I should not have mentioned "Bad Vibes" and let this play out.
I should have sent my thoughts to tango in a private message.
Richard
Printable View
I should not have mentioned "Bad Vibes" and let this play out.
I should have sent my thoughts to tango in a private message.
Richard
ford2, I am going to take exception with your "Bad Vibes" comment. Now let me explan.
The topic of this thread is "Gun Control" this subject has to be one of the most hotly debated subjects of modern times. Why should that subject once broached on this site be any different? Emotions both Pro and Con run very high when talking about such a hot bed topic. The fact that some of that emotion leads posters in one direction or another should be completely expected.
I am not going to delve any deeper into the Pro's or Con's of gun control here, that has been done to great length already, and with no winner. But in a way we all have won because of the debate itself.
The Moderator of this forum has shown restraint in not locking down this thread at some point. I for one applaud that. Discussion of this topic can become heated, but it should be. All that have posted here on this subject have shown the Passion's that they have on this subject. Very little of that hated "Political Correctness" has been evident---very little. Folks have hollered and screamed in a way and have said exactly how they felt.
While I have made my personaly beliefs quite clear and while I have little respect for some of the views expressed. I have great "RESPECT" for there right to express any view anyone else has on this subject.
That is why the debate is a good thing!!
RS
Hombre259,
Let me say "Bad Vibes" was not a good choice of words.
Richard
It appears this thread is about to end and I feel educated on gun control.
I have fire arms in the house loaded since 1976 when I purchased them,but i'm not sure if the are ready.
Question: What is the shelf life of ammunition ????
Don, That is a loaded question----- Loaded get it??
There are many variable's to the life of ammo. The biggest problem usually is the primers, if they are made of a corrosive substance they can render the ammo useless. more modern primers are made from non corrosive componants and can last many, many years if not almost forever. Also some of the Nitro based powders can in time break down to the point as to be less than useful.
Some of the oldest ammo loaded into cartridges is ammo for some of the old Buffalo Guns and the target Rifles of that same era, around 1855 to 1900. I have 17 boxes of ammo loaded by the Sharps Co. in the 1800's this ammo is in a caliber of 45-110 that is 45 caliber and 110 grains of "Black Powder" I bought this ammo for a target rifle I have and was doing research on. I wanted to verify the old 1800 loading and the bullet design. On a hunch I took a couple of these to the range with me, loaded them up and much to my amazement they went bang!1 and shot just fine.
But in your case with unknown Ammo and components, and at least 33 years old. It just may be time to go and buy a new box or two. Sure as heck wouldn't want to wait until you really need it and there "NOT" be any bang at all. Then your rifle or pistol or Shotgun turns immediately from a Firearm to a club, and a real bad club too.
RS
BINGHAMTON, N.Y. - The gunman who killed 13 people in a rampage at an immigrant community center and then committed suicide was wearing body armor, indicating he was prepared to battle with law enforcers, the Binghamton police chief said Saturday.
The gunman, 41-year-old Jiverly Wong, had been taking classes at the American Civic Association, which helps immigrants assimilate, until last month, Police Chief Joseph Zikuski said.
Wong had a permit for the two handguns he used, Zikuski said. Most of the victims had multiple gunshot wounds, he said.
Wong, who used the alias Jiverly Voong, believed people close to him were making fun of him for his poor English language skills, Zikuski said.
Investigators said they had yet to establish a motive for the shooting. It was at least the sixth fatal mass shooting in the U.S. in the past month, and the nation's deadliest since April 2007, when 32 people and a gunman died at Virginia Tech.
It was not immediately clear if Poplawski has an attorney. A preliminary hearing, at which Poplawski could challenge the charges, was not immediately scheduled.
Poplawski is also charged with firing weapons into two occupied neighboring homes and with recklessly endangering four civilians with gunfire. None were wounded.
