Now tell me again how gun's don't kill only people do... a knife, bat etc. would not have killed this kid... probably would of scared them away if that was used instead of a shotgun... this was in the daytime where clearly they saw there were 2 children present & were non threatening... not that it matters but if they really thought they were trespassing they could of aimed the shotgun at them and told them to get off their property... spare me the posts where you will say the two rednecks could of thought they were being threatened. In this case it was obvious they weren't and did not need to pull the trigger:
HOUSTON (May 9) - A 7-year-old boy who was allegedly shot in the head by a couple who thought he and three other people were trespassing on their property died Saturday, authorities said. Donald Coffey Jr. died Saturday morning at a Houston hospital, less than two days after the boy was struck in the head by shotgun pellets, Liberty County Sheriff's Cpl. Hugh Bishop said.
Sheila Muhs and her husband, Gayle Muhs, both 45, were charged with second-degree felony counts of aggravated assault in the shootings Thursday. They were being held at Liberty County Jail with bail set at $25,000 each and had not yet retained an attorney, Bishop said. Bishop said the district attorney could upgrade the charges to murder on Monday, but investigators were "still trying to get the circumstances behind the incident." The boy, his 5-year-old sister, their father and a family friend were off-roading near a residential area about 40 miles northeast of Houston when they were shot after stopping so the children could go to the bathroom. Authorities said the couple fired after they mistakenly thought the group was trespassing on their property. Bishop said the area includes a dirt road, trees and overgrown brush and that it wasn't uncommon for people to go off-roading there. The Houston Chronicle reported that a sign in front of the suspects' home reads: "Trespassers will be shot. Survivers will be reshot!! Smile I will." Skip over this content Liberty County Chief Deputy Ken DeFoor said Sheila Muhs fired a 12-gauge shotgun once, then handed it to her husband, who also fired once. DeFoor said Sheila Muhs then called 911 and told the dispatcher: "They're out here tearing up the levee, so I shot them." DeFoor said the levee belonged to the subdivision and was not private property. Bishop said there was no indication the unarmed victims did anything threatening toward the Muhs. Donald Coffey Sr. suffered a pellet wound in his right shoulder and his daughter, Destiny, suffered a wound to the elbow. The family friend, 30-year-old Patrick Cammack, was in serious condition Saturday with a head wound, Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center spokeswoman Alex Rodriguez said.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli: Now tell me again how gun's don't kill only people do... a knife, bat etc. would not have killed this kid... probably would of scared them away if that was used instead of a shotgun... this was in the daytime where clearly they saw there were 2 children present & were non threatening... not that it matters but if they really thought they were trespassing they could of aimed the shotgun at them and told them to get off their property... spare me the posts where you will say the two rednecks could of thought they were being threatened. In this case it was obvious they weren't and did not need to pull the trigger:
HOUSTON (May 9) - A 7-year-old boy who was allegedly shot in the head by a couple who thought he and three other people were trespassing on their property died Saturday, authorities said. Donald Coffey Jr. died Saturday morning at a Houston hospital, less than two days after the boy was struck in the head by shotgun pellets, Liberty County Sheriff's Cpl. Hugh Bishop said.
Sheila Muhs and her husband, Gayle Muhs, both 45, were charged with second-degree felony counts of aggravated assault in the shootings Thursday. They were being held at Liberty County Jail with bail set at $25,000 each and had not yet retained an attorney, Bishop said. Bishop said the district attorney could upgrade the charges to murder on Monday, but investigators were "still trying to get the circumstances behind the incident." The boy, his 5-year-old sister, their father and a family friend were off-roading near a residential area about 40 miles northeast of Houston when they were shot after stopping so the children could go to the bathroom. Authorities said the couple fired after they mistakenly thought the group was trespassing on their property. Bishop said the area includes a dirt road, trees and overgrown brush and that it wasn't uncommon for people to go off-roading there. The Houston Chronicle reported that a sign in front of the suspects' home reads: "Trespassers will be shot. Survivers will be reshot!! Smile I will." Skip over this content Liberty County Chief Deputy Ken DeFoor said Sheila Muhs fired a 12-gauge shotgun once, then handed it to her husband, who also fired once. DeFoor said Sheila Muhs then called 911 and told the dispatcher: "They're out here tearing up the levee, so I shot them." DeFoor said the levee belonged to the subdivision and was not private property. Bishop said there was no indication the unarmed victims did anything threatening toward the Muhs. Donald Coffey Sr. suffered a pellet wound in his right shoulder and his daughter, Destiny, suffered a wound to the elbow. The family friend, 30-year-old Patrick Cammack, was in serious condition Saturday with a head wound, Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center spokeswoman Alex Rodriguez said.
Did the gun go off by itself? Or did a person pull the trigger Mach? No BS, just answer the question without the rhetoric.
Posted by raybond on :
What a terrible sittuation a case of some dumb asses who think they know everythig about the law and they most likely got there legal cosule from a drunk in a bar in a hick dump some where it made sense to them then and the rest is a carryover.
No matter how stupid the perps are they belong to that small club that has taken human life to bad the reason was so misguided and foolish. What a waste.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
So what are you suggesting to prevent these types of incidents Pagan since it is the people and not the weapons that harm and kill? How do you propose to stop the bloodshed?
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: So what are you suggesting to prevent these types of incidents Pagan since it is the people and not the weapons that harm and kill? How do you propose to stop the bloodshed?
Authorities should have been out there before hand, to check out wackos based on their posted "sign."
Posted by Robot on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: So what are you suggesting to prevent these types of incidents Pagan since it is the people and not the weapons that harm and kill? How do you propose to stop the bloodshed?
These deaths, along with many others every day, are considered an acceptable loss, by gun owners, for the right to own guns. Well not really but they deflect attention by blaming the trigger man for being an idiot loooser. How do you prevent Idiot losers from owning guns you ask? Well, you don't cause no one wants rules and regulations that restrict gun ownership.
No Guns, No Gun Crime! But that will never happen either.
"A well regulated militia" IMHO I think refers to proper training, discipline and guidance BEFORE they get the guns.
The big push for holding up the Second Amendment was to have a force to fight against the Gov. if the Gov. went against "the people". WELL gun owners,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you had your chance to stop the Gov. from ruining your country over the last few years. Did anyone fire a shot? Or does it need to get much worse? What are the projected odds of a militia up against the US Military anyway??........... No way in hell you will ever organize enough gun owners to go up against the US Military.
I am not against gun ownership but don't sit there and not say anything against Idiot Losers who abuse the very thing you hold in such high regard. Come on man, stand up, have a voice. It's the only way you will gain respect from others.
Do you find fault with the Muslim Leaders for not speaking out against ritual killings of teenage daughters for simple wrongs that you and I participated in as teenagers? Or for the Leaders not speaking out against fanatics, 911, Taliban? Then stand up against the idiot gun owners and try to prevent the innocent deaths.
100% gun ownership, in theory, would be a deterrent to crime. NOT. Criminals are stupid. Besides the accidental rate will also go up. Look at someone in your family and consider them "Gone by Gun" in the morning. But hey it was an ACCIDENT so is that OK? It will just mean more stolen guns on the street and the cost of death will go down.
Yes, with out guns people are still going to die from knives, bottles, rocks or what ever, but the thing about it is there will be LESS people dying because it is not so clean and easy to KILL that way.
I know I am pushing the limits on things but so does the other side with all the comments on why guns are justified.
And as far as Data goes, there are 10 different ways to look at the same info and you can come up with a 100 different reasons.
It would appear what these people did was murder and if so they need to be dealt with accordingly. Gun owners should be the first ones to stand up and cry for an investigation and fair trial.
Posted by glassman on :
are considered an acceptable loss, by gun owners, for the right to own guns. Well not really but they deflect attention by blaming the trigger man for being an idiot loooser. How do you prevent Idiot losers from owning guns you ask? Well, you don't cause no one wants rules and regulations that restrict gun ownership.
acceptable my azz.
how do you stop drugs and alcohol? you don't in a "free society" that's the key concept. how to stop idiots from drinking and driving? take away their license? and the car? they still do it.
eugenics is the only answer. like that idea? i don't. the world is full of idiots and jerks that prolly don't deserve to breath air. we don't decide arbitrarily that they can't tho. people that do should be imprisoned for life. whether a gun is used in the crime or not
we have rules that restrict gun ownership.
what we have is poorly thought out and poorly enforced laws here.
take away peoples right to bear arms? and they can be judged arbitrarily to have no right to live by anybody with a gun...
Posted by glassman on :
Yes, with out guns people are still going to die from knives, bottles, rocks or what ever, but the thing about it is there will be LESS people dying because it is not so clean and easy to KILL that way.
i just went to Lowes and found neurotoxins in the garden section. that's much neater and cleaner than a gun...
better ban them too...
and don't ask me which ones, i don't wanna help the idiots.
the paint section is pretty interesting too...
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by Robot:
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: So what are you suggesting to prevent these types of incidents Pagan since it is the people and not the weapons that harm and kill? How do you propose to stop the bloodshed?
These deaths, along with many others every day, are considered an acceptable loss, by gun owners, for the right to own guns. Well not really but they deflect attention by blaming the trigger man for being an idiot loooser. How do you prevent Idiot losers from owning guns you ask? Well, you don't cause no one wants rules and regulations that restrict gun ownership.
No Guns, No Gun Crime! But that will never happen either.
"A well regulated militia" IMHO I think refers to proper training, discipline and guidance BEFORE they get the guns.
The big push for holding up the Second Amendment was to have a force to fight against the Gov. if the Gov. went against "the people". WELL gun owners,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you had your chance to stop the Gov. from ruining your country over the last few years. Did anyone fire a shot? Or does it need to get much worse? What are the projected odds of a militia up against the US Military anyway??........... No way in hell you will ever organize enough gun owners to go up against the US Military.
I am not against gun ownership but don't sit there and not say anything against Idiot Losers who abuse the very thing you hold in such high regard. Come on man, stand up, have a voice. It's the only way you will gain respect from others.
Do you find fault with the Muslim Leaders for not speaking out against ritual killings of teenage daughters for simple wrongs that you and I participated in as teenagers? Or for the Leaders not speaking out against fanatics, 911, Taliban? Then stand up against the idiot gun owners and try to prevent the innocent deaths.
100% gun ownership, in theory, would be a deterrent to crime. NOT. Criminals are stupid. Besides the accidental rate will also go up. Look at someone in your family and consider them "Gone by Gun" in the morning. But hey it was an ACCIDENT so is that OK? It will just mean more stolen guns on the street and the cost of death will go down.
Yes, with out guns people are still going to die from knives, bottles, rocks or what ever, but the thing about it is there will be LESS people dying because it is not so clean and easy to KILL that way.
I know I am pushing the limits on things but so does the other side with all the comments on why guns are justified.
And as far as Data goes, there are 10 different ways to look at the same info and you can come up with a 100 different reasons.
It would appear what these people did was murder and if so they need to be dealt with accordingly. Gun owners should be the first ones to stand up and cry for an investigation and fair trial.
Robot...you and Machiavelli are typical IDEALIST'S...
The REALITY is...your ideal world hasn't, doesn't, and never will exist...as much as you WISH it would...IT NEVER WILL!
I AM a gun owner, and I will be the first to condemn anyone that commits a CRIME whether they use a gun or not...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Pagan: Did the gun go off by itself? Or did a person pull the trigger Mach? No BS, just answer the question without the rhetoric.
What weapon was aimed at a child that is made to kill? Not injure but kill. Tell what laws prevented these 2 hicks from owning a gun? When they got their license (assuming they have one since that isn't clear yet) were they required to get training? And if so did they get that training or did they just give them the license and said, go ahead buy whatever gun you want, we don't care what you do with it?
You know, it's all nice and neat your arguments for owning a gun but tell me this what if that was your child? What if not, what would you say to that kids' parents?: Oh were sorry for your loss but hey they have a right to own a gun and fire without warning.. tough luck?
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Robot...you and Machiavelli are typical IDEALIST'S...
The REALITY is...your ideal world hasn't, doesn't, and never will exist...as much as you WISH it would...IT NEVER WILL!
I AM a gun owner, and I will be the first to condemn anyone that commits a CRIME whether they use a gun or not...
The reality is we don't even try... the UK obviously has and that is a major Western country and imo their deaths are far less then ours.. and when i mean deaths i mean from violence so Glass/others spare me your statistics of deaths around the world because they usually include all deaths natural and not...
As a gun owner you should condemn all crime like you said but you should also be condemning gun ownership to the bad apples which make the good apples like you look bad... simple as that...
Gun ownership laws are lax and rarely enforced imo and this causes the proliferation of illegal guns to spread... again if you are law abiding citizen then you have nothing to fear from stricter gun laws from being owned by the wrong hands... and spare me the argument we have current gun laws because we all know they are not effective whatsoever...
Posted by glassman on :
You know, it's all nice and neat your arguments for owning a gun but tell me this what if that was your child? What if not, what would you say to that kids' parents?: Oh were sorry for your loss but hey they have a right to own a gun and fire without warning.. tough luck?
what do you tell a kids parents that die from anything Mach?
car accidents. leukemia? overdose of prescribed medication at the hospital?
what do you tell people that lose thier houses in a CA wildfire?
there's no such thing as safety, it's an illusion people create for themselves cuz they don't want to grow the frigup.
there's only accountability and these people need to be held accountable.
from the article you posted? the only thin iknow about the Muhs is that they are butt ugly and they should be charged wiht first degree murder. nothing less.
they planned to kill somebody and they deserve the first degree.
but you cannot prevent stupid people from breeding, so this is what you get.
Posted by glassman on :
they have a right to own a gun and fire without warning.. tough luck?
that's a flat out lie they had no right to do what they did.
this is the part you don't seem to get. having the power to do something and doing or not doing it is what separates people from the animals.
owning a gun doesn't give yo the right to hurt or kill somebody anymore than having a fist does. it gives them just the ability, what a person does with heir abilities is what defines them as human, and separates them from the animals
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: they have a right to own a gun and fire without warning.. tough luck?
that's a flat out lie they had no right to do what they did.
this is the part you don't seem to get. having the power to do something and doing or not doing it is what separates people from the animals.
owning a gun doesn't give yo the right to hurt or kill somebody anymore than having a fist does. it gives them just the ability, what a person does with heir abilities is what defines them as human, and separates them from the animals
Preventing the animals from owning guns in the first place is what I want but you apparently don't. If you are law abiding gun owner then you have nothing to fear from gun regulations that prevent animals like these two from owning a gun. But to have a laizze-faire attitude toward gun ownership is what creates the violent driven society we have now.
No gun ownership to animals then no need to own a gun but you would have the right to own them if your not an animal. But point is to keep guns from the animals. Nothing more and nothing less.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Robot...you and Machiavelli are typical IDEALIST'S...
The REALITY is...your ideal world hasn't, doesn't, and never will exist...as much as you WISH it would...IT NEVER WILL!
I AM a gun owner, and I will be the first to condemn anyone that commits a CRIME whether they use a gun or not...
The reality is we don't even try... the UK obviously has and that is a major Western country and imo their deaths are far less then ours.. and when i mean deaths i mean from violence so Glass/others spare me your statistics of deaths around the world because they usually include all deaths natural and not...
As a gun owner you should condemn all crime like you said but you should also be condemning gun ownership to the bad apples which make the good apples like you look bad... simple as that...
Gun ownership laws are lax and rarely enforced imo and this causes the proliferation of illegal guns to spread... again if you are law abiding citizen then you have nothing to fear from stricter gun laws from being owned by the wrong hands... and spare me the argument we have current gun laws because we all know they are not effective whatsoever...
Mach...you state that "we don't even try"... We don't try to create the "perfect world" because it is IMPOSSIBLE...wake up man...
You also state that "gun laws are lax and rarely enforced"...
Can you tell me what the gun laws in your state are?
and...can you explain to me how they are rarely enforced?
I can tell you about the gun laws in my state and I can assure you that they are NOT lax, and that they ARE strictly enforced...
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Waiting...
Posted by glassman on :
Preventing the animals from owning guns in the first place is what I want but you apparently don't. If you are law abiding gun owner then you have nothing to fear from gun regulations that prevent animals like these two from owning a gun. But to have a laizze-faire attitude toward gun ownership is what creates the violent driven society we have now.
and who is to judge who the animals are?
and who is to enforce the "leash law"?
more animals... that's who..
you can only prove yourself to be human by having the power to be bad and CHOOSING not to.
take away the choice and we are all PETS!
Posted by Robot on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49:
Robot...you and Machiavelli are typical IDEALIST'S...[/QB][/QUOTE]
I see it as a goal....something to "shoot" for.
[/QUOTE]The REALITY is...your ideal world hasn't, doesn't, and never will exist...as much as you WISH it would...IT NEVER WILL![/QB][/QUOTE]
No. The reality is my Country is becoming less ideal every year due to the lack of gun laws.
[/QUOTE]I AM a gun owner, and I will be the first to condemn anyone that commits a CRIME whether they use a gun or not... [/QB][/QUOTE]
The world needs more people like you. Seriously.
People like me have no problem with responsible gun ownership. We would like to see a more proactive stance by gun owners to help limit the needles deaths. If responsible gun owners made it harder for idiots to get guns then it would be a different ball game all together.
Posted by Robot on :
Good morning...That post didn't work out so good. Hmm
Posted by glassman on :
We would like to see a more proactive stance by gun owners to help limit the needles deaths.
dude, we gun owners are what stops alot more needless deaths than the ones you cry about on the news..
Chairman Mao killed tens of millions of unarmed people. Stalin? Hilter? the list is long.
Our country's worst enemy is OUR OWN COUNTRY, and i like it that way. we don't have to worry about the power hungry maniacs taking the country by force because they never even consider it. they don't consider rolling tanks thru our streets because it is tactically impossible to do whne so many people are personally armed. Take away those personal arms and parking a tank every mile or so is all they have to do.
a well regulated militia is individual people with military skills and they are volunteers. militias are never state owned or operated. the founders expressly intended Private Citizens to defend their OWN freedom.
these deaths suck, but the alternative is not Utopia. Utopia is what Marx was selling too... look where that led
Posted by Lockman on :
I personally would like to put a few land mines in my back yard to keep those dam kids from cutting through my yard. lol
Posted by Robot on :
dude, we gun owners are what stops alot more needless deaths than the ones you cry about on the news..
but you also let too many idiots own guns, causing those deaths.
Chairman Mao killed tens of millions of unarmed people. Stalin? Hilter? the list is long.
No. This was not the people (militia) against the Gov. The majority of the people believed what their leader was doing was right and they supported their Gov. Yes they killed a lot of so called "Enemies of the State".
Our country's worst enemy is OUR OWN COUNTRY, and i like it that way. we don't have to worry about the power hungry maniacs taking the country by force because they never even consider it. they don't consider rolling tanks thru our streets because it is tactically impossible to do whne so many people are personally armed. Take away those personal arms and parking a tank every mile or so is all they have to do.
a well regulated militia is individual people with military skills and they are volunteers. militias are never state owned or operated. the founders expressly intended Private Citizens to defend their OWN freedom.
You do not have enough "well trained" gun owners to go up against the Military and all the goodies they have to offer.
These deaths do suck. Nothing wrong with trying to reduce them.
Posted by raybond on :
What really amazes me with as easy it is to get a gun in this country we have so few people going crazy with them compared to the amount of the population we have.
Trouble is that everytime there is a gun crime the press really hypes it up good and the copy cats soon follow.Which adds fuel to the fire.
This is just the price we pay for living in a free society. Can't make everybody happy and the supreme court has upheld the right to keep and bare arms. So it is guns we have.
On a personal note the real hard cases that I have dealt with that have used guns when most of them get out of prison they are packing again with in 48 hours they are careful because if they get caught they are back in but they still pack a piece and will use it.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by Robot: dude, we gun owners are what stops alot more needless deaths than the ones you cry about on the news..
but you also let too many idiots own guns, causing those deaths.
Listen Robot...idiots are going to get guns one way or another...if they are already a known idiot, they cannot get a gun legally now...but they can get one illegally from another idiot...
and...idiots should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law...
Posted by glassman on :
You do not have enough "well trained" gun owners to go up against the Military and all the goodies they have to offer.
LOL...
that what King George III thought too.
ask mach what he thinks about paid fighters versus fighters who have a cause.
i'll tell you what i KNOW, th emilitary would lose half it's people really quick IF and when UnLawful orders are issued. and th esides will even up fast then things will tilt to the people.
look in Iraq. we are sortof winning there now because we stopped fighting the insurgents and hired them..
the military is very powerful, but it is still run by people
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by Robot: [b]
You do not have enough "well trained" gun owners to go up against the Military and all the goodies they have to offer.
