|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,023
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,023 |
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah,, the army pulls up on your lawn with a tank and you pull out that pop gun,,, you got what kinda chance again?
If the army pulls up on my lawn in a tank, we've gone over Nazi Germany and Soviet Communist territory. That may be your utopia, but it ain't mine brother.]
WOW,, you totally missed the point, you said the government wasn't benign and I am basically saying, your pop gun against a tank,, you ain't got a chance, and you come up with this argument.. Seriously?
Quote:
And as for your prior comment,,, that was written when guns like this weren't even dreamt of.. it's outdated and no longer applies as it was intended.
It was written when government was less oppressive as it is proving to be now. It applies because it's inherent in every human being just because they exist. The Founding Fathers of this country codified it. If it's not applicable, then I suggest that you try and enforce any law restricting such a weapon. If you survive, come and write an essay to us all about it. Otherwise, you're just blowing a lot of garbage out your pie hole.
Oh get serious,, there isn't a need for these weapons.. and you can't even begin to tell me that the founding fathers ever dreamt such a weapon was possible.
I think I know which pie hole the garbage is coming from
Quote:
Quote:
Now I say that to you and I want you to know, I have no problem with you owning guns, I'm not on the side that says, take all the guns out of the hands of the citizens of the country. If you have read anything I've written on the subject, then you know that while I don't have a desire to be a gun owner, I DO have the desire to be able to be a gun owner should I choose too.
But you don't want others who have a desire to be able to do so? Well, it's that grand for you? My advice to you is that you should prepare for a nation that is at war with itself in a most literal sense of the word.
And, if you're capable of desiring to take ANY guns out of the hands of ANY citizens, then I don't trust you to defend me in anything. I don't care what you might say on anything else.
I'll reiterate what I've said before, If you seek help and protection to defend you against anything the government does to you, it is my fervent hope that nobody will help you.
Quote:
You tell a guy that you are on his side on the issue of gun ownership, but you tell him you have a problem with certain weapons and certain types of clips and this is the way I get talked too.
Nice.. Very slick.. worthless but slick..
are you the mini mind that wrote the commercial the NRA put out that talks about the Presidents kids being protected by armed guards but he doesn't want yours protected by armed guards?
As if there hasn't been a president that has kids that haven't been protected by armed guards.... They have all been for years and years. Nothing new. But you think it's OK to put more guns IN schools. Are you saying you want some armed guard with semi auto weapon and a clip that holds 30 or so. How many are you planning on putting in each school,, 2, 3, 5, 7. Yeah, that will make things a lot safer..
Quote:
I'm just not in favor of this kinda weapon even being available. And as you can see, it is. I'm not in favor of these monster clips that we've been reading about.
That's apparent. I won't be counting on you for my defense against the government.
Quote:
They have no valid purpose.. anyone you would need that kinda force to repel has cannons.. your toast in a NY Second anyway.
Except to defend you against your government.
Once again, if we get to the point (and you touched on this above) that our government is turning against it's citizens in an armed fashion, your freaking pop gun is not gonna save you or me.
If the US Government decided it wanted to kill americans, to attack our towns and cities,, all the weapons ordinary folks have in storage will do no good. they'd run over us like a big foot on an anthill.
You wanna get over dramatic, be my guest, but I find your arguments to be idiotic.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Once again, if we get to the point (and you touched on this above) that our government is turning against it's citizens in an armed fashion, your freaking pop gun is not gonna save you or me.
If the US Government decided it wanted to kill americans, to attack our towns and cities,, all the weapons ordinary folks have in storage will do no good. they'd run over us like a big foot on an anthill.
Again Daman, this is typically NOT how governments go when they get out of control.. because with governments run amok, its not about killing its citizens, it is totally about control... and an unarmed populace is much easier to control.
Call me crazy but if our government decided to go into a town and begin exterminating people, I believe that the other 300 million people and 80 million guns in this country could inflict quite a bit of damage on that government..
Is somebody with this gun going to win a one-on-one battle with a tank? No, probably not... but is that the most likely scenario in which this gun would need to be used? No, it's definitely not...
If your preference, in a worst case scenario like you described, is to walk obediently to the gas chamber or sit patiently and wait for your house to be blown up by a tank, then that is your prerogative... but if other people want to fight, even if you consider it futile, then why should you take that opportunity away from them?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,531
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,531 |
That's it exactly.
Does a family of 4 "need" 6 TVs, 4 cars, a cell phone for each person, a 4500 square feet home ....... and so on?
Of course not.
Do we "need" super high speed internet?
Of course not.
Does a person with 1 child need a 7 seat SUV?
Of course not.
Very little of what we have today is a true need.
Hell, I have a TV in my bedroom and my office on the second floor ...... one in the living room and kitchen on the first floor ...... and one in the basement. I don't even watch that much TV ..... but I don't want to miss anything I really want to see.
Our society has never been defined by "need". People get along without a new product for their whole lives until something comes along that they suddenly "need". Look at smart phones. How many people have phones with 100 features that they never use, and really have no idea how to even use? They "needed" that new phone though.
I bet that we are at a high point in our civilization where our "needs" are driven by desire rather than actual deprivation. Guns are merely one small slice of the overall trend. Many people buy the more powerful weapons not because of "need" ..... but because they want them, they enjoy shooting them legally, and it's probably a rush. That's not really all that different than the guy who buys the Vette that will do 150 MPH. Need? No. Want? Absolutely.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
and you can't even begin to tell me that the founding fathers ever dreamt such a weapon was possible.
I have no idea.. but if they didn't, then they probably never dreamed that the government would have tanks, air craft carriers, guided missiles it could fire from thousands of miles away etc...
