The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 5521 - 5540 of total 5824 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 16, 2014 - 03:37pm PT
Nobody forces you to be on this thread or read my posts. You don't like it: move along. No need to be an ass.

And I would think that the gun-control folks would like what I wrote. LOL... I'm coming more and more to their side. Now I'm for more regulations!

Sheesh, I thought the CCW class was going to be something of a "filter." It's not.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 16, 2014 - 03:50pm PT
Ironically I am not much opposed some of your points.

But you have this 'game, set, match' attitude about your arguments that rubs the wrong way. I'm not the only ass in these parts.

Particularly with the cap letters of the words. I think you pride yourself on your debating skills. Would you pull that CAP BULLSH#T in a face to face debate?

We are not at university. We're not here to lecture and we're not here to be lectured. I'm happy to talk with you.

Anyway, I really don't care if you carry a pistol or not. I know you're not going to shoot me nor would I ever give you reason to ;)

Cheers
DMT
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Jul 16, 2014 - 06:16pm PT
I couldn't agree more with your suggestions for carrying any gun in public, except to require regular re-certification and that the punishment for unlicensed carry must be severe. In PA, assuming you're not otherwise prohibited from owning a gun, unlicensed carry is a merely a misdemeanor.

This is something that can readily and more effectively be done a state level, since administrative structures are so varied and it does not impact other states. Despite becoming a convert to the potential benefits of the "laboratory" philosophy of state regulation, I continue to believe that Universal Background Checks cannot be left for the states to decide because even one non complying state (except Hawaii) would replace all the others as a ready source of diverted guns. It could be a Federal mandate left to states to implement. Perhaps the Feds could simply prohibit importing to, or exporting guns from non compliant states. That would soon fix it.

TE



johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jul 16, 2014 - 06:40pm PT
And I would think that the gun-control folks would like what I wrote. LOL... I'm coming more and more to their side. Now I'm for more regulations!

This would be a bait and switch when compared with your many previous posts you have constantly argued against any new laws since either
1. There is some way around any new laws thereby nullifying such law, or
2. Enforce the laws we already have.

I will agree that the laws we have are not being enforced and is one avenue worth uniting on. So if that is one of your tenents, why aren't you and many of the no more gun law owners up in arms (no humor intended) at all the city, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies not prosecuting to the full extent the laws we already have? It would appear that this is just a facade being propagated by those that are complacent with the status quo knowing enforcement is a joke. If there were a true fever pitch as you and most gun owners proclaim to this tenent, it appears to be a viable slam dunk. I'm afraid this hollow angle will fall on its face if it were to ever gain traction due to the "careful what you ask for" factor. We'd soon see the true heart of those calling for enforcment.
crankster

Trad climber
Jul 16, 2014 - 08:14pm PT
Have no idea where the 357 rounds are going,, post office maybe? Irs?

Oh man. Wow.

Ron, c'mon. Use your brain. Please.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2014/03/ammo-shortage-not-conspiracy

madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 16, 2014 - 11:02pm PT
This would be a bait and switch when compared with your many previous posts

Bait and switch? Are you kidding?

So, by your lights a person is not entitled to further nuance their position once in possession of additional evidence or a new perspective? Really?

And I'm really not "switching" anything. If you think I've argued against ALL regulations at any point, you have not read and contextualized what I've said.

TE: I LIKE the idea of a federal law regarding interstate transport. And I also agree that penalties should be severe!

I'd like to see DUI penalties made horrendous, AND gun violation penalties also be horrendous. Both cars and guns are deadly weapons, and both are abused by negligent and criminal elements to the great detriment of society.

Seeing how trivial is the CCW standard in Colorado, I stand amazed!
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jul 17, 2014 - 09:02am PT
The point you fail to get hold of is that the laws (on any front) don't work

Yes, we shouldn't have more laws when the enforcement of the present (and what should be adequate) laws has already proven to be ineffectual

These are direct quotes from you. You have also built many other walls such as, no new federal laws and laws that all can agree on. Both of these are nonstarters and you continually position yourself as totally entrenched on these and other fronts.

