|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
Thanks man for posting this, I knew I read this somewhere before and great source as well. This goes back to what I said in my original post about the NRA, they have turned themselves into a lobby group for the gun industry, although their history is grounded in the gun hobbiest. I just think its important that people understand that when the NRA stands against new gun laws it has little to do with gun owners and everything to do with the gun industry. In fact most of the members are in favor of doing something about gun violence. Thanks for the read though, the bcakground info is important. 
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: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
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.
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 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 pulled a few statements from your post and I plan to answer them. Maybe you will see the need for "assault" weapons when I'm done.
First, there is no such thing as an 'assault' weapon. A weapon can be used for assault (think attack) or defense. The term has been made up by our government to demonize certain weapons. If I take a regular hunting rifle, remove the wood stock, add some neat looking balistic plastic, a different handle, a muzzle break, and some cool looking pointy stuff on the end, does it make it any more deadly than the original hunting rifle? A gun is a gun. The real differences are calibre, rate of fire, and rate of reload. A breach loading gun can kill the same person, it just takes longer to reload. The only real difference between an AR-15, 30.6, 9mm semiauto handgun, a Colt revolver, or a Katana sword are the intent of the weapon owner, as the results will all be the same. People will be dead if used against people. A lunatic can kill just as many innocent children with a sword as he can with a gun, it just might take him a few seconds longer.
This idea that my gun would not matter if the government put a tank on my front lawn is ridiculous. If the government puts a tank on my lawn, it's too late for all of us. If you don't join the rest of us in fighting that government, you deserve to be their slave, as that's all we will be.
The belief that we should charge gun owners excessively high fees (or any fees) for a backround check is what our government will try next. The idea is to make it too expensive to own a gun. If you don't believe they'll do that, consider that they are already trying to tax people to quit smoking, drinking, buying gas, and save energy in their homes. Do you really want only the rich or the government to have guns? This same type of thing happened in Germany in the early 1930s. They allowed only 'responsible' people to own guns. Eventually, the only 'responsible' people were members of the Nazi party. As the old saying goes, 'God made all men, Samual Colt made them equal'. Adjusting the 2nd Amemdment to 'fit the times' will just remove guns from those people not authorized by the government. This is the same thing the British did to the future Americans. The 2nd Amendment gives us all the right to protect ourselves as best we can against foreign invaders, domestic invaders, our government, their government, or the lunatic next door. It then becomes your choice if you will exercise your right or not.
As for a reason to own a gun (any type of gun), let's play with a hypothetic scenario that isn't too far from the truth. A storm is surging in the Atlantic, and it suddenly makes a left and hits the coastline where I live. As the storm unpredictably became a Cat5 hurricane right before it hit, there was no time for evacuations. The area I live in is devestated. There is no power, water, communications, or escape. The several bridge tunnels that are the only ways in or out of the area are either destroyed or filled with water. Power lines are down from the Richmond VA area all the way to the coast. The ports have been destroyed, and the landscape and seascape have changed enough that the shipping channels are gone. All perishable foods are gone within days, and the water supply has been contaminated. It will take years to recover this area. My family and I have managed to live through the storm, and I have prepared for this type of disaster over the years by keeping nonperishable food and a water supply. As our society in the area falls, and lawlessness has taken over, wouldn't you want the ability to defend yourself and your family? I sure as hell do. Ask someone in New Orleans, NJ, or NY about FEMA and government response to a crisis. In this situation, I would have to be armed to protect me and mine, and quite honestly, the greater the rate of fire and damage of the rounds, the better off I'd be.
It really doesn't matter if the disaster is a hurricane, tornado, ice or snow storm, EMP blast, alien invasion, sun spots, zombie appocolypse, or tyrannical government take over, I should and do have the right (and responsibilty) to protect myself and family as best I can. Also, given some recent history, I can deploy my weapon and protect myself within seconds, the police will show up in minutes, and the government will be there within days or weeks. Who do you want to count on in a crisis?
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
Quote:
Thanks man for posting this, I knew I read this somewhere before and great source as well...... I just think its important that people understand that when the NRA stands against new gun laws it has little to do with gun owners and everything to do with the gun industry.
I don't think you're referring to the article I posted if this is what you got from it. It was a factcheck.org review slamming a polititician for making a similar statement. It disproves your earlier claims that the NRA gets most of it's funding from firearms manufacturers. You're welcome, I guess.