You have no idea how wrong you are...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49:
quote:Originally posted by Robot: [b]
You do not have enough "well trained" gun owners to go up against the Military and all the goodies they have to offer.
You have no idea how wrong you are...
he doesn't understand how many of us there are. or what a revolution/coup d'etat looks like. the military can't find trained chopper pilots that will pour hot lead on their own brothers. they are't there.
Posted by glassman on :
Chairman Mao killed tens of millions of unarmed people. Stalin? Hilter? the list is long.
No. This was not the people (militia) against the Gov. The majority of the people believed what their leader was doing was right and they supported their Gov. Yes they killed a lot of so called "Enemies of the State".
uh? Mao was leading the most people? you need to study some history. Mao was a soldier first and last. he was a butcher, and so was Stalin. concentration camps were used in both countries. millions and 10's of millions were thrown in jails and left to rot or just outright killed.
ask somebody (if you can find them) about what the Russkies did in Poland before the Nazi's ran them off... and then the Nazi's were just worse.
people are animals. there is nothing else to be said. some few of us that are not animals deserve the right to not have to be animals too, and the only way that will happen is for us to be STRONGER than the animals, not weaker.
Posted by glassman on :
As of February 28, 2009 1,454,515 people are on active duty[12] in the military with an additional 848,000 people in the seven reserve components.[13] It is an all volunteer military, however, conscription can be enacted by the request of the President and the approval of Congress. The United States military is the second largest in the world, after the People’s Liberation Army of China, and has troops deployed around the globe.
there are more than 100 million armed citizens in the US
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: As of February 28, 2009 1,454,515 people are on active duty[12] in the military with an additional 848,000 people in the seven reserve components.[13] It is an all volunteer military, however, conscription can be enacted by the request of the President and the approval of Congress. The United States military is the second largest in the world, after the People’s Liberation Army of China, and has troops deployed around the globe.
there are more than 100 million armed citizens in the US
I think saying about 1/3 of the population is armed is exaggerated... perhaps 100 million guns out there but not 100 million people...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: ask mach what he thinks about paid fighters versus fighters who have a cause.
[about the unrest in Cuba] Michael Corleone: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't. Hyman Roth: What does that tell you? Michael Corleone: It means they could win. Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: As of February 28, 2009 1,454,515 people are on active duty[12] in the military with an additional 848,000 people in the seven reserve components.[13] It is an all volunteer military, however, conscription can be enacted by the request of the President and the approval of Congress. The United States military is the second largest in the world, after the People’s Liberation Army of China, and has troops deployed around the globe.
there are more than 100 million armed citizens in the US
I think saying about 1/3 of the population is armed is exaggerated... perhaps 100 million guns out there but not 100 million people...
Mach...you "think" his numbers are exaggerated, but the truth is you really don't know...there are close to a million firearms deer hunters in Michigan alone...and that is just the people who hunt deer...there are at least twice that many more in this state that are armed that don't hunt...you watch too many movies dude...
Posted by glassman on :
there are over 500 million firearms in the US...
i have quite a few of them myself Posted by CashCowMoo on :
A fact is that there are more people who agree with guns than who dont. The ones who dont cry about it all the time blaming guns for everything bad. They fear guns and were probably never exposed to any so that is understandable. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits guns, but there IS something protecting them. They dont like that, and many feel the constitution is irrelevant anymore because they dont like whats in it.
Posted by Robot on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Chairman Mao killed tens of millions of unarmed people. Stalin? Hilter? the list is long.
No. This was not the people (militia) against the Gov. The majority of the people believed what their leader was doing was right and they supported their Gov. Yes they killed a lot of so called "Enemies of the State".
uh? Mao was leading the most people? you need to study some history. Mao was a soldier first and last. he was a butcher, and so was Stalin. concentration camps were used in both countries. millions and 10's of millions were thrown in jails and left to rot or just outright killed.
ask somebody (if you can find them) about what the Russkies did in Poland before the Nazi's ran them off... and then the Nazi's were just worse.
people are animals. there is nothing else to be said. some few of us that are not animals deserve the right to not have to be animals too, and the only way that will happen is for us to be STRONGER than the animals, not weaker.
Germany 11 million USSR 20-30 million China 50-70+ million
Most, if not all of the deaths occurred during communist rule. Even Germany was run by only one democratic party by late 1930's so they were "communist" also. Mao's people died from labor camps, famine, and genocide at some point. Over all he wanted to “build a better Country for the people” and not him self, so they say. He had a twisted sense of leadership and viewed the end justified the means, from what I remember. The other two were both out for themselves.
As long as democracy is in power I don't see how a comparison can be made with these Country’s, other than to prove the success of a democratic system. If you feel that the USA could become a “communist” country and go after it’s people for some kind of “monetary gain” then I have no comment on that. I wouldn’t even know where to start. I do not think that is in the cards for the next century.
Militia against the Military? I think Canada is in a worse position with the French\English content in our Military. But yes there will be defectors to the militia side. As far as King George III goes, your only as good as your last fight. With the internet, wireless communication, GPS??? Don't count on the past victories.
For a short time getting double "AA" batteries to the troops in Iraq was an issue.
As far as animals go. I totally agree. The problem with that is you have to fight at, or "below" their level to win. "You" need to figure out a way to get rid of the animal.
I only wish you never "gave" them the weapons in the first place.
And that makes our side of the argument even harder because these "bad" guns are going to be around for like 50 years AFTER something substantial is done, which will never happen.
I am an idealist, and i am a realist, after all I work in the automotive industry.
PS, With the down turn in the auto industry, I am taking orders for Flintlock Rifles, Lancaster County Rifle Kit (J. Dickert Style) The Long Rifle Kit (Leonard Reedy Rifle) , Pistols and Custom guns.
Ha Ha Ha. My neighbor is a gun smith and he would be happy to sell you something. I don't mind cause I've never seen a "long gun" on cops taking out a 7/11.
Sorry for the "hit and run" post but I'm trying to maximize my time and it kinda sorta misses this forum.
Posted by Robot on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49:
quote:Originally posted by Robot: [b]
You do not have enough "well trained" gun owners to go up against the Military and all the goodies they have to offer.
You have no idea how wrong you are...
I was going to say a six shooter but lets make it a full clip up against ah..oh I don't know you pick. After all I am not up on all of the pack the soldiers carry. How long before the civilians pee their pants and run. Only half of them will show up anyway. It's gona take more thought than just hopin thall shoo up. WHO HOLDS THE MASTER PLAN?
Sorry but if the day comes........who has the plan.
Calm down I am just talking. Unless you have a plan, nothing is going to happen other than mayhem.
Posted by Robot on :
Ya there's lots a guns out there. Two of my friends, and work acquaintances, in the south own over three hundred between them.
Going "Postal" is the "old".
Going "Auto" Is my prediction for the future.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Robot...no wonder you are so confused....
How in the hell can you possibly call yourself an idealist and a realist...
Idealism is a fantasy...nothing real about it
and...mayhem WILL be the reality...
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote CashCowMoo:
"A fact is that there are more people who agree with guns than who dont. The ones who dont cry about it all the time blaming guns for everything bad. They fear guns and were probably never exposed to any so that is understandable. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits guns, but there IS something protecting them. They dont like that, and many feel the constitution is irrelevant anymore because they dont like whats in it.
_________________________________________________
Actually CashCowMoo i fear guns, don't want any part of them, don't care if others have them though, not that it would matter.
I just hope they understand the true reality of using them on another person.
This type of incident that was mentioned above, is just one of those things that comes out from time to time and makes headlines and discussions.
Who really knows why they do it for sure, except the person that did it. Kinda like the mothers that kill their kids and other types of unexplainable acts that hit the headlines.
There are a lot of indivuals out there that do strange things and for so many reasons.
Many of these indivuals can't explain why they do them, or they explain it, but really do not understand it.
And of course there are those others that know exactly what they did.
Big world and growing everyday, that's why i don't care to read the news much anymore, not much good stuff, mainly just hit the sports page these days.
I guess that's hiding a little, but i want to read more positive things happening in our world.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Robot:
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49:
quote:Originally posted by Robot: [b]
You do not have enough "well trained" gun owners to go up against the Military and all the goodies they have to offer.
You have no idea how wrong you are...
I was going to say a six shooter but lets make it a full clip up against ah..oh I don't know you pick. After all I am not up on all of the pack the soldiers carry. How long before the civilians pee their pants and run. Only half of them will show up anyway. It's gona take more thought than just hopin thall shoo up. WHO HOLDS THE MASTER PLAN?
Sorry but if the day comes........who has the plan.
Calm down I am just talking. Unless you have a plan, nothing is going to happen other than mayhem.
Not quite following you, but if I am?
Think of the French Resistance.
or, for that matter, the relatively under-armed Iraqi insurgents.
In an end-game scenario, the threat is that we would be nuked/bio-massed--precisely because no army in history or the foreseeable future would enjoy an occupational foray.
If I understand your overall view, I agree there's a lot of macho dudes who would be ABSOLUTELY dismayed to have to actually fend off a decent SWAT attack, not to mention, let's say, a SEAL team.
As we've seen abroad, however, the problem is not in securing a coordinate.
The problem is securing all the nooks and crannies surrounding that coordinate.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Robot: As long as democracy is in power I don't see how a comparison can be made with these Country’s, other than to prove the success of a democratic system. If you feel that the USA could become a “communist” country and go after it’s people for some kind of “monetary gain” then I have no comment on that. I wouldn’t even know where to start. I do not think that is in the cards for the next century. [/QB]
it's not "communism" that's "evil", it's one party rule that's evil.
a few years ago? i was concerned that the Dems seemd to be headed for the bottom, now it's the other party.
this is really bad because the "rubber band" may break on one of these party "dives" one of these times, and it could be either party
one party rule is in effect a dictatorship by proxy.
Iran? they are a democracy of one party. they are not counted as members of the free world.
the sheer number of personal firearms in the US is a tactical nightmare for any type dictator that is not an extreme populist. however, Hitler was very popular too..
there is no good answer to most of lifes hardest questions, that's why they are hard questions.
i'll take my chances with an armed populace over an disarmed populace any day.
there will always be evil people and dumb people and that's just how it is.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Robot: As far as animals go. I totally agree. The problem with that is you have to fight at, or "below" their level to win. "You" need to figure out a way to get rid of the animal. [/QB]
no, NEVER lower yourself to win, you lose if you do that.
i was trained in Judo starting at 8 years old. at first it was just games but as i became a teenager i was eventually a trained killer without ever even realising it.
in Judo they maintain(ed) a very strict honor code. you will find honor codes amongst all the best military training programs. that honor code is there for a reason. had i not been absorbing the honor code along with the physical training? i would have been washed out. i know for sure that my sensei would have kicked me to the curb, and many other senseis insisted that certain people be removed from each others clubs. they police themselves very well.
people are always saying you have to lower yourself to win.
but that is not winning, that is merely survival . animals merely survive.
if you are up against an opponent that you cannot defeat with honor? then you are not fighting right. there is always an opportunity to win with honor.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Mach...you "think" his numbers are exaggerated, but the truth is you really don't know...there are close to a million firearms deer hunters in Michigan alone...and that is just the people who hunt deer...there are at least twice that many more in this state that are armed that don't hunt...you watch too many movies dude...
I would say both of you don't know yourselves. Really your pulling numbers out of a hat. Show me a reliable independent non biased source to show these numbers that are accurate then perhaps I will believe 100 million own guns. As for movies, what does that have anything to do with me not believing that 100 Mil own guns?
Posted by glassman on :
no. i am not guessing:
here's wiki:
Concealed carry in the United States Statistics
Some (but not all) states publish statistics indicating how many people acquire permits to carry concealed weapons, and their demographics. Reported permit-holders are predominantly male. For example, while over 60,000 women were licensed in Florida as of June 2007[update], 85% of permit holders were male in that state.[56] The number of permit-holders has been growing. Michigan, for example, reported more than 40,000 applications in a one year period.[57] Florida has issued over 1.2 million permits since adopting the law, and has had more than 400,000 currently-licensed permit holders as of June 2007[update].[58]
Distribution by age is generally proportionate to the overall state adult population. In Florida, 26% of permit-holders are in the 21–35 age group, 36% are 36–50, 27% are 51–65, and 11% are over age 65. The numbers of permit revocations are small. North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law.[59]
Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population.[60] Florida, which has issued over 1,408,907 permits in twenty one years, has revoked only 166 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,500 permits for any reason.[61]
concealed carry permits are for handguns only so that does not include all gun owners. my guess is that less than 25% of people who own guns want a conceal carry permit.
most states require no permits if you do not wish to conceal carry so this represents a small portion of actual gun owners.
in essence? one in two people in the US own at least one gun and many owners have many guns.
this article is from and anti-gun group and is low IMO at saying 34% of home have at least one gun but 34% of the population would be 100 million people.
100 million people is "right number" not 34% of homes.
in MS it will be 90% of homes. in NJ it might only be 34%
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Waiting...
Contrary to belief I am not on this forum 24/7. Sometimes I don't even post for days because you guys talk about nothing of interest to me... but I'll reply to your previous post...
Posted by glassman on :
from the NRA
More Guns: The number of new guns rises by about 4.5 million every year.3 There are 250+ million privately-owned firearms in the United States.4
Less Violent Crime: Since 1991, the nation’s total violent crime rate is down 38 percent. (Murder is down 43 percent; rape, 29 percent; robbery, 46 percent; and aggravated assault, 35 percent.) Violent crime dropped every year from 1991-2004, to a 30-year low; increased slightly in 2005 and 2006; and decreased to nearly the 2004 level in 2007. Every year since 2002, the violent crime rate has been lower than anytime since 1974. Every year since 1999, the murder rate has been lower than anytime since 1966. States with RTC laws, compared to the rest of the country, have lower violent crime rates on average: total violent crime by 24 percent, murder, 28 percent; robbery, 50 percent; and aggravated assault, 11 percent.5
i have seen figures published by anti-gun groups doubling the 250 million number and i beleive they are correct.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Mach...you state that "we don't even try"... We don't try to create the "perfect world" because it is IMPOSSIBLE...wake up man...
You also state that "gun laws are lax and rarely enforced"...
Can you tell me what the gun laws in your state are?
and...can you explain to me how they are rarely enforced?
I can tell you about the gun laws in my state and I can assure you that they are NOT lax, and that they ARE strictly enforced...
I'm going to assume you are in Michigan if i remember correctly so this article doesn't pertain to your area but it does in other areas to show as examples that those states turn a blind eye to illegal gun sales:
Btw I never said anything about a perfect world.... just a better world...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: from the NRA
More Guns: The number of new guns rises by about 4.5 million every year.3 There are 250+ million privately-owned firearms in the United States.4
Less Violent Crime: Since 1991, the nation’s total violent crime rate is down 38 percent. (Murder is down 43 percent; rape, 29 percent; robbery, 46 percent; and aggravated assault, 35 percent.) Violent crime dropped every year from 1991-2004, to a 30-year low; increased slightly in 2005 and 2006; and decreased to nearly the 2004 level in 2007. Every year since 2002, the violent crime rate has been lower than anytime since 1974. Every year since 1999, the murder rate has been lower than anytime since 1966. States with RTC laws, compared to the rest of the country, have lower violent crime rates on average: total violent crime by 24 percent, murder, 28 percent; robbery, 50 percent; and aggravated assault, 11 percent.5
i have seen figures published by anti-gun groups doubling the 250 million number and i beleive they are correct.
What these figures show is no one is sure about any figures... as for the crime rates going down nationally... personally I think that is BS... if anything it has gone up since the 1960's...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: no. i am not guessing:
here's wiki:
Concealed carry in the United States Statistics
Some (but not all) states publish statistics indicating how many people acquire permits to carry concealed weapons, and their demographics. Reported permit-holders are predominantly male. For example, while over 60,000 women were licensed in Florida as of June 2007[update], 85% of permit holders were male in that state.[56] The number of permit-holders has been growing. Michigan, for example, reported more than 40,000 applications in a one year period.[57] Florida has issued over 1.2 million permits since adopting the law, and has had more than 400,000 currently-licensed permit holders as of June 2007[update].[58]
Distribution by age is generally proportionate to the overall state adult population. In Florida, 26% of permit-holders are in the 21–35 age group, 36% are 36–50, 27% are 51–65, and 11% are over age 65. The numbers of permit revocations are small. North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law.[59]
Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population.[60] Florida, which has issued over 1,408,907 permits in twenty one years, has revoked only 166 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,500 permits for any reason.[61]
concealed carry permits are for handguns only so that does not include all gun owners. my guess is that less than 25% of people who own guns want a conceal carry permit.
most states require no permits if you do not wish to conceal carry so this represents a small portion of actual gun owners.
in essence? one in two people in the US own at least one gun and many owners have many guns.
this article is from and anti-gun group and is low IMO at saying 34% of home have at least one gun but 34% of the population would be 100 million people.
100 million people is "right number" not 34% of homes.
in MS it will be 90% of homes. in NJ it might only be 34%
that is about 1 million give or take for Florida and FL is a very populated state... if we were to say that is the average for every state then that would be 50 million but that is not realistic since some states have larger populations then others so that 50 million imo can be lower... but like I said, no one knows for sure...
Posted by glassman on :
If I understand your overall view, I agree there's a lot of macho dudes who would be ABSOLUTELY dismayed to have to actually fend off a decent SWAT attack, not to mention, let's say, a SEAL team.
ain't that the truth.
when i hung with seals? in peacetime? they were shooting 500 rounds per week minimum in tactical scenarios every week.
9 milli's- room entry practice.
assault rifle- feild manuevers thru urban street setting that sort of stuff.
they were mostly practicing not to shoot each other, but no one person can stand against a well trained team.
on the other hand? the fact that one of them will drop for every five actual takedowns? they cannot hope to clean up the whole country either.
SEAL training takes a year minimum to start and NEVER ever stops, so you cannot replace a member at the drop of a hat. and a brand new team member is just as much a danger tot he team as the target when things get hot.
it woulfd be a bad strategy to try to use tehm for general purpose work.
the general purpose guys? they are just as likely to say fuggit as they are to take on a good sniper.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: A fact is that there are more people who agree with guns than who dont. The ones who dont cry about it all the time blaming guns for everything bad. They fear guns and were probably never exposed to any so that is understandable. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits guns, but there IS something protecting them. They dont like that, and many feel the constitution is irrelevant anymore because they dont like whats in it.
Again you do not know that for sure so it is not a fact.. your entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.. as for not being exposed to guns we'll I was almost shot when I was child when i was caught in a crossfire between a cop and a criminal and when i was older I had a gun pulled on me by a family friends' brother who is an alcoholic... so yes I know about guns in that regard...
As for the Constitution, it was written too long ago and much like any other document throughout history has not evolved to keep up with the times and we all know it but do not say it... I said it once and I'll say it again... I AM NOT for gun prohibition only keeping guns from the wrong hands... but since you gun owners want no restrictions that is exactly what is happening... a free for all of gun ownership that more times then none ends up in wrong hands...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Robot:
People like me have no problem with responsible gun ownership. We would like to see a more proactive stance by gun owners to help limit the needles deaths. If responsible gun owners made it harder for idiots to get guns then it would be a different ball game all together.
Exactly my thoughts... and btw Retired if you have read your history, idealists have changed the world from time to time... sometimes for worst and sometimes for the better... but point is ideals have become reality throughout history...
Posted by glassman on :
that is about 1 million give or take for Florida and FL is a very populated state... if we were to say that is the average for every state then that would be 50 million but that is not realistic since some states have larger populations then others so that 50 million imo can be lower... but like I said, no one knows for sure..
like i said? that's concealed carry permit holders.
i know a dozen people personally who own guns for sure that have no interest in a concealed carry permit. myself, i have no interest currently but i can get one just by asking, i carry lots of cash for my business and i have a squeaky clean record.
there are well over 100 million gun owners in the US
Posted by raybond on :
BACK TO TOP GUN FACTS:
One study estimated that there are 192 million privately owned firearms in America. Guns are present in about 40 percent of households. The 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act prohibits the government from assembling a central database of gun dealers.