So in that the founding fathers wanted the citizens to be able to defend themselves against the government, I feel relatively certain that as the governments weapons advanced, they would have allowed the citizens weapons to advance... and I also seriously doubt that in any age, the founding fathers would have said, you are so outgunned, you should just not even try to defend yourself... I have no way of knowing for sure, but I can't imagine them saying that.
I can't imagine it any more than I can imagine them saying, "Wow, with this twitter and facebook and the internet, we really need to rethink this whole free speech thing."
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
I'm sure there's alot of things our founding fathers never imagined when they started this government. It is merely a shadow of what they intended.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828 |
Quote:
Quote:
and you can't even begin to tell me that the founding fathers ever dreamt such a weapon was possible.
I have no idea.. but if they didn't, then they probably never dreamed that the government would have tanks, air craft carriers, guided missiles it could fire from thousands of miles away etc...
So in that the founding fathers wanted the citizens to be able to defend themselves against the government, I feel relatively certain that as the governments weapons advanced, they would have allowed the citizens weapons to advance... and I also seriously doubt that in any age, the founding fathers would have said, you are so outgunned, you should just not even try to defend yourself... I have no way of knowing for sure, but I can't imagine them saying that.
I can't imagine it any more than I can imagine them saying, "Wow, with this twitter and facebook and the internet, we really need to rethink this whole free speech thing."
Excellent post!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
jc Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama is announcing a $500 million package of executive actions and legislative proposals aimed at reducing gun violence a month after a mass shooting in Connecticut killed 20 elementary school children.
The package includes a call on Congress to ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazine and it would close loopholes in the gun sale background check system.
Obama also is signing 23 executive actions - which require no congressional approval - including several aimed at improving access to data for background checks. A presidential memorandum will instruct the Centers for Disease Control to research causes and prevention of gun violence.
In addition, Obama will nominate Todd Jones as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Jones currently is the acting director of the agency.
LINK
Eh, what's another 1/2 billion dollars when we're already broke???
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Whats the thoughts on the new proposed gun legislation? http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-proposals?liteFrom an outsider perspective, seems more or less sensible. Improve background checks, raise penalities on illegal guns both seems like sensible ways to make it harder for people who shouldn;t have guns to get them. That being said, it won;t completely STOP the issue. The lightly mentioned "augmentation of mental health measures" is interesting and I'd like to see what that entails. The magazine size I'm back and forth on. Strikes me that its a good point that it takes virtually no time to switch out a magazine. Hence limiting the size seems like an optics move only. The same with "assault style" weapons. Until they define what this means, it doesnt really say much. The NRA ad about Obamas kids being protected by men with guns is just stupid. The First Family are potentially targets of a political nature thus the protection is apt.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828 |
Like you - I don't get the mag size thing - I can see both sides. (on a side note, if there is a ban on mags that hold over 10 rounds - does it apply to current mags? If so, we would create many felons off the bat. If not - there are millions of these magazines already in existence - so what does banning new ones do?)
And, the "assault" style weapon. Exactly what is an assault weapon? How is it defined? In the past they had a list of "items" that, if a gun had 2 or more of these "items" it was considered an assault weapon. I believe it is New York that passed, or is thinking of passing, a law that changes that to "if a gun has even 1 of these attributes, it is considered an assault rifle".
A folding stock is one of these "items". I believe an attached bipod is also one of the items. How does either of these make a weapon "bad"? I have a hunting rifle with a bi pod on it. Bolt action .223 caliber, 5 round capacity........is that going to be illegal?
Oh well - some possibly good things, but some more possibly bad things. In the end, it's a "feel good" action............won't change anything, but at least (if it all gets approved) gov't. can "feel good" that they did something, even if it does nothing in reality.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,642
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,642 |
Quote:
Oh well - some possibly good things, but some more possibly bad things. In the end, it's a "feel good" action............won't change anything, but at least (if it all gets approved) gov't. can "feel good" that they did something, even if it does nothing in reality.
This is it right here. They can say they tried to do something to make people safer (in their view), when in reality, it's changing nothing.
![[Linked Image from i75.photobucket.com]](http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i302/lrhinkle/d5eaf0b9-e429-4211-b53f-b843bfcf6aa9_zps2ac17420.jpg) #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
OK,, someone tell me why anyone that has no intent on killing a ton of people in a hurry would want this weapon.. Legal or not,, why would you need this thing.. why would a true gun sportsman want it.
Because your government isn't necessarily a benign force.
Yeah,, the army pulls up on your lawn with a tank and you pull out that pop gun,,, you got what kinda chance again?
So, the army pulls up on your lawn with a tank, are you going to drop your pants, put your butt up in the air, and let them do whatever they want? I might not have much of a chance, but I have more of one than you.
As for 'why would I want this weapon? It's just so damn cool. Also, if the need ever arises that I need it, I'd much rather have it than not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
As for 'why would I want this weapon? It's just so damn cool.
Yep  And a lot of fun to shoot!
Quote:
Also, if the need ever arises that I need it, I'd much rather have it than not.
That is how I got into guns about 3 years ago. I'm sitting around looking at the direction this country is heading and I thought to myself "I'd really hate to be sitting here saying damn I wish I would have bought those guns I'd been thinking about" because if it came to that situation it wouldn't be a good one.
I like the car analogy that has been brought up several times. I certainly do not need my Cobra; it is the most impractical car I can think of. It has two seats, a very small trunk, no roof, no A/C, is loud, and hot as hell in the summer - but wow is it fun to drive. 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,126
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,126 |
jc
Lately a lot of local schools have had lockdowns reported. Some of these lockdowns made sense. Today there robbery near a school and police were prusueing the suspect. The last thing you'd want is a guy to run into the school.