Now, to the NRA. The NRA is a huge organization that lobbies to protect gun rights of everyone, from the manufacturers, to the dealers, to the collectors, to the citizen gunowners....all of whom contribute to their coffers to do just what they say they do. The gun control crowd tries to paint the pic that the little guy is lost in the shuffle, but that is not the case. The NRA has hundreds of programs and educational courses for the general public, several of which I've participated in. From what I've seen, the instructors are well trained and provide a quality learning experience. If you look at the numbers of participants in these programs and the money spent on them, there's no way you can call them a facade to protect a real motive that's ignorant of the concerns of the individual gun owner.
The NRA is a huge organization....huge because it represents the interests of an enormous segment of the population of this country. It isn't propped up by a small, wealthy few to control government policy....it's supported my millions of citizens. I don't agree with everything the NRA does, but they are out there fighting for my rights....more effectively than I could alone.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
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.
I can't believe you had to spell it out, either.
Rather ignorant statement.
And I'd be interested to see the rundown on these massacres and the families they came from.
Off the top of my head, I think the Columbine kids had two parents. The Aurora kid had two parents. Virginia Tech kid came from a two parent home.
I see no correlation between mass shootings and a single or two parent home.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
I heard today that the CT kid had tried to buy guns at a store 2 weeks ago, but his app was denied. It also stated that only 4 pistols were used...no AR. I saw it in a facebook news thing, so I dont have a credible source. Interesting if true.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
And I'd be interested to see the rundown on these massacres and the families they came from.
Off the top of my head, I think the Columbine kids had two parents. The Aurora kid had two parents. Virginia Tech kid came from a two parent home.
I see no correlation between mass shootings and a single or two parent home.
On these mass shootings you are probably correct, on crime in general I bet you will find a HUGE statistical advantage to having a 2 parent home... now a lot of that is probably socioeconomic because 2 parent homes tend to be better off financially, etc.. so it would take the introduction of more than one variable to really get a better understanding of the numbers...
As far as whether it's a mom/dad or a gay couple, I'm not sure there have been enough kids raised from infancy by a gay couple to make any statistical judgments... but I'd bet you would find very little difference between a gay couple and a straight couple... kids understand attention and love and understanding, they don't really care who gives it to them... and if they get it, they are more likely to give it...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
Hey man I think the numbers that are being thrown around in this piece spell out in detail where NRA funding comes from your saying this isn't true?
There is no ring of honor?
What is it you object too?
I'm not getting it this peice through the use of numbers seems to support the senators POV pretty well???
So just what is it you think is wrong with the piece?
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: 30,838
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,838 |
Quote:
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/
.
Apparently you missed my post earlier? You didn't miss it, you just chose to ignore it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
Quote:
Hey man I think the numbers that are being thrown around in this piece spell out in detail where NRA funding comes from your saying this isn't true?
There is no ring of honor?
What is it you object too?
I'm not getting it this peice through the use of numbers seems to support the senators POV pretty well???
So just what is it you think is wrong with the piece?
I don't think anything's wrong with the article, and didn't say as much. I object to the fact that the senator (as well as the media and others such as yourself) are stating that the gun manufactures supply the majority of the NRA's funding and that their policy and actions benefit those manufacturers, while disregarding the interests of individual gun owners. The fact is that the NRA supports manufacturers, dealers and millions of individual gun owners alike. Given the size of the organization, of course they're not going to please all members all the time and meet everyone's individual needs, but they "spread the wealth" in a fair manner.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,838
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,838 |
Quote:
Hey man I think the numbers that are being thrown around in this piece spell out in detail where NRA funding comes from your saying this isn't true?
There is no ring of honor?
What is it you object too?
I'm not getting it this peice through the use of numbers seems to support the senators POV pretty well???
So just what is it you think is wrong with the piece?
The more I read about nra funding, the further from the truth I think you are.
Check this out (from Jan 11, 2013 - the Huffington Post, no less)
"Among the gun industry heavyweights on the 76-seat NRA board are Ronnie Barrett, CEO of Tennessee-based Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, which makes a military-style rifle sold with high-capacity magazines. Pete Brownell, who heads Iowa-based Brownells Inc., another maker of high-capacity magazines, also sits on the NRA board.
These companies and other gun industry giants have ponied up big bucks to the NRA since 2005, according to a list of NRA corporate partners posted at its last convention.
For instance, Brownells is in an elite group of donors that have given between $1 million and $4.9 million since 2005. Barrett Firearms in the same period chipped in between $50,000 and $99,000.