The $2 billion firearms industry is highly fragmented, with the three largest companies- -Remington, Smith & Wesson, and Sturm, Ruger--accounting for only about 30 percent of the market. The NRA has about 2.7 million members, down from a high of 3.5 million in 1995. Its counterpart, Handgun Control, has an annual budget of $3 million. Twenty-three suits brought by cities and counties are pending against scores of gun- makers, gun-sellers and their trade organizations.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
LOL When you start thinking statistics amazing little tidbits pop out.
If there are really 100 Mil gun owners (I am willing to accept this) then you could say 1/3rd of the population is armed. OR...
If you extrapolate the Florida data and use it as a base line for the rest of the country then 85 million of those hundred million owners are male which would mean a full 61% of the American male population is armed. WOW!
I'm not looking to restrict guns...others have already convinced me of the usefulness of an armed society. However, I do think gun owners should be proactive in working out solutions to problems that involve gun violence. The case above that started this thread may have been an isolated incident but what is happening on the streets of Chicago right now is not.
quote: A total of 510 people were murdered in Chicago during 2008. Eighty percent of these victims were killed by gunfire. Nearly half were between the ages of 10 and 25, and the vast majority were male.
bigfoot, the problem is not guns. 510 people murdered in chicago....who do you think those 80% killed by gunfire mostly were? gang bangers...thugs. There are gangs all over chicago.
They can call for more and more and more restrictions on guns, but look at crack or other drugs....illegal and still plentiful just like guns would be if they were totally outlawed.
How do drugs get into the US? SMUGGLED, how would guns get into America if banned? SMUGGLED. Homemade guns would be huge just like homemade whiskey.
People dont get it. Drug cartels in Columbia will ship guns with cocaine shipments to arm the dealers to protect their product from other gangs in the streets. These people use F'n submarines now for crying out loud....submarines bought from N korea or Russia to smuggle drugs from Columbia to California coasts and people think making guns "harder to get" is going to stop violence?
Posted by glassman on :
. but since you gun owners want no restrictions that is exactly what is happening... a free for all of gun ownership that more times then none ends up in wrong hands
that's just a lie, there's no free-for-all, there are restrictions and there are laws.
as i showed you? the people who get concealed carry permits tend to be honest adn law-abiding.
criminals eventually get whatever they want- your "greed" thing sees to that.
greed is why criminals will always have guns no matter what the laws are. not so good huh?
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: bigfoot, the problem is not guns. 510 people murdered in chicago....who do you think those 80% killed by gunfire mostly were? gang bangers...thugs. There are gangs all over chicago.
They can call for more and more and more restrictions on guns, but look at crack or other drugs....illegal and still plentiful just like guns would be if they were totally outlawed.
How do drugs get into the US? SMUGGLED, how would guns get into America if banned? SMUGGLED. Homemade guns would be huge just like homemade whiskey.
People dont get it. Drug cartels in Columbia will ship guns with cocaine shipments to arm the dealers to protect their product from other gangs in the streets. These people use F'n submarines now for crying out loud....submarines bought from N korea or Russia to smuggle drugs from Columbia to California coasts and people think making guns "harder to get" is going to stop violence?
I agree...legalize drugs and the killings would drop DRAMATICALLY...Detroit is worse than Chicago, and 90% of the homicides ..here are gang/drug related...
and...99% of the guns used to commit these crimes are purchased on the black market.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
I dont agree with legalizing drugs. Marijuana would be as far as I would go.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Then live with the violence making them illegal creates...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: there are well over 100 million gun owners in the US
Again without an accurate way to determine how many really do own it legally then we do not know for sure.. to say 1/3 are armed LEGALLY is not realistic.. if you throw in the illegal gun owners then perhaps... but I have gone through my life not knowing one legal gun owner except for the one who pulled a gun on me... so wouldn't it suffice to say at least 1/3 of the people i have known since the day i was born would own a gun? Yet not any except one person in my life has owned a gun... why is that?
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by raybond: BACK TO TOP GUN FACTS:
One study estimated that there are 192 million privately owned firearms in America. Guns are present in about 40 percent of households. The 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act prohibits the government from assembling a central database of gun dealers.
The $2 billion firearms industry is highly fragmented, with the three largest companies- -Remington, Smith & Wesson, and Sturm, Ruger--accounting for only about 30 percent of the market. The NRA has about 2.7 million members, down from a high of 3.5 million in 1995. Its counterpart, Handgun Control, has an annual budget of $3 million. Twenty-three suits brought by cities and counties are pending against scores of gun- makers, gun-sellers and their trade organizations.
Would be nice to see a link to the website or organization you got this from...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: However, I do think gun owners should be proactive in working out solutions to problems that involve gun violence.
Exactly BF. +100 . When you don't try to find a solution you become part of the problem.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: bigfoot, the problem is not guns. 510 people murdered in chicago....who do you think those 80% killed by gunfire mostly were? gang bangers...thugs. There are gangs all over chicago.
Let's say that is correct and it is gang bangers... what is the solution? Arm more citizens and create more violence or perhaps have more gang intervention programs and steer kids away from gangs instead or as well? ... Like i said if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem... if you spew Constitution amendments that it is ok to own guns then guess what these young kids will think and do... Own Guns!... we should be finding ways to steer them away from guns, drugs and gangs instead. Even if you only turn 1 kid away from that life it is one kid who won't kill or you have to maybe face someday with your own gun.
quote:They can call for more and more and more restrictions on guns, but look at crack or other drugs....illegal and still plentiful just like guns would be if they were totally outlawed.
So the solution to you is that since it's hopeless then just have no restrictions whatsoever... just have a free for all...
quote:How do drugs get into the US? SMUGGLED, how would guns get into America if banned? SMUGGLED. Homemade guns would be huge just like homemade whiskey.
People dont get it. Drug cartels in Columbia will ship guns with cocaine shipments to arm the dealers to protect their product from other gangs in the streets. These people use F'n submarines now for crying out loud....submarines bought from N korea or Russia to smuggle drugs from Columbia to California coasts and people think making guns "harder to get" is going to stop violence?
Here's a tidbit that you perhaps will find fascinating but still do not get it: The U.S. is the #1 supplier of guns to these Cartels thereby prolonging the violence and keeping them in business to supply our kids with drugs. Don't you think that at least if we shouldn't restrict gun ownership here then perhaps we should try our damn hardest to cut off the gun supply going south of the border?. Makes sense dontcha think. This wouldn't stomp on your constitutional right to own a gun Moo man. Stop Mooing.
"The federal system for tracking gun sales, crafted over the years to avoid infringements on Second Amendment rights, makes it difficult to quickly spot suspicious trends and to identify people buying for smugglers, law enforcement officials say."
That as well as banning gun sales via gun shows and sales via non storefronts (home gun sales etc.) should also be banned. Gun sales should only be through a store front much like prescription drugs should only be sold through a pharmacy so no illegalities happen or are more difficult to happen.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: I dont agree with legalizing drugs. Marijuana would be as far as I would go.
This is about the only time so far I agree with you Moo man.
Posted by Robot on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Robot...no wonder you are so confused....
How in the hell can you possibly call yourself an idealist and a realist...
Idealism is a fantasy...nothing real about it
and...mayhem WILL be the reality...
Come on, everybody has a little of both in them. I'm in the Auto Industry. I know I do.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: I dont agree with legalizing drugs. Marijuana would be as far as I would go.
This is about the only time so far I agree with you Moo man.
Well, to be honest I think alcohol is so much worse than a joint.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo:
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: I dont agree with legalizing drugs. Marijuana would be as far as I would go.
This is about the only time so far I agree with you Moo man.
Well, to be honest I think alcohol is so much worse than a joint.
Exercises my right to be armed and protect my property: You better stay away from my beer damnit or Ima gonna shoot ya if you try to ban it!! Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by Robot:
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Robot...no wonder you are so confused....
How in the hell can you possibly call yourself an idealist and a realist...
Idealism is a fantasy...nothing real about it
and...mayhem WILL be the reality...
Come on, everybody has a little of both in them. I'm in the Auto Industry. I know I do.
Maybe...problem is that idealists don't accomplish much nor are they very effective at solving problems.......
they just keep hoping for the perfect world...
The fact is that most violent crimes in this country are a direct result of illegal drugs...
A realist's solution would be to legalize the drugs...the results would be a serious reduction in violent crime and maybe a small increase in drug use.....
An idealist's solution would be to keep the drugs illegal and HOPE that people would just stop taking drugs and killing each other...The result is well... no change in violent crime and no change in drug use...
If you want to seriously reduce violent crime and homicides in this country, then legalize the drugs...doing nothing gets you nothing...
Posted by raybond on :
Guns I go along with our current policy because it is the law of the land that we can keep and bare.
But something has to be done about all the crazy people and criminals that can get them so easy. they murder our children and the weak,plus they use them to get what they want because they are to lazy or stupid to shelter and feed themselves.
First of all a real background check and a waiting period of at least three weeks.
More classes on use and saftey have to be certified.
And all gun dealers tied into a national info bank and all 50 states same rules and laws. That would be a start. If any citizen that was honest and had a real purpose for gun ownership he or she would not mind the wait if they had to have it the same day why? I would say they were up to no good.
A lot of you would not agree with this but something has to start.
And on the enforcement side of things a whole new set of laws against those that use a gun in the commission of a crime
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: I dont agree with legalizing drugs. Marijuana would be as far as I would go.
Well some drugs are already legal (and just as or more harmful than the illegal ones)....but I don't see people killing other people over their beer and whiskey territory..
Posted by Robot on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Not quite following you, but if I am?
Think of the French Resistance.
or, for that matter, the relatively under-armed Iraqi insurgents.
In an end-game scenario, the threat is that we would be nuked/bio-massed--precisely because no army in history or the foreseeable future would enjoy an occupational foray.
If I understand your overall view, I agree there's a lot of macho dudes who would be ABSOLUTELY dismayed to have to actually fend off a decent SWAT attack, not to mention, let's say, a SEAL team.
As we've seen abroad, however, the problem is not in securing a coordinate.
The problem is securing all the nooks and crannies surrounding that coordinate. [/QB]
I think you got it, and I understand where everyone is coming from. I don't agree with everything but that's more than ok with me. I just don't see the need for the people to arm them selves "in case" the the Gov. attacks. Ya that is an over simplification on what we are talking about but at the same time, to accept all of the accidental deaths, innocent bystander deaths, Idiot with gun deaths, as a "cost of doing business", I have a hard time with that.
I also understand that lots of bad people have guns. And they got them cause there are lots of guns going around.
Militia VS Military, that will be a video game one day. But don't tell anyone. Maybe I can get royalties.
Seriously. There is no question about it, IT would be a "war to end all wars" as they say. Lots of defections on both sides and lots of people crossing borders to get away.
If it did happen, it won't happen at the flip of a switch. The Gov. will "lead" the country in a direction for ten years and will have lots of "people" support before it goes against the "armed populace". The armed populace will not have a plan, will not be able mobilize forces where needed, and will not have the communications they take for granted every day. It will be mayhem to say the least. If it did happen they will not take on the whole country at once. State by State. My money is on the Military.
Your cell phone is, and will become, a bullziiii.
I just don't see the positives of "100%" gun ownership VS the negatives of the unintended deaths and how it impacts family's. Add to that the intended deaths of everyone who may well still be alive if guns were not so popular a long time ago.
Posted by Robot on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by Robot: As long as democracy is in power I don't see how a comparison can be made with these Country’s, other than to prove the success of a democratic system. If you feel that the USA could become a “communist” country and go after it’s people for some kind of “monetary gain” then I have no comment on that. I wouldn’t even know where to start. I do not think that is in the cards for the next century.
it's not "communism" that's "evil", it's one party rule that's evil.
a few years ago? i was concerned that the Dems seemd to be headed for the bottom, now it's the other party.
this is really bad because the "rubber band" may break on one of these party "dives" one of these times, and it could be either party
one party rule is in effect a dictatorship by proxy.
Iran? they are a democracy of one party. they are not counted as members of the free world.
the sheer number of personal firearms in the US is a tactical nightmare for any type dictator that is not an extreme populist. however, Hitler was very popular too..
there is no good answer to most of lifes hardest questions, that's why they are hard questions.
i'll take my chances with an armed populace over an disarmed populace any day.
there will always be evil people and dumb people and that's just how it is. [/QB]
Yes but most people associate one party rule with Communism and Dictator's cause there is no other choice.
Put Hitler on a ballot today and he would have a fighting chance in Germany or Austria IMO. That's sad.
It is all about what the people are told and what they learn. In this century information flows so fast it is hard to conceal anything, well almost but you know what I saying.
People I talked to in Russia last year still believe they helped Poland by occupying them. Not their fault but they were lied to about the whole thing. That is harder to do here, sorta.
Posted by glassman on :
People I talked to in Russia last year still believe they helped Poland by occupying them.
exactly.
and Clinton would have helped th epeople by taking away all guns if'n he coulda- then Cheney would never have left office. Or Obama would or any other person who gets the power in hand and then convinces themselves they ave to "protect" everybody from (place any and all fears rational or not here)..
Chavez got in on popularity. he prolly won't leave until he dies. but he WAS VOTED in...
that's the problem.
can anybody tell me what the plan is if Obama (or anybody else) declares martial law in Oct before an election and cancels them until further notice?
to MY knowledge there is none. who would remove the Commander in Cheif of the most powerful military in the world? the military? and then?
the 2nd amendment is about balancing powers just like the Judiciary, the Executive and the Congressional system is designed to balance each others powers. the 2nd balances against the three of them. that's what "free state" means- a state of freedom
people who think we've gotten beyond the "need" for that are not realistic in their apraisal of the actual amount of and type of greed in the human race.
Posted by raybond on :
to those of you who think American troops won't fire on Americans this is one of the more milder times they did our history is full of such instances of this,try our period of labor unrest in they 1880's until the turn of the century. Anyway here is what the miltary can do to there fellow brothers in arms all of you know this
The Bonus Army In 1924, a grateful Congress voted to give a bonus to World War I veterans - $1.25 for each day served overseas, $1.00 for each day served in the States. The catch was that payment would not be made until 1945. However, by 1932 the nation had slipped into the dark days of the Depression and the unemployed veterans wanted their money immediately. In May of that year, some 15,000 veterans, many unemployed and destitute, descended on Washington, D.C. to demand immediate payment of their bonus. They proclaimed themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Force but the public dubbed them the "Bonus Army." Raising ramshackle camps at various places around the city, they waited.
The veterans made their largest camp at Anacostia Flats across the river from the Capitol. Approximately 10,000 veterans, women and children lived in the shelters built from materials dragged out of a junk pile nearby - old lumber, packing boxes and scrap tin covered with roofs of thatched straw.
Discipline in the camp was good, despite the fears of many city residents who spread unfounded "Red Scare" rumors. Streets were laid out, latrines dug, and formations held daily. Newcomers were required to register and prove they were bonafide veterans who had been honorably discharged. Their leader, Walter Waters, stated, "We're here for the duration and we're not going to starve. We're going to keep ourselves a simon-pure veteran's organization. If the Bonus is paid it will relieve to a large extent the deplorable economic condition."
June 17 was described by a local newspaper as "the tensest day in the capital since the war." The Senate was voting on the bill already passed by the House to immediately give the vets their bonus money. By dusk, 10,000 marchers crowded the Capitol grounds expectantly awaiting the outcome. Walter Waters, leader of the Bonus Expeditionary Force, appeared with bad news. The Senate had defeated the bill by a vote of 62 to 18. The crowd reacted with stunned silence. "Sing America and go back to your billets" he commanded, and they did. A silent "Death March" began in front of the Capitol and lasted until July 17, when Congress adjourned.
A month later, on July 28, Attorney General Mitchell ordered the evacuation of the veterans from all government property, Entrusted with the job, the Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two marchers killed. Learning of the shooting at lunch, President Hoover ordered the army to clear out the veterans. Infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks were dispatched with Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur in command. Major Dwight D. Eisenhower served as his liaison with Washington police and Major George Patton led the cavalry.
By 4:45 P.M. the troops were massed on Pennsylvania Ave. below the Capitol. Thousands of Civil Service employees spilled out of work and lined the streets to watch. The veterans, assuming the military display was in their honor, cheered. Suddenly Patton's troopers turned and charged. "Shame, Shame" the spectators cried. Soldiers with fixed bayonets followed, hurling tear gas into the crowd.
By nightfall the BEF had retreated across the Anacostia River where Hoover ordered MacArthur to stop. Ignoring the command, the general led his infantry to the main camp. By early morning the 10,000 inhabitants were routed and the camp in flames. Two babies died and nearby hospitals overwhelmed with casualties. Eisenhower later wrote, "the whole scene was pitiful. The veterans were ragged, ill-fed, and felt themselves badly abused. To suddenly see the whole encampment going up in flames just added to the pity."
References: Bartlett, John Henry, The Bonus March and the New Deal (1937); Daniels, Roger, The Bonus March; an Episode of the Great Depression (1971).
How To Cite This Article: "The Bonus Army" EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (2000).
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: bigfoot, the problem is not guns. 510 people murdered in chicago....who do you think those 80% killed by gunfire mostly were? gang bangers...thugs. There are gangs all over chicago.
Let's say that is correct and it is gang bangers... what is the solution? Arm more citizens and create more violence or perhaps have more gang intervention programs and steer kids away from gangs instead or as well? ... Like i said if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem... if you spew Constitution amendments that it is ok to own guns then guess what these young kids will think and do... Own Guns!... we should be finding ways to steer them away from guns, drugs and gangs instead. Even if you only turn 1 kid away from that life it is one kid who won't kill or you have to maybe face someday with your own gun.
quote:They can call for more and more and more restrictions on guns, but look at crack or other drugs....illegal and still plentiful just like guns would be if they were totally outlawed.
So the solution to you is that since it's hopeless then just have no restrictions whatsoever... just have a free for all...
quote:How do drugs get into the US? SMUGGLED, how would guns get into America if banned? SMUGGLED. Homemade guns would be huge just like homemade whiskey.
People dont get it. Drug cartels in Columbia will ship guns with cocaine shipments to arm the dealers to protect their product from other gangs in the streets. These people use F'n submarines now for crying out loud....submarines bought from N korea or Russia to smuggle drugs from Columbia to California coasts and people think making guns "harder to get" is going to stop violence?
Here's a tidbit that you perhaps will find fascinating but still do not get it: The U.S. is the #1 supplier of guns to these Cartels thereby prolonging the violence and keeping them in business to supply our kids with drugs. Don't you think that at least if we shouldn't restrict gun ownership here then perhaps we should try our damn hardest to cut off the gun supply going south of the border?. Makes sense dontcha think. This wouldn't stomp on your constitutional right to own a gun Moo man. Stop Mooing.
"The federal system for tracking gun sales, crafted over the years to avoid infringements on Second Amendment rights, makes it difficult to quickly spot suspicious trends and to identify people buying for smugglers, law enforcement officials say."
That as well as banning gun sales via gun shows and sales via non storefronts (home gun sales etc.) should also be banned. Gun sales should only be through a store front much like prescription drugs should only be sold through a pharmacy so no illegalities happen or are more difficult to happen.
Ok Mach...so lets do it YOUR way...get rid of guns. Then what? You still have gangs, gang violence, drug trafficking, killings, murders in the home, and the rest. So now what? People who dont like guns got their way it is 2020 and guns are being smuggled in through Mexico with drugs and people who dont abide by the law have them.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Ok Mach...so lets do it YOUR way...get rid of guns. Then what? You still have gangs, gang violence, drug trafficking, killings, murders in the home, and the rest. So now what? People who dont like guns got their way it is 2020 and guns are being smuggled in through Mexico with drugs and people who dont abide by the law have them.
You really are more entertaining then to be taken seriously ala PMS lol You have some reading comprehension problem. I have never said to ban guns in general with the exception of Assault weapons. That I will admit I said. If you like I can quote what I have said throughout this thread and others. These are just some of the highlights:
1. Ban gun sales via gun shows, private home sales between owners or dealer to customer, internet sales. I believe this is where most illegal sales occur and that sales should only be through storefronts where gun sales are easier to keep track of even though illegal sales occur there to. For that read # 2.
2. Stricter sentences and fines for illegal gun sales. Also i believe that if you knowingly sell a gun illegally and it is used in a commission of a violent crime that you should also be charged with that crime or accessory. That would put the fear of God so to speak to some of these illegal gun dealers and such.
3. Ban sales to mentally ill specifically incurable diseases. Which diseases should not be sold to should be debated by State and Federal Gov't's though Schizophrenia goes without saying.