The other day a lockdown was initiated because there was a report of someone in the area having a gun. Well, carrying a gun doesn't make someone a criminal. I know, better safe than sorry, but where do we draw the line? Are we going to treat every gun owner as a criminal?
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
Pretty soon the schools will be more like prisons...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
J/K
I haven't posted on this thread or board in sometime, but I read this board all the time, and while I rarely post I finally have something to say, so here goes.
The hysteria surrounding guns is a by-product of the gun industry themselves they have been allowed to weaken laws to the point where they aren't effective. In fact they allow people that have clearly been identified as mentally unstable and criminals to obtain weapons.
It’s worth noting as well that the NRA’s primary funding sources are the gun industry. So to speak that makes the NRA not a gun club but a lobby group for the gun industry, their allegiances isn’t to gun owners it’s to the gun industry. Their goals are to help the gun industry which they are handsomely rewarded for. It’s important to note this because you have to recognize that the NRA’s goals aren’t necessarily what’s best for gun owners or society at large.
Think about this for a moment how many people own guns strictly for personal protection, and why do they feel they need that protection? Generally speaking because they don't want the criminal to be a threat to their family. So if I’m the gun industry I want to create a hysteria around my product and in order to compel people who wouldn’t ordinarily want to or wouldn't own a gun otherwise to purchase my product I must make sure that those who shouldn’t have guns do.
So that brings us to how do criminals and the mentally unstable acquire guns?
I have done some reading on the subject so I think I have a pretty good idea.
If you said they steal them you would be right but mostly wrong. According to the ATF 10-15% of the guns criminal use are stolen.
If you said through FFL (gun dealers) you would be right that in combination with private gun dealers who live in states like Virginia.
So the question becomes how do we keep the bad guys from getting weapons while allowing the good guys to have them?
#1 Crack down on dealers who sell their weapons to criminals.
Here is an interesting side note:
A few years back the law was changed that required dealers to report stolen or missing guns within 48 hours.
Prior to that law being enacted there were 26,000 give or take guns that were stolen/missing from FFL dealers after the new law took effect in the following 2 ½ years there we 6,000 guns reported stolen/missing.
One would assume because there was no penalty for not reporting a gun stolen or missing that the dealers were funneling these guns to criminals. The number of guns reaching criminals would have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 60,000+ thousand if you project the number out for 2 ½ years, based on the old law. It’s also worth noting that in many states reporting a gun stolen is not required.
It’s illegal for a FFL dealer to sell a gun to what is referred to as a proxy buyer. What that means is someone goes to the gun dealer with a friend picks out a gun and the person with them uses their name (background check) and pays for the gun. Believe it or not many times adults bring in groups of young people and they again pick out weapons and the adult pays for the weapons.
I’m going to leave out what I think needs to be done to address these issues, with a few comments.
In order to know what will begin the process of ending some of the hysteria you 1st have to understand where the hysteria comes from its self serving for a gun dealer/ gun industry in an area to get guns to people who shouldn’t have them. Their reasoning for doing this is obvious just like its obvious why the gun industry likes weak gun laws.
Will cracking down on gun dealers set off more home burglaries? Most likely so the thought process used has to be comprehensive and it means that gun owners are going to have to be more protective of their guns for obvious reasons.
Finally I think honest gun owners owe it to themselves and to society at large to deal with some of the trails that are sure to come about as a result. It is what it is, I think the vast majority of gun owners would be in favor of gun laws that stop guns from getting to criminals and the mentally ill, and I hope they recognize their roll in doing what they can to make a difference, and I think they can without giving up their 2nd amendment rights.
BTTB
BTTB
AKA Upbeat Dawg
Can't believe I am in a group that is comprised of the best NOT just fans but people on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656 |
Quote:
So the question becomes how do we keep the bad guys from getting weapons while allowing the good guys to have them?
#1 Crack down on dealers who sell their weapons to criminals.
To me, it depends on how you mean "criminals". If you mean those who already have a criminal record I agree. If you mean someone who legally buys a gun with no prior record and then commits a crime, I don't see how the dealer is at fault.
Quote:
A few years back the law was changed that required dealers to report stolen or missing guns within 48 hours.
But what about the guns stolen from non dealers, i.e. a "regular" gun owner? I'd be curious to know those numbers.
I've tried to stay out of this discussion because it's like politics and religion: it's tough to get a lot of people to agree to disagree. Too many on here want to change your mind or you're wrong. I still say that we don't enforce the gun laws that we have strongly enough, so how will more laws change this?
I saw the following on Facebook last week: The shooter in Conn broke 41 laws. I really don't think a 42nd would have stopped him.
There may be people who have more talent than you, but there's no excuse for anyone to work harder than you do.
-Derek Jeter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
Quote:
To me, it depends on how you mean "criminals". If you mean those who already have a criminal record I agree. If you mean someone who legally buys a gun with no prior record and then commits a crime, I don't see how the dealer is at fault.
The deal isn't at fault in this senerio.
When a dealer says he has a gun stolen or he miss placed it where did it end up? Your selling guns it seems like security is pretty lax if 26,000 guns come up missing or stolen???
Does that at all strike you as odd?
I actually answered your question about where the guns come from.
According the the ATF 10-15% of guns that are in the hands of criminals are obtained through theft....
The rest of the guns come from dealers #1, #2 from private dealers in states like Virginia and from #3 someone lending their gun (lawful gun owner) to a criminal.
Theft is at the very bottom of the list believe it or not....
But I have a hard time with FFL dealers being #1, do you?
BTTB
BTTB
AKA Upbeat Dawg
Can't believe I am in a group that is comprised of the best NOT just fans but people on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
Id like to see the survey the ATF sends out to criminals to find out where they get their guns from.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
But I have a hard time with FFL dealers being #1, do you?