Another notable donor is Freedom Group, which owns Bushmaster, the company that made the AR-15 military-style rifle used by Adam Lanza in his bloody assault on Sandy Hook. The Freedom Group has donated between $25,000 and $49,000 to the NRA’s corporate effort.
The NRA’s most generous gun industry backer is MidwayUSA, a distributor of high-capacity magazine clips, similar to ones that Lanza loaded into his Bushmaster rifle and Glock pistol. These clips increase the lethality of weapons by allowing dozens of shots to be fired before the shooter has to reload. According to its website, Midway has donated about $7.7 million to the NRA through another fundraising program that dates back to 1992. Under this program, customers who buy Midway products are asked to “round up” the price to the next dollar, with the company donating the difference to the NRA.
While the bond between the NRA and the gun industry has tightened, the NRA’s annual budget of about $250 million is still largely derived from other sources, including membership dues, merchandising and ads in NRA magazines. The magazines, though, are chock-full of gun industry ads."
Golly - Brownells - (a group) has given between $1 million and $4.9 million to the nra. SINCE 2005.
Barrett Firearms has chipped in "between $50,000 and $99,000"
Freedom Group - which owns Bushmaster - has donated a whopping "$25,000 - to $49,000"
Geez - they are going "ballistic" with their donations............remember, the nra, in 2010 or 2011 - had revenue of $228 million dollars.
Or how about Midway USA. They have donated to the nra about $7.7 million dollars. Since 1992, that is.
(I do like how, in the article, they describe Midway USA as a company that made the magazines that the Newtown shooter used..........and then they throw in the $7.7 million dollar donation thing........trying to obscure the fact that $7.7 million was donated over 20 years. Oh, by the way - that includes the "round up" program.)
Yup, even the Huffington Post concedes that the nra gets most of its funding from membership fees and dues.
The gun industry DID contribute a whopping $71 million to the nra in 2011........but in 2011, the nra received $250 million. I'm no math expert - but that percentage is a far cry from "most of their funding" comes from the gun industry.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656 |
Quote:
It also stated that only 4 pistols were used...no AR. I saw it in a facebook news thing, so I dont have a credible source. Interesting if true.
I saw the same thing. When I searched for it I found several blogs and tweets that said NBC news released the information, but I haven't found the story to cite a link.
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: 1,656
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,656 |
Found this, but that's all. It's from the Helena, MT Independent Record newspaper: http://helenair.com/news/opinion/readers...19bb2963f4.html
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: 43,035
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,035 |
I said what I said, those are my beliefs, I won't ask you or anyone else to agree or even like them..
#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: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
Quote:
I said what I said, those are my beliefs, I won't ask you or anyone else to agree or even like them..
...but you did ask him why he needed an assault weapon, and he answered you. Throughout this thread you're telling pro gun people that they're questioning and violating your rights and beliefs, yet all they're doing is answering the questions you ask. It's like you're trying to create a conflict where there is none.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
And this is where I guess we disagree the article clearly shows where the NRA is getting their money from sure they serve the interests of the Gun industry since most of their members (not you based on your post) favor stronger gun laws.... In conclusion are they serving the membership or the gun industry?  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 |
The only stronger gun laws NRA members want involve background checks. They don't favor any weapons bans, limits on magazines or other restrictions. This is what the media is referring to when it says "most NRA members favor stricter gun control": TheHill.com • 74 percent of NRA members support criminal background checks on all potential gun buyers — as opposed to current law, which requires background checks only on those who buy from licensed gun dealers; • 79 percent of NRA members back requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees; • 71 percent of NRA members would bar those on the FBI's terrorist watch-list from buying and owning guns; • 64 percent of NRA members support requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
Quote:
The only stronger gun laws NRA members want involve background checks. They don't favor any weapons bans, limits on magazines or other restrictions. This is what the media is referring to when it says "most NRA members favor stricter gun control":
TheHill.com
• 74 percent of NRA members support criminal background checks on all potential gun buyers — as opposed to current law, which requires background checks only on those who buy from licensed gun dealers;
• 79 percent of NRA members back requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees;
• 71 percent of NRA members would bar those on the FBI's terrorist watch-list from buying and owning guns;
• 64 percent of NRA members support requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms
To sum up they favor stronger gun laws? We agree, yet the NRA has consistantly stood against any changes to gun law.........
I actually do NOT support bans on assault weapons I do however support smaller magazines, its sensible IMO. I would add one wrinkle I would design the magazines to require the shooter to take longer to remove and replace the magazine.... You know reduce the damage a NUT JOB can do with the weapon but other then that I concure with the majority of NRA members....