4. Encourage the young not to own guns because afterall the less the young think it is ok the less crime there will be and the less reason anyone has to own a gun other then hunting , target practicing etc. No it's not a perfect world, just making a better world. If you are not the solution to the problem you are the problem.
5. Stop the flow of illegal guns south of the Border. Everyone says it is there problem and not ours but that is so not true. Other then money, guns is what keeps the Cartels in business which in turn they flow our streets with their drugs to our kids. Can we stop all illegal guns to the South. Of course not but we shouldn't give up and make it easier for them neither.
6. Stricter background checks with a national database so only the lawful can own them. A background check of 1 month is reasonable to make sure none slip through the cracks. What's the rush to own a gun? You can wait patiently 1 month to make sure everything is done right.
7. Tracking of gun sales be allowed to see if there are any trends from particular buyers that identify them as straw buyers etc.
Anyways these are just some of the things i believe in doing pertaining to the gun issue.Others can add to that list if they have any ideas that are reasonable. I am not advocating banning guns altogether as you can see Cow man so please stop putting words in my mouth and read what I say for once because what I have said is reasonable.I will stand by the Constitution even if I believe it is antiquated and hasn't evolved much with the times. But I do not believe that our Founders wished a free for all of gun ownership and if they did they didn't anticipate times changing and their ideas evolving accordingly. But c'est la vie. And btw guns flow south and not North in terms of gun trafficking.
Posted by glassman on :
ban guns in general with the exception of Assault weapons
LOL, you don't even know what an assault weapon is.
in general theory? every tool used by someone to assualt another is an assualt weapon. steak knife, baseball bat, golf clubs ets...
furthermore, you cannot show me evidence that military style assault weapons are used by criminals in the US. they are less than 1percent. the shotgun used n this case would not be covered.
an assualt weapon should be defined as th esame thing that our miltary uses to assault the enemy. in which case? it would be (mostly)9MM semi's and m16/m-4's
the news tells you what to think and you parrot it.
Posted by glassman on :
Ban sales to mentally ill specifically incurable diseases. Which diseases should not be sold to should be debated by State and Federal Gov't's though Schizophrenia goes without saying.
already been done.
this is why you have no argument to make here. you don't even know what the laws are already.
Posted by glassman on :
Stop the flow of illegal guns south of the Border. Everyone says it is there problem and not ours but that is so not true. Other then money, guns is what keeps the Cartels in business which in turn they flow our streets with their drugs to our kids. Can we stop all illegal guns to the South. Of course not but we shouldn't give up and make it easier for them neither.
LOL...
stop the drugs coming the other way? can't be done... when you wish upon a star.
Posted by glassman on :
Stricter background checks with a national database so only the lawful can own them. A background check of 1 month is reasonable to make sure none slip through the cracks. What's the rush to own a gun? You can wait patiently 1 month to make sure everything is done right.
stricter for what?
we can get a couple grand from our bank account in a second... waiting won;t make it "better" just longer
Posted by glassman on :
Tracking of gun sales be allowed to see if there are any trends from particular buyers that identify them as straw buyers etc.
when this is done? the govt keeps lists of owners.
then they can go round them up first. this was blocked to keep fascists out of power.
you don't want fascists do you?
Posted by glassman on :
we already have reasonable gun laws.
it's people that are unreasonable.
banning dope and alcohol just made them more desirable to certain people...
banning assault weapons is a gun ban.
you cannot define to me a legal gun that should be banned because it is an assault weapon. the media tells you what one is but they are just trying to ban them all.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
MAch you are misinformed. The mentally ill are not allowed to buy guns. You said "encourage the young not to own guns"
Are you serious? Do you know how many young men go sport shooting or hunting with their fathers? How many of those young boys who get involved in sportsmanship and contribute more money to animal and land conservation than you ever will show up in gangs?
You dont need stricter background checks. A background check is a background check. Your examples are prime steak on the platter of what the left sees as useful. Making more and more laws while not focusing on what is already on the books.
You also do not know what an assault weapon is. MSNBC makes them out to be M-60 machine guns and full auto. You go to a gun show you buy an SKS with a 10 rd box magazine...big freakin deal. you can only shoot as many rounds as you can pull the trigger. If you really want to own a class 3 weapon then you go through the ATF and they conduct a background check. If you think the ATF needs to learn how to do a better background check you should go call them and let them know the best way to do that.
My goodness you are full of misinforamtion!
Posted by glassman on :
You really are more entertaining then to be taken seriously ala PMS lol
you are less entertaining and cannot be taken seriously either.
Posted by raybond on :
We have no where near reasonable gun laws in this country all you have to do is read the paper or watch the local news in your own town.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by raybond: We have no where near reasonable gun laws in this country all you have to do is read the paper or watch the local news in your own town.
That doesnt make sense.
Posted by raybond on :
niether do you
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I never thought to see you posting talking points Glass.
Just goes to show every person has their issue I guess.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: I never thought to see you posting talking points Glass.
Just goes to show every person has their issue I guess.
i expected this discussion to heat up as soon as it became clear that we would most likely have all Dems running things again.
under Clinton? the liberals actually began to rewrite history and try to re-interpret the meaning of the Constitution.
there was a history professor at Emory that lost his tenured position for providing false data to support his claims that the founders never meant for the people to be armed, and that the militias were Govt sponsored.
militias are private citizens--non-govt. the govt is the reason we should be armed. not hunting or sporting or hobbies. it's about keeping the govt balanced, and it always was meant that way, no amount of editing history will change that. we were fighting a revolution just a few years before the 2nd was written, and that IS what was on their minds. it doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative, partisan or not, the govt is not supposed to be the only means of affording yourself security.
the fastest way for the GOP to get back into power would be for the Dems to start banning guns.
the odd part is that just talking about doing it increases gun sales dramatically yet they do keep talking about it.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Maybe it is a big conspiracy and the Dems are being paid off by the gun lobbyists under the table with laundered money from green shell companies!!!
Sorry...couldn't resist. Lots of conspiracies on the board recently.
So you been gearing yourself up for this thread for the past 3 months eh Glass? It's kinda funny but personally it seems to me that everybody except the Pres and the democratic leadership is talking about this.
Well, like I and the others who are debating (what I suppose would be considered the left side of this argument) have all stated now....We are not out to disarm the populous. The reasons behind having an armed society have been examined and accepted.
I am not interested in getting into the clusterf*ck of trying to define what gun is what type of weapon. I'll admit freely that I don't know. What I do know is that the bayonett lug is banned (which is silly) and I know that a fully automatic AK-47 killed three boys ages 13, 15, and 17 less than three months ago despite being banned. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/triple-shooting-022009.html (It doesn't say it was an AK in this article but it does in others)
All that to say I don't like fully automatics but otherwise I am not terribly interested in the further banning of specific guns.
What I do want is mandatory firearms training for anyone who wants to own a weapon. I think everyone should have to go through the classes that conceal and carry folks do even if they aren't planning on seeking a carry permit. There is a lot of good info in those classes and they should be utilized. Call it judo honor sessions for gun owners.
I want a background check that is thorough. I don't care about a wait period. A wait period is meaningless unless they are doing something with the time and in this day and age I feel that a check for a gun owner should take as long as a settlement of sold stock funds should take (i.e. A hell of a lot less than T+3). I myself (and I am assuming Mach) feel the current checks seem to be a little more haphazard than I am comfortable living with and would like to see the process streamlined and enhanced. CCM, feel free to call it E Verify for gun owners if that makes it easier to swallow.
I personally would like to see state registration of guns. I don't care if you sell em or not but if you do I think you should have to transfer a title along with the gun so there is ALWAYS someone responsible for weapon. A gun without an owner is an incident waiting to happen. I understand the fears of databases but...really...If the government goes rogue are you really planning on setting up your base of operation in your own house if you've decided it's time to go Rambo on their ass?
I want the southern border leaks closed. I want the southern border leaks closed for SO MANY reasons. I want smart technology electric eyes covering multiple spectrum's watching the entire stretch a mile deep with rapid response deployment squads every ten miles and a dedicated rail line behind the observation zone for high speed pickup and delivery of intercepts. I want every personal vehicle sniffed and every commercial vehicle fully examined. If I could without being demonized as a protectionist I'd have facilities built and require all product coming into the county to be unpacked, examined, and then repacked in different vehicles before being allowed to enter.
I want marijuana legalized. Not so much for the drug (don't really care about that one way or another) but for the industry. Hemp is an amazing agricultural product that we ignore to our own detriment. Marijuana is also by far the largest illegal drug used in America. Take away the primary product and these cartels stop extending their tentacles everywhere like coca-cola and start acting more like Jones soda.
P.S. I love your current tagline Glass.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
BF pretty much answered everything I want to say but I will humor Glass ** cough ** I mean Cow since it was Cow who replied to my post? Funny lately it seems others answer for Cow when I post to the Moo man... wonder why...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: ban guns in general with the exception of Assault weapons
LOL, you don't even know what an assault weapon is.
Funny, I don't recall that I tried to define what an assault weapon is. I only recall saying I want such weapons banned and leave it to the politicians to define what they are. Though BF answered for me already.
And in general theory you knew exactly what i meant Cow, oops i mean Glass.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Ban sales to mentally ill specifically incurable diseases. Which diseases should not be sold to should be debated by State and Federal Gov't's though Schizophrenia goes without saying.
already been done.
this is why you have no argument to make here. you don't even know what the laws are already.
Actually I can read them state by state:
"Allstocks wouldn't let me post a link because of parentheses so: google >>> gun laws in united states wiki <<< key words
But to tell you the truth I think there is too many laws crisscrossing each other and their should be more uniform laws. From what i can read there is a Federal, State and local law in each state. To me there should only be a federal and state law only. No local ones are needed or they should be integrated into the state laws.
As for mental illnesses, you and me both know they can walk into a gun store and buy a gun with no way for the gun store owner to do a background check to indicate the person has a history of mental disease. If so then show me.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: LOL...
stop the drugs coming the other way? can't be done... when you wish upon a star.
You have a weird sense of humor Cow, i mean Glass. I never said drugs nor guns could be completely stopped from flowing to or from South of the Border. what I did say is we should TRY to stop guns from going South of the Border which keeps the Cartels in business along with laundered money and drugs.
Frankly i am quite surprised that you suggest we do nothing about illegal destructive products flowing south and north of our borders and just let it flow free because we can't stop it all.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Stricter background checks with a national database so only the lawful can own them. A background check of 1 month is reasonable to make sure none slip through the cracks. What's the rush to own a gun? You can wait patiently 1 month to make sure everything is done right.
stricter for what?
we can get a couple grand from our bank account in a second... waiting won;t make it "better" just longer
"State alternatives to the background check, such as state-issued handgun permits or mandatory state or local checks, may still bypass the NICS check."
Correct me if I am wrong Cow, I mean Glass but if the state bypasses the NICS check and only do a state check then couldn't a criminal from another state who settles in a new state obtain a gun permit since he or she perhaps has no record in that new state?
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Tracking of gun sales be allowed to see if there are any trends from particular buyers that identify them as straw buyers etc.
when this is done? the govt keeps lists of owners.
then they can go round them up first. this was blocked to keep fascists out of power.
you don't want fascists do you?
So because of your paranoia of the Gov't ,which imo will never turn into a Fascist state EVER,you are willing to let straw buyers slip through the cracks and buy guns illegally for others which will be used in violent crimes thereby causing deaths that could of been avoided? Is that what you want then?
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: we already have reasonable gun laws.
it's people that are unreasonable.
banning dope and alcohol just made them more desirable to certain people...
banning assault weapons is a gun ban.
you cannot define to me a legal gun that should be banned because it is an assault weapon. the media tells you what one is but they are just trying to ban them all.
I don't speak for the media, i speak for myself and it is not the media that tells me how to think any more so then they do to u.
The media and others use the term "Assault weapon" broadly imo but i use it when i mean fully automatic firearm and similar type of weapons... I don't profess to be an expert on firearms any more so then u pretend to be more knowledgeable at poker then me. But to me it is pretty simple which firearms we mean and that usually means rapid fire ones. Which ones in particular can be debatable but it's pretty tiring to see you and others try to pretend you don't know what me and people with my views mean when it comes to assault weapons.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Mach...you remind me of the little dweeb back in high school that thought they "knew it all"...
you know...the guy that no one liked because he always had an "answer" for everything...yet you could clearly see that he was merely attempting to prove himself as intelligent by spewing bull$hit...
In this thread, you have proven that you don't know a damn thing about guns or gun laws nor do you have any viable solutions to the problems you complain about...yet you act like you're an expert...and claim to have all the answers...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: MAch you are misinformed. The mentally ill are not allowed to buy guns. You said "encourage the young not to own guns"
Are you serious? Do you know how many young men go sport shooting or hunting with their fathers? How many of those young boys who get involved in sportsmanship and contribute more money to animal and land conservation than you ever will show up in gangs?[quote] The gangs' sport shooting and hunting are human beings. We should be advocating education, entrepreurship etc. to the gangbangers and not proflitering the country with guns and giving them the idea it's cool to own a gun and blow sh*t up with them. But sadly we do not do that.
[quote]You dont need stricter background checks. A background check is a background check. Your examples are prime steak on the platter of what the left sees as useful. Making more and more laws while not focusing on what is already on the books.
Some states bypass the NCIS and only do a state check therefor criminals with criminal records in other states do not show up on their computers as such and there is no background check to determing a mentally ill person as far as i seen.
quote:You also do not know what an assault weapon is. MSNBC makes them out to be M-60 machine guns and full auto. You go to a gun show you buy an SKS with a 10 rd box magazine...big freakin deal. you can only shoot as many rounds as you can pull the trigger. If you really want to own a class 3 weapon then you go through the ATF and they conduct a background check. If you think the ATF needs to learn how to do a better background check you should go call them and let them know the best way to do that.
My goodness you are full of misinforamtion!
I already replied to Cow, I mean Glass, no i mean Cow about this in the post above lol you guys must wear the same undies... get ur own undies...
Posted by glassman on :
So because of your paranoia of the Gov't ,which imo will never turn into a Fascist state EVER,you are willing to let straw buyers slip through the cracks and buy guns illegally for others which will be used in violent crimes thereby causing deaths that could of been avoided? Is that what you want then?
it'snot paranoia NYC already did it.
they told people to register, then they TOOK their guns
you know nothing
Posted by glassman on :
fully automatic firearm and similar type of weapons.
they require a special tax tranfer stamp and a special permit. they are not being used in crimes. they are in fact fully historically documented and their owners are on lists.
you know nothing
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Mach...you remind me of the little dweeb back in high school that thought they "knew it all"...
you know...the guy that no one liked because he always had an "answer" for everything...yet you could clearly see that he was merely attempting to prove himself as intelligent by spewing bull$hit...
In this thread, you have proven that you don't know a damn thing about guns or gun laws nor do you have any viable solutions to the problems you complain about...yet you act like you're an expert...and claim to have all the answers...
I don't recall calling myself an expert or a know it all. I thought we were having a debate and we post each others' opinions.
Before you start being a d*ckhead as usual when I didn't start sh*t with you then perhaps point out where I was ignorant of gun laws (i posted a link of state by state gun laws), guns (i made myself clear which guns I meant), viable solutions (i suggested solutions that can be tweeked by the board or politicians or your mother)...
I really don't give a f*cking rat's azz if you like me or not Retired... you also have me confused with someone who gives a damn what you have to say... as usual if you do not like what i have to say then ignore my posts... if not then contribute to them intelligently and not as an azzhole... otherwise go back to your retirement to rest in pasture...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: You really are more entertaining then to be taken seriously ala PMS lol
you are less entertaining and cannot be taken seriously either.
if you don't take me serious then why are you replying to me and for someone else...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
it'snot paranoia NYC already did it.
they told people to register, then they TOOK their guns
you know nothing
I don't take your words on such things... to convince me show a link... a non biased one preferably...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: fully automatic firearm and similar type of weapons.
they require a special tax tranfer stamp and a special permit. they are not being used in crimes. they are in fact fully historically documented and their owners are on lists.
you know nothing
As someone already pointed out... tell that to Chicago and their gangs that use such weapons...
Posted by glassman on :
once again the news is spreading propaganda.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
the weapon used in a murder by a gangbanger is not spreading propaganda.. he'll they even have video footage of these thugs shooting these weapons into the sky or carrying them... go watch Gangland on history channel.. the episodes on the Chicago gangs... any gun can be trafficked illegally including those...
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Mach...you remind me of the little dweeb back in high school that thought they "knew it all"...
you know...the guy that no one liked because he always had an "answer" for everything...yet you could clearly see that he was merely attempting to prove himself as intelligent by spewing bull$hit...
In this thread, you have proven that you don't know a damn thing about guns or gun laws nor do you have any viable solutions to the problems you complain about...yet you act like you're an expert...and claim to have all the answers...
I don't recall calling myself an expert or a know it all. I thought we were having a debate and we post each others' opinions.
Before you start being a d*ckhead as usual when I didn't start sh*t with you then perhaps point out where I was ignorant of gun laws (i posted a link of state by state gun laws), guns (i made myself clear which guns I meant), viable solutions (i suggested solutions that can be tweeked by the board or politicians or your mother)...
I really don't give a f*cking rat's azz if you like me or not Retired... you also have me confused with someone who gives a damn what you have to say... as usual if you do not like what i have to say then ignore my posts... if not then contribute to them intelligently and not as an azzhole... otherwise go back to your retirement to rest in pasture...
I can see why someone pulled a gun on you...you are an annoying little jerk...
and...you know nothing
Posted by glassman on :
i ran a search for
East 87th Street shootings
that's the Chicago gang shooting of three teens.
one mention of an "assault rifle" by a witness was mentioned in the first half-dozen articles.
there is no mention of fully automatic fire but there is mention of several people involved int e assault and one of them had an undefined assualt weapon.
my point is that the media likes to call anything an assault weapon.
real assault weapons are available with a tax stamp, a special permit, and about 15 grand.
Suspect in teens' slayings was acquitted in '05 fatal shooting February 25, 2009 10:22 AM | 12 Comments A 20-year-old reputed gang member who is in custody in connection with last Friday's assault rifle slayings of three teens on the city's Southeast Side was acquitted in a fatal 2005 shooting that occurred in the same area. The man, who has been arrested but not yet charged in the teen slayings, was acquitted in August in the March 2005 slaying of 19-year-old Danny Urbieta, according to court records. That slaying occurred in the 8700 block of South Escanaba Avenue.
Killed in the Friday shooting less than a block away near East 87th Street and South Exchange Avenue were two Bowen High School students--Kendrick Pitts, 17, and Raheem Washington 15--and a student from Mireles Academy elementary school, 13-year-old Johnny Edwards.
So far this school year, 25 Chicago public school students have been slain, compared to 26 for the entire previous school year.
The young man in the photo has been arrested and charged with three counts of murder. Here is what we know about Martin Ybarra. He is 20 years old and was acquitted six months ago for the shooting death of Danny Urbieta in 2005. Fine; perhaps he really didn’t kill Danny, and until his next trail is over, we cannot say for sure that he slaughtered Kendrick Pitts, Raheem Washington, and Johnny Edwards last week either. And, given the absolute certainty of police science in Illinois in general and Chicago in particular, Marty may be innocent of all charges and guilty only of a goofy nickname: Cartoon.
All that notwithstanding, there is a significant under-reported descriptor in this case. The Chicago Sun-Times did identify Marty as a former Special Education student at the time he was arrested, at age 16, for killing Urbieta. Special Education, special ed as it is affectionately known, is a deep, dark crevice in the brick wall that is the public school system. If parents are ever going to get stonewalled by educators, this is where it will happen.
a former special ed student acquired a full auto rifle? i doubt it.
here's the gangland b lo g abuot it
http://ganggods.blo gspot.com/2009/02/martin-ybarra-alleged-longtime-latin.html
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: I can see why someone pulled a gun on you...you are an annoying little jerk...
and...you know nothing
Nice reply considering you started the sh*t with me as usual... hope someone pulls a gun on you and retires you permantly... for trespassing of course... wouldn't want them to break the law Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i ran a search for
East 87th Street shootings
that's the Chicago gang shooting of three teens.
one mention of an "assault rifle" by a witness was mentioned in the first half-dozen articles.
there is no mention of fully automatic fire but there is mention of several people involved int e assault and one of them had an undefined assualt weapon.
my point is that the media likes to call anything an assault weapon.
real assault weapons are available with a tax stamp, a special permit, and about 15 grand.
Wouldn't ballistics say what kind of weapon it was or police statements? ... but like i said it was video footage that I watched and not words in the Gangland Chicago episodes.. can probably find them on Youtube...
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: I can see why someone pulled a gun on you...you are an annoying little jerk...
and...you know nothing
Nice reply considering you started the sh*t with me as usual... hope someone pulls a gun on you and retires you permantly... for trespassing of course... wouldn't want them to break the law
So you do advocate the use of guns on humans...as long as it serves your wants...
Posted by glassman on :
Assault rifle recovered Ybarra was arrested Tuesday after witnesses and residents came forward, police said in a statement. Police said shells from the shooting indicated an assault rifle was the murder weapon and that an assault rifle had been recovered.
this is the phantom assult rifle.
first off? you cannot ID an assault rifle bythe shells. the shells mean NOTHING unless maybe you know that 50 shells were fired in one minute. then you have a clue.
the fact is this case is being sensationalised to get he ball rolling on an assault weapons ban again..
this was predictable as the sun rising.
Jeff Soyer on 26 Apr 2009 07:02 am
How the AP Defines “Assault Rifle”
In essence, they blame the ATF:
The pro-gun people say that an “assault weapon” is a term that applies only to a fully automatic weapon (one that keeps firing as long as you hold the trigger back). They say it’s inaccurate to use the term for a semi-automatic weapon (one that fires a single round each time you pull the trigger). They say the only difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an “assault rifle” is cosmetic: Take an ordinary hunting rifle, switch out the stock, slap on a banana clip, put a flash suppressor over the barrel, give it a camouflage paint job, and presto — it’s an assault weapon.
Well . . . yes, says the ATF, which defines it like this: “In general, assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use.”
Taking its cue from that, the Associated Press Stylebook defines assault weapons as “firearms that feature two or more accessories such as a detachable magazine, folding or telescopic stock, silencer, pistol grip, bayonet mount or a device to suppress the flash emitted while shooting in the dark.”
Still seems rather cosmetic to me. With all of the above, it’s still just a semi-automatic rifle regardless of what the ATF or the AP chooses to call it. Actually, though, the AP isn’t using the ATF definition, they’re using the one dreamed up by politicians for the original 1994 Clinton ban on so called “assault weapons.”
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i ran a search for
East 87th Street shootings
that's the Chicago gang shooting of three teens.
one mention of an "assault rifle" by a witness was mentioned in the first half-dozen articles.
there is no mention of fully automatic fire but there is mention of several people involved int e assault and one of them had an undefined assualt weapon.
my point is that the media likes to call anything an assault weapon.
real assault weapons are available with a tax stamp, a special permit, and about 15 grand.
Wouldn't ballistics say what kind of weapon it was or police statements? ... but like i said it was video footage that I watched and not words in the Gangland Chicago episodes.. can probably find them on Youtube...
find me a link. i'll look.
ballistics can ID the gun from a slug.
some shells can be ID'd by their markings from different moving parts that scratch or dent the shells. shells from single shot guns and full auto guns can be interchanged if they are chambered for the same rounds.
i have a single shot .223 rifle which can shoot M-16 ammo... i also have a single shot pistol that can shoot the same rounds. it's called a Contender (if you don't beleive me)
the media is working on the gun issue to make people afraid.
we have 100 million gun owners in this country and relatively few of them should not have them
all honest gun owners want hem not to have them too, but we are not interested in giving up our guns because .0001% of the gun owners are animals
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: So you do advocate the use of guns on humans...as long as it serves your wants...
Let's just say I am not crying if it happens to you any more so then you were that it happened to me... Posted by retiredat49 on :
I find it sad that people shoot other people and wouldn't wish it on anyone...not even you Mach...
I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger if someone was threatening me or my family though...
I would never use a gun out of anger or for revenge...only for personnal protection and gathering food
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: find me a link. i'll look.
I would have to look at hours of episode on Youtube to find the actual clips they showed if they even have them on youtube... but if you wish to look through them just put in keywords: chicago gangland episode . But look at the black gangbanger ones and not the Latin Kings and such..
quote:all honest gun owners want hem not to have them too, but we are not interested in giving up our guns because .0001% of the gun owners are animals
Again, no one is saying to give up your guns or take away your guns. You keep saying that while me and BF keep telling you on the contrary. I suggest you reread BF's long post.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: I find it sad that people shoot other people and wouldn't wish it on anyone...not even you Mach...
I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger if someone was threatening me or my family though...
I would never use a gun out of anger or for revenge...only for personnal protection and gathering food
That is about the only reasonable statement I have heard a gun owner say... I just didn't like what you said before with my gun incident and i replied in kind out of anger...
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: I find it sad that people shoot other people and wouldn't wish it on anyone...not even you Mach...
I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger if someone was threatening me or my family though...
I would never use a gun out of anger or for revenge...only for personnal protection and gathering food
That is about the only reasonable statement I have heard a gun owner say... I just didn't like what you said before with my gun incident and i replied in kind out of anger...
Every statement that Glassman has made on this topic has been reasonable...and true
Also...if you are that easily angered...I'm glad you don't own any guns...
Posted by T e x on :
lol, roger, that...
Posted by glassman on :
i had a family member that lost his hand to a shotgun. the story was that it was leaned on the porch and fell over due to some unspecified act. the story was never questioned and my uncle never got a prosthetic. he did work his whole life anyway.
he lived thru the depression to give an age to him.
nobody in the family swore off guns any more than they swore of cars cuz somebody died in an accident.
motorcycles were no-no in my family cuz somebody was lost on a foggy Christmas morning. He died on an Indian.
my dad wouldn't let me have a BB guncuz a friend of his lost an eye to one in elementary school.
i was allowed to have a real gun at 12, and it was never ever played with.
i bought my son a BB gun and took it away from him when i saw him playing with it.
guns are just a basic part of non-city life the US.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Every statement that Glassman has made on this topic has been reasonable...and true
That is just your opinion...
quote:Also...if you are that easily angered...I'm glad you don't own any guns...
Why? I have the right to own one even if i flip off the handle sometimes...
But in seriousness I wouldn't own one for personal reasons that I have never stated on this board and I will leave it at that...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: lol, roger, that...
Wiseazz Posted by T e x on :
seriously, I would not NOT own firearms.
By that I intend, I will not live anywhere that infringes such...
As one Glassy post alludes...there *is* a definite disconnect between attitudes "back East" and "out West" and between "old Urban" and "still rural."
The way I was raised and still adhere to, a firearm is merely a tool. There's no "boogeyman" aspect attached.
The boogeyman is anybody who wants to take away my tools, whether it's a street-thief junkie or a Senator.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
I guess I did not ask this before or clearly to everyone who is pro-gun...
but what would you say to that kids mother knowing your actions and gun killed him? Would it make you think differently about the whole gun issue?
Or would you think differently about the gun issue if it was your child killed in that fashion, by accident (kid playing with gun and it went off), you shot him by accident thinking he was a intruder in the night, he committed suicide etc.. etc..
What would make you think differently about the gun issue if not these things i named or which of these things i named?
Have you ever changed your mind about an issue due to a personal tragedy or do you think you ever would if it happened to you?
Posted by glassman on :
Have you ever changed your mind about an issue due to a personal tragedy or do you think you ever would if it happened to you?
Mach, it still comes down to taking responsibilty for your actions.
i and i am sure others understand your problem with them, but your problem is sorta like DDT. DDT is basically non-toxic to mammals. we can shake the pure powder on our bodies to remove lice and fleas (yes people get fleas, and did much more often just 75 years ago)
there are old (depression era) films of people being deloused enmasse with DDT like it was baby powder. thing is? it kills alot of other stuff..
some people don't care, but they SHOULD.
most all pesticides are toxic to more than just the target pests, but we use them based on the cost risk analysis.
in the end? it is people, not the pesticides that destroy the environment with the pesticides. we increase our crop yeilds an more people can live more beter lives.
i've been in several countries where people are not allowed to own guns and they are much worse off for it in most of them. like Mexico for starters.
Britain and a few other eurocountries are no better or worse for having htem or not, but several of those eurocountries owned several dozens of colonies by using guns on people that didn't have them didn't they?
and don't try to tell me you know that humanity is evolved tot eh point where they are superfluous... there's more criminals in suits and ties than there are on the streets. the suit and tie types are much more dangerous too.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli: I guess I did not ask this before or clearly to everyone who is pro-gun...
but what would you say to that kids mother knowing your actions and gun killed him? Would it make you think differently about the whole gun issue?
Or would you think differently about the gun issue if it was your child killed in that fashion, by accident (kid playing with gun and it went off), you shot him by accident thinking he was a intruder in the night, he committed suicide etc.. etc..
What would make you think differently about the gun issue if not these things i named or which of these things i named?
Have you ever changed your mind about an issue due to a personal tragedy or do you think you ever would if it happened to you?
can not imagine my actions paralleling ANYBODY's actions as described... is kinda like asking, "What if you molested children?"
feeling me, here?
My child? Doubt I would go into an area that had a posted sign such as they posted. Well, unless I somehow had a job that was at least somewhat legally defensible to neutralize the threat that they obviously posed.
Personal tragedy/change your mind:
As far as firearms go, had an accident once that STRONGLY reinforced my father's (and elders') very emphatic instructions to always be safe with a firearm you *think* might be unloaded.
So, the way I changed my mind was to change myself and live up to what I had been taught.
On a different track, I was happy to be informed that my favorite kissin' cousin fended off a carjacking and a possible/probable rape by emerging from her pickup and quickly looking down the barrel of a 12-gauge shotgun. They left, and she drove on home, molested no further.
She kept the shotgun handy, though...
As far as personal tragedy goes, I learned the hard way about "the cobbler's kids." That is, I never had smoke detectors in my house that burned, even though a woodburning stove was our main heat for more than 20 years.
You can bet my new home has some damn, fine smoke detectors. Posted by Machiavelli on :
Personally I don't think anyone here can answer those questions at least pertaining to the gun issue unless it has personally happened to them... their child i mean... i know of stories where a child accidentally shot himself or a family member (usually another child) and it broke up the family/marriage... and more times then none the gun owner thought differently about owning a gun in a house.. some of then tragedly became alcoholics or killed themselves...
But til something like that happens to us directly I don't think we can really answer how we would react. We can say on this board all we want how we would react but when and if it happens the reality is you can react differently...
Anyways you guys still haven't answered what you would say to that kids' mother if you had shot him dead... the one in the story...
Also I don't think they saw that sign that was posted on that property... and to make it clear again they were not on those two rednecks' property... in other words they were not trespassing... they were just shot down in cold blood...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: As far as personal tragedy goes, I learned the hard way about "the cobbler's kids." That is, I never had smoke detectors in my house that burned, even though a woodburning stove was our main heat for more than 20 years.
You can bet my new home has some damn, fine smoke detectors.
I guess it takes a personal tragedy before we are moved to do something. I was never interested in the breast cancer cause til i lost a loved one and now I'm a breast cancer advocate. Email letters to my senators to vote for certain laws, donate to komen.org, wear a pink ribbon everyday at work to remind customers of breast cancer awareness etc. etc.
It is sad that it takes a personal tragedy to do so whether breast cancer, fire, death by a gun etc.
I was almost shot 2 times in my life and I guess that has affected me subconciously and most on this board imo have not experienced such a thing....
Posted by glassman on :
i did repo work for years- had more than one gun pointed at me in that work. it is illegal in most states for a repoman to be armed off his own premises. so no, i wasn't carrying, and even a permit would not allow a weapon to be carried in repo work in the states i worked in.
didn't change my mind.
if people didn't have guns in thier homes? their would be alot more theft. cops can't prevent crimes they are there to catch people that commit them after they do it.
Posted by IWISHIHAD on :
Quote Machiavelli:
"I was almost shot 2 times in my life and I guess that has affected me subconciously and most on this board imo have not experienced such a thing...."
_________________________________________________
Depending on the situation, you might wish you were armed if they are shooting at you.
I don't personally want a gun, but i think there would be a lot more crime if crooks and others knew nobody but police and military had them.
This is one of the reasons i feel that gun availability to citizens is necessary.
Of course that's been brought up many times in the past.
I always worry about though accidental shootings though and that's always a potential reality of owning a gun.
Getting shot at isn't that much fun unless your superman.
But i think there might be some on this board that wish they had only been shot at twice in their lifetime.
If i got shot at much, i might change my mind about owning a gun.
But then again i would probably end up shooting myself accidently, so it would not be a good idea for me.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: cops can't prevent crimes they are there to catch people that commit them after they do it.
This last line is a very true statement that I wish more people understood. Crime prevention is environmental, the police force is tactical response only.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Spit it out Big...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
S..S...S...Sorry for th...th..the double P.Post guys!
The first one was comments that were rendered irrelevant by other posts in the discussion that I had not gotten to yet.
Here's a question for you rural folks. We are a land of equality an all so this probably would never work but could you see as acceptable stricter gun control rules if they only affected the largest metropolises of our nation? Or would that, in its own way, be even worse? (Playing Devils Questionaire here)
Posted by retiredat49 on :
The way I see it....you can create as many laws as you want or even BAN guns in this country...
the bad guys would still get guns...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: The way I see it....you can create as many laws as you want or even BAN guns in this country...
the bad guys would still get guns...
Thats why I have been trying to get through their heads. It just doesnt make sense to them for some reason. Lawless will always remain lawless no matter how much you use crime as an excuse to ban firearms. People just want a good scapegoat to their fears and blaming guns for crime is a good way to make them feel better.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
if people didn't have guns in thier homes? their would be alot more theft. cops can't prevent crimes they are there to catch people that commit them after they do it.
The presence of police as well as less poverty in my area is what deters and prevents crime not gun ownership. IMO versus certain parts of the country like Miss where you live, relatively few people own guns in Long Island and we have a low crime rate imo...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: The way I see it....you can create as many laws as you want or even BAN guns in this country...
the bad guys would still get guns...
And they can still commit rape, get drugs, rob banks, kidnap etc.. etc.. but we don't abolish those laws or stop creating new stricter laws to violent crime just because criminals will do it anyway...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Lawless will always remain lawless no matter how much you use crime as an excuse to ban firearms.
You keep saying "ban" and from what I been trying to get through to your head that other then assault weapons (and let's not debate this again, let's all assume we know what we all mean)no one has said to ban guns just to LIMIT them or to make it harder for the criminals to obtain through legal places to buy such as gun shows, gunshops and dealers that sell out of homes. The only banning I am advocating is sales at gun shows and out of homes not storefronts.
quote: People just want a good scapegoat to their fears and blaming guns for crime is a good way to make them feel better.
There is a pattern in this country that most or the majority of crimes are committed by guns. You can't tell me that you do not see that everyday in the news? Violent crime committed with guns more so then with anything else.
As for so called "banning", i'll play Devils' advocate and say Why not? We are trying to ban Nuclear weapons from North Korea, Iran etc. Why so? After all it is a Big gun of sorts and they do have a right to own one just as you do for a regular gun no?
Btw I am not for banning guns but I just wanted to throw that in there.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Lawless will always remain lawless no matter how much you use crime as an excuse to ban firearms. People just want a good scapegoat to their fears and blaming guns for crime is a good way to make them feel better.
No...close but not quite. Lawless will always remain lawless, on that we totally agree. The idea isn't to scapegoat fears onto guns, it is the thought that if we could find a way to limit the amount of projectile weapons available to the lawless then they must turn to other forms of destruction. Unintended targets would no longer be victims and both the rules of law and the rules of the street would be more straightforward.
Does that make sense to you?
Posted by retiredat49 on :
So you want to create laws that the lawless won't adhere to?...make s no sense Big...
Only law abiding people are going to follow your "laws" and "controls" concerning projectile weapons, and those people aren't the problem...
I'll say it again very clearly...criminals are GOING to get guns, no matter how many laws you create to stop them from getting them...
Posted by T e x on :
Look, this entire argument is specious, and you'll understand what I'm saying if you think about it logically. And, I must say, we've covered this ground before...
1) the whole "cradle-to-grave" registration issue depends upon no intervention of criminals in the process.
You can read a fairly decent argument, admittedly "pro-gun," here:
Even if you disagree with the conclusion, there's some pretty good rhetoric for "both sides," with links... Granted, I skimmed it, but I'm a decent skimmer...
2) But here's the deal: Even if you read ALL the arguments, all the links, all the linked-links...you *might* very well be missing the real point.
3) Back to my premise, namely, the "gun problem" ain't big enough to worry about, yet. It robs mental/emotional "bandwidth" from consideration of larger problems. Am not saying ignore it, because I realize it's a very emotional issue, on all sides. Monitor it, if you like...
4) Let's say we're interested in improving the human condition. 4-a)So we could focus on feeding folks who don't have proper nutrition; 4-b) or we could focus on providing shelter for those without proper housing; 4-c) etc... 4-d) but, no, in this argument, we're focusing on early/untimely or basically "wrongful" death.
5) As far as I can tell, most of the argument here is centered on life in the USA.
6) Here's a list of the leading causes of death in the USA, as of 2005, from the CDC:
As I read that list, the closest "gun-related" *might* be included would number 5, accidents. My sense of it, however, is that probably gun-related is pretty low even in accidental deaths.
Conclusion
So, if you really want to prevent "early" or "unnecessary" death, wouldn't it make sense to focus on the leading causes?
1. heart disease
2. cancer
3. stroke
4. chronic lower respiratory disease
5. accidents
6. diabetes
7. Alzheimer's, etc?
Makes sense to me to attack the biggest problem, first. Then work *down* the list.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Lawless will always remain lawless no matter how much you use crime as an excuse to ban firearms. People just want a good scapegoat to their fears and blaming guns for crime is a good way to make them feel better.
No...close but not quite. Lawless will always remain lawless, on that we totally agree. The idea isn't to scapegoat fears onto guns, it is the thought that if we could find a way to limit the amount of projectile weapons available to the lawless then they must turn to other forms of destruction. Unintended targets would no longer be victims and both the rules of law and the rules of the street would be more straightforward.
Does that make sense to you?
big, a cup of gasoline is equal to a stick of dynamite. it actually has more BTU's
there is no way to make the world "perfectly safe" from the animals or even alot safer than it is now
you cannot make guns less available to criminals.
we've tried it with alcohol and drugs and that didn't work. it did and does in fact make MORE criminals.
i know from life experince that the only reason a drug is a "gateway" drug is becuase it is sold by a criminal who has other things to sell.
guns are not consumables. it is even easier to supply them once. then ammo becomes the big black market ticket, and ammo can be reloaded.
it is impossible to make Utopia because it is people that are flawed.
when you consider that over 800,000 people die in America each year, and 30,000 of them are gun deaths. that sounds like alot? not to me
but, to make th eppoint even stronger? over half the gun deaths are suicides;
FACT:In 2005 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S:
* 12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths), * 17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths), * 789 unintentional shootings, 330 from legal intervention and 221 from undetermined intent (5% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
blaming suicides on guns is kind silly isn't it?
Posted by glassman on :
look how this is worded.
ACT: A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present. -Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)
i can accept the fact. however, the gun didn't do it. the person did. maybe gun owners are just more likely to be pro-active? a botched suicide is generally considered a plea for help, whereas a successful one is just what it is.
i am a firm beleiver in the right to suicide.
i've never been able to understand why people think it's so bad.
it's illegal in most states. what a waste of legislation. my first real job was blood drawer in a huge county hosp. i saw plenty of people suffering beyong comprehension, and it was common knowledge amongst professionals that a little extra morphine was the best answer.
stem cell research could change almost of the suffering from hopeless to something to endure because the future will be better, but in many cases at the time i was there? there was no hope.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i am a firm beleiver in the right to suicide.
i've never been able to understand why people think it's so bad.
Because not all suicides are due to terminal illness... you are forgetting the ones that are due to depression and/or murder-suicide..
I am for suicide due to terminal painful illness but I am not for it pertaining to depression/mental illness. Depression/mental illness etc. is a disease but it is a treatable and/or curable disease. So letting these people to commit suicide is wrong.
Posted by glassman on :
I am for suicide due to terminal painful illness but I am not for it pertaining to depression/mental illness. Depression/mental illness etc. is a disease but it is a treatable and/or curable disease. So letting these people to commit suicide is wrong.
it's not your right to decide. a person owns their own life and if they choose to end it? then that's their right.
this is fundamental to the concept of living in freedom.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: I am for suicide due to terminal painful illness but I am not for it pertaining to depression/mental illness. Depression/mental illness etc. is a disease but it is a treatable and/or curable disease. So letting these people to commit suicide is wrong.
it's not your right to decide. a person owns their own life and if they choose to end it? then that's their right.
this is fundamental to the concept of living in freedom.
If you want total freedom then we shouldn't have laws whatsoever... just let everyone do what they want... there is no right or wrong... just have a free for all...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
That is called Anarchy and what would you do Mach if that ever happened? Ill equiped to protect your home?
Would that ever happen? Doubtful, but it's better to have one and not need it than to not have one when you DO need it.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: So you want to create laws that the lawless won't adhere to?...make s no sense Big...
Only law abiding people are going to follow your "laws" and "controls" concerning projectile weapons, and those people aren't the problem...
I'll say it again very clearly...criminals are GOING to get guns, no matter how many laws you create to stop them from getting them...
Kinda like how everybody is going to speed no matter what the limit is set at? Are you saying then that we should not post speed limits?
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: That is called Anarchy and what would you do Mach if that ever happened? Ill equiped to protect your home?
Would that ever happen? Doubtful, but it's better to have one and not need it than to not have one when you DO need it.
Someone made that same point here about God once upon a time. I told him relying on doomsday scenarios to prove your position is a very weak argument as well.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Im not relying on any doomsday scenarios. For you to try to make that my position is an even weaker argument.
Not really doomsday when Katrina had barbaric consequences. Bodies floating in water, rescue helicopters being shot at by gangsters. People protecting their home from looters. Did you forget about that?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: I am for suicide due to terminal painful illness but I am not for it pertaining to depression/mental illness. Depression/mental illness etc. is a disease but it is a treatable and/or curable disease. So letting these people to commit suicide is wrong.
it's not your right to decide. a person owns their own life and if they choose to end it? then that's their right.
this is fundamental to the concept of living in freedom.
If you want total freedom then we shouldn't have laws whatsoever... just let everyone do what they want... there is no right or wrong... just have a free for all...
what right do you have to tell somebody they don't own their own life.
this is not about a free for all, it's ridiculous to make that leap.
this is very specific. a person that does not wish to live anymore should be able to decide that without you or anybody telling them they cannot.
making suicide legal woold change nothing. you don;t think peopel actually refrain from do in git because it's illegal do you?
the only thing the law accomplishes is to criminlaise someone assisting them.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: That is called Anarchy and what would you do Mach if that ever happened? Ill equiped to protect your home?
Would that ever happen? Doubtful, but it's better to have one and not need it than to not have one when you DO need it.
If you mean guns... i'm 37 soon and have not needed a gun and never will... especially in the area i live in imo... and in most of the areas board members live in... not because guns prevent the spread of crime but because poverty isn't where i live.. and sad to say where there is alot of poverty is where there is more crime... imo tackle poverty and crime will decrease...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Kinda like how everybody is going to speed no matter what the limit is set at? Are you saying then that we should not post speed limits?
Exactly...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: what right do you have to tell somebody they don't own their own life.
this is not about a free for all, it's ridiculous to make that leap.
this is very specific. a person that does not wish to live anymore should be able to decide that without you or anybody telling them they cannot.
making suicide legal woold change nothing. you don;t think peopel actually refrain from do in git because it's illegal do you?
the only thing the law accomplishes is to criminlaise someone assisting them.
So basically to use another example that is someone's life and body... you do not want any laws against hard drugs because it's a persons' right to inject whatever they want into their body... therefor you will fight for the right of your child to shoot Heroin, for example... so Glass do you want your child to be a heroin addict because it is her/his right to do what they will with their body? .. you would basically accept it and say there is nothing wrong with it? ...
But since you do not seem to get it that even though someone will break the law anyways why make the law in the first place, so I'll paste Bigfoot's statement that pretty much is same as mine:
"Kinda like how everybody is going to speed no matter what the limit is set at? Are you saying then that we should not post speed limits?"
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: big, a cup of gasoline is equal to a stick of dynamite. it actually has more BTU's
there is no way to make the world "perfectly safe" from the animals or even alot safer than it is now
You are still arguing against a total ban, Glass. I'm not looking for a perfectly safe world. Just a safer one. There may be more BTU's in a cup of gasoline than in a stick of dynamite but a frustrated 17 yr old isn't gonna kill three people before they can even react with a cup of gasoline now is he?
quote: you cannot make guns less available to criminals.
we've tried it with alcohol and drugs and that didn't work. it did and does in fact make MORE criminals.
Again with the total ban. That isn't what is being argued here. And since you brought up alcohol and drugs why is it do you think that you have to be 21 to drink or get a doctors permission to receive a pharmaceutical drug? Are these not "reasonable limitations" that have been placed for the public welfare? They can be circumvented by those who seek out loopholes, but that doesn't invalidate the limitations as pointless.
Glass, I DO get your point, believe me. Just because you put a law on the books doesn't make it so in the world. This is the same reason why I think it is so ridiculous the amount of effort being expended to refute gay marriage or to make abortions illegal. And you are right, no matter what, some guns are gonna fall through the cracks and end up in violent hands.
What I don't get is how folks can be so Laissez-faire about 34 violent homicides from the barrel of a gun every single day in our country. (Using your stats glass) One violent death every 45 Minutes.
Cancer took my grandfather Tex, I watched him wither and die. It was hard. Heart Disease nearly ended my father and it scared the crap outta me. A stroke took my Uncle while he was walking his grandchildren to preschool and the suddenness of it hurt worse and took longer to heal from than anything except the day I learned one of my best friends was in a side impact crash and killed instantly. That one hurt the worst of all, even though she wasn't family, because that girl had another 60 years of joyful life ahead of her until that goddamned idiot got close to her when he wasn't paying attention.
So how much worse do you suppose it is to learn that the person you love was completely healthy and ready to share years more with his loved ones but that guy over there put a hole in his heart and we still aren't sure why?
quote: i know from life experince that the only reason a drug is a "gateway" drug is becuase it is sold by a criminal who has other things to sell.
guns are not consumables. it is even easier to supply them once. then ammo becomes the big black market ticket, and ammo can be reloaded.
I understand what you are saying but am vague on your aim here. Are suggesting stricter limits on ammo instead of guns would be more beneficial? I.E. The guns are the crack pipe but the ammo is what you smoke?
quote: it is impossible to make Utopia because it is people that are flawed.
Agreed.
quote: when you consider that over 800,000 people die in America each year, and 30,000 of them are gun deaths. that sounds like alot? not to me
but, to make th eppoint even stronger? over half the gun deaths are suicides;
FACT:In 2005 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S:
* 12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths), * 17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths), * 789 unintentional shootings, 330 from legal intervention and 221 from undetermined intent (5% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
You got me there. I am not interested in the suicides. That is a person who made a choice. I am no angel trying to save one from himself.
12,352 might seem small (though I don't consider 34 violent deaths every day small) but these are not folks who are terminally ill. They are not jumping out of airplanes. A few may be dukeing it out in a 21st century OK corral and for them I care nothing. But for every one Doc Holiday within those statistics there are at least 20 who were innocently living their life until some fool who never learned how to express frustration through words decided to vent his hate on the world. How you can look at that and shrug your shoulders I cannot know.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Alright,
I think I got a little too partisan near the end of this last reply. I still get angry when I think of Rachel even though its been close to a decade now.
The words stand but mentally delete some of the heat behind that last sentence.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: So you want to create laws that the lawless won't adhere to?...make s no sense Big...
Only law abiding people are going to follow your "laws" and "controls" concerning projectile weapons, and those people aren't the problem...
I'll say it again very clearly...criminals are GOING to get guns, no matter how many laws you create to stop them from getting them...
Kinda like how everybody is going to speed no matter what the limit is set at? Are you saying then that we should not post speed limits?
That is a pretty weak comparison...
My argument is this...the LAWS ALREADY EXIST to stop criminals from getting them legally...making it harder for law abiding citizens to get a gun is NOT going to stop the criminals from getting them...isn't that who you want to stop?...the criminals?
So why would you want to make it harder for law abiding citizens to get them, when you state it's the criminals you want to prevent from getting them? (unless you REALLY don't want ANYONE to have them)
Posted by Machiavelli on :
If they are law abiding then they will eventually get the permission to get the gun... simple as that... no matter if the law is lax or constricted... but what you do not see is by making it easy to get a gun it makes easier for criminals to get it via whatever method like straw buying, gun shows, private sales in a home etc.
Posted by jgrecoconstr on :
You guys are stillllll debating this!!! Neither of you is going to change the others mind even if you talk about this till the polar ice caps melt. Criminals will always find a gun it doesn't matter how tough the laws are period. That's why their called criminals cause they find a way around the law. If you make the laws even stricter then they will just break into someones home when their not there and steal those guns. Or they'll cross the border which they already do and bring a gun in that way, or they'll buy it from some crack head who stole from his father's collection to sell for a fix. Making laws stricter won't solve anything. They are already strict in NY yet people still shoot each other.
Posted by glassman on :
What I don't get is how folks can be so Laissez-faire about 34 violent homicides from the barrel of a gun every single day in our country. (Using your stats glass) One violent death every 45 Minutes.
do you know that five to ten times that many die every day from doctors/hospital/health care mistakes?
my exact point is that considering how many people own guns very few are involved in a crime.
more than half of those crimes are suicides tho.
suicide is a crime so they more than double the crime stats.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
No Glass.
Half the 30,694 gun deaths are suicides.
Every single one of the 34 deaths per day that I am talking about are homicides.
And yeah...I know how many people die each day from illnesses, infections, mistakes. That's why we are throwing billions of dollars against the problem and trying to reform the entire healthcare system at the same time.
That does not mean we should abandon those who die by gunfire as statistics too small to care about just because it would be a pain to have to go to a second booth and transfer a title when we sell a gun at the gun show.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: I am for suicide due to terminal painful illness but I am not for it pertaining to depression/mental illness. Depression/mental illness etc. is a disease but it is a treatable and/or curable disease. So letting these people to commit suicide is wrong.
it's not your right to decide. a person owns their own life and if they choose to end it? then that's their right.
this is fundamental to the concept of living in freedom.
If you want total freedom then we shouldn't have laws whatsoever... just let everyone do what they want... there is no right or wrong... just have a free for all...
Pretty much how Washington DC works.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: That does not mean we should abandon those who die by gunfire as statistics too small to care about just because it would be a pain to have to go to a second booth and transfer a title when we sell a gun at the gun show.
Exactly... couldn't be said any better...
Posted by Robot on :
quote:Originally posted by jgrecoconstr: You guys are stillllll debating this!!! Neither of you is going to change the others mind even if you talk about this till the polar ice caps melt. Criminals will always find a gun it doesn't matter how tough the laws are period. That's why their called criminals cause they find a way around the law. If you make the laws even stricter then they will just break into someones home when their not there and steal those guns. Or they'll cross the border which they already do and bring a gun in that way, or they'll buy it from some crack head who stole from his father's collection to sell for a fix. Making laws stricter won't solve anything. They are already strict in NY yet people still shoot each other.
So maybe guns should be locked up when not in use?
And maybe ammo should be locked up separate?
I know a few people who do this for their high-end guns but how many states require this as a law.
Ya I know, I know, I know. It doesn't allow you to defend your self, ......
So set a limit on how many loaded guns you can have "under your pillow" and lock up the rest!
Not all states have the same "strict" gun laws and it is not hard to "move around" and get a gun.
Stats and Data are very difficult to interpret, and I have a hard time believing that someone who dies from a car crash, cancer or a heart attach is in the same category as a gun shot victim.
A 400lb person who dies from a heart attack, or a 60 year old cancer death does not compare to an unintended gun death. More over a child's death.
I am not sure about your part of the world but up here when a child is in distress ( near death ) the emergency services "fan out" to everyone on duty and get the kid to the hospital asap. Intersections get blocked by Police, Ambulance and Fire. Children are never considered an acceptable loss.
As far as all the other ways to die, you need to look at the history ( time line ) and the money spent on the causes and remedies before you can compare it to gun deaths. Heart and Cancer have a HUGE budget.
I have no idea how much has been spent on preventing gun deaths. All I ever hear about is how much lobbying is done to promote gun ownership, and how many people die from guns. Can't say I hear much about responsible gun ownership.
But the most important thing is that proposing change in the rules and regulations with regards to guns gets the MOST RESISTANCE compared to any other way to DIE.
America's Most Wanted ( I catch it twice a year, maybe ) has the ATF tracing 8000 confiscated guns back to 3 "Bad" US gun dealers on the Mexican border for 2008. So three for jail or what???????
As much as it is a right for you to own a gun or two, it should be considered a privilege to own bigger, better, and badder guns. And it should come with a higher price, cost, or effort on the owners part. If guns are ending up in criminal's hands because of bad gun owners then, you guest it, bad gun owners should be accountable.
Last week a 14 yr old kid was shot to death in a park that I used to fix lights and other electrical equipment in about 16 yrs ago. The kids used to cut the electrical feeds to the lights so they could "own the park" and party all night. Now they shoot each other during the day so they can own the park at night. Two days later shots rang out at three different locations, all with in 30 min. and all related to the 14 yr old's death.
Oh, Assault Weapons? Proly designed for the military first. Then they lobbied the sh*t out of the Gov. to get them sold to general public as semi autos.
So, how many years before the 7/11 crook destroys a whole block and the gun\balistics dealers are selling "YOU" the latest and greatest thing to defend a TWO block radius around "your" house.
Good wish lists Mac and Big, kinda got forensically dissected but it makes for great discutions.
Communication is a wonderful thing.
PS, NO ONE, is asking for a gun ban. If that happened it would be hell till all the guns rusted out in 50-100 years. Or till the ammo ran out. And that's another topic.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: That does not mean we should abandon those who die by gunfire as statistics too small to care about just because it would be a pain to have to go to a second booth and transfer a title when we sell a gun at the gun show.
Exactly... couldn't be said any better...
transfer titles?
this is specifically going to be fought to the bitter end.
why?
history.
i've posted this before, i'll repost it.
when NYC started to ban gun ownership? they first told people to register them and they promised that this would not lead to taking them away.
but they did exactly that. they used the registration lists to make sure that people who registered them got rid of them.
not only was the plan full of lies, but the people who got gun permits at first were criminal freinds of influential people.
registering guns does not keep criminals from getting guns either.
The Sullivan Act, also known as the Sullivan Law, is a controversial gun control law in New York State. Upon first passage, the Sullivan Act required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, carrying them was a felony. The possession or carrying of weapons such as brass knuckles, sandbags, blackjacks, bludgeons or bombs was a felony, as was possessing or carrying a dagger, "dangerous knife" or razor "with intent to use the same unlawfully". Named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall politician, it dates to 1911, and is still in force, making it one of the older existing gun control laws in the United States.
For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class.
Many believe the act was to discriminate against immigrants in New York, particularly Italians, as the first person arrested under the law was mobster Giuseppe Costabile . Whether this was part of the law's intent, it was passed on a wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric as a measure to disarm an alleged criminal element. The police granted the licenses, and could easily discriminate against "undesirable" elements. Sponsor "Big Tim" Sullivan reputedly desired the law so that his criminal cohorts could go about their activities unimpeded by citizens defending themselves with concealed handguns.
registering guns and IDing owners can and will lead to discrimination.
getting a conceal carry permit is quite reasonable.
being arrested for carrying a concealed weapon in public WITHOUT a permit is quite reasonable.
i don't carry mine around unless i am specifically going to a place to shoot or going hunting. but i never conceal them.
Posted by glassman on :
as you can see here? the Supreme Ciurt has case law showing why gun registration won't stop a single criminal from getting a gun here's why:
A recurring question that we are asked, not only by gun control advocates, but even by a number of gun owners is, "What's wrong with mandatory gun registration?" Usually by the time we finish telling them about the Supreme Court decision U.S. v. Haynes (1968), they are laughing -- and they understand our objection to registration.
In Haynes v. U.S. (1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. [1] His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm -- a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon." [2] The Court concluded:
We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851. [3]
This 8-1 decision (with only Chief Justice Earl Warren dissenting) is, depending on your view of Fifth Amendment, either a courageous application of the intent of the self-incrimination clause, or evidence that the Supreme Court had engaged in reductio ad absurdum of the Fifth Amendment. Under this ruling, a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, could not be punished for failing to register it. Consider a law that requires registration of firearms: a convicted felon can not be convicted for failing to register a gun, because it is illegal under Federal law for a felon to possess a firearm; but a person who can legally own a gun, and fails to register it, can be punished. In short, the person at whom, one presumes, such a registration law is aimed, is the one who cannot be punished, and yet, the person at whom such a registration law is not principally aimed (i.e., the law-abiding person), can be punished.
most of the "reasonable" issues have been debated and litgated, this is nothing new.
most people are unaware how much case law already exists because the media doesn't care, they just want to make you get upset like the anti-abortionists
Posted by glassman on :
In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.
More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. (FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page)
On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.
In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner.
historical facts that tell US not to have gun licenses or titles.
Posted by glassman on :
Persons exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms should not be forced to pay a special tax to support enforcement efforts against gun criminals, any more than camera owners or magazine readers should be taxed to pay for enforcement of child pornography laws." (Kopel, David, WHY GUN WAITING PERIODS THREATEN PUBLIC SAFETY)
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by Robot:
it should be considered a privilege to own bigger, better, and badder guns.
Says WHO?...where is that written?
Posted by glassman on :
Oh, Assault Weapons? Proly designed for the military first. Then they lobbied the sh*t out of the Gov. to get them sold to general public as semi autos.
not how it works at all
the pentagon reviews all weapons submitted to them and then if accepted creates what we call milspecs. the weapon system is almost alwars redesigned to milspec.
it must be able to be maintained by a person of 8th grade education and cannot be prone to malfunction from dirt and water etc.
the assault weapons that were banned mostly just had bayonets and detachable magazines.
how many people have been bayonneted int he last fifty years outside of the battlefeild?
ten rounds? fifty rounds? what's the difference?
not much if the person practices. maybe a second or three. depending on how well prepared the shooter is
the real plan is to ban guns- you guys can say all you want that you "just" more laws, but we already have most of the laws you asked for here, and the courts have looked at them over and over again..
so pardon me when i don't beleive you when you say you just want safer gun ownership.there's no such thing.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
If guns are ever banned you are going to see my sword fighting skills go up. haha
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I am reading through the Opinion of the court regarding Haynes VS US so this is gonna take a day or two to respond. It seems the phrasing was the big problem but I need to dissect it more.
I find it hard to believe that there is no way to hold an individual accountable for illegally possessing a firearm without impinging on either the 5th or the 2nd.
As to your other examples of how registration led to persecution for ownership. They are valid. I would not want law abiding owners weapons being confiscated because the state representatives 'changed their mind' after a list had been compiled. If registration were to take place there would have to be some sort of protections written into the law on behalf of the gun owners.
Gimme a few days here....
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: If guns are ever banned you are going to see my sword fighting skills go up. haha
LOL Need a practice buddy? I know a few of the basic steps from my theatre days.
Posted by glassman on :
I find it hard to believe that there is no way to hold an individual accountable for illegally possessing a firearm without impinging on either the 5th or the 2nd.
As to your other examples of how registration led to persecution for ownership. They are valid. I would not want law abiding owners weapons being confiscated because the state representatives 'changed their mind' after a list had been compiled. If registration were to take place there would have to be some sort of protections written into the law on behalf of the gun owners.
the person having the guns had no right to own them to begin with. they were prosecuted for OTHER things like illegally owning one...
it's just the fact of not registering could not be added to the list of charges..
why does it seem logical to bundle laws? is killing someone with a gun worse than killing someone with a car or an OD of drugs? the person is still just as dead...
should Busweiser be responsible for every alcohol related death?
no-ones rights were infringed it's just that the problem is, it always comes back to when they ban guns only criminals will have them,a dn they will..
why make honest people have to do more and give up more rights because of criminals.
all of the registration in the world won't stop people from being killed.
suicides are quoted as criminal activity when gun stats are presented.
you may have deleted them, but the gun banners don't.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: transfer titles?
this is specifically going to be fought to the bitter end.
why?
history.
i've posted this before, i'll repost it.
when NYC started to ban gun ownership? they first told people to register them and they promised that this would not lead to taking them away.
but they did exactly that. they used the registration lists to make sure that people who registered them got rid of them.
not only was the plan full of lies, but the people who got gun permits at first were criminal freinds of influential people.
registering guns does not keep criminals from getting guns either.