Now you want me to believe that there are some laws that don't match your criteria from your other posts that you'd agree to? Bait with your supposed new enlightened views, then switch back to your prior position. Been there, seen that.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jul 17, 2014 - 09:47am PT
Credit: Ron Anderson



The Smith&Wesson MP series. Available in 9mm and 40 caliber, comes with two mags, and two alternate grip backings to adjust a more custom fit in the palm. You can also get it with an additional thumb safety as well.

The slide spring and action are softer than sigs thus they feed just about any ammo without issue. The M&P shield it its little brother- a more compact design.



Either is a good choice for personal defense weapons- reliable and does not have a trigger twitch at the end of the pull- but as with all striker fires the pull is still long.
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jul 17, 2014 - 09:54am PT
Either is a good choice for personal defense weapons

Not really. Sometimes these scenarios backfire.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 17, 2014 - 01:48pm PT
These are direct quotes from you.

As I said, lacking context.

I've been very clear and consistent that I'm talking about new federal laws. I've used examples like the fact that the FEDS supposedly lock down military weapons, yet I could trivially get full-auto weapons and even claymores. I've talked about FEDERAL "war on..." fails. I've talked about gun control being a states' rights issue. I'm not sure how I could be more clear! And I still hold to the principles that ground that position.

I think that TE came up with a really clever compromise that makes illegal interstate transfer a federal matter, but leaves the first line of defense of that law in the hands of the states. It's a great idea to have state and local law enforcement decide or not to arrest someone on such a federal charge and then pass prosecution up to the federal courts. And on that model, there's no need of a federal gun registry or federal agents running around enforcing that sort of law. Brilliant! So, I'm happy to "compromise" on that sort of thing.

And I remain opposed to entirely symbolic, useless gun control laws at the state level, such as magazine-size limits.

Beyond that, I think that Colorado has NAILED it regarding background checks, and I'd like to see every state take the same approach.

No "bait and switch" anywhere.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 17, 2014 - 01:54pm PT
The Smith&Wesson MP series.

My wife and I just looked at one of those at the range last night. Sweet gun! That's a very real possibility.

Wow, last night my wife was spot on in the range test for the CCW certificate! She put me to shame. The instructors were all gathered around in awe, calling her a rock star! She was shooting as well as the marine next to her, and with our .40, while he was shooting a 9mm that he had put thousands of rounds through. My wife has shot exactly three times in her life so far.

She put 40+ rounds through a 1-inch (yes 1-INCH) hole at 15 yards. One stray shot was four inches off. But EVERY other round went through the same 1-inch hole she had created! Frigging amazing! We were all just astounded. My three-inch grouping looked scattered and pathetic next to hers (better than everybody else but her and the marine, fortunately). ONE hole--40+ rounds. CRAZY!

She IS a rock star.
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jul 17, 2014 - 06:31pm PT

As I said, lacking context.

I've been very clear and consistent that I'm talking about new federal laws. I've used examples like the fact that the FEDS supposedly lock down military weapons, yet I could trivially get full-auto weapons and even claymores. I've talked about FEDERAL "war on..." fails. I've talked about gun control being a states' rights issue. I'm not sure how I could be more clear! And I still hold to the principles that ground that position.

I think that TE came up with a really clever compromise that makes illegal interstate transfer a federal matter, but leaves the first line of defense of that law in the hands of the states. It's a great idea to have state and local law enforcement decide or not to arrest someone on such a federal charge and then pass prosecution up to the federal courts. And on that model, there's no need of a federal gun registry or federal agents running around enforcing that sort of law. Brilliant! So, I'm happy to "compromises" on that sort of thing.

And I remain opposed to entirely symbolic, useless gun control laws at the state level, such as magazine-size limits.

Beyond that, I think that Colorado has NAILED it regarding background checks, and I'd like to see every state take the same approach.

No "bait and switch" anywhere


The context is in the quote, go back and read them, they're all of 2 or 3 pages back. You won't be able to nuance them to anything else as they're at face value as is.