Police did not immediately say why Poplawski fired toward the neighboring homes, but some officers were seen going into nearby homes and perching on rooftops in an attempt to control the scene.
Poplawski had feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon," said Edward Perkovic, his best friend.
hey couldn’t get the scene secure enough to get to them. They were just lying there bleeding,” Sand said. “By the time they secured the scene enough to get to them it was way too late.”
Video
Mayor: Officers gave the ‘ultimate sacrifice’
April 4: Officials in Pittsburgh, Pa., announce the charges that will be filed against a man accused of killing three police officers.
MSNBC
Poplawski feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on the way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon,” said Edward Perkovic, his best friend.
Perkovic, 22, said he got a call at work from him in which he said, “Eddie, I am going to die today. ... Tell your family I love them and I love you.”
Perkovic said: “I heard gunshots and he hung up. ... He sounded like he was in pain, like he got shot.”
Poplawski had once tried to join the Marines, but was kicked out of boot camp after throwing a food tray at a drill sergeant, Perkovic said.
Another longtime friend, Aaron Vire, said Poplawski feared that President Barack Obama was going to take away his rights, though he said he “wasn’t violently against Obama.”
Vire, 23, said Poplawski once had an Internet talk show but that it wasn’t successful. He said Poplawski owned an AK-47 rifle and several powerful handguns, including a .357 Magnum.
Obama has said he respects Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms, but that he favors “common sense” gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he would approve of curbs on ownership of assault and concealed weapons.
Suspect Lovelle Mixon was slain later Saturday afternoon in a gunfight with police that left two more officers dead. OPD identified those officers as 43-year-old Sgt. Ervin Romans and 35-year-old Sgt. Daniel Sakai.
Police said never in OPD's history had so many officers been killed in the line of duty in a single day.
The violence began when Hege and Dunakin, both on motorcycles, stopped a 1995 Buick sedan in the 7400 block of MacArthur Boulevard in east Oakland just after 1 p.m., police said. The driver opened fire, killing Dunakin and gravely wounding Hege.
The gunman then fled on foot, police said, leading to an intense manhunt by dozens of Oakland police, California Highway Patrol officers and Alameda County sheriff deputies. Streets were roped off and an entire area of east Oakland closed to traffic.
Around 3:30 p.m. officers got an anonymous tip that the gunman was inside a nearby apartment building. A SWAT team entered an apartment to clear and search it when the gunman opened fire, police said. Romans and Sakai were killed and a third officer was grazed by a bullet, police said.
Officers returned fire, killing Mixon, Acting Oakland police Chief Howard Jordan said.
Two boys, one a three-year-old and the other a five-year-old, were accidentally shot by a deer hunter. The hunter missed the deer and the bullet entered the day care center where the children were at.
Cheboygan County, Michigan- Sheriff’s deputies from Cheboygan Country were called to Angie's Country Kids Day Care Thursday evening for an accidental shooting of the two boys by a hunter.
According to Cheboygan County Undersheriff Michael Newman, as reported in the Gaylord Herald Times, when deputies arrived they discovered a female deer hunter had shot at a deer. The bullet missed the deer and traveled into a house that is a day care center. Two children were injured. The bullet grazed one boy's calf and the other boy's chest. The boys were taken to a local hospital where they were treated and released.
The deputies found the hunter had been in a cut hay field and was using a 30.06 rifle. She was approximately 400 yards from the home. Newman said, “It appears at this time the hunter may not have realized the day care was behind the deer. Even though the day care was a good distance away, hunters need to know what’s beyond their target and what their rifle is capable of doing.”
Right on cnile64.
I carry for 1 reason: it's better to have & not need then need & not have. I've had a hand gun since I was 18 yrs. old - I am now 51.
I've also had some kewl home defense weapons since the late 80's.
I personally think when you are armed it puts you on a level playing field with the bad guys.