The Sullivan Act, also known as the Sullivan Law, is a controversial gun control law in New York State. Upon first passage, the Sullivan Act required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, carrying them was a felony. The possession or carrying of weapons such as brass knuckles, sandbags, blackjacks, bludgeons or bombs was a felony, as was possessing or carrying a dagger, "dangerous knife" or razor "with intent to use the same unlawfully". Named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall politician, it dates to 1911, and is still in force, making it one of the older existing gun control laws in the United States.
For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class.
Many believe the act was to discriminate against immigrants in New York, particularly Italians, as the first person arrested under the law was mobster Giuseppe Costabile . Whether this was part of the law's intent, it was passed on a wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric as a measure to disarm an alleged criminal element. The police granted the licenses, and could easily discriminate against "undesirable" elements. Sponsor "Big Tim" Sullivan reputedly desired the law so that his criminal cohorts could go about their activities unimpeded by citizens defending themselves with concealed handguns.
registering guns and IDing owners can and will lead to discrimination.
getting a conceal carry permit is quite reasonable.
being arrested for carrying a concealed weapon in public WITHOUT a permit is quite reasonable.
i don't carry mine around unless i am specifically going to a place to shoot or going hunting. but i never conceal them.
You use the term "ban" rather loosely Glass. Here let me help you:
–verb (used with object) 1. to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict: to ban nuclear weapons; The dictator banned all newspapers and books that criticized his regime.
–noun 3. the act of prohibiting by law; interdiction.
The Sullivan act is a gun Control act and not a prohibition act. It didn't stop ownership of guns it only discriminated on whom can own them. It is an antiquated law that is not enforced the same way it was almost 100 years ago. Tim Sullivan enacted the law not for idealistic reasons but for corrupt selfish reasons.
Show me how it is PROHIBITING outright gun ownership Glass? Or that it is even enforced the same way it was in the early 20th Century. Show me how any NY political leader ala Pataki, Paterson, Bloomberg, Spitzer just to name a few recent ones, have used the May issue against any LAWFUL citizen? Keyword: Lawful.
I don't agree with the May issue part of the law but like I said such a thing is not done nowadays so that is a non issue imo.
So when it comes to NY, it is a gun CONTROL state not a gun PROHIBITION state. I don't know if you ever visited upstate NY beyond Westchester county but if you have it is as much hicks/rednecks up there as Mississippi and they all own guns pretty much as far as i know. So your argument for the Sullivan Act is kind of mute and unfounded. Your blowing smoke.
Posted by glassman on :
when NYC started to ban gun ownership? is what i said, not upstate, and this was the beginning
The Sullivan act is a gun Control act a
they banned ownership eventually, yes or no?
the Sulivan was the beginning.
and that's the point.
i could pull you dozens upon dozens of quotes where liberals say that they will do it one step at a time.
So your argument for the Sullivan Act is kind of mute and unfounded. Your blowing smoke.
i am telling it like it is, you just can't take the truth
you have about half your facts referenced wrong, and as a minority who has been abused? i am surprised you don't understand that minorities will be picked out for special treatment.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: The Sullivan act is a gun Control act a
they banned ownership of all eventually yes or no?
Wow your a quickie replier... what do you do all day? Watch the board in anticipation of me posting to reply to me? lol jk
ALL? no... some based on who the politicos and cops want to issue permits to or not? yes... It didn't ban guns to all... just gave discretion to cops and such who can own one.. Like i said Sullivan did it for selfish criminal corrupt reasons not idealistic... and it certainly is not being enforced the same way now... look at the list of celebrities who own guns in NY... do you agree with Joan Rivers owning one? because i don't lol that is scary...
Posted by glassman on :
you only read a small part of my posts then.
read it all before you respond cuz it makes you seem fooliosh.
they did move to ban guns. you can make childish points all you want that don't win arguments. NYC moved to ban guns and they would do more if they could, i don't need a lesson on what banning means, and last i checked? upstate isn't in NYC
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: when NYC started to ban gun ownership? is what i said, not upstate, and this was the beginning
The Sullivan act is a gun Control act a
they banned ownership eventually, yes or no?
the Sulivan was the beginning.
and that's the point.
i could pull you dozens upon dozens of quotes where liberals say that they will do it one step at a time.
So your argument for the Sullivan Act is kind of mute and unfounded. Your blowing smoke.
i am telling it like it is, you just can't take the truth
you have about half your facts referenced wrong, and as a minority who has been abused? i am surprised you don't understand that minorities will be picked out for special treatment.
What liberals say and liberals do is 2 different things... we have a 2 party system to keep the balance so your just being paranoid... The Sullivan act has been around for almost 100 years and guess what nothing has changed much in terms of there being a gun ban or such... You like to use the term: if history has shown anything. We'll history has shown that despite the Sullivan act nothing else has been done since. I can pull you dozens and dozens of GOPers saying they will make sure prayer is law in schools.... hasn't happened has it? why? Because we have a balance of Left and Right to prevent it...
If anyone can't take the truth it is you Glass when it is pointed to you by me or Bigfoot or others... Sullivan Act is not a ban/prohibition but you still call it that... that is just one example... We are not talking about banning guns but Gun Control.. yet you keep insisting we are talking about banning... BF pointed this out 2 or 3 times to you as did i...
As for concealed Guns or carrying guns in NYC.. i don't agree with it and 2 cases convinces me of this:
The Plax gun case in NYC and
the Bernie Goetz case... BTW the Sullivan Act is a New York STATE law and not a New York CITY law so it affects upstate as much as downstate... to exclude one over the other is disriminatory in your post...
And as for me being a minority.... go read the stats... in the near future hispanics won't be the minority anymore.... so that doesn't bother me... NYC is more tolerant in general then other parts of the country and they do not favor one over the other when it comes to gun ownership and such in terms of race....hispanics, blacks, whites, asians alike own guns legally without NYC saying otherwise to them if they have a license..
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: you only read a small part of my posts then.
read it all before you respond cuz it makes you seem fooliosh.
they did move to ban guns. you can make childish points all you want that don't win arguments. NYC moved to ban guns and they would do more if they could, i don't need a lesson on what banning means, and last i checked? upstate isn't in NYC
I am not making any childish point.... i am making a point straight from where you got the source:
read my highlighted parts:
Upon first passage, the Sullivan Act required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, carrying them was a felony.
Yes you do need a lesson on what banning is because you are using the term wrongly in this debate. CONTROL and BAN are not the same.
Upstate is not NYC but the Sullivan Act is a NEW YORK STATE act and not a NYC act. Last I checked both Upstate and NYC are both part of New York State. No one since the act came into being and no one now has tried to BAN guns. CONTROL them yes, BAN them to LAWFUL LICENSED gun owners, NO.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: you only read a small part of my posts then.
read it all before you respond cuz it makes you seem fooliosh.
I read all your post entirely... if anyone reads just a small part of posts of mine, BF, Pagan and other gun control advocates it is you.... you never seem to respond to BF's posts much... please do so... would like to see you contradict him...
Posted by glassman on :
The Sullivan act has been around for almost 100 years and guess what nothing has changed much in terms of there being a gun ban or such
that's a lie. the sullivan act was the beginning of gun banning just like i said.
certain people were banned from owning certain guns and the decisions on who would get a permit were capricious..
there are many more gun banning laws on the books since then,
read the rest of my posts, i outlined the new laws. in specific, they forced people to register their guns and told them the list would not be used to take them away and then they did just that.
the cops might deny YOU a gun permit cuz you are not white, and you know it.
NYC's sullivan law will be struck down due to the Supreme court ruling on DC's gun laws.
the verbiage will be changed to must instead of may..
Posted by glassman on :
I read all your post entirely...
you must have missed this part then:
In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.
beginning to ban guns and banning entirely are very specific terms.
furthermore? i responded to BF several times
the media and NYC seem to want (erroneously) call any semi-auto an assault rifle/gun but the military has a very specific term, as do most people who know guns.
assault rifles would be full auto by anybody who knows guns. they are not readily available and require special permits and transfer documentation, just as YOU asked for... so, in sense? you are asking for new laws that we already have. title and transfer papers go with real assualt weapons
sending our troops to assault a fortification with semi-autos would be irresponsible to say the least.
Posted by Robot on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49:
quote:Originally posted by Robot:
it should be considered a privilege to own bigger, better, and badder guns.
Says WHO?...where is that written?
I said it "should" be. That is just my humble opinion.
I think when people have to work a little harder to get something in life they tend to have a little more respect for, and value it's possession more, than they do the things that come easy in their lives. They may even keep it locked up.
Posted by Robot on :
so pardon me when i don't beleive you when you say you just want safer gun ownership.there's no such thing.
I gonna go out on a limb and say that everyone wants safer gun ownership. It is a huge conflict between the constitution, pro gun people, not so pro gun, anti gun people and criminals. All of which have rights.
I just want to stop the flow of guns into my Country. Safer gun ownership? We were safer with less guns.
Posted by Robot on :
Oh Glass,
Thanks for the info on assault weapons. I pick on them because I think the only reason most people fight so hard to keep them legal is that they "can be" converted back to full auto if needed.
Posted by raybond on :
I sure like readding you guys posts when it comes to the subject of guns and the law. I like guns I have carried one most of my adult life. And I am a big believer in the right to keep and bare. But I am also a realist and I know in the bottom of my heart in the future it will change and guns will be restricted in this country most liley like in England today. And yes you can own a firearm in England, Anyway this is how I feel about it,
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Robot: Oh Glass,
Thanks for the info on assault weapons. I pick on them because I think the only reason most people fight so hard to keep them legal is that they "can be" converted back to full auto if needed.
as a USN gunner's mate? i was trained on how each firearm in our arsenal worked. and how to maintains them
there a couple of very old models of semi-auto that can be converted.
you have to realise that full auto is very hard on the metals used to make the parts.
not only is it illegal to manufacture and sell the parts to convert guns to full auto without a license, you must replace more than just the "needed" parts if the guns will last more than two or three minutes becuase the semi-auto parts won't hold up. somebody can make the gun fire full auto, but by the time they have practiced with it? it won't be operable anymore. there was recent case of a guy that got jail time for firing a gun rigged to work full auto- the prosecution was ludicrous because the thing required several specific conditions to fire full auto, and was not only unpredictable, but impractical....
i posted earlier that a half million dollars worth of machine eqpt would be about right. that's not what i call "easy"..
it takes aloto f knowledge to run each peice of eqpt and the tolerances are very demanding if you want the machine (gun) to work continuously and correcly. which anybody putting their life on th eline absolutely wants full auto requires alotof moving parts to reverse direction in the 100 times per second range...
that kind of manufacturing is organised crime at the level of major drug production.
a criminal organisation at that level could make them in the Jungles of Central America with impunity and sell them anywhere they wanted...
they will eventually do just that too...
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Like I have been saying all along...the BAD GUYS will get guns regardless of how many laws we create to stop them...
I personally think it's foolish to be without one...
Posted by raybond on :
You have your point if criminals can get guns easy it is foolish that honest citizens have a hard time getting a gun. You have to remember that you have yours for protection and feel good about it. Every day I see the bad side of guns or what they have done to society and that is really not healthy for a person.
And I do feel like you currently in the USA and in our society I would not want to be without one
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Like I have been saying all along...the BAD GUYS will get guns regardless of how many laws we create to stop them...
I personally think it's foolish to be without one...
I guess me I am a fool and most people in my neighborhood...
I'm 37 yrs old soon and have not needed one for anything... I do not have fantasies that one day the Gov't will turn on it's people... When the Constitution was written it was different times... times have evolved in the Western world that such things do not happen since WW2 era. As for crime, suburbia where I live crime is very low. We usually just have petty crimes that does not require shooting a gun at a person. Bored teenagers vandalising, burglaries (they do not do it when your home), etc.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by raybond: And I do feel like you currently in the USA and in our society I would not want to be without one
The ironic thing is that the proliferation of guns has directly or indirectly caused the need to have them because of increased violence... more guns more violence...
Posted by glassman on :
I do not have fantasies that one day the Gov't will turn on it's people
LOL... if they banned guns? they would be turning on the people since they do not have the votes to pass an ammendmnet tot eh constitution.
this is a good example of argumentum ad hominem since you are basically saying anybody who beleives the govt might not represent them anymore is paraniod...
Posted by Pagan on :
Senate OKs credit card curbs 90-5 vote sends to House a bill that curtails fees and rate hikes. Unrelated provision boosts gun rights. Measure could go to Obama this week. By Jennifer Liberto, CNNMoney.com senior writer Last Updated: May 19, 2009: 2:03 PM ET WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- The Senate on Tuesday voted 90-5 to approve a bill that will make it tougher for credit card issuers to raise fees and interest rates starting early next year.
The bill includes an unrelated measure that would allow people to carry concealed weapons into national parks.
The bill now goes to the House, which is expected to take it up on Wednesday and pass it before the weekend. The bill would get to President Obama's desk before Memorial Day, as he called for.
"To have the industry reaching and be as abusive to consumers, it needed to stop and it needed to change," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a bill sponsor.
The legislation is moderately tougher on card issuers than are new Federal Reserve rules that take effect in July 2010.
The Senate's bill would take effect in nine months and make it harder for people under age 21 to get credit cards. It would also ban rate hikes unless a consumer is more than 60 days late - and then restore the previous rate after six months if minimum payments are made.
The banking industry decried the bill, saying it would exacerbate the credit crisis and force banks to drop some risky credit card holders.
"We are concerned that the Senate bill will have a dramatic impact on the ability of consumers, students, and small businesses to obtain and use credit cards," said American Bankers Association president Edward Yingling
The credit card legislation has been a long work in progress. The House passed a bill in 2008 and again earlier this year. The legislation, which stalled in past years, was propelled by public outrage and pressure by President Obama.
"I'm very glad to have these reforms within reach at long last," said the bill's House sponsor, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. "To Sen. Dodd's credit, he has enhanced my bill in a few areas - especially in extending from 30 to 60 days before penalty rate hikes can kick in on existing balances."
Maloney added she thought it "unfortunate," that the measure to allow concealed weapons in national parks remained on the credit card bill, especially since Memorial Day kicks off the summer season at national parks. She planned to vote against the gun provision but said it shouldn't block the bill's final passage.
In recent few months, credit card companies have been raising fees and interest rates. From November 2008 to February 2009, rates increased from an average to 13.08% from 12.02%, according to a Federal Reserve Board report.
At the same time, more people are not able to make their credit cards payments and are walking away from the debt, according to a Federal Reserve report.
However, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said Monday he was not concerned about a consumer debt "bubble."
"Americans are going to be reducing how much they borrow, improving their balance sheets, saving more," he said. "Banks are still going to have losses they're going to have to adjust to. And that's what's going to make the process of repair here longer. . .But that's a necessary, healthy process of adjustment for us to go through."
First Published: May 19, 2009: 1:21 PM ET
Posted by raybond on :
Yes Mach you do have a point looking at this from the side of business supply certainly affects demand and demand can certainly affect supply. For instance even though you don't see much press or even any press on the fact that huge supplies of guns are now heading south to mexico there is a giant need since the mexican government is at war with drug cartels
Posted by glassman on :
Unrelated provision boosts gun rights. Measure could go to Obama this week.
so the Dems are using common sense and listening to the majority. Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by raybond: Yes Mach you do have a point looking at this from the side of business supply certainly affects demand and demand can certainly affect supply. For instance even though you don't see much press or even any press on the fact that huge supplies of guns are now heading south to mexico there is a giant need since the mexican government is at war with drug cartels
are they at war with cartels in general or just certain cartels.
historically speaking, the cartels in Mexico have been in bed with the govt, and the new president seems to have shakn up the status quo, but that could just be his cartel(s) is working on getting rid of other cartel(s)
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Unrelated provision boosts gun rights. Measure could go to Obama this week.
so the Dems are using common sense and listening to the majority.
The credit card curbs part is a step the right direction as well IMO.
Posted by glassman on :
they used to be curbed until 78:
State of interest rates In Marquette vs. First Omaha Service Corp., the Supreme Court ruled that a national bank could charge the highest interest rate allowed in their home state to customers living anywhere in the United States, including states with restrictive interest caps.
"It's whatever is agreed to in the contract," says Michael Donovan, a consumer attorney and partner at Donovan Searles in Philadelphia.
"They can export rates to other states and override state law limits."
one of my cards recently raised their rates and said if oi don't agree? to send them the card. i don't care cuz i don't carry a balance, but if i did? id' be shopping for another
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: [QUOTE]That is a pretty weak comparison...
My argument is this...the LAWS ALREADY EXIST to stop criminals from getting them legally
And my argument is that SOMEONE is getting them legally. It is not Russian surplus that is ending up in the streets. Someone IS getting them legally and illegally transferring them.
Posted by glassman on :
getting what exaclty?
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by jgrecoconstr: You guys are stillllll debating this!!! Neither of you is going to change the others mind even if you talk about this till the polar ice caps melt. Criminals will always find a gun it doesn't matter how tough the laws are period. That's why their called criminals cause they find a way around the law. If you make the laws even stricter then they will just break into someones home when their not there and steal those guns. Or they'll cross the border which they already do and bring a gun in that way, or they'll buy it from some crack head who stole from his father's collection to sell for a fix. Making laws stricter won't solve anything. They are already strict in NY yet people still shoot each other.
No jg...we are not going to change each others minds. But because it is such a charged issue is exactly why it should be argued. Who knows...perhaps we can even find a small piece of middle ground that would serve both sides.
Regardless, I know every time I go a round or two with Glass it pushes me to learn more, reexamine and refine my personal position, and hopefully he feels the same way. If for no other reason than that, I find it worthwhile.
Hope you found a good flight to Yellowstone. Enjoy your vacation!
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: getting what exaclty?
This is the guns thread right?
The argument is that making stricter rules on gun purchases will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase weapons yes? That criminals will be able to get their hands on em no matter how tough the rules get? So...Where are these criminals getting all these illegal guns if not from legal buyers? Please don't tell me you think they all fell off the back of a truck.
Posted by glassman on :
I find it worthwhile.
exactly. i dig deeper too.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
why does it seem logical to bundle laws? is killing someone with a gun worse than killing someone with a car or an OD of drugs? the person is still just as dead...
Depends on if it is negligent homicide or premeditated homicide or suicide. All very different causes of death.
should Busweiser be responsible for every alcohol related death?
I know some would say yes but I am not suggesting that Smith and Wesson be held responsible for a homicide using one of their weapons (unless they bypassed legal checks and sold the weapon under the table.)
no-ones rights were infringed it's just that the problem is, it always comes back to when they ban guns only criminals will have them,a dn they will..
Why do they have them Glass? Where are all these miraculous weapons coming from? Yes I know with the right equipment you can create a Saturday night special by yourself and if you are patient even make something sturdier. That isn't what is being used in these crimes. Where are they coming from?
why make honest people have to do more and give up more rights because of criminals.
This is a non-argument. All rules make honest people give something up. This is what differentiates and gives them recourse against those who would infringe upon them. This issue is no different than any other. Why do honest people pay taxes for jails? Why do honest people have to have car insurance? Why do honest people...(insert your rule here)?
all of the registration in the world won't stop people from being killed.
No, but it could lessen the numbers. How much is one life worth?
suicides are quoted as criminal activity when gun stats are presented.
you may have deleted them, but the gun banners don't. I am not arguing their case. I recognize the point but it is not pertinent to this conversation. 34 homicides per day is what I am using and what I care about. Suicides need to find someone else to be their advocate. That isn't me.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
OK...I am caught up now. Back for more in a few hours.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Unrelated provision boosts gun rights. Measure could go to Obama this week.
so the Dems are using common sense and listening to the majority.
I don't have a problem with Concealed's going into national parks. I would have voted yes for this bill also.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: getting what exaclty?
This is the guns thread right?
The argument is that making stricter rules on gun purchases will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase weapons yes? That criminals will be able to get their hands on em no matter how tough the rules get? So...Where are these criminals getting all these illegal guns if not from legal buyers? Please don't tell me you think they all fell off the back of a truck.
i'm asking waht guns?
because when i hear people say ban assualt weapons? i point to the stats that show assualt weapons are rarely used in crimes.
in 94? when the ban was put in place?