I think that is his point.. were the people known criminals BEFORE the FFL dealers sold them guns? or did they sell guns to law abiding citizens who later became known criminals?
That is the point that is not yet clear in your study.. if I sell you a car and before you drive it off my lot I make sure you have a valid license and insurance.. then later your lose your license and your insurance, then get drunk and wreck the car.. is that my fault? You were legal to drive the car when I sold it to you...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Alot of the FFL deals are through people who have no record and purchase the guns for others for a profit (or in some cases for drugs).
Being that there is no law to prevent the person from purchase there isn't anything illegal about it. It would be more of an ethical thing if the dealer suspected such a transaction. What the person does with the firearm after they purchase it is their business, and if they choose to sell/give the gun to a known criminal, well that techincally makes them a criminal and if caught will deal with the consequences.
So the real issue is enforcement of the laws we already have. And better controls on those who can and can't have posession of a firearm. Not making it more difficult for the lawful citizens to purchase weapons.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Dan Noyes, Center for Investigative Reporting -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal. In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities. The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street. According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity." The report goes on to state that "over-the-counter purchases are not the only means by which guns reach the illegal market from FFLs" and reveals that 23,775 guns have been reported lost, missing or stolen from FFLs since September 13, 1994, when a new law took effect requiring dealers to report gun thefts within 48 hours. This makes the theft of 6,000 guns reported in the CIR/Frontline show "Hot Guns" only 25% of all cases reported to ATF in the past two and one-half years. Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street. An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts. While many guns are taken off the street when people are arrested and any firearms in their possession are confiscated, a new study shows how easily arrestees believe they could illegally acquire another firearm. Supported by the National Institute of Justice and based on interviews with those recently arrested, the study acknowledges gun theft is common, with 13 percent of all arrestees interviewed admitting that they had stolen a gun. However a key finding is that "the illegal market is the most likely source" for these people to obtain a gun. "In fact, more than half the arrestees say it is easy to obtain guns illegally," the report states. Responding to a question of how they obtained their most recent handgun, the arrestees answered as follows: 56% said they paid cash; 15% said it was a gift; 10% said they borrowed it; 8% said they traded for it; while 5% only said that they stole it. ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. They conclude that these licensed retailers are part of a block of rogue entrepreneurs tempted by the big profits of gun trafficking. Cracking down on these dealers continues to be a priority for the ATF. What's needed, according to Wachtel, is better monitoring of the activities of legally licensed gun dealers. This means examining FFL paperwork to see where their guns are coming from, and making sure that those guns are being sold legally. But he says, "Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.htmlOne of the many articles I have seen on the subject, but covers most of it... The source is pretty good to PBS.... BTTB
BTTB
AKA Upbeat Dawg
Can't believe I am in a group that is comprised of the best NOT just fans but people on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828 |
Quote:
It’s worth noting as well that the NRA’s primary funding sources are the gun industry.
I don't know how the gun industry is the primary funding source for the nra when you consider this:
"Those membership rolls are also the NRA's financial backbone. According to its public tax returns, the group raked in $228 million worth of revenue in 2010. That included about $106 million from membership dues and fees alone, along with about $18 million from educational services. It made another $20.9 million by selling advertising in its publications, such as American Rifleman and American Hunter, largely to gun companies looking to market their gear (despite all those ad buys, the titles still appear to run at a loss)"
That's $228 million in revenue for the nra. $106 million in dues and fees, $18 million in educational services, and $21 million in advertising. Right there is $145 million of the 228 the nra took in.
Later in the article, it tells us the nra received:.
"In 2010, it received $71 million in contributions, up from $46.3 million in 2004. ". Now, keep in mind, those donations are from "individuals and corporations"....not gun manufacturers.
Then, we see that the firearm industry donated "as much as" (doesn't say for sure, as it's an estimate from the vpc) $38.9 million - over 7 years - to the nra.
"But around 2005, the group (nra) began systematically reaching out to its richest members for bigger checks through its "Ring of Freedom" program, which also sought to corral corporate donors. Between then and 2011, the Violence Policy Center estimates that the firearms industry donated as much as $38.9 million to the NRA's coffers. The givers include 22 different gun makers, including famous names like Smith & Wesson, Beretta USA, SIGARMS, and Sturm, Ruger & Co."
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/
.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,531
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,531 |
Is it just me, or are people getting incredibly stupid lately?
I just saw a story that a young girl got thrown out of school for having a piece of paper with a corner torn off that "resembled" a gun. Wow. Really?
2 young boys got tossed out of school for playing cops or cowboys, or something, running around with their fingers like a gun going "bang bang".
Wow. People need to take some heavy duty chill pills. Kids are going to play. Kids are going to have paper that has parts torn off. Should we turn kids who do these things into criminals?
I am so scared for the direction of this country in so many ways. No doubt that we need to make sure that kids are safe ...... but these overreactions do no good for anyone.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656 |
Quote:
But I have a hard time with FFL dealers being #1, do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that is his point.. were the people known criminals BEFORE the FFL dealers sold them guns? or did they sell guns to law abiding citizens who later became known criminals?
That is the point that is not yet clear in your study.. if I sell you a car and before you drive it off my lot I make sure you have a valid license and insurance.. then later your lose your license and your insurance, then get drunk and wreck the car.. is that my fault? You were legal to drive the car when I sold it to you...
That was exactly my point, and your analogy of the car dealer is spot on!
There may be people who have more talent than you, but there's no excuse for anyone to work harder than you do.
-Derek Jeter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,828 |
Quote:
Is it just me, or are people getting incredibly stupid lately?
I just saw a story that a young girl got thrown out of school for having a piece of paper with a corner torn off that "resembled" a gun. Wow. Really?
2 young boys got tossed out of school for playing cops or cowboys, or something, running around with their fingers like a gun going "bang bang".
Wow. People need to take some heavy duty chill pills. Kids are going to play. Kids are going to have paper that has parts torn off. Should we turn kids who do these things into criminals?
I am so scared for the direction of this country in so many ways. No doubt that we need to make sure that kids are safe ...... but these overreactions do no good for anyone.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/fift...-181022936.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
Quote:
Is it just me, or are people getting incredibly stupid lately?
I just saw a story that a young girl got thrown out of school for having a piece of paper with a corner torn off that "resembled" a gun. Wow. Really?
2 young boys got tossed out of school for playing cops or cowboys, or something, running around with their fingers like a gun going "bang bang".
Wow. People need to take some heavy duty chill pills. Kids are going to play. Kids are going to have paper that has parts torn off. Should we turn kids who do these things into criminals?
I am so scared for the direction of this country in so many ways. No doubt that we need to make sure that kids are safe ...... but these overreactions do no good for anyone.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/fift...-181022936.html
Wow. A paper gun - really? This has totally gotten out of hand.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
NRA and TobaccoThe NRA was admired by Philip Morris management and cited as a template for carrying out effective pro-industry activities in which a corporation itself could not legitimately engage. The NRA is mentioned numerous times in the tobacco industry's documents as a successful lobbying group worthy of emulation. Operation Downunder Conference Notes (Philip Morris 1987) mention the NRA's "Make it Hurt" strategy (creating political risk for legislators where none otherwise exists). In a 1985 speech, Bill Murray of Philip Morris admires how the NRA has been able to motivate its members to action, something the tobacco industry had been unable to do. The NRA served as a template for the National Smokers Association (an early Philip Morris's smokers' rights group which preceded the National Smokers Alliance). A January 1988 PM Five Year Plan states,
In 1988, we intend to create local smokers' rights associations throughout the U.S. The basis for these associations will be a network of 50,000 "block captains" who will monitor local smoking issues, write or visit political decision-makers, write letters to local newspapers and generally serve as a grass roots voice for smokers' rights. We intend to link these "captains" to local, state and ultimately a national rights organization. Once the national organization is established and funded, we will spin the Smokers Newsletters into it and create a self-sustaining membership organization similar to the National Rifle Association.at Page 123
The tobacco industry also found common ground with the NRA as an organization that supported a controversial, yet legal product. A Tobacco Institute strategy document states industry strategy to
Identify large, influential groups concerned with freedom of expression and other Constitutional "rights" (e. g. the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment, groups opposed to polygraph tests and the Fifth Amendment,minority groups and the 14th Amendment, etc.) and encourage their support for consistent and fair application of Constitutional protection for legal products and practices.[1]
I have many friends who work in the industry, in fact I had a long conversation with my best friend whom happens to be a design engineer at one of the big gun makers.
I asked him if he was a member. He said well yeah, no. What he said he ment was the company paid his dues and made a sizable contribution on his behalf. I asked did he have a choice he said well they just did it??
He sounded upset to be honest not mad but not thrilled about being a member nor someone giving money on his behalf. He said I'm a dad to I want my kids safe??
I dropped the conversation but it has certain odor to it, doesn't it???
BTTB
BTTB
AKA Upbeat Dawg
Can't believe I am in a group that is comprised of the best NOT just fans but people on the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
Do Assault Weapons Sales Pay NRA Salaries? http://factcheck.org/2013/01/do-assault-weapons-sales-pay-nra-salaries/ A Connecticut Democrat didn’t get his facts straight when he claimed NRA executives “pay their salaries” by taking “a cut” of assault weapons sales. In arguing that the NRA “represents gun manufacturers” and not “gun owners anymore,” Sen. Christopher Murphy discounted NRA membership dues as “less than half” of NRA funding and instead elaborated on how the NRA makes “tens of millions of dollars off of the purchases of guns.” He said, “They pay their salaries off of these gun purchases.” But gun customers voluntarily decide if they want to contribute to NRA organizations when they purchase a gun, just as they voluntarily decide to join the NRA and pay dues. And much of the contributions made during gun sales is used to fund community programs, such as gun safety, law enforcement training and hunter education — not salaries. Murphy, a freshman senator who replaced retired Sen. Joe Lieberman, made his remarks on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Murphy, Jan. 13: The fact is that the NRA does not represent gun owners anymore. This is not your father’s NRA. It represents gun manufacturers. Less than half of their funding comes from their members, and they make tens of millions of dollars off of the purchases of guns. But what your guest didn’t tell you is that every time — not every time, but when assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are bought in this country, often the NRA gets a cut of those sales through its round-up purchase program, where the purchase price is rounded up to the nearest dollar, and the NRA gets the difference. The NRA makes money. They pay their salaries off of these gun purchases. That is who they are representing in this debate. The NRA Foundation and the NRA Institute of Legislative Action each operate separate fundraising programs that allow gun customers at participating gun stores to “round up” the purchase price to the nearest dollar as a contribution. Some customers may be asked instead, depending on the company making the sale, to “add a buck for shooting’s future” — much in the same way that some food stores ask for small donations to fight cancer or hunger when customers check out. Let’s first look at the NRA Foundation, which provides grants for gun-related training and education programs. The foundation calls its program “Shooting for the Future,” and it includes 20 participating retail companies. The foundation says the money donated by gun customers goes “to support firearms safety education, wildlife conservation and other firearms related public service programs via The NRA Foundation.” Without being specific, the foundation says that “millions of dollars have been raised in this manner.” The NRA Foundation’s 990 form filed with the IRS for 2010 shows it raised nearly $23.4 million in total revenue and provided more than 2,200 in grants for community programs for hunters, competitive shooters, gun collectors, law enforcement, and women and youth groups, including the Boy Scouts and 4-H clubs. In all, $21.2 million went for grants — most of it (nearly $12.6 million) to the NRA itself for “[e]ducation, training, range development, youth programs, [and] equipment,” while the rest went to the community programs and groups. The NRA Foundation has no staff and pays no salaries. The NRA-ILA, which is the lobbying arm of the NRA, operates a “round-up” program with fewer participating companies, although it has been in existence for longer. Its program was the brainchild of gun store owner Larry Potterfield, the founder and CEO of Midway USA in Missouri. In a video on his website, Potterfield says he started the program in 1992 and the money raised from his customers goes into the “Endowment for the Protection of the Second Amendment.” A few other companies have since joined the program, but Midway customers are still the largest contributors by far. In a Dec. 7, 2012, press release, the company said its customers have donated $7.6 million to the NRA lobbying group since 1992. The program has a balance of nearly $9.5 million, including contributions from gun customers at other stores, the press release says. Potterfield says very little of that money has been spent to date. In his video, he says the NRA-ILA spends just 5 percent of the fund’s balance each year “to fight anti-gun legislation,” allowing the endowment fund to grow each year. The National Rifle Association of America, on the other hand, reported $227.8 million in revenues in 2010 — nearly half of which came from member dues ($100.5 million) and program fees ($6.6 million). This is not to say that the NRA does not benefit from gun sales. It does. Not only does it receive contributions from willing gun customers at the point of purchase, but gun manufacturers are major contributors to the NRA. Smith & Wesson in May became a member of the NRA’s “Golden Ring of Freedom,” which is for donors who contribute more than $1 million. In 2008, the Beretta Group — another “Golden Ring of Freedom” member — exceeded $2 million in donations. In one case, the gun manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Company tied its donations directly to gun sales in a program called the “Million Gun Challenge.” According to an April 2012 press release, Ruger promised to donate $1 to the NRA-ILA for each gun it sold over the course of a year, from May 2011 to May 2012. The “Million Gun Challenge” exceeded its goal and raised $1.25 million. Murphy would have been on safer ground to cite the “Million Gun Challenge” as an example to support his claims about the NRA, rather than “round-up” programs that are funded by gun customers and help support community programs. – Eugene Kiely
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,023
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,023 |
Quote:
Quote:
Once again, if we get to the point (and you touched on this above) that our government is turning against it's citizens in an armed fashion, your freaking pop gun is not gonna save you or me.
If the US Government decided it wanted to kill americans, to attack our towns and cities,, all the weapons ordinary folks have in storage will do no good. they'd run over us like a big foot on an anthill.
Again Daman, this is typically NOT how governments go when they get out of control.. because with governments run amok, its not about killing its citizens, it is totally about control... and an unarmed populace is much easier to control.
Call me crazy but if our government decided to go into a town and begin exterminating people, I believe that the other 300 million people and 80 million guns in this country could inflict quite a bit of damage on that government..
Is somebody with this gun going to win a one-on-one battle with a tank? No, probably not... but is that the most likely scenario in which this gun would need to be used? No, it's definitely not...
If your preference, in a worst case scenario like you described, is to walk obediently to the gas chamber or sit patiently and wait for your house to be blown up by a tank, then that is your prerogative... but if other people want to fight, even if you consider it futile, then why should you take that opportunity away from them?
great, that's not how they'd do it,, OK then tell me what you having an assault rifle will do against the Government as someone else eluded to. If you think they won't pull a tank up to your house, then you need to read about Ruby Ridge. (actually, I don't think it was a tank, I think it was some cannons) But either way, your pop gun is worthless in that fight.
Look, folks I really don't have a problem with gun ownership., myself I don't feel the need, not my thing, I like cars. But that's just a choice.
But there are somethings that are just not defendable. 900 hp cars for street use? someone explain that to me.
Ok, it's legal,,again what's the value. I'm a car guy and I don't get it.
.
But a 900 hp car, driven into a school, theatre or mall and then set on fire so it explodes, isn't really any less a weapon then a Hugo with box of TNT in the trunk and driven (it will be lots slower) into one of those facilities.
An Assault rifle however, that's a whole different story,..
I'm sure someone will tell me I'm nuts, but you won't convince me I am.
like I said, own them if you want.. if you are responsible, I have no issue with you.
But the responsible parties aren't the problem. Never have been.
we need to stop those that aren't responsible from owning them so I'm all for expanding background checks. And damn it, if you want one that bad, then you can pay the cost of the background check which I can tell you, ain't cheap.
I have to believe that the NRA wouldn't disagree with whatever efforts were taken to assure responsible ownership. Of course, if they did, you'd have to wonder a little about their motives and who's funding them.
I've put some thought into this, I don't believe there is any way to ban a weapon or mag or clip. I don't see a way to make it stick. People that have them, will hide and keep them. Those that don't will find a black market way of getting them.
So banning them is kinda worthless.
The problem is in the heads of Americans. We've allowed our belief systems, our integrity, our values to just erode. We've taken away the things that caused us to think about right and wrong; we've allowed things to exist without regard to how it effects our childrens perspective and sense of reality.
So here are some simple things I believe in.
I believe in school prayer
I believe that video games have a negative effect on kids ( you youngsters can argue that all you want,, I don't give a damn what you have to say until you've lived a while longer)
I believe in parental guidence (not relying on teachers to give life lessons)
I believe in the second amendment (but I don't have a problem with adjusting it to fit the times)
And most important, I believe I want to be able to own a gun if I want one But I don't think the right to own a gun should replace common sense.
Bottom line, all you folks that want to beat on me just because I don't see a need for assault weapons need to step up and tell me why you need one. why it's so freaking important to you.
I want a new 880HP Mustang Super Cobra for 100K,, but I don't need one. If they banned that car, I"d think it was stupid, but it wouldn't change my life.
But,,,, here's the deal for those that want assault rifles to defend themselves against the government,, Trust me on this, you got a better chance of surviving in a an 880HP Super Cobra, then you do standing up to a tank with an assualt rifle.
At least with the Cobra, you'd be outta range in a heartbeat LOL Give me a little room and with that much power, I'd be able to make them look silly trying to hit me.
anyway, go on and fight about how you need to defend assault rifles if you must and tell me that we don't need expanded background checks if you want.
I'll just sit back and think of you all when another school shooting takes place.. and it will. Then I'll ask you to stand in front of those parents that lost kids and plead your case directly to their faces.
that's if you got the guts to do that. It's real easy to sit here, hidden behind a wall, say what you want, But look into the eyes of one of those parents that lost a child and tell them why it's important to preserve the right to own assault weapon and big clips or mags or whatever the hell they are called..
Go to Sandy Hook, stand in front of those parents that lost children and tell them that.
I'll sit back and watch as they exercise their RIGHTS to kick your butt out of the building and into the street.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
Ruby Ridge was one guy in a house. And it was fbi agent snipers. And there was hoopla about whether the agents were even allowed to use deadly force.
If there was a civil war, it would be the military, and some large number of citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
Yep. Ruby Ridge involved the family of Randy Weaver. His teenage son was shot in the back and killed by a US Marshall, and his friend and wife or daughter (while holding a baby) were shot and killed by FBI snipers. I don't know where Daman came up with tanks and cannons.....maybe he confused Ruby Ridge with Waco.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
They didnt use cannons at waco either. It was a seige. They did use a heavy armored vehicle or a tank or something to poke a hole in the compound, not to shoot it. That ended as a mass suicide.
Sorry, i worked for the fbi during this time period.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
I've been reading this thread for a while and commented a few times. I was never into guns until about 3 or so years ago. The only thing I'd shot in my life was a .410 shotgun pheasant hunting when I was 14 or 15. Then I saw the direction the country was headed in and decided I didn't want to be caught in a predicament where I said "I wish I would have bought that gun". Since that day, I've accumulated a nice collection of rifles, shotguns, and handguns along with corresponding ammo. I to am VERY into cars. I have my AC Cobra replica along with a '93 Mustang Cobra that, when operational, puts about 900hp to the rear tires. I drive it on the street sometimes as well because it is fun. I also shoot guns because I found that to be very fun as well. Plus it offers me a piece of mind - whether it is a false sense of security, who knows. I just like the thought that if I need to protect myself I can. Quote:
great, that's not how they'd do it,, OK then tell me what you having an assault rifle will do against the Government as someone else eluded to. If you think they won't pull a tank up to your house, then you need to read about Ruby Ridge. (actually, I don't think it was a tank, I think it was some cannons) But either way, your pop gun is worthless in that fight.
Don't know, but I'd go down fighting if it ever came to that. And I believe there would be MILLIONS of others who would as well.
Quote:
Look, folks I really don't have a problem with gun ownership., myself I don't feel the need, not my thing, I like cars. But that's just a choice.
But there are somethings that are just not defendable. 900 hp cars for street use? someone explain that to me.
Ok, it's legal,,again what's the value. I'm a car guy and I don't get it.
Maybe it is fun to say you've got a car that you've actually been able to make somewhat drivable with that much power? There are even competitions for stuff like that - True Street where you go on a 50 mile cruise and then run a 1/4 mile. Building a car that can run 50 miles and then go sub-9 seconds in the 1/4 is impressive as hell.
.
Quote:
But a 900 hp car, driven into a school, theatre or mall and then set on fire so it explodes, isn't really any less a weapon then a Hugo with box of TNT in the trunk and driven (it will be lots slower) into one of those facilities.
An Assault rifle however, that's a whole different story,..
Of course it is. A car isn't designed to kill things. It can, but that is not its intent. Guns are designed to kill things. Is that an issue? As long as the gun owner is responsible no.
Quote:
I'm sure someone will tell me I'm nuts, but you won't convince me I am.
like I said, own them if you want.. if you are responsible, I have no issue with you.
But the responsible parties aren't the problem. Never have been.
And no amount of legislation will fix the problem that bad people will get guns no matter what.
Quote:
we need to stop those that aren't responsible from owning them so I'm all for expanding background checks. And damn it, if you want one that bad, then you can pay the cost of the background check which I can tell you, ain't cheap.
I'm OK with that. They already do a background check, but using an expanded one through LexisNexis or something like that would be fine by me.
Quote:
I have to believe that the NRA wouldn't disagree with whatever efforts were taken to assure responsible ownership. Of course, if they did, you'd have to wonder a little about their motives and who's funding them.
I've put some thought into this, I don't believe there is any way to ban a weapon or mag or clip. I don't see a way to make it stick. People that have them, will hide and keep them. Those that don't will find a black market way of getting them.
So banning them is kinda worthless.
Just like the banning of certain types of weapons will not affect bad people getting a hold of them.
Quote:
The problem is in the heads of Americans. We've allowed our belief systems, our integrity, our values to just erode. We've taken away the things that caused us to think about right and wrong; we've allowed things to exist without regard to how it effects our childrens perspective and sense of reality.
I don't disagree with that at all. I'm scared to death for what my son is going to have to deal with when he grows up.
Quote:
So here are some simple things I believe in.
I believe in school prayer
Me to, but don't force it. My sons class still says the Pledge of Allegiance every morning with "one nation under God" still in it. If someone doesn't want to do it because it is against their beliefs, fine. But I have no problem with it being a part of school.
Quote:
I believe that video games have a negative effect on kids ( you youngsters can argue that all you want,, I don't give a damn what you have to say until you've lived a while longer)
I'm 41 and I'm torn on this. I think a lot of it has to do with parents letting their kids play games 24/7 and using it as a babysitter. I am not a gamer as I program computers 10-15 hours per day and do not want to use them to do anything but make money. And post on DawgTalkers  .
Quote:
I believe in parental guidence (not relying on teachers to give life lessons)
Absolutely!
Quote:
I believe in the second amendment (but I don't have a problem with adjusting it to fit the times)
Adjusting it for the sake of adjusting it because it is the PC "flavor of the month" is what I have a problem with. No adjustment will make a difference to what is happening IMO.
Quote:
And most important, I believe I want to be able to own a gun if I want one But I don't think the right to own a gun should replace common sense.
Not sure I follow that statement.
Quote:
Bottom line, all you folks that want to beat on me just because I don't see a need for assault weapons need to step up and tell me why you need one. why it's so freaking important to you.
Protection. Plain and simple. And they are VERY fun to shoot. I really don't even mine available to me for instant protection - I have a shotgun and 9mm upstairs (both in safes) for quick access. The AR and others are in a large safe bolted to my floor.
Quote:
I want a new 880HP Mustang Super Cobra for 100K,, but I don't need one. If they banned that car, I"d think it was stupid, but it wouldn't change my life.
I'd be pissed if they banned fast cars, though not as much since it isn't part of our constitution.
But,,,, here's the deal for those that want assault rifles to defend themselves against the government,, Trust me on this, you got a better chance of surviving in a an 880HP Super Cobra, then you do standing up to a tank with an assualt rifle.
Quote:
At least with the Cobra, you'd be outta range in a heartbeat LOL Give me a little room and with that much power, I'd be able to make them look silly trying to hit me.
anyway, go on and fight about how you need to defend assault rifles if you must and tell me that we don't need expanded background checks if you want.
I'll just sit back and think of you all when another school shooting takes place.. and it will. Then I'll ask you to stand in front of those parents that lost kids and plead your case directly to their faces.
Of course it will. And it will regardless of any bans put into place. Again, I have no problem with expanded background checks. It still would not have stopped the shooting at Sandy Hook. That is the point. Bad guys are going to get guns and we are going to punish the good guys because of it. Nonsense.
Quote:
that's if you got the guts to do that. It's real easy to sit here, hidden behind a wall, say what you want, But look into the eyes of one of those parents that lost a child and tell them why it's important to preserve the right to own assault weapon and big clips or mags or whatever the hell they are called..
I'd know it wasn't the guns fault, or the availability of the gun. It is the psycho that used it. I guarantee you that not all of the parents of children who were lost in that massacre are for banning assault rifles. I wouldn't be if I lost my son. I'd know it wasn't the gun, but the psycho behind it. And I have thought long and hard about this. Bad guys are everywhere, and it is the due to some of lost values that you eluded to above that are leading to that IMO.
Quote:
Go to Sandy Hook, stand in front of those parents that lost children and tell them that.
I'll sit back and watch as they exercise their RIGHTS to kick your butt out of the building and into the street.
It would be their rights. But again, I'd be willing to bet that not all of those parents are for banning these weapons. It will do not good.
Sheesh - that might be my longest post ever.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
I agree.
I feel like gun control is not even remotely the issue. It is just being used to pander to the public that something is being done.
When in all reality the actual problem is not being addressed, which is the teens and young adults who feel so ostracized from society for whatever reason, mental health or other.....that they feel the only way out is mass murder and to end it all. These are kids lost in the cracks, and nothing is being done to help them and their parents.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
I agree.
I feel like gun control is not even remotely the issue. It is just being used to pander to the public that something is being done.
When in all reality the actual problem is not being addressed, which is the teens and young adults who feel so ostracized from society for whatever reason, mental health or other.....that they feel the only way out is mass murder and to end it all. These are kids lost in the cracks, and nothing is being done to help them and their parents.
Exactly. Never let a good crisis go to waste is how the government works. In these days of instant gratification and instant "news" people jump to conclusions without thinking IMO. I agree with you that there are way too many children who have somehow lost their way. The don't all necessarily come from bad families either. This is where we need to be concentrating our efforts of solving the problem, if it is even solvable at all. Crazy people have existed since the beginning of time - maybe we just hear about them more now because of all of the connectivity we have.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,531
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,531 |
I wonder how many of these kids who snap like this come from broken homes, and how many come from 2 parent homes?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
I wonder how many of these kids who snap like this come from broken homes, and how many come from 2 parent homes?
I often roll my eyes when people blame things on the glorification of violence in the media...
...but there's a far more valid point to be made there than the 'did they have 2 parents?' argument.
If you want to go through the history of monstrous acts, you're not likely to find a correlation between one or two parent upbringings.
One caring mother or father can make all the difference ... or mean nothing. The family structure means little, really.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
I'd be willing to bet its a pretty big statistical difference actually.
Two parent families (can't believe I have to spell this out...but man and woman) raise better kids than the vast majority of other parenting situations IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,531
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,531 |
2 parent families tend to provide more supervision for their children simply because both parents are there. I too find it amazing that this isn't evident to some people.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... A Discussion On Guns...
|
|
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
Epic fail. You asked why someone would want one of those weapons, and I compared it to other sports enthusiasts wanting the tools of their particular sport. You're ducking and dodging responses to every point you tried to make in this thread. What you've failed to answer is what right of yours is being violated by opposing this proposed legislation....as you've stated 3 times in this thread.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)