or a child pick it up and shoot their sister with it) is NOT negligent. That they have no culpability in the commission of a crime -- with their DEADLY WEAPON. So, in typical PGG fashion, he has made a completely erroneous (if not foolish argument) that in ALL CASES, there is no negligence in having your gun taken from you. (see: kid grabbing gun, not locked, and killing other kid etc). Look, getting raped is getting raped, no fault to the rapee. THIS, isn't necessarily that. Sure, someone can break into your house, your safe, your night table drawer and steal your weapon, no fault to home owner. But if that weapon were left in a conveniently OPEN place, sorry - BLAME/FAULT and ALLLL those rights can go out the window. This is, in fact what happens WHEN YOU COMMIT a CRIME. YOU LOSE RIGHTS. CRACK DOWN on illegal guns as it they were the baggie of coke that we see on COPS that gets an arrest upon entering the home. CRACK DOWN, CRACK DOWN, CRACK DOWN. Change the laws, modify them, ENCROACH on the 2nd amendment AS FAR AS WE CAN. These gun loving (sorry, assault gun loving) 2nd amendment-ers need a taste of their own medicine. See how it feels when Framers intent is overrun. nra.org. Ya know.

We could start with actually prosecuting people for being straw purchasers, which is rarely done.
Good idea PGG.

I'm not totally sure why - I assume because it's hard to prove deliberate intent there,
It's also hard to prove PROBABLY CAUSE in a COLD CASE, but we chase those down too don't we? It's also hard to prove mental insanity, but there are defenders who do that. In your OR, PGG, you walk away from everything that is HARD - YET NOBLE??????? :thumbdown:thumbdown:thumbdown:

Of course, if you take a step closer towards reasonable, backpedal a bit, and revise your proposed law to only punish people who negligently lose guns that are later used in crimes, the burden and difficulty of proof is exponentially higher.
Wow, he admits what should be done, then completely BAILS on a solution. Pretty par for PGG's course I'd say.

Remember, one of the claims at the center of the ATF's ridiculous defense to the Fast & Furious...
Oh boy, apples to apples, oranges to oranges please. Stay focused PGG.

Or we could back up further and look at states that already have laws to punish individuals who negligently store guns which are subsequently stolen, or who fail to report a stolen gun promptly: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0335.htm
It doesn't appear that these laws are really being enforced either, or that anyone is keeping track of the actual impact of either those guns or the laws to promote better storage habits.
So, um, START DOING THESE THINGS. There are THINK TANKS out there finding solutions to the size of Organic oranges and how they relate to the spiraling of the Mexican Peso, how about we look at ISSUES THAT MATTER. Like gun violence in the US. Let's just STEP OFF gun control, let's call the problem: GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA'S HEART. LAND.


And of course, as is always the case when it comes to gun laws, there isn't actually any documented reduction in violent crime.
How could there be slick, when nobody is keeping track of these stats?

What's the point of accepting infringments on liberty if there isn't even a tangible benefit?
Grain of salt. a) you talking liberty infringements and b) fix the problem correctly, then we talk.


The core of resistance to registration is that history teaches us that there's a high probability that eventually it will lead to or facilitate additional restrictions or outright confiscation.
Dear History Professor PGG, Who hasn't a clue about the grand happenings of 1787, I have a message for you: BOO-FRIGGING-WHOO.

I'm not the strawman yappy fabricated a couple posts back;
Yes you are.

I'm not really that worried about the police or ATF going door-to-door collecting guns in the near future.
Yes you are.

But I'm also not naive enough to pretend to know what the United States will be like in 50 or 100 years.
Yes you have.

In 1934 a bunch of racists, classists, and well-meaning easily manipulated idiots colluded to produce the National Firearms Act
Hahahahahaha.


here we are, 80 years later, still putting up with that law and its effects on lawful gun owners.
Didn't keep you from buying 6000 rounds of whatever it was that you bought last month right? Here's a thought: LAWS aren't working.

I'm not willing to tolerate another incremental gun control law
"President Johnson, Bring our Boys home from Southeast Asia, it's an unwinable war!" Credit, FAMILY GUY. :rolleyes:

that my descendants in 2112 will look back on and with the same level of disgust that rational people today view the NFA
So, only irrational people oppose today's current GUN CLIMATE. Welcome to the PGGstad, folks.