Regs
Ed Troyer, spokesman for the Pierce County sheriff, said no adults were home when the boy was shot. But three boys, who attend Spanaway Junior High, were present, and several weapons were easily accessible to them, Troyer said.
Two of the boys picked up a .22-caliber, semiautomatic rifle that was lying around and began playing with it. It apparently fired, and a bullet hit the other one in the head, Troyer said.
There was a "considerable" amount of ammunition in the home to which the boys had access, he said.
The shooting puts in stark relief the need for firearm safety and training, Troyer and others said.
"What 14-year-old boy is going to resist playing with" the rifle? he asked.
The dead boy was a ninth-grader. The other two youths attend Spanaway Junior High.
"Whenever something like this happens, it's tragic for the entire community," Bethel School Superintendent Tom Seigel said. "One lesson we can learn from this is the importance of firearm safety at home. We have to do everything possible to keep our guns out of the reach of children."
Op-Ed Columnist
Pitchforks and Pistols
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxMy SpaceYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: April 3, 2009
Lately I’ve been consuming as much conservative media as possible (interspersed with shots of Pepto-Bismol) to get a better sense of the mind and mood of the right. My read: They’re apocalyptic. They feel isolated, angry, betrayed and besieged. And some of their “leaders” seem to be trying to mold them into militias.
Earl Wilson/The New York Times
Charles M. Blow
At first, it was entertaining — just harmless, hotheaded expostulation. Of course, there were the garbled facts, twisted logic and veiled hate speech. But what did I expect, fair and balanced? It was like walking through an ideological house of mirrors. The distortions can be mildly amusing at first, but if I stay too long it makes me sick.
But, it’s not all just harmless talk. For some, their disaffection has hardened into something more dark and dangerous. They’re talking about a revolution.
Some simply lace their unscrupulous screeds with loaded language about the fall of the Republic. We have to “rise up” and “take back our country.” Others have been much more explicit.
For example, Chuck Norris, the preeminent black belt and prospective Red Shirt, wrote earlier this month on the conservative blog WorldNetDaily: “How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?”
Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, imagining herself as some sort of Delacroixian Liberty from the Land of the Lakes, urged her fellow Minnesotans to be “armed and dangerous,” ready to bust caps over cap-and-trade, I presume.
And between his tears, Glenn Beck, the self-professed “rodeo clown,” keeps warning of an impending insurrection by saying that he believes that we are heading for “depression” and “revolution” and then gaming out that revolution on his show last month. “Think the unthinkable” he said. Indeed.
All this talk of revolution is revolting, and it hasn’t gone unnoticed.
As the comedian Bill Maher pointed out, strong language can poison weak minds, as it did in the case of Timothy McVeigh. (We sometimes forget that not all dangerous men are trained by Al Qaeda.)
At the same time, the unrelenting meme being pushed by the right that Obama will mount an assault on the Second Amendment has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms. According to the F.B.I., there have been 1.2 million more requests for background checks of potential gun buyers from November to February than there were in the same four months last year. That’s 5.5 million requests altogether over that period; more than the number of people living in Bachmann’s Minnesota.
Coincidence? Maybe. Just posturing? Hopefully. But it all gives me a really bad feeling. (Where’s that Pepto-Bismol?!)
You know Dave, you are really beating this thing to death. For every killing article you copy and paste, I can show you one where owning a gun has saved a life or two. I think we all agree with you that gun ownership comes with a large responsibilty. People should be trained (and are if they have a concealed weapons permit) before owning a weapon. But what is your solution? Ban all guns?? You are an intelligent man so you know that the old saying is true. Only the criminals will own guns then. You cant stop every nut job intent on killing someone....... I think EVERYONE should be given a gun at birth and educated in its proper use. Then we would all be on a level playing field.
Lets all just agree to disagree and let this be put to rest. :rolleyes:
Article in todays ARAB NEW...true or not who cares really!!! they are a threat...