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: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Here's the thing about bans....All it means is that it is illegal to buy or own something. (depending on the wording) But as we all can agree, criminals and people hell bent on destruction aren't exactly worried about breaking laws. So who does it really stop?
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 |
Yeah I have heard the argument of why try........
Mine is why not try and hope that it has an effect for sure we all should be able to agree what's going on now is not what anyone wants...
At the end of day I get a hopeless feeling too, but doing nothing and hoping doesn't appear to be the fix either. Not that I would do something just to say I tried, I think giving it time to take hold will over the long haul bring about the desired result.
If anyone is looking for instant results this may not be their cup of tea so to speak. It's a long haul kind of solution.
Nothing will end this in truth the goal is to slooooooooooooooooow it down..............Maybe instead of 11,000 gun deaths we see 5,500 in a few years that would be a huge improvement.........
JMHO
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: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Bans won't stop anything.
Look, if being draconian worked, I'd be all for it. But it doesn't work.
Look no further than drugs. We got harsher and harsher and harsher, and what was the result? Nada.
I'm all in favor of making it a more stringent to obtain a weapon, but bans will accomplish nada.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
The only thing I would ban is the high capacity magazines, I view it as sensible and reasonable. As for weapons bans they do work, I don't see machine guns being used in these shootings and they are _______________ (fill in the blank). I find the whole comparison to cars, planes, boats, bombs, and drugs childish.................... We are talking about guns and the negative impact they are having on our society, and what we can do about that issue. A car isn't a gun, and a gun isn't a car, nor drugs, nor planes, nor is doing away with large capacity magazines doing away with a gun of any type. It's limiting these weapons in a way that allows gun owners to have them but it cuts down on their ability to kill so many so fast......... It really is reasonable, and yup bans do work look at machine guns............. 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: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Bans won't stop anything.
Look, if being draconian worked, I'd be all for it. But it doesn't work.
Look no further than drugs. We got harsher and harsher and harsher, and what was the result? Nada.
Devils Advocate time... Look, any back woods country hick or city guy with electricity can grow pot... any any trailer park dweller with a little up front capital can buy the stuff to make crystal meth... similarly it takes minimal skill and technology to make cocaine, heroine, etc...
How many people can make an assault type weapon in the basement or grow one in the field? close to none... So while I get the analogy that making drugs illegal hasn't made them hard to find so why should we believe guns would be any different... I'm not sure that is exactly the same as guns.. unless you think that a black market would spring up not just to own and sell these guns to people who would be considered criminals, but also to make them.
Gun manufacturers make these guns because there is a legal market for them.. if it became illegal to buy and own them, would they still make them? Because if they wouldn't still make them, then law abiding citizens would turn theirs in and over time the ones that remained in circulation would get seized as criminals got caught, break down and become unusable, run out of ammunition (assuming that is no longer made either)... and it would take a while, but eventually even the criminals that wanted them wouldn't be able to find them...
[/devils advocate]
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
A car isn't a gun, and a gun isn't a car, nor drugs, nor planes, nor is doing away with large capacity magazines doing away with a gun of any type.
Your right about one thing, guns aren't any of those things, and just like those things, it takes a human being to make them dangerous, they are just inanimate objects complete inert in their existence.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
Quote:
Quote:
A car isn't a gun, and a gun isn't a car, nor drugs, nor planes, nor is doing away with large capacity magazines doing away with a gun of any type.
Your right about one thing, guns aren't any of those things, and just like those things, it takes a human being to make them dangerous, they are just inanimate objects complete inert in their existence.
Your right and gun laws are an attempt at reining in their abuse......That said guns are unique in they were basically designed for one purpose......
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: 43,035
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,035 |
Quote:
Quote:
I said what I said, those are my beliefs, I won't ask you or anyone else to agree or even like them..
...but you did ask him why he needed an assault weapon, and he answered you. Throughout this thread you're telling pro gun people that they're questioning and violating your rights and beliefs, yet all they're doing is answering the questions you ask. It's like you're trying to create a conflict where there is none.
the only right of mine that's really being violated is the right to my opinion.. you are one of the biggest culprits of that.
#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:
Your right about one thing, guns aren't any of those things, and just like those things, it takes a human being to make them dangerous, they are just inanimate objects complete inert in their existence.
A lot of things are like that but are still illegal to own or are at best highly regulated and controlled... You don't always base the laws on whether or not something can do damage just sitting there untouched, sometimes you base laws on the potential amount of damage something could do if used for the wrong reasons...