... or worse, that my descendants will find themselves geuniunely in need of their civil rights to armed self defense, armed community defense, or armed defense from tyranny ... and find themselves disarmed, except for hunting and target guns.
THAT IS THE ADMISSION OF THE CENTURY RIGHT THERE PEEPS. PGG isn't worried about his great, great great grandkids. Let's be honest. THIS IS THE NOTION THAT PGG fears TODAY, NOW, AS he sits home and watches the OLYMPICS. And he calls US irrational?
Pgg, meet Tom Cruise, Cruisologist, meet Pgg. Also, unstated, but clearly intended (hahahaha) in PGGs words is that he thinks a GLOCK 26 or 19 is a TARGET gun. Not a weapon carried by LEOs across the US to kill bad guys. I guess if bad guys are targets... Bottom line, PGG doesn't think a SIG SAUER is enough to protect his home from OUR GOVERNMENT. Not China. Not North Korea, or those PESKY INVADING CANADIANS, but the good ol' US of A GOVERNMENT.



I find it disturbing that so many people are so complacant and confident that there won't be another existential threat to our nation 70 or 150 years from now.
You JUST got done saying that you're not able to predict the future, but then you just did. Way to go PGG!!!!


Is there a point at which you will admit that the solution to violent crime isn't more gun control, or more laws making crimes extra-extra-super-duper-illegal?
No. If you haven't noticed Professor, there is a GUN KILLING problem in the US. Comprendez-vous?


Gun control is security theater at the expense of law abiding citizens. It's less effective and a greater infringement of citizens' rights than anything the TSA does.
Have you meandered over to the 4th amendment PGG? Is this an area of expertise of yours as well? :laugh::laugh:

Thanks for playing again PGG. And thanks for BACKING OUT FROM A DEBATE with me, and taking SAME DEBATE up with others. Shows a lot about you, slick.

D712
 
You people can post away on this thread but you won't change many opinions.
That's pretty mutual. Though I like to keep an open mind.

I agree with that. To a point.


I believe outlawing guns only helps criminals and govt (are they the same?).
No, criminals and the G are different entities. ;)


Govt must fear its citizens and that is the reason why we need AR15s, AK47s and other weapons. We must never disarm.
:eek::eek::eek:

As for this lunatic killing innocent people he chose to use an AR15 instead of a bomb. He had enough material to blow up the entire theater. Did outlawing bombs and other dangerous materials to prevent crimes stop this lunatic from getting explosives?
This argument makes no sense, we covered this in earlier pages of this thread.

The answer is more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens to keep criminals and tyranny at bay.
Actually, 1 gun should do. Law abiding is a great idea. Criminals, sure. Tyranny? No. We're not in 1787. Only years beyond the ARticles of Confederation that almost ended our Country.

D712
 
1. Gun Sales are way up this year as well. Millions of guns are being sold in 2012.
Americans like their guns.
Americans also like their cigarettes, sugar and sedentary lives ----> DM, Craack, Coke, Heroin, Stealing, Loitering, Molesting.... point is...you know the point.

2. All Americans should be FANATICS about the Constitution.
If that means seeing the Constitution without LIMITS, then you are wrong. At least SCOTUS sees it that way. And shouldn't that matter Blade?

I realized this in 2008 and want to say THANK YOU BARACK OBAMA for the wake-up call.
Obama isn't to blame for this country's issues, any more than Bush was to Blame for 9/11 (and I firmly believe he wasn't) or Clinton for ignoring the Terror threats while getting sucked off in the Oval Office.

3. All political parties need to be help to the same standard: The U.S. Constitution and limited Federal government.
Thank goodness we have a Supreme Court that sees the Constitution with the limits and life it was MEANT to have. Limited Federal G? On some fronts more than others of course. DEA and ATF good or bad entities in your mind? They are here to enforce the limits the legislative branch enacts. All nice and cozy and constitutional for you.

4. Over the last 100 hundred years we have lost our way as a nation; we have moved away from our founding principles; the ones that made us a great nation different from the rest. The time has come to RESTORE these principles.
Do I hear an Amen? ;)

While you may view gun ownership and these pictures as "fanaticism"
the true threat to Liberals is item number 4. No weapon is as powerful as the truth and the ideas they promote.[/QUOTE] I don't see your photos as fanatical Blade, I just find them misguided. With due respect.

D712
 
Perhaps, it is you who are the Fanatic here? The vast majority of U.S. Citizens don't support your liberal views and that is why your Socialist friends haven't brought up the issue this election cycle.


No, no no. It's the NRA. Trust me on this one. The NRA keeps the DEMS quiet. And even some Republicans. GASP. BS, I've voted Rep two of the last 3 elections. Where does that place me on this gun topic? Squarely: LIMITING 2nd amendment rights. You want a better US Blade, better values, better world, better-all those things you mentioned in last post: have less people killing other people with guns on a daily basis in the US. How's that for a better America. Part two, let's cut the 2nd amendment crap, there's nothing noble about killing people with guns. Do the right thing here. Give a little for a BETTER AMERICA. That's my reply to your post.

D712
 
Top