The rest of you above are nothing more then anything new must fall within your guidelines. While you restate that your against magazine limits, many of your arguments against them don't hold much water and there is a tide much larger than you for them. Not that that matters when your door is closed. Thats just one front you refuse to budge, your totally ensconced on many other workable amd sensible laws. Please read any of your other hundreds of posts as proof.

Again, I'm not against guns, but you've got to be dense if you don't acknowledge there is a change a coming. If we don't get a grip on mass slayings of children there will be laws that even I wouldn't want. Get flexible or you can stand your ground while at first the rest of the country moves around you, only to find your soon entombed by your own convictions.
scrubbing bubbles

Social climber
Uranus
Jul 17, 2014 - 06:47pm PT
Someday in the future it will be the Gun Fetishists against the US Federal Govt, in an armed struggle. Fetishists, prepare yourselves! You will need sandbags, lots of em, trapdoors, fortified bunkers....hi-capacity mags are irrelevant to the grim struggle that lies ahead, fetishists !!
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Jul 17, 2014 - 07:13pm PT
And on that model, there's no need of a federal gun registry

The is no Federal Gun registry, never has been, it is already prohibited by law, never has been realistically proposed in any legislation, and was specifically re-prohibited by the Mancin-Toomey bill, which contained everything we've just talked about, except it was a federal bill. You've been drinking too much of the Gun Nut juice if a federal gun registry is your fear.

I'm personally strongly in favor of a gun registry, for handguns at least. It is the obvious difference between US and Canadian laws, and I believe a large reason for the dramatically lower gun homicide rates in Canada compared to the US.

A gun registry is not an end in itself, it is only a means to enforce responsible gun ownership because buyers know they will be held accountable for the ultimate destination of their gun. That same end could be achieved by a wholesale-only registry combined with universal background checks. All dealers would be required to report make/model/serial numbers of all transfers to other dealers, and report when any gun was sold to the public. This would also include private sales using the dealer background check. When the cops need to trace a gun, they quickly know what dealer sold it to the public, and would require a warrant or subpoena to obtain the buyer's name from the dealer.

Most businesses handle much more complex inventory tracking systems that this, it's not rocket science, it could be achieve with a barcode scanner and would soon root out that small minority of criminal dealers. Unfortunately, once again, the NRA has vehemently opposed any proposed legislation that would require dealers to keep better records.

TE
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jul 17, 2014 - 07:31pm PT
I'd agree TE, but I would be very surprised if gun stores didn't cry out agaisnt that, making them be responsible for records and all. But it is a start, maybe even enough to stave off other legislation that could be more stifling. Seems like being able to trace a gun would be something only criminals would stonewall against, them and a few fanatics.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jul 17, 2014 - 07:36pm PT
if any criminal can buy any gun they want anytime right out of the newspaper classifieds ...

then why should there be a need for any gun laws?

why even have back ground checks since, again, anyone can get anything anytime?

secondly, since there is no need for any new gun control laws because they would not
stop any shooting, then why have any laws at all?

criminals don't pay attention to laws, does not stop them from doing anything

why have laws then?


all those background checks going on at Ron's gun shop aren't stopping anything, right?
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jul 17, 2014 - 08:06pm PT
Damn straight Norton, especially any law at the federal level is a no go.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jul 17, 2014 - 08:07pm PT
You guys of course realize (yeah right) that gun stores do indeed retain all the written records of their sales as required by fed law..?
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jul 17, 2014 - 08:13pm PT
When the day comes, and your gun shop is no longer in business, those records become the property of the Federal Government.

It's "registration" by a different name.
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jul 17, 2014 - 08:24pm PT
 All dealers would be required to report make/model/serial numbers of all transfers to other dealers, and report when any gun was sold to the public. This would also include private sales using the dealer background check. When the cops need to trace a gun, they quickly know what dealer sold it to the public, and would require a warrant or subpoena to obtain the buyer's name from the dealer.

Are gun stores now doing all this?

Then I'd say I didn't realize they were doing all that.
Messages 5521 - 5540 of total 5824 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews