7,000 Gun purchases slip through the system

[Seig]

In my ongoing effort to be red-dotted out of existence....

Someone please explain to me why you think that the NRA is so fabulous, why if there are limitations or government checks on guns or gun type ownership, why this is getting rid of the Second Amendment. It seems that some people feel that the one thing that makes them "free" is owning a gun,

Owning a gun is but one of many freedoms. Obviously the forefathers also felt this important or would not be the 2nd ammendmant. While I disagree with much of the NRA, I feel their underlying principle is sound. Once you start taking away seemingly small freedoms, it is easier to start taking away larger freedoms; after all, the precedent is set.

not having a voice in government or having free access to health care and the right to speak their minds without retribution.

Half of that statement is very good, the other is bought propoganda with very little forethought. Having a voice in government is our MOST important freedom, something about "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" because "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" This goes right back to the Bill of Rights, but that is not the point at this very second in this post, the point is the fact that Americans loose sight of the fact that we are all EQUAL, and it needs to remain that way. Allowing a minority to control the country harms all of us. By minority I mean those in power or those with a special interest.

As far as free access to health care, in practice it sounds wonderfull, but in reality is a travesty. If one takes a look at why people go into certain fields they will find that most of the time, it is for renumeration, not for the common good. Back in 1992, I was talking with someone that had just graduated medical school. A hospital had offered him a job making $55k a year, he said "No way in hell am I going anywhere for less than $75k." I was shocked, he hadn't even completed his residency yet. When I questioned him about it, he told me he couldn't even make minimum payments on his student loans with $55k a year. The point of that little anecdote is this, unless you want to provide free higher education, then you cannot have free health care. By making either of those free, you are lowering the health care professional standard. By doing these things, it moves the country towards a socialist or communist form of government and we all know how well that works. Although some on this board lambast capitalism quite frequently, capitalism is the catalyst for advances in the fields of science. If you want to make health care more affordable, then regulate the insurance industry, not the medical professionals.

I also fervently hope that everyone who is so concerned about each citizen having control over what they own, being able to protect themselves, and feeling that they don't want government controlling or limiting their options, are also fervently voting for pro-choice candidates.

This is another hot area of debate and where waters tend to get muddied. While I am against gun control read taking away my guns, I am for pro-choice. There seems to be a very wide schism between the parties on this, the party that supports taking away my guns all supports pro-choice, the party that protects my guns, supports pro-life, this seems to be an oxymoron to me, but what do I know I am just one of the unwashed masses that needs someone like a Kennedy to do my thinking for me.

 

[dearnis.com]

Michael Ward:
My opinion has nothing to do with it; Kerry releasing a staged photo-op of him in hunting attire holding a shotgun does not make him a hunter.
Long version- see Seig's post above.
My professional opinion? Hold prosecutors to account for dropping violent crimes and weapons charges in plea bargain arrangements (yes, this happens rountinely); hold judges to account for setting improper bond in weapons cases (a few years back we had a drug dealer released on what was in essence a signature bond-like when you sign a traffic ticket; among other things the charming man had 4 or 5 AKs and about 10,000 rounds of ammunition) and for improper sentences. Treat juvenile weapons offenders as adults (note: offenders, not the vitims of tragically idiotic parents. In those cases prosecute the parents).
I do not believe that anyone I have ever arrested on a weapons charge has served more than a few months before getting released on some type of probation.

 

[michaeledward]

Michael Ward:
My opinion has nothing to do with it; Kerry releasing a staged photo-op of him in hunting attire holding a shotgun does not make him a hunter.

As I understand that photo op ... He got 2 pheasant with 2 shots ... not bad for a photo op ... even if it was a shot-gun and pheasants are slow and stupid ... and the dog was looking the wrong way ... and Kerry was leaning back, instead of forward. Oh, yeah ... and he eats what he kills ...

I read the arguments from the 'True Hunters' about why "Kerry isn't one of them". Allow me to put this discussion into a paradigm I know about.

It seems the arguements about Kerry's hunting and hunting skills is snobbery. I am a Fly-Fisherman. Before starting to tie and fish flies, I would use 'Hardware' (spinning rods, rooster tails, red devil spoons). Seemed to me that the guys in their Orvis Grand Cherokee's and Eddie Bauer Explorers were looking down their nose at me when I shared the river with them. God forbid that someone put a worm on a hook in the river. God forbid that someone actually take a fish home to eat. Fly Fisherman are 'Catch and Release'. In general, Fly Fisherman are snobs. The resource, clear rivers, plentiful fish, and pretty mountains are not theirs alone, but to be shared by all types of fisherman; as well as hikers, campers, boaters, and hunters.

So, yeah ... 2 for 2 ... it was a photo op.

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

Ahem....
John Kerry's REAL stance on guns:
......
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

The readers' digest condensed version:

Kerry voted to protect my civil right to sue a gun manufacturer.
Kerry voted to prevent a deadline on the assault weapons ban from expiring.
Kerry voted for background checks at gun shows.
Kerry voted to restrict armor piercing ammunition.
Kerry voted to restrict large capacity magazines.
Kerry voted to restrict unlicensed gun sellers from doing business on the internet.
Kerry voted for background checks at gun shows, even from private collections. (See above)
Kerry voted to restrict access to firearms for juvenilles *
Kerry voted to restrict large capacity magazines (See above)
Kerry voted against the availability of trigger locks at retailers (see next item)
Kerry voted that all handgun sales include trigger locks.
Kerry voted for a 5 day waiting period to purchase a handgun.
Kerry voted against semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines.

* If the intent of this measure was to prevent youths from hunting or range shooting, I agree with you Michael. You certainly should be able to take your children hunting.

Disclaimer: My point of view is strongly in favor of gun control.

It seems that none of these actions are extreme. They seem to be common sense measures to protect the citizenry. Please help me understand if I am wrong. I will also state that I don't buy the slippery slope argument, that any gun legislations means that all gun rights will be dissolved.

Mike

 

[Cryozombie]

The readers' digest condensed version:

Kerry voted to protect my civil right to sue a gun manufacturer.

So... you also think that we should be able to sue McDonalds for making us fat, because they PROVIDED the food, regardless of what choice WE made to do with it? Or perhaps a lawsuit against Snap-on if someone clubs me with a monkeywrench?

Honestly, that becomes an issue of responsibility... who is responsibe for misuse of a product, the User or the Manufaturer. Kerry seems to say "The Manufacturer" and if Holding this standard for guns is valid, its valid for anything else... Cars, Tobacco... etc.

Kerry voted to prevent a deadline on the assault weapons ban from expiring.

Read the body of the "Assult Weapon Ban" you will see it is a farce to begin with... it got a fancy name "Assult Weapon" to gain support, and now a whole scope of weapons that are NOT assult weapons are covered under that law... And it interestingly did not stop me from LEGALY purchasing an AK-47 "Assult Rifle" earlier this year. Can you explian the sense in that? It was a law created by a handful of polititions who had no idea what an assult weapon was in the first place... If you read the law, it clearly states weapons are banned for "resembling" and "looking like" with no real mention of their function.

Does adding more silly laws:
A) Increase our Personal Safety
B) Decrease our personal libertys?

Kerry voted to restrict large capacity magazines.

Yeah... I still have not seen the logic in that... Can someone show me where most "Criminal shooters" are firing off, oh, say 30, 40, or 50 rounds? As opposed to under 10? Id be interested to see the statistics on that.

And again... the Hi-cap mag laws do not ban Hi Cap mags, I have several for the aformentioned Legal Assult rifle... they just make some of them more expensive to purchase legaly. 30 Round mags for my .22 Plinker went up from 20 bucks to 80, while 40rd mags for an Ak-47 are still only about 14 bucks.

Kerry voted to restrict unlicensed gun sellers from doing business on the internet.

Or that can read:

Kerry voted to keep private collectors from buying, selling, and trading their personal firearms on the internet.

An FFL is a great thing if you want to be a professional dealer, but they are expensive, to the point that most private collectors would, in the long run lose out if they purchased them. And there are a lot of rare, exotic, custom, etc... firearms only availible from private collectors, why shouldnt they be able to buy sell and trade them without the high expense of having an FFL?

Add to that, the fact it is already Illegal to ship a firearm to a non-FFL holder... If I sold you a gun on the 'net, we would still have to A) Meet in person, or B) I would have to ship the firearm to an FFL dealer near you for your pickup. All he is really doing by supporting that is preventing private collectors from selling/trading their weapons at all to non-local people...

Kerry voted to restrict large capacity magazines (See above)

Yes, See above

Kerry voted for a 5 day waiting period to purchase a handgun.

Ive addressed the stupidity of the 3 day wait earlier.

Kerry voted against semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines.

A semi-automatic weapon, is not, as everyone seems to think... a weapon that shoots like a machine gun. Semi-automatic firearms automatically load each round after the weapon is fired, but still requires a trigger press every time the user wants to shoot. Most modern pistols are semi-automatic, as are most sporting rifles. SPORTING RIFLES. RIFLES USED BY HUNTERS. KERRY, THE HUNTER, WANTS TO BAN HUNTING RIFLES??? Hmmm.

And...

See my comments on Hi-cap magazines above.

Disclaimer: My point of view is strongly in favor of gun control.

It seems that none of these actions are extreme. They seem to be common sense measures to protect the citizenry. Please help me understand if I am wrong.
Mike

Most of what was stated above really does nothing to "protect" anyone. Criminals, are not, as it is portrayed in the movies, running arround with Uzi's spraying crowds with 100 rounds of armor peircing bullets. Just because a firearm is frightening looking (and wouldnt most all of them be, if they were pointed at you?) does not make it an assult weapon... blah blah blah.

We can enforce the laws we have, or we can Decoupage over them with so many others that eventually the overlap is staggering and we cannot see beyond the tangled mass of laws on top of laws on top of laws... etc.

These comments, of course, are based, not on what Seig posted, but your "Readers Digest" condensed version.

 

[Cryozombie]

I would also like to mention... if you Ban me from owning a firearm, I will buy a high powered Crossbow.



Still have the capacity to kill you from a long distance... only now it's silent.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

The point of that little anecdote is this, unless you want to provide free higher education, then you cannot have free health care. By making either of those free, you are lowering the health care professional standard.

Why is that, exactly? If we put substantial funding towards these programs, they should become better, not worse.

This is another hot area of debate and where waters tend to get muddied. While I am against gun control read taking away my guns, I am for pro-choice. There seems to be a very wide schism between the parties on this, the party that supports taking away my guns all supports pro-choice, the party that protects my guns, supports pro-life, this seems to be an oxymoron to me, but what do I know I am just one of the unwashed masses that needs someone like a Kennedy to do my thinking for me.

Wow, people hate Kennedy so much, you'd think he personally slapped everyone's mama. Not all Dems support pro-choice, actually, and not all Reps support pro-life. I think it's an oxymoron too - what's the deal with the self-pitying sarcasm? I am here asking people's opinions because I find them interesting. If I didn't care what you thought, I wouldn't have posted. I'm asking for people to be consistent (which is a pipe dream) - I don't see people, as you pointed out, always applying the same logic or passion to different topics. Some of that is personal bias, of course.

Because if you look back through the history of this century (and beyond if you want to discuss other weapons bans). Every time a government bans the private ownership of firearms, they begin by requiring registration, or by banning certain types of firearms and imposing other "safety" measures. Some examples: England, Australia, etc. In both countries they didn't just suddenly wake up one day and say "hey, as of next week y'all will have to surrender all your firearms." They just chipped away a little at a time until suddenly, there's nothing left.

Well and good, I take your point. Does that mean that we should have NO regulation of guns whatsoever? I find that one hard to swallow. Where is the line any of you would draw between 2nd Amendment rights and actually trying to keep a schizophrenic who went off their meds - or a kid who just tried meth for the first time - from walking into a gun store, buying a gun, and going on a shooting spree? When do MY rights as a citizen begin, where I should be protected from these evetns, while still being allowed to arm myself if I desire?

It has been said that "the Second Amendment makes the others possible." I could list numerous quotes from the founding fathers that would illustrate this very point as well as the fact that they specifically put the 2nd amendment in place so that the general public would have a means to resist if the government became too oppressive.
I'm not going to say that, without a doubt, we would lose our other rights (freedom of speech, due process, search and seizure, etc.) if we are unfortunate enough to one day find ourselves in a nation that does not allow private ownership of firearms but should we find ourselves in that position we would be forced to put our faith in the politicians who say that they will ensure that those rights are maintained. In other words, we would have no recourse if they decided to take them away. I don't know about y'all but I don't particularly have much trust for politicians as it is, much less when there's nothing to keep them from having their way.

OK, I understand. Again, because I wish people (everyone, not anyone who is pro-gun or anti-gun or whathaveyou) were more truthful with themselves and more consistent in their beliefs, I wish that people who felt this way, this passionately about their individual rights, are applying that passion to other topics aside from gun control (although I realize that that is what this thread is about). I wish I would see gun owners also supporting gay marriage/civil unions and so on. And some (some of my friends) do. I get frustruated sometimes that it seems, for some people I've met in life, it's all about the guns, but for other issues, they didn't care about individual rights as much. I'm quite heartened to find people here who appear to.

 

[michaeledward]

These comments, of course, are based, not on what Seig posted, but your "Readers Digest" condensed version.

And my reader's digest condensed version was my interpretation of the laws Seig quoted above. Please note that Michael did not argue any of the points you made here. He just said this was the legislation, this is how Kerry voted.

As I look back on my list, I see very little opinion listed in it. Just the positions.

Now, as you expand the legislation from the words, to the meaning, we can begin to have a discussion. I find it odd that you are attacking me, and ascribing points of view to me, without trying to coerce me to your side of the argument.

Now, I don't want to go point by point through the discussion. Honestly, you have far more knowledge in the subject, and would no doubt be able to run rings around me with quotes and counter-quotes. But telling me I am wrong, or foolish, or stupid doesn't engender hospitable feelings toward your point of view.

Even today ... the most powerful GUN image I have is Columbine. And that's bad. And you can say that we should enforce our laws til the cows come home. The basic image is GUNS and DEAD BODIES. You really need to get me beyond that image. And I find all of your arguments falling short in that objective.

Against the image of GUNS and DEAD BODIES, Kerry's voting position does not look extreme. Sorry.

Mike

 

[Cryozombie]

I don't see people, as you pointed out, always applying the same logic or passion to different topics. Some of that is personal bias, of course. .

A lot of that, is not just personal bias, but a person's actual beliefs, wouldnt you think?

A lot of "these" subjects that you say people dont apply "the same logic to" are in fact, by many people's perceptions, weighted differently... In the case of "The Right To own Guns" you are talking about a "Right to Own Property" And a "Right to Defend oneself" ... In the Case of "Pro Life" you are talking about the right to (in their eyes) "Openly commit murder"

Most legitimate gun owners would not say owning a gun is a licernce to commit murder... so in their perception, these issues, while similar issues of "right to choose" carry a different weight.

And you know what they say: "Perception is Reality"

Food for thought anyhow.

 

[dearnis.com]

good thing he supports the right to sue gun manufacturers; I'd hate to see someone hold him responsible for his own wonderful gun safety skills.....

 

[Mark Weiser]

As a 20 year Military veteran and a former Deputy Sheriff. I for one do not see the need for folks to have access to automatic weapons or certain semi-auto weapons.

A good hunter can use shotguns, 30-30, 30-06, 410, 22, or if more sporty hunter could use a 357 or 45 or a 9mm handgun. There are Bows, Blowguns lol. Trapping is another option.

I am not aganist someone having firearms in his or her home but come on why would someone want a AR-15 or a M-16, MP-5, or any SMG they are strictly designed for killing other people. Should never be in the hands of the public. You may now add me to your ban list LOL !

 

[michaeledward]

As a 20 year Military veteran and a former Deputy Sheriff. I for one do not see the need for folks to have access to automatic weapons or certain semi-auto weapons.
. . . You may now add me to your ban list LOL !

<<chuckle>> I appreciate the contribution. Mike

 

[Cryozombie]

And my reader's digest condensed version was my interpretation of the laws Seig quoted above. Please note that Michael did not argue any of the points you made here. He just said this was the legislation, this is how Kerry voted.

As I look back on my list, I see very little opinion listed in it. Just the positions.

Now, as you expand the legislation from the words, to the meaning, we can begin to have a discussion. I find it odd that you are attacking me, and ascribing points of view to me, without trying to coerce me to your side of the argument.

Now, I don't want to go point by point through the discussion. Honestly, you have far more knowledge in the subject, and would no doubt be able to run rings around me with quotes and counter-quotes. But telling me I am wrong, or foolish, or stupid doesn't engender hospitable feelings toward your point of view.

Even today ... the most powerful GUN image I have is Columbine. And that's bad. And you can say that we should enforce our laws til the cows come home. The basic image is GUNS and DEAD BODIES. You really need to get me beyond that image. And I find all of your arguments falling short in that objective.

Against the image of GUNS and DEAD BODIES, Kerry's voting position does not look extreme. Sorry.

Mike

Mike, Sorry man, I didnt mean for it to be an attack on you... I was addressing the issues as you posted them from your POV.

As far as Columbine goes, I may never be able to erase the image that the media put in your head of Guns and bodies, but in most cases the laws we were talking about would not have prevented what happened there..

Some additional food for thought...

1) Since they did not go out and legaly purchase those weapons and explosives they used in the school... Would the 5 day "Cool Down" period really have helped?

Logically the answer is no... since they did not go purchase these "weapons" for this attack.

2) Of the 4 firearms used to commit those killings, only 1 possibly had a Hi-cap mag, that would be the TEC-9 that Dylan carried, and it was not a full-auto weapon. Add to that the fact there were almost as many shotgun rounds fired from weapons that could only hold 2-3 shells each and ask yourself would the High Capacity magazine restrictions have helped?

Logically, the answer again is no... even on the current Hi-cap ban, as I stated, they are still availible, just more expensive for SOME weapons, and the 1 possibly high cap weapon they had was fired only 55 times, compared to 133 rounds from the other, non-high capacity weapons. And since only 1 of those weapons was Semi-auto, the other being shotguns, and a bolt-action carbine, the Semi-automatic weapons ban would have been basicaly useless here as well.

3) They had more home-made improvised munitions, and bladed weapons than firearms... had the legislation to keep kids from firearms been in place, they were still armed, with what in my opinion, is a more dangerous weapon... a total of 90+ bombs. enough to have done much more damage than they did.

4) The shotguns they carried were Illegal Saw-offs. There was legislation on place against those weapons, and yet they still had, and used them. Did the law prevent what they did?

The fact of the matter is... situations like columbine will happen regardless of the laws... Like I said before, Criminals do not care how you legislate things... thats why they are CRIMINALS.

I will leave you with an example, and a question. First the question... If I can provide REALISTIC, SPECIFIC, VERIFIABLE examples of persons owning/carrying firearms who use them to prevent crimes and/or protect themselves and their loved ones in equal numbers to the bodies at Columbine, will you move beyond the only image of guns as dead bodies at columbine?

Second, as a fisherman, imagine this subject... Since Irresponsable Commercial fishing is decimating the population of fish... Perhaps we should legislate a ban on ALL fishing... even that which is not dangerous to the fish population... Silly... but in effect the same.

 

[Cryozombie]

I am not aganist someone having firearms in his or her home but come on why would someone want a AR-15 or a M-16, MP-5, or any SMG they are strictly designed for killing other people.

The speed limit on the highway is 65, why would someone buy a car capable of 120+ miles an hour.

The fact is... They are FUN! Firing a M-16a1 on full auto is an afternoon of great FUN for some people... Just like others play with fireworks, or race down the road at 120 on a Katana Sportbike... Some people just ENJOY IT.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

A lot of "these" subjects that you say people dont apply "the same logic to" are in fact, by many people's perceptions, weighted differently... In the case of "The Right To own Guns" you are talking about a "Right to Own Property" And a "Right to Defend oneself" ... In the Case of "Pro Life" you are talking about the right to (in their eyes) "Openly commit murder"

I understand, but I find it completely inconsistent. "defending oneself" with a firearm means "killing or severely wounding someone(s) else", or threatening to do so. Even if you have an anti-abortion stance, then you'd take this same possibility away from others?

Again, another reason why I don't study people - the inconsistencies amaze me.

 

[michaeledward]

I will leave you with an example, and a question. First the question... If I can provide REALISTIC, SPECIFIC, VERIFIABLE examples of persons owning/carrying firearms who use them to prevent crimes and/or protect themselves and their loved ones in equal numbers to the bodies at Columbine, will you move beyond the only image of guns as dead bodies at columbine?

Second, as a fisherman, imagine this subject... Since Irresponsable Commercial fishing is decimating the population of fish... Perhaps we should legislate a ban on ALL fishing... even that which is not dangerous to the fish population... Silly... but in effect the same.

Now, I don't want to go point by point through the discussion. Honestly, you have far more knowledge in the subject, and would no doubt be able to run rings around me with quotes and counter-quotes.

Honestly, I think the image of Dead Bodies and Guns is a difficult one to overcome. I even understand that what happened in Columbine was way outside the day to day norm of anything in reality. But, it is still a horrific image that will probably not be replaced in many peoples minds (including mine) until the next time something so horrific happens.

To suggest that banning all fishing is the same as restricting instant access to high-capacity weapons and magazines is a false analogy. The gun argument is for limited intervention, while banning all fishing is not limited. I am not suggesting a comprehensive firearm ban. I am suggesting common sense gun control.

Let me also say this about fishing. If a fisherman violates the laws while fishing (over the bag limit, out of season, improper bait), I am all in favor of the Conservation Officers in my state prosecuting them to the extreme. I know of one Massachusetts citizen that paid a hefty fine for taking someone else's catch (mine - 3 trout - try telling that story to a State Cop).

I find it interesting that many of you 2nd Amendment people refuse to consider the violations of the law stated in the article that started this post. Why aren't you guys mad as hell that your position is getting jeopordized by the actions of those who get guns they shouldn't get. Instead, I am hearing that "the number 7,000 can't possibly be correct". That the "laws are unjustified" anyhow. There are "existing laws on the books".

Oh, well. Mike

 

[Stick Dummy]

I agree the the Columbine incident was horrific, and there are many others you may be too young to recognize them. or just not taking in the BIG picture. Columbine was carefully PREMEDITATED and rehearsed crimes, and the local L-E was well aware of the two monsters predilections towards violence. They failed to act for whatever reasons, but It won't happen again.......

Have you viewed the photos of the PILES of victims of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, or any of the other DIRECT results of of Nazi Germanies "Gun Control"?

How about Joe Stalin's little "Pogroms" - same initiation No guns for the masses of proletariate. Good party members could have them though..

Cambodia's mass graves & good ol'Pol Pot - Sam Ting

Afganistan?? Taliban did it too

Or maybe something more trendy - The people of Iraq - specifically the Kurds in Northern Iraq who were disarmed - rebelled with gasp - "Illegal Weaponry" and were the consequentally gassed by their "protectors"

They all started the same way with the government determining what is legal to own, and who can own it. I don't mean criminals they can get ANYTHING should they have contacts and money.

Its not about "crime control", don't be fooled...... Its about taking away the one DECISIVE right that "people controllers" fear the most, and the very keystone to protecting all of the other US Constitutional Amendments.

Our forefathers had suffered this same persecution at the hands of the British Empire, and wanted to make DAMN SURE it did not happen to us in the future.


Don't be fooled, history repeats itself and we have the same monsters lurking here in the USA. They just do not have the power to exercise these horrors on us yet.

 

[michaeledward]

StickDummy ...

Are you comparing the United States of America to Saddam Hussein's Iraq?
Are you comparing the United States of America to Joseph Stalin's Russia?
Are you comparing the United States of America to the Taliban?

Is that your argument? Wow ...

Thanks. Mike

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Kerry is indeed down on guns. Edwards less so. Other leading Democrats are distancing themselves from the gun debate because they recognize it drew a number of votes away from them in 2000...and also because there are some pro-gun Democratic constituents out there (like me) who part from the party on this one issue.

I think after Kerry wins we'll see less anti-gun activity than we've seen in the past.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Gun_Control.htm

Mark Weiser wrote:

As a 20 year Military veteran and a former Deputy Sheriff. I for one do not see the need for folks to have access to automatic weapons or certain semi-auto weapons.

At this point, I see it as an issue of property rights. Should I own property and am responsible for its care and use, it shouldn't matter what firearms I own. Technopunks sports car analogy suffices in this case.

Before anybody does so, let me head off the "What about a bazooka" argument that I recently got from my son and another bright young man. We're not talking about bazookas. The Senate hasn't, to my knowledge, debated bazooka control and we haven't had too many domestic homicides, school shootings, armed robberies or "drive bys" with bazookas. Let's not ski down that slippery slope...unless you have a bazooka to sell me.

As I've said elsewhere, the gun control debate takes the focus off the issues at hand that need the most urgent attention. Poor mental/emotional health and poverty are the root causes of violence in our culture. Focusing on the symptoms of a disease do little to ameliorate the illness itself.

When we ask "what will stop people from shooting each other" we might chirp up, "get guns off the streets." Replace the verb "shooting" with "killing" and it takes on a different tone. The issue is violence...not the mechanism used to effect it.

Now...I have parted from the liberals on this thread. Let us all take joy at the shock we might notice registered by the conservatives. The cracking we hear is the whiplash brought on by their double-takes.

Regards,


Steve

 

[Stick Dummy]

Michael Edwards - Either you are a MORON, or attempting to bait me :asian:

You last post is a no brainer, re-read my post CAREFULLY, and look at what occurred CAUSE & EFFECT


You forgot Nazi Germany? Why? Too Touchy?

The fact is once this particular right is eroded, HISTORY has shown exactly what occurs with almost predictable regularity ANYWHERE in the world.

No the USA, I AM GLAD TO LIVE HERE, is not like any of the mentioned countries yet, YET....... But neither were any of the mentioned ones were they??????

We can debate, or BAIT without REAL persecution based on this Keystone amendment.


When any L-E tells me what I can, and can't, own I get scared. Most espouse the "party line" can't shoot worth ****, and they tend to reek of social elitism.

I am very PRO-LAW ENFORCEMENT, work in a job with regular interaction with them, and will back their "SIX" in a heartbeat. Unlike the handwringers that sit and whine and do nothing.

If I shoot military competition events, I cannot own or use a AR-15?

What about IPSC or IDPA?

What if I do Historical re-enactments?