Pakistans most wanted militant claims reponsibility for US shooting rampage the left 14 dead...claiming one of our men carried out the attack and embraced martydom and the other fled the scene...
and now we see OBAMA BOWING TO THE SAUDI KING...who will he bow to next...
i know that since the influx of immigrants from south of the border (of many nationalities) even our small towns are being invaded like cockroaches...in the last very few short years alone...murder, muggings, robberies have skyrocketed...
i'll keep my guns...i'll protect what's mine including my family...the polictical guru's and liberial wusses can give up their right's if they like...
someone knew each that of the people Dave is talking about were disturbed before they commited these crimes...but by remaining silent they are just as guilty in my opinion...as far as hunting accidents yes you must be aware of your surroundings and just want the gun you're toting is capable of....
change gun shots to stab wounds and what do you have ? around here children are gun safe before they start school. a boys first deer hunt is by 1st grade. blaming guns may make you feel better but it does nothing for the problem. i do not intend to run down a coyote with a club or beat a rabid skunk with one either. take away guns and you'll end up banning large rocks.
I own and carry (and yes I have a ccw), I think about them the same as I do a fire extingiusher, hope I never need to use it but glad it's there.
Remember, "God did not make all men equal, Col Colt did"
And, "When sticks and stones are outlawed, only outlaws will have sticks and stones"
We have sunk to such a depth that the restatement of the obvious has become the first duty of intelligent men.
-- George Orwell, 1939
I find some delicious irony in that being a 70 year old quote. The human condition continues.
In this case the obvious is that laws don't necessarily stop bad behavior, their enforcement merely attempts to maintain civil harmony. In each of the sad circumstances that Dave's cut and pastes points out a fundamental and consistent law dating back millenia was violated: Thou shalt not kill. Fact of the matter is in each of those incidents multiple laws were violated. Calling for more laws to prevent death merely makes the caller feel better about themselves, it doesn't necessarily result in better outcomes. An added benefit for them is that the self righteous get to pummel those that disagree with them with catch phrases like "gun lover" (though they'd prefer to say "gun nut", but only with a more sympathetic crowd).
Likewise, licensing, training and government control don't guarantee a positive outcome. If preventing death is the primary objective then we should ban automobiles, if banning inanimate objects is considered effective. No single object kills more people in this country each year than the car: 41,059 for 2007. Of course, as with guns, the real problem is people behaving badly. Drunken drivers still cause approximately half those auto related deaths. The current wave of new laws seems to be banning text messageing while driving. Common sense should demand that people stay focused on driving, not texting, but then we know common sense is too uncommon.
Unfortunately these sensible discussion points often fall on deaf ears as, for a number of reasons, far too many in our society today value symbolism over substance.
this "rash" of recent gun crimes is nothing new, the media is just now reporting it alot more. in an effort to frighten everyday people so they can take our guns.
please deposit gun here and take bread line voucher for line #4.
[QUOTE=Bob Parmenter;347489]We have sunk to such a depth that the restatement of the obvious has become the first duty of intelligent men.
-- George Orwell, 1939
I find some delicious irony in that being a 70 year old quote. The human condition continues.
In this case the obvious is that laws don't necessarily stop bad behavior, their enforcement merely attempts to maintain civil harmony. In each of the sad circumstances that Dave's cut and pastes points out a fundamental and consistent law dating back millenia was violated: Thou shalt not kill.
Likewise, licensing, training and government control don't guarantee a positive outcome. If preventing death is the primary objective then we should ban automobiles, if banning inanimate objects is considered effective. QUOTE]
The Orwell quote is indeed relavant, and I'm not one of the one's who want guns banned. Guns are fine when they are in the hands of a mentally stable, intelligent, and trained user...
If mandatory licensing similar to the requirements for a driver's license, and mandatory training much like driver's education were required would it really be that big of an infringement on anyone's rights???
Nothing will guarantee a 100% positive outcome, and certainly banning inanimate objects wouldn't be an acceptable answer... But if licensing, training, and monitoring gun owners were to prevent just some of these deaths wouldn't it be a positive move??
To save even one death of an innocent person, especially if it were a friend or family member, would to me and to many be good enough reason to implement at least some requirements....
After all, does the 2nd Amendment really trump the law of "Thou Shalt not Kill"? As with many arguments, common sense would indicate that there is a common ground and a point of comprimise on the issue of gun control. As with many other issues, perhaps it's time we ignored the extremists at either end of the spectrum, and people with common sense were to seek a comprimise someplace in the middle????
Ya know Davey, there are a lot of folks that don't realize you and I have been "butting heads" like this for years.
Good thing for you I don't charge you for the amount of effort I have to put in to getting you to show your more moderate side! :LOL::LOL:
Unfortunately getting to the "middle ground" is more difficult for the more conservative types. The national narrative is more under the control of the left extreme. I suspect it was much easier for you to find those articles to cut and paste than it would be for someone who wanted to counter them by accessing the same forms of "popular" media. It takes more effort and passion to muster a comprehensive retort to the mass media echo chamber.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Severson
Dave wrote:As much as I am a proponent of gun rights, I agree that the 2nd does not trump the biblical law of "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Of course I am not going to get into the issue of whether the bible is truth or fiction or a little of both.Quote:
After all, does the 2nd Amendment really trump the law of "Thou Shalt not Kill"? As with many arguments, common sense would indicate that there is a common ground and a point of comprimise on the issue of gun control. As with many other issues, perhaps it's time we ignored the extremists at either end of the spectrum, and people with common sense were to seek a comprimise someplace in the middle????
But we (the USA and other civilized countries) have laws on our books that make it illegal to kill (in most instances) regardless, if you use a firearm or the jaw bone of an ass (the four legged kind :D). Guns are really not the problem, the problems is with who's holding the gun. I own a number of guns, yet excluding military service, I have never killed anyone nor do I have the desire to (although there have been fleeting moments that the thought may have crossed my mind:LOL:).
I don't know how we go about doing it, but the issue to be resolved is how to keep the firearms out of the hands of those who have no remorse and who would feel little or no concern about taking the life of another human being. That, in itself, is the problem.
Take all the guns away, and I guarantee you there will be people bludgeoned to death with any available device including motor vehicles, baseball bats, knives, pokers, golf clubs, hockey sticks, tire irons, and the jaw bone of an ass. The gun is just a convenient tool. And in the hands of the wrong person, it's a problem.
I have found no way of solving this problem to the satisfaction of everyone. Not sure that it can be, or will ever be.:( But it is worth solving.
The Graham example is not necessarily a good one for your side either. Mass murder of one's own family is not, unfortunately, infrequent. Males tend to use weapons, however, women far too often kill their young, but tend toward more "natural" methods such as drowning. Read some Ann Rule, for instance about the woman in Or. who tossed her kids off a bridge. Or Andrea Yates in Tx who drowned her kids. Or the gal down south who pushed her car into the reservoir with the kids in it. Poor line of reasoning for attacking guns.
As for Greenwood, is that this year's date for the car show? I don't have the calendar with me down here. I used to go every year when we lived in Magnolia, (if you look in my gallery the '72 Chev pu and '55 Chev were in front of one of the beauty shops on the ave.) but haven't been to it since about 2002 or 3. If I do go this year I'll be there with a grey '36 Ford 3 window coupe. If we meet up I promise not to shoot you.;)
Your question, re; "... does the NRA really think that banning AK47's would make it hard to hunt deer?" I've hunted most of my adult life and have never seen or heard of anyone deer hunting with an AK-47. There are too many other choices that are far superior to the AK.
Private ownership of fully automatic AK-pattern rifles is strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The Gun Control Act of 1968 ceased the import of foreign-manufactured fully automatic firearms for civilian sales and possession.