And this is just my opinion as a supporter of the 2nd amendment but not a real hardcore gun owner.. the pro-gun group really needs to get a little more creative in its talking points. The argument that cars kill people but we don't ban cars is old and its stale and it's not influencing anybody that is sort of in the middle on the issue.... because they don't see how background checks or registration or limiting magazine size is denying you your right to own whatever it is you want to own... likewise the argument that a gun is inanimate and can't hurt anybody unless used by a person is also losing traction with bigger percentages of the American people..... in short, the anti-gun crowd is winning the battle of public opinion because all they have to do is show the carnage that happened because the wrong person was in possession of the guns.. and they are convincing more and more people that something needs to be done.. whether or not what is done will actually fix the problem is irrelevant, a lot of people just want to feel like something is being done... So the NRA and those of like mind really need to rethink how they shape the debate and how they present their points or they are eventually going to lose... not because that's what is right, but because they are losing the PR battle...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I said what I said, those are my beliefs, I won't ask you or anyone else to agree or even like them..
...but you did ask him why he needed an assault weapon, and he answered you. Throughout this thread you're telling pro gun people that they're questioning and violating your rights and beliefs, yet all they're doing is answering the questions you ask. It's like you're trying to create a conflict where there is none.
the only right of mine that's really being violated is the right to my opinion.. you are one of the biggest culprits of that.
First of all, you have a problem with a responsible citizen like me exercising my right to keep and bear arms. You have even stated you didn't understand 'why' I needed those rights or ability to own certain arms. I've explained it several times. You believe your right to security, of which there is none in our laws, trumps my right to security in your opinion. This is evident as you're against certain guns and magazines. Following that, you want the government to break the law and impose new laws and regulations in an attempt to circumvent the Constitution. In you're opinion, you think that's a right. If you really want to change the 2nd Amendment or remove it, you should start a coalition to do it properly. Get an amendment to the Constitution. Other than that, you're opinion should stay off my Constitutional rights. They are all there to tell the government what it can't do to us, because all governments become corrupt and a burden to their people. Our founders were trying to let us rule ourselves, instead of letting 1 man make decisions for us all.
You have also had more than plenty of opportunity to express your opinion. No one has stepped on your right to free speech. We are trying to convince you of the truth, that if the government is able to remove our right to keep and bear arms, what's to stop them from taking your right to free speech? They are already working on that with their 'hate crime' laws and political correctness. We've already lost the 4th Amendment (search and seisure) in places like NYC, where you can be stopped and searched anywhere. If we lose the 2nd Amendment, we have no way of stopping them from taking away the rest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
Quote:
the only right of mine that's really being violated is the right to my opinion.. you are one of the biggest culprits of that.
I'm sorry for violating your right to have or express an opinion. Oh wait, I didn't do that. 
You did say that we violated one of your rights, but you never would identify it....was it actually a fictitious right to security as Erik identified? Or was it something else?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,530 |
DC you raise some great points about the PR battle.
The main reason they are losing the PR battle is due to the lack of logic, and reason.
If you have NUT JOBS shooting up schools, theatres and malls you react to that.
You look at what caused it, in these cases mental illness and access to guns.
And you begin the process of closing the doors on what brought you to this point, through the use of logic and reason.
Cars seems to be a favorite comparison. But cars have to pass safety inspections and the driver has to pass a written test and road test to drive an automobile, the occupants of a car are required to wear safety belts and small children are required to be placed in specially designed seats to insure or attempt to insure their safety. We have speed limits guard rails traffic lights and rules of the road. We address auto safety when it becomes clear that current laws don’t address the needs of public safety.
Then they move onto the 2nd amendment. A law that was written 200+ years ago. They kept slaves back then too. Point being they weren't always right. Yes, more often then not they did a great job.
But at the time (1791) when the 2nd amendment was written we didn't have a real standing army, and so they said the citizens at that time had the right to bear arms. In fact it was expected if you were a man during that time you would have a gun. There were wild Indians and the country was mostly wild with no police, and no ability to contact the police. It was a lawless time. And so the right to bear arms was adopted.
And at the time the musket was the weapon of the day. There were no thermo nuclear weapons, no F16 fighters, no Abrams tanks, no ships that could hurl a VW 50 miles, if you had a musket you were on equal footing with any army that no longer holds true. The idea that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government is ridiculous.