In 1986, an amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act stopped all future domestic manufacturing of fully automatic weapons for civilian use (non-military/non-law-enforcement). Fully automatic weapons are still manufactured in the US for military and law enforcement use however; automatic firearms manufactured domestically prior to 1986 or imported prior to 1968 may be transferred between civilians in accordance with federal and state law.
Semi-automatic AK-type rifles, are legal and obtainable in most states of the United States, however they may or may not be legal to own or possess depending on state, county, city, and local laws and ordinances. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban specifically banned the AK-47 by name, and many other such weapons (including obvious clones of AK-47's) manufactured after 1994 had to be modified to the letter of the law (removal of barrel threading, bayonet lug and folding stock). This ban expired in 2004, making all domestically produced semi-automatic AK-47s legal. The import of AK pattern rifles is still banned. However, certain states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have specific restrictions which effectively ban new purchases of many semi-automatic rifles, with some mentioning AK-pattern firearms by name.
The NRA has never condoned nor have they endorsed ownership of fully automatic weapons (AK-47 or otherwise) except by individuals possessing the proper federal credentials. The NRA is the major proponent of gun safety and education in this country. Over 55,000 NRA Certified Instructors now train about 750,000 gun owners a year.
The NRA does not even suggest that the AK-47 would be a good deer hunting rifle.
The AK-47 uses 7.62x39mm, a .30-caliber round producing about 1,500 ft./lbs. of energy at the muzzle, which is suitable for deer hunting at close range. This round is less powerful than all other .30 calibers commonly used for hunting. Specifically:
.30-30 Winchester, 1,900 ft./lbs.
.308 Winchester, 2,650 ft./lbs.
.30-’06 Springfield, 2,800 ft./lbs.
.300 Winchester Magnum, 3,600 ft./lbs.
.300 Weatherby Magnum, 4,200 ft./lbs.
In about the past 10 years I have built new legal frames for different companies in USA that makes & sell AK-47's! Because USA made AK's are legal to sell in the USA! So much for your gun laws!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you don't keep locks on your guns, your kids will play with them. You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make them drink it! (free gun locks) It's your job to make them drink! Not mine or the goverments!!!!
Also, if you use a bat on an unarmed person, it's the same if you use a gun, if you use a knive on an unarmed person, it's he same if you used a gun. So why stand close enough to find out which they brought with them? If I standing that close, I know my barrel is in their mouth, till the cops come!
If everyone was able to carried a gun, do you think as many idit's would just start shooting! and if they did some one will take them out before 5-10-15-20 helpless people were shoot by them! I know I would!!!!!!! But then again...I hit my target without thinking about it. close don't count.
Pat
Man has been killing each other since the dawn of time.
If anyone thinks banning guns will stop any killing, you are kidding yourself.
Guns are not the problem.......people are the problem!
Plain and simple!!!! More laws will not change a thing. I know for a fact it is easier for me to obtain illegal automatic firearms, than it is for me to do it legally. You can have all the laws you want, i will still get one if needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinister
Only a Higher power (pc) can solve this never ending problem.
If gun control comes to be, then there will be ONLY two types of people that will have guns: CRIMINALS & THE GOVERNMENT.
Here is a little documented history on gun control from a very respected journalist. Maybe the mods. will allow this. I for one will ALWAYS have a gun!!
http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/GOV/guns.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter
So, next time I hear someone described as a "staunch conservative" I could assume they mean bullheaded and unyielding?????;);):LOL::LOL::LOL:
I'll never understand what's wrong with the middle ground... Not just on gun control but on so many, many issues it would seem a bit more comprimising and a lot less name calling and finger pointing would accomplish so much more.... Has the art of negotiation and comprimise completely given way to "You're wrong, I'm right"??? Maybe we could make resolving issues kind of like Olympic judging where they throw out the low score and high score and use the "opinions" in the middle????
In the gun control debate, and for that matter most all political debate, it would seem to me that we put for too much emphasis on the extreme left and the extreme right that the majority of folks who are somewhere in the middle end up with no voice in the proceedings at all.... For this we can thank the media as they strive for sensationalism by only talking up the extremes. I guess Joe Average doesn't make good news copy, does he??? Remember when journalism was who, what, when, where, and why and we were left to make up our own minds on an issue???? Now we are force fed what the media sees as right and wrong and told what to think and what to say.....the worst part is, so many folks seem to buy into the media hype of extremes, and perhaps ignore their own judgement......
Your comment could very well describe yourself......Your very first comment on this subject was....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Severson
I have read this entire thread from the start and it would seem that almost all who posted (including me) have agreed with your first statement. But you have been going on and on about it for 8 pages now!!.....sounds kinda Bullheaded and unyielding to me.......:p ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Severson
Quote:
Originally Posted by T42
Ok, fine. Nothing more for me to say on the subject, I guess.... After all, it is a dissenting opinion.... I'm so sorry to be the only one who to you appears bullheaded and unyeilding......
PS--That comment on bullheaded and unyielding was to Bob, and it was followed by a few winks and smiles.... Bob and I have been exchanging jabs for quite some time on this forum on many different issues. Sorry you take such offense to it.
No.....its not a dissenting opinion. As I said, most all of us agree with you that to own a gun, one should be mentally stable and well versed in its use and handling. Its the banning talk that gets everybody fired up.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Severson
I also realized that you were poking fun at Bob.....As I was doing to you.;) :)
You continue to prove my point, thank you. "Staunch conservative", as a phrase, is similar to "radical right wing". The self described "unbiased" media majority (and those who sympathize with them) will toss those kinds of phrases around with abandon, yet NEVER does it occur to them to say such things as "stauch Liberal" or "radical left wing". To them there could never be a Liberal idea that is overbearing, or a left wing idea that is too radical. Evidence of the dumbing down (or dishonesty in some cases) of defining the "middle ground". As for "bullheaded" and "unyielding" I refer you to my earlier quotation of T. Jefferson; "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Severson
dave I hesitate to make this post because I know it is futile to inter into the arena of ideas with an unarmed man they always resort to name calling. they have proved time and again that facts are like kryptonite to super man. you always beat the same drum don't examine results just look at our good intentions I am smart enough to know I can't broaden your thinking so maybe I can expand your vocabulary try these. raciest, sexiest, homophobe, right winger, draconian machiavellian, Nazi,and of course neo con. feel free to print these and post next to your computer after all I wouldn't want you to feel unarmed ...ted p.s. ditto's bob
Interesting thread. I have owned guns since I was a kid. We used to target shoot 22's, then as a teenager duck hunt with shotguns. As I grew older I collected old militarty rifles and cleaned them up, and took them occassionaly to the range. Later I got a Colt .45 1911 Government model. I've never complained about my waiting period or background search.
I do have mixed feelings about guns and crimes. I realize most crimes committed with guns probably involve guns obtained illegally. Gun control for gun control sake, i.e. getting weapons off the streets has lots of fundamental problems. Just as people obtain guns illegally from other countries, they do so with firearms as well.
I have friends that see gun control only as a threat to their god given constitutional right to bear arms. I also have friends that think I'm nuts for owning a handgun. I guess I fall in the middle ground where Dave has been posting from. I hate going to chain sporting goods stores that sell cheap Chinese Military surplus weapons that easily can be converted to assault machine guns. I also don't see the need to own a m-16 or a .50 caliber sniper's rifle. That being said, a .50 caliber is an amazing rifle that any marksman or distance targeter would love to own. It's not practical, and it is a big threat in the wrong hands, but so is any weapon including black powder revolvers whih require no waiting period, and can be bought over the counter even in California.
It's hard to debate gun control, because drawing a line or labeling a weapon as good or bad is not clear cut. Living in the Bay Area, working at a Hospital, it's sad to see the damage people do to eachother. I'm all for registering and background checks on all gun owners who obtain guns legally, but there is no way to stop illegal weapons from getting into the hands of someone who wants to kill someonelse.
My gun collecting friends(Card carrying members of the NRA) will tell you that if you look to England you will see, how slowly and insidiously guns have been taken away from the public through one law after another. They will point out how the public attitude was changed over a period of hundreds of years to the point where if you own a gun your a nut. They will also point out that baning assault rifles and taxing ammunition is the first step to no more guns.
Converversely my anti gun friends(liberal extremist pacifists) will shout out that all guns are evil, hunting is cruel, and vegetarian diet will mellow us all out. They still enjoy a nice steak that someone else has had to kill. They also complain where are the police when you need them. They also carry mace and are happy to use it!
Thus where is the middle hear. Opposing assault weapons to one croud is tantamount to revoking your NRA membership, while the other is the start of the solution.
For now I'm happy for the background checks, don't like some gun law in California, and watch each issue carefully as it is proposed. I'd prefer not to be taxed for ammunition and then have a limited time to use it, I'd like to get a hunting rifle, but I have no desire to kill anyone. So I guess I'm the rare middle egg, that people constantly try to push one way or the other.
I have hardly ever posted - and before I get abused I think this is one of the best hotrod sites around, you guys rock!! I hate to bring up and old thread.. but..Dave S in my opinion is a car building legend and I am 100% with you on this subject, and if one of you pro gun guys can actually give me a "real" reason for carrying a weapon, regardless gun, knife or whatever I will be impressed. Like we say in oz drink a cup of concrete and harden the F up !!!
I am an Ozzie, and lived in Texas from 2000 to 2003 and have had this debate with my American friends so many times, and I have lots of American friends :). But not once have I heard a decent argument for carrying guns. My first day in Houston three guys were shot and killed at a car wash just around the corner from Rice village.
Sure we have violence in Oz, but we don't unload a 9mm every 10min like you guys do. Its mental, really think about it for a while - the world if a tough place, but how many of you have actually left the great USA!! The rubbish about hunting for food ?? c'mon give me a break, it cost a couple of bucks to get a cheese burger - your ammo costs more. Also FYI I have worked and lived outside of Oz for the past 15 years - including some pretty rough places in the " middle east" and Africa.
If i hear its not guns that kill people, people kill people one more time I will puke. Sure we kill people in oz but guns crimes are nearly non existent..
Anyway stop shooting people and the world will be a better place.
Cheers,
Lyndsay!1
Ive got a good reason for you westoz. Lets say you come home from a hard days work, to find your family held hostage, your daughter has already been raped, your sons throat slashed, and your wife is next. Would you say please finish up and leave guys, and dont hurt anyone else. guess what your next on the list for breaking up the party ! Thats a chance I am not willing to take. People are murdered, robbed, raped, and beat daily. Just because it has not happened to you yet does not mean it cant happen. Kill or be killed, what you do is your business, I choose to fight for my familys lives and my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by westoz
Thanks for dragging this back out for another round of bitter posts !
I once spent two months in Taiwan installing a machine. The most common questions that I was asked was "how many sons do you have and how many guns do you own?" I found that the more sons you have, the more comfortable retirement you have. For guns, they had a law that, if you are caught with a gun, you die by firing squad...
guns were a big item of interest to them. Then, they quite often asked "what's your opinion regarding knife control?"......didnt quite realize what that meant until I heard that the zealots wanted to outlaw knives among law-abiding citizens. They had a problem with criminals using knives in crimes......"when knives are outlawed, only outlaws will have knives"
all you people who want to take away my rights should put a big sign in your front yard that says THIS IS A GUN FREE HOME DO NOT ENTER. and let us know how that works out for you. just drink another cup of cement and leave my constitutional rights alone thank you ......ted