What the pro gun lobby is trying to do is say that their gun ownership insures our freedom. It does no such thing if it was all that there was standing between us and the government we are done. A guy showing up at the seen of a battle in today’s world sporting an AR-15 semi-auto against the weapons our own government has would be a kin to showing up at the OK coral with a squirt gun.......The people at the scene of the battle would probably laugh themselves to death.
Anyone that thinks by having a gun they can defend themselves against these weapons systems is doing only one thing. Committing suicide and it ends right there.
That leaves 2 viable reasons to own these weapons, for the love of it. And for self protection. Both valid reasons BTW. But don’t compare cars to guns and don't tell me you’re going to defend yourself against the government the idea strikes me as being insane.
Bring logic and reason to your argument, not this nonsense about matches and lighters; you make yourself look loony when you sport that as your reasons why guns should be left alone.
Try 1st being honest with yourself then try being honest with the rest of us. But screaming at me about your 2nd amendment rights makes me think your nutso. You’re NOT going to defend yourself against real battlefield weapons with your squirt guns, show you have the ability to think and reason, so far I haven’t heard much beyond self protection.
And that DC this is why the pro gun movement is losing the PR battle………………..
JMHO
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: 4,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,480 |
Quote:
Bring logic and reason to your argument, not this nonsense about matches and lighters; you make yourself look loony when you sport that as your reasons why guns should be left alone.
The great thing about logic and reason is that each person can have a different way of implementing said logic and reason. Call me loony, and of course the lighters were a joke, but the only real reason "assault rifles" are in the crosshairs of the anti-gun folks is that they look mean and nasty. My concern is what they come up with as a definition of "assault rifles". To me, hand guns are much more dangerous than any rifle or shotgun. They are small, hold 15-17 bullets depending on caliber, and are easy to carry.
I'm with Erik - if you don't want to protect yourself, that is fine with me. Don't come knocking on my door if the city, state, country, or world goes to hell. I like my chances armed vs. unarmed. I like my 30 round magazine. I've loaded up on as many as I could find just in case they do overreact and ban them.
This is one of those arguments, like anything in politics, where no one is going to sway the other side. This country is so divided we don't stand a chance IMO. I'm OK with a more thorough background check, but I don't think it will do any good as the background check already has proven to stop people from buying guns that shouldn't be.
The logic that I use is that there are always going to be crazy, loony, bad, evil people. I just want to be able to protect myself from them. Most of those types have obtained their weapons illegally already, so no law is going to stop crazy people. That is my logic and reason, and I'm sure you'll rip it apart.
The interesting thing is that most people that say you don't need that probably have never shot a gun in their life. Some senator in VA a few weeks ago brought an AK-47 into session and started waiving it around with his finger on the trigger! He said "I knew it was not loaded" - doesn't matter you moron, you always treat a gun as if it were loaded, and you certainly do not start waving it around in a room full of people. Ugh.
Anyhow, using a handgun or rifle, even at close range, it is pretty difficult to hit a target; add in an event where you are under duress and it only makes it harder. I'd like to not run out of ammo, and a larger capacity magazine is the best solution for that. I know I'm not going to sway you just as you are not going to sway me, and that's OK. I've got my weapons, though I'm going to buy a few more soon, so as long as they don't come knocking on the door which I highly doubt will ever happen, I'll rest easy at night.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
...limiting magazine size ..
Has anyone proposed a limit yet? What do they consider high capacity? Serious question, because I don't think I've read anything that said what this is.
I don't think anyone would put up much of a fight for better background checks and the like. That isn't what we are agruing, and that is not usually the anti-gun arguement, they throw the word "ban" around frequently. Banning things tends to be permanent or very difficult to change down the road. It should be an absolute last resort, and I'm talking for anything, not just guns.
First and foremost, they need a nationally accessible database of people who should not have weapons, and it should be maintained properly. The current system is laughable. With all the technology and information we have at our finger tips, it is amazing that someone could be charged for a felony and it takes months, years if ever to get into a system that is accessible by any state.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,147 |
Quote:
Then they move onto the 2nd amendment. A law that was written 200+ years ago. They kept slaves back then too. Point being they weren't always right. Yes, more often then not they did a great job.
Slave ownership wasn't deemed an inalienable right...using that analogy is worse than the "car vs. gun" used by the other side.
Quote:
But at the time (1791) when the 2nd amendment was written we didn't have a real standing army, and so they said the citizens at that time had the right to bear arms. In fact it was expected if you were a man during that time you would have a gun.
You're misinterpreting. The right to bear arms was considered by the forefathers to be an inalienable right....one which already existed. 2A just states that the right will not be infringed. It wasn't a new right granted for the purpose of maintaining a militia, as most anti-gun folks would want you to believe.
Quote:
There were wild Indians and the country was mostly wild with no police, and no ability to contact the police. It was a lawless time. And so the right to bear arms was adopted.
And now we have gangbangers, home invasions and bath salts. Situations are lawless until the police arrive, usually just in time to put up the yellow tape and draw the chalk lines. Like I said, the right to bear arms was considered inalienable....not something "adopted" for this reason.
Quote:
And at the time the musket was the weapon of the day. There were no thermo nuclear weapons, no F16 fighters, no Abrams tanks, no ships that could hurl a VW 50 miles, if you had a musket you were on equal footing with any army that no longer holds true. The idea that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government is ridiculous.
What the pro gun lobby is trying to do is say that their gun ownership insures our freedom. It does no such thing if it was all that there was standing between us and the government we are done. A guy showing up at the seen of a battle in today’s world sporting an AR-15 semi-auto against the weapons our own government has would be a kin to showing up at the OK coral with a squirt gun.......The people at the scene of the battle would probably laugh themselves to death.
Anyone that thinks by having a gun they can defend themselves against these weapons systems is doing only one thing. Committing suicide and it ends right there.
There were cannons and artillery available at the time. Personal weapons can and will stop tyranny. In the situation you describe, you're assuming that law enforcement and the military will choose the side of the government ordering them to fire upon their own citizens. I think some will and some won't. The armed citizen has more of a fighting chance than you might think.
Quote:
That leaves 2 viable reasons to own these weapons, for the love of it. And for self protection. Both valid reasons BTW. But don’t compare cars to guns and don't tell me you’re going to defend yourself against the government the idea strikes me as being insane.
Bring logic and reason to your argument, not this nonsense about matches and lighters; you make yourself look loony when you sport that as your reasons why guns should be left alone.
Try 1st being honest with yourself then try being honest with the rest of us. But screaming at me about your 2nd amendment rights makes me think your nutso. You’re NOT going to defend yourself against real battlefield weapons with your squirt guns, show you have the ability to think and reason, so far I haven’t heard much beyond self protection.
And that DC this is why the pro gun movement is losing the PR battle………………..
A lot of people are bringing logic and reason into this debate, but as with most sensitive issues....people only want to hear things that support their side while pointing out the most ridiculous selling points of the other side, as if they're the main premise of their argument.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
And at the time the musket was the weapon of the day. There were no thermo nuclear weapons, no F16 fighters, no Abrams tanks, no ships that could hurl a VW 50 miles, if you had a musket you were on equal footing with any army that no longer holds true. The idea that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government is ridiculous.
While I agree that is insane, I totally disagree with your premise... if you study history, governments don't wake up one day and decide to take tanks into the streets and randomly take out neighborhoods with F-15s... they just don't. Government tyranny begins by convincing as many people as possible that what you are doing is in the best interest of the country, that certain elements of people are bad, first you watch them, then you start arresting them, etc... the ones who fall for this would typically be considered moderates in our current lexicon, moderates who are not real well informed about politics, don't really have strong convictions about most things and think that we should all just get along and everything can be solved through compromise.... then once they have convinced as many as possible they start cracking down on the rest... and they can't roll out the Abrams tanks and start lobbing rounds from sea and blowing up neighborhoods because something that drastic would alienate even the most passive moderate... they will start round people up quietly... then not so quietly... it will be much more like a police action than a combat zone.... and the people don't have to win.. as in gain an unconditional surrender, they just have to outlast... look at how a bunch of ill prepared rebels fended off the powerful Soviet Army in Afghanistan years ago, the Soviets had fighter jets and tanks and all that and the rebels had none of it... Look at how much damage insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan did the mighty US military because the military didn't want to be callous and risk killing innocent people... I think even a tyrannical government would operate much the same way, at least at first...
I think you discount how much damage a reasonably large well armed group of people can do if they are fighting for and defending something that they truly love.... even against superior fire power..
We have about 1.5 million active personnel and 1.5 million reserves.. now let's assume that all of them stayed loyal during this tyrannical transformation (which is highly unlikely).. that's 3 million men and women mostly with guns similar to the ones people want to outlaw, then throw in some law enforcement who might be on board with it, etc...... now if 150 million people with guns rose up against them... I don't really give a crap if they have tanks and F-15s, the people are going to win..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,838
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,838 |
Quote:
Quote:
...limiting magazine size ..
Has anyone proposed a limit yet? What do they consider high capacity? Serious question, because I don't think I've read anything that said what this is..
Feinstein's bill puts a limit of 10 rounds. You have a handgun that holds more than 10 rounds? It cannot be produced anymore, under her bill. If you own one, that's fine. You would have to pay the fed's $200 to register it. You could own it for as long as you live, but upon your death, your estate must forfeit it to the gov't. (same with any other gun that has capacity of over 10 rounds, as well as 158 other rifles.......unless it is a tube fed .22)
So, yes, a 10 round capacity has been mentioned as the "top"......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
Feinstein's bill puts a limit of 10 rounds. You have a handgun that holds more than 10 rounds? It cannot be produced anymore, under her bill. If you own one, that's fine. You would have to pay the fed's $200 to register it. You could own it for as long as you live, but upon your death, your estate must forfeit it to the gov't. (same with any other gun that has capacity of over 10 rounds, as well as 158 other rifles.......unless it is a tube fed .22)
So, yes, a 10 round capacity has been mentioned as the "top"......
I love this idiotic ruling. So, the lunatic school shooter will have to carry more mags with them, instead of not needing a reload. Does anyone know how long it takes to change a magazine? I'd say a good shooter will only lose 2-3 trigger pulls (2-3 seconds) to eject and replace a magazine. A really good shooter will reload in a second. So, Diane Feinstein just made some lunatic wear a magazine belt. Great law.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,838
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,838 |
Quote:
Quote:
Feinstein's bill puts a limit of 10 rounds. You have a handgun that holds more than 10 rounds? It cannot be produced anymore, under her bill. If you own one, that's fine. You would have to pay the fed's $200 to register it. You could own it for as long as you live, but upon your death, your estate must forfeit it to the gov't. (same with any other gun that has capacity of over 10 rounds, as well as 158 other rifles.......unless it is a tube fed .22)
So, yes, a 10 round capacity has been mentioned as the "top"......
I love this idiotic ruling. So, the lunatic school shooter will have to carry more mags with them, instead of not needing a reload. Does anyone know how long it takes to change a magazine? I'd say a good shooter will only lose 2-3 trigger pulls (2-3 seconds) to eject and replace a magazine. A really good shooter will reload in a second. So, Diane Feinstein just made some lunatic wear a magazine belt. Great law.
When you add in the fact that many of these shooters don't empty a mag before they re-load, it is just stupid.
However, feinsteins bill has not become a law - but honesty, for anyone that knows anything about guns, her bill would do nothing to stop anything. BUT, it would raise $200 per "assault weapon".
That is money our gov't will spend wisely..................what's that you say? Oh, yeah, it's not about protecting people, it's about taxing people. All the while exempting the very people that make the laws. Convenient.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
My Sig 9mm is 15, my Glock .40 is 13. Guess I'll be an outlaw.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,838
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,838 |
I agree. The gun ban/gun limit people go 2 ways in their discussion.........and one of them is "you and your pop gun aren't going to stand a chance against tanks and fighter jets".........while true - 1 person won't.......what they ignore is if things get bad enough, it won't be 1 person against tanks and fighter jets. It will be millions against tanks and fighter jets.....and those tanks, and fighter jets, will be manned by sons, daughters, and friends. In the end, IF there is an uprising, it will be more than 1 person, more than 100, it will be millions......and if it's millions, there's a good chance they will have a reason. A reason our military understands, and a reason our military might say "wait a minute boss, I ain't killing citizens. Or, "my munitions missed the target".
These pro "ban this and that" people don't understand some things. They try to compare self defense with "1 person against the gov't." thing. Just what the gov't. wants, possibly?
Yes, in self defense, it's 1 against 1, or 10. Against the gov't, it would never be 1 against the military.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,838
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,838 |
Quote:
My Sig 9mm is 15, my Glock .40 is 13. Guess I'll be an outlaw.
Oh, no. If you legally own them, you're fine. You'd just need to "register" them. $200 each, for $400 total. Thank you. Kaching. You'd also have to send in your fingerprints, your picture, and an address of where they are kept so then can check you anytime they want.
Oh, and you wouldn't be an outlaw. you just wouldn't be able to sell them, OR give them to a family member. They are yours forever, and when you die? They MUST be forfeited to the gov't.
Feinstein's bill won't pass.........but it gives you an idea of how crazy these idiots are.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... A Discussion On Guns...
|
|