Supporters of the ban also argued that "assault weapons" are disproportionately represented among guns used in crimes. "Although assault weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation," wrote former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan in a letter to House members, "they account for nearly 10 percent of the guns traced to crime." This number refers to weapons traced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. But gun-control scholar David Kopel reports that the BATF traces less than 2 percent of the guns used in violent crime each year, and the sample is not representative. As Kopel notes, "assault weapons" are more likely to be traced than other guns precisely because they are unusual and have been the subject of so much attention. Furthermore, almost all of them were made after the Gun Control Act of 1968 and therefore have serial numbers, which are necessary to do a trace. Inventories of guns seized from criminals in major cities indicate that trace figures vastly overstate the use of "assault weapons" in crime. Summarizing data from 24 such inventories, criminologist Gary Kleck writes: "Virtually all of these studies show that only 0 to 4 percent of confiscated guns are assault weapons.
you'll note that two GOP's were involved in supporting the ban too.
now what is an assault weapon? and what crimes are they used in?
hard to find the stats..
America's Most Wanted Guns By Elaine Shannon/Washington Friday, Jul. 12, 2002
The top 10 guns used in crimes in the U.S. in 2000, according to an unpublished study by U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and obtained exclusively by TIME:
1. Smith and Wesson .38 revolver 2. Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic 3. Lorcin Engineering .380 semiautomatic 4. Raven Arms .25 semiautomatic 5. Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun 6. Smith and Wesson 9mm semiautomatic 7. Smith and Wesson .357 revolver 8. Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatic 9. Bryco Arms .380 semiautomatic 10. Davis Industries .380 semiautomatic
The list is derived from the center's investigations of 88,570 guns recovered from crime scenes in 46 cities in 2000, is being analyzed for ATF's youth gun crime interdiction initiative, which helps local police forces understand and counter gun trafficking to youth in their jurisdictions.
these are also the most common guns and are the least expensive of the common guns
in other words? most criminals are looking for cheap throw away often stolen guns..
most gun enthusiats are not interested in them
you'll notice none of them have bayonete lugs. or even high capacity magazines..
in fact? my take on the assault weapons ban was that it was all about the private militias that wer popping up all over the place... tim mcveigh being one of the main reasons..
the Founding Fathers most definitley had revolution on th4eir mind when they stated that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed. they were after all Revolutionaries themselves.
One measure by which ATF gauges a gun's appeal as an offensive (rather than a defensive or sporting) weapon is its "time-to-crime" factor — how long after its sale it is used in a crime. Revolvers, not generally used as an offensive weapon, had a median time-to-crime of 12.3 years, according to the 2000 figures. At the other extreme, Bryco Arms 9mm semiautomatics recovered from kids younger than18 had a median time-to-crime of 1.5 years, and those recovered from suspects aged 18 to 24 had a median time-to-crime of 1.1 years. The Hi Point 9mm is another downscale semiautomatic frequently seized from suspects in the 18-to-24 age range; it has a time-to-crime span of just one year.
now, see if you can find me stats showing how many guns obtained legally or illegallt are used to actually hurt or kill someone...
cuz they obvioulsy confiscate a heckofalot more guns than are actually used to hurt someone.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: one of my cards recently raised their rates and said if oi don't agree? to send them the card. i don't care cuz i don't carry a balance, but if i did? id' be shopping for another
Happened to me.... with Sears Mastercard... they raised my rate without warning and said I can get back my old rate but then the account would be closed... so i told them close it then and give me back my old rate...
I think the CC's are the biggest crooks of all... they are worst then the Mafia's loansharks.... at least the Mob gives you fixed rates and warn you before they kneecap you lol
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: [QUOTE]That is a pretty weak comparison...
My argument is this...the LAWS ALREADY EXIST to stop criminals from getting them legally
And my argument is that SOMEONE is getting them legally. It is not Russian surplus that is ending up in the streets. Someone IS getting them legally and illegally transferring them.
Umm u mean strawbuying? I don't think Retired is aware of that since he seems to be in denial about it...
Posted by Robot on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by Robot: Oh Glass,
Thanks for the info on assault weapons. I pick on them because I think the only reason most people fight so hard to keep them legal is that they "can be" converted back to full auto if needed.
as a USN gunner's mate? i was trained on how each firearm in our arsenal worked. and how to maintains them
there a couple of very old models of semi-auto that can be converted.
you have to realise that full auto is very hard on the metals used to make the parts.
not only is it illegal to manufacture and sell the parts to convert guns to full auto without a license, you must replace more than just the "needed" parts if the guns will last more than two or three minutes becuase the semi-auto parts won't hold up. somebody can make the gun fire full auto, but by the time they have practiced with it? it won't be operable anymore. there was recent case of a guy that got jail time for firing a gun rigged to work full auto- the prosecution was ludicrous because the thing required several specific conditions to fire full auto, and was not only unpredictable, but impractical....
i posted earlier that a half million dollars worth of machine eqpt would be about right. that's not what i call "easy"..
it takes aloto f knowledge to run each peice of eqpt and the tolerances are very demanding if you want the machine (gun) to work continuously and correcly. which anybody putting their life on th eline absolutely wants full auto requires alotof moving parts to reverse direction in the 100 times per second range...
that kind of manufacturing is organised crime at the level of major drug production.
a criminal organisation at that level could make them in the Jungles of Central America with impunity and sell them anywhere they wanted...
they will eventually do just that too...
I know you can do older models but wasn't sure when the manufactures started using lower quality metals for the semi autos.
It may be illegal but people still love to try. Full auto can be deadly compared to a good single shot every few seconds. It would not surprise me to here that more than a few bad gun dealers could supply these parts and that the parts came from off shore.
You have a good point as far as how long the weapon will last but I think they will last long enough to pay for them selves.
there was recent case of a guy that got jail time for firing a gun rigged to work full auto- the prosecution was ludicrous because the thing required several specific conditions to fire full auto, and was not only unpredictable, but impractical....
I am sure there is more to the story but if he broke the law then...................
Posted by Robot on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Like I have been saying all along...the BAD GUYS will get guns regardless of how many laws we create to stop them...
I personally think it's foolish to be without one...
Not so much how many laws but which laws and who do they apply too and most of all are they going to enforce them.
Spitting on the sidewalk is illegal up here, but I don't think anyone has gotten a ticket for it since like 1920 something.
If I lived in Detroit I would have to agree with you.
Posted by Robot on :
Another problem with guns is that they last a very long time. If and when guns are restricted or some models are band it will take 20, 30, 40 years to get rid of the illegal ones on the streets. And yes the crime rate will go up, for a while. The kicker is will it eventually go down. Lots of us believe it will, and make for a better place for our children.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Robot: Another problem with guns is that they last a very long time. If and when guns are restricted or some models are band it will take 20, 30, 40 years to get rid of the illegal ones on the streets. And yes the crime rate will go up, for a while. The kicker is will it eventually go down. Lots of us believe it will, and make for a better place for our children.
+10
Posted by retiredat49 on :
So...Robot and Mach...what I am hearing you both say, is that you REALLY do want to see guns banned...
surprise...surprise
This is EXACTLY why people like Glass and I will fight new gun laws and restrictions to the end...because the REAL agenda is to get rid of all guns...
Posted by glassman on :
i too was waiting for that admission.
it always comes if you keep the discussion going long enough.
the sad part is that i would like nothing better than for people to become more enlightened.
the reality is that we are going to have to kill a lot of people to weed out the unenlightened offspring of the unenlightened.
eugenics anyone?
Posted by glassman on :
the way i figure it? in 40 years we could stop all violence by sterilising every person that gets mad at somebody and yells at them too.
in the menatime we just ban all those inexpnsive POS guns that the criminals really use.
of course that would be discriminatory against the most common victims of violent crimes too because they cannot afford 1000$ for a quality gun with an RFID chip that recognises the owner. said owner having spent another 5000$ gotting the matching implant chip that also ID's them at every police checkpoint and anyplace else that wants to know who they are automatically.
the fact is that if we want gun crimes to go down? we only need to educate young people starting at 2 or three. educate them in such away that they have the ability to LEARN in the classroom environment. Most everybody can learn, but not everybody is suited to be in the classroom. Street gangs are always full of people that cannot learn in the classroom, but they can learn "on the street"
this is when we lose them. before they are 6. at 7 years old? they have already been trained to learn in the way they will learn for the rest of their life.
most street crime is committed by people that have very few opportunities in life. they were neglected at critical stages of life that leave them frustrated and angry as they watch other people seemingly do whatever they want whenever they want.
accidents? they'll always happen.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the way i figure it? in 40 years we could stop all violence by sterilising every person that gets mad at somebody and yells at them too.
in the menatime we just ban all those inexpnsive POS guns that the criminals really use.
of course that would be discriminatory against the most common victims of violent crimes too because they cannot afford 1000$ for a quality gun with an RFID chip that recognises the owner. said owner having spent another 5000$ gotting the matching implant chip that also ID's them at every police checkpoint and anyplace else that wants to know who they are automatically.
the fact is that if we want gun crimes to go down? we only need to educate young people starting at 2 or three. educate them in such away that they have the ability to LEARN in the classroom environment. Most everybody can learn, but not everybody is suited to be in the classroom. Street gangs are always full of people that cannot learn in the classroom, but they can learn "on the street"
this is when we lose them. before they are 6. at 7 years old? they have already been trained to learn in the way they will learn for the rest of their life.
most street crime is committed by people that have very few opportunities in life. they were neglected at critical stages of life that leave them frustrated and angry as they watch other people seemingly do whatever they want whenever they want.
accidents? they'll always happen.
Personally, I've never advocated a ban on guns. I believe the old adage is true, "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns". I think stricter background checks would be helpful. But here's the rub....it's normally not the law abiding registered gun owner killing people. It is the illegally obtained guns on the street that cause the majority of the deaths.
We need to find a way to get the guns off the streets, and out of criminal hands. And to be honest, banning guns is not the answer. But I don't see a feasible way to make that happen. It's a cunundrum to say the least.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
+10
Posted by glassman on :
why are those people on the streets?
i know why, i grew up inside the DC beltway and repoed offa them.
i lived in SoCali and was very involved in several community colleges there. i saw and worked with the few kids who were trying hard to get off the streets.
it really is about opportunity.
want to cut crime?
make "headstart" mandatory.
pay the people who teach and work directly with our kids double what we are now. stop paying school adminstrators too much. put much more phys ed into schools starting in elementary school and increase it- this will allow boys to work on controlling and directing their "testosterone poisoning"
make teaching a more competitve career. teachers get burnt out quick because they feel like everybody disrespects them, the kids the parents the boss.
i just had a long drawn out "discussion" with the guidance counselors at one of my kids schools because they don't want to give an advanced class yet. i insisted, the counseleor said they usually have parents complaining about their kids having too hard of classes Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: why are those people on the streets?
i know why, i grew up inside the DC beltway and repoed offa them.
i lived in SoCali and was very involved in several community colleges there. i saw and worked with the few kids who were trying hard to get off the streets.
it really is about opportunity.
want to cut crime?
make "headstart" mandatory.
pay the people who teach and work directly with our kids double what we are now. stop paying school adminstrators too much. put much more phys ed into schools starting in elementary school and increase it- this will allow boys to work on controlling and directing their "testosterone poisoning"
make teaching a more compettitve career. teachers get burn out quick because htey feel like everybody disrespects them.
i just had a long drawn out "discussion" with the guidance counsleors at one of my kids school because they don't want to give an advanced calls yet. i insited, the counsleor said they usually have parent complaining about their kids have ing too hard of classes
You keep referring to "people on the streets". That has nothing to do with the gun violence. Homeless people can't afford guns to start with. The "people on the street", aka gangs, thugs, criminals, etc choose that life. To think otherwise is naive at best. People have been espousing the education scenario for years, and what do we have to show for it? Zip! Other than more gun related deaths.
People have the opportunity to better themselves and lead productive lives. Some choose to be thugs and have decided it's easier to sell drugs and rob people for money than it is to work. It's a choice Glassy. We all have that choice.
Posted by glassman on :
The "people on the street", aka gangs, thugs, criminals, etc choose that life. To think otherwise is naive at best
hmmmm... early childhood development studies suggest otherwise. our society loses alot of kids before we ever even get them into our system.
kids that end up in gangs can pretty much be spotted by teachers in early elem school.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: The "people on the street", aka gangs, thugs, criminals, etc choose that life. To think otherwise is naive at best
hmmmm... early childhood development studies suggest otherwise. our society loses alot of kids before we ever even get them into our system.
kids that end up in gangs can pretty much be spotted by teachers in early elem school.
So lemme get this straight. Your saying teachers in elementary schools should be "profiling" kids?!?!!? That's crazy. .
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i too was waiting for that admission.
it always comes if you keep the discussion going long enough.
the sad part is that i would like nothing better than for people to become more enlightened.
the reality is that we are going to have to kill a lot of people to weed out the unenlightened offspring of the unenlightened.
eugenics anyone?
LOL
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by Pagan:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: The "people on the street", aka gangs, thugs, criminals, etc choose that life. To think otherwise is naive at best
hmmmm... early childhood development studies suggest otherwise. our society loses alot of kids before we ever even get them into our system.
kids that end up in gangs can pretty much be spotted by teachers in early elem school.
So lemme get this straight. Your saying teachers in elementary schools should be "profiling" kids?!?!!? That's crazy. .
It is subconscious profiling and discrimination but he's right. Education has a huge role here and too often we are dropping the ball.
Personally I would like most 'teaching' to be done by computers in the near future. One on one ratio with unlimited patience. The tech just hasn't arrived yet that can adapt to an individuals best learning style. Teachers would still be important as role models, group leaders, emotional support but let the information come devoid of social cues and miscues.
Oh...and Glass. You won't get me saying I want a ban. No matter how many times you erroneously use the word in our conversation. Posted by glassman on :
So lemme get this straight. Your saying teachers in elementary schools should be "profiling" kids?!?!!? That's crazy. .
i know that the world is crazy Pagan. some say that people who think the world is crazy are crazy themselves
profiling is a strong word.
ask a teacher who's been at it for awhile. they'll tell you what i am talking about...
some argue that paying teachers more would bring in the profiteers. my attitude is that kids would benefit from exposure to more professional people.
i was a kid who hated school from the beginning to the end. the only way i could stand it was phys ed and sports. for me? sitting at a seat for more than ten minutes was torture. now that i'm older? it's more like twenty minutes.
i don't like to go to movies for the same reason..
i have been to about 10 movies since 2000... lord of the rings -big fish- and i took the brats to a couple harry potters... that's it.
some people are not cut out to sit on their butts and i'm one of them.
i can walk into a room and completely describe it to you after one minute. of course i couldn't tell you the names of all the books or how many penicls and pens are in the holders, but i can draw a map that would show where everything is in relationship to each other. make me sit still for fifteen minutes? and i start becoming a candidate for punishment tho. "ants in the pants" they called it when i was real young, now they give kids pills to reform them
it runs in my family too
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: So lemme get this straight. Your saying teachers in elementary schools should be "profiling" kids?!?!!? That's crazy. .
i know that the world is crazy Pagan. some say that people who think the world is crazy are crazy themselves
profiling is a strong word.
ask a teacher who's been at it for awhile. they'll tell you what i am talking about...
some argue that paying teachers more would bring in the profiteers. my attitude is that kids would benefit from exposure to more professional people.
i was a kid who hated school from the beginning to the end. the only way i could stand it was phys ed and sports. for me? sitting at a seat for more than ten minutes was torture. now that i'm older? it's more like twenty minutes.
i don't like to go to movies for the same reason..
i have been to about 10 movies since 2000... lord of the rings -big fish- and i took the brats to a couple harry potters... that's it.
some people are not cut out to sit on their butts and i'm one of them.
i can walk into a room and completely describe it to you after one minute. of course i couldn't tell you the names of all the books or how many penicls and pens are in the holders, but i can draw a map that would show where everything is in relationship to each other. make me sit still for fifteen minutes? and i start becoming a candidate for punishment tho. "ants in the pants" they called it when i was real young, now they give kids pills to reform them
it runs in my family too
Don't you "sit" for hours on end whilst blowing glass? Or do you stand during the process? Every fair/artshow I've been to, the guy is always sitting and doing the glasswork. Maybe it just takes something to to peak your interest to kill the ants. Ya think?
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Originally by glassman:
quote:i'm asking waht guns?
because when i hear people say ban assualt weapons? i point to the stats that show assualt weapons are rarely used in crimes.
You are continuing to ask what guns as if I have a particular style in mind. (Another way of trying to force me to say I want to ban something. Good attempt, but that isn't the conversation here either.) Here is the full back and forth from start to finish.
Originally posted by CashCowMoo:
quote:Lawless will always remain lawless no matter how much you use crime as an excuse to ban firearms. People just want a good scapegoat to their fears and blaming guns for crime is a good way to make them feel better.
Originally posted by Bigfoot:
quote:No...close but not quite. Lawless will always remain lawless, on that we totally agree. The idea isn't to scapegoat fears onto guns, it is the thought that if we could find a way to limit the amount of projectile weapons available to the lawless then they must turn to other forms of destruction. Unintended targets would no longer be victims and both the rules of law and the rules of the street would be more straightforward.
Does that make sense to you?
Originally posted by retiredat49:
quote:So you want to create laws that the lawless won't adhere to?...make s no sense Big...
Only law abiding people are going to follow your "laws" and "controls" concerning projectile weapons, and those people aren't the problem...
I'll say it again very clearly...criminals are GOING to get guns, no matter how many laws you create to stop them from getting them...
Originally posted by Bigfoot:
quote:Kinda like how everybody is going to speed no matter what the limit is set at? Are you saying then that we should not post speed limits?
Originally posted by retiredat49:
quote:That is a pretty weak comparison...
My argument is this...the LAWS ALREADY EXIST to stop criminals from getting them legally...making it harder for law abiding citizens to get a gun is NOT going to stop the criminals from getting them...isn't that who you want to stop?...the criminals?
So why would you want to make it harder for law abiding citizens to get them, when you state it's the criminals you want to prevent from getting them? (unless you REALLY don't want ANYONE to have them)
Originally posted by Bigfoot:
quote:And my argument is that SOMEONE is getting them legally. It is not Russian surplus that is ending up in the streets. Someone IS getting them legally and illegally transferring them.
Originally posted by glassman:
quote:getting what exaclty?
Originally posted by Bigfoot:
quote:This is the guns thread right?
The argument is that making stricter rules on gun purchases will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase weapons yes? That criminals will be able to get their hands on em no matter how tough the rules get? So...Where are these criminals getting all these illegal guns if not from legal buyers? Please don't tell me you think they all fell off the back of a truck.
And here is where the conversation is sidetracked to what type of guns are used for what crime. Good information to have but not what I was speaking about.
Where are all these guns (no matter the type) coming from that end up in the hands of all these criminals for whom it is illegal to purchase a gun? If our laws are being circumvented to allow illegal transport and distribution of firearms on such a large scale without any ability to backtrack the weapons previous history so that we can hold the illegal traffickers responsible then it stands to reason that our laws need a review and rewrite.
I am not out to take your guns away. I am out to find a way to hold responsible those who choose to ignore the law and give or sell guns to these 18 yr old kids who are killing each other along with innocent bystanders. With fewer weapons being released in such an illegal and irresponsible fashion the end result should be fewer gun related crimes and fewer gun related homicides. This is my ultimate and only goal.
Posted by glassman on :
Don't you "sit" for hours on end whilst blowing glass? Or do you stand during the process? Every fair/artshow I've been to, the guy is always sitting and doing the glasswork. Maybe it just takes something to to peak your interest to kill the
OK, to make a peice at the torch? you have to sit.
i only make beads which are about 20 minutes each, and am totally engrossed in the process, which makes it easier.
furnace work, which is what i prefer to do, do better and is much more profitable requires me to stand up and sit down over an dover again.
the lighter and more delicate the peice? the more often..
i would guess that i average about 20 stand ups to do a 45 minute peice.
most people edit their videos to cut out the "boring parts" (standing and sitting and reheating
i don't have any of my videos on line yet, moslty cuz i don't have a good cameraman, and i can't putt he video's that shoot of others online without a release, and i only video masters who are difficult to come ot agreements with.
it's a shame too, because i know how to do the work and can anticipate exaclty where and when to be to get the best shots.
i've taken classes with this guy (Elio Quarisa)and have 60 hours of video of him but we could not come to an agreement on how to market them. basically he was not allowed to earn money in the states at the time i shot them due to Italian social security laws. i hear he got caught making money but not because of me or my work.
this guy is arguably the best replicator of "antique" Italian blown glass in the world:
i can walk into a room and completely describe it to you after one minute. [/QB]
I am a diagnosed ADDer too though I don't have the hyperactive nature. Got diagnosed when they kicked me out of college after my first year so I could appeal.
I couldn't draw you a map worth crap (they say my recall is excellent but my internal filing system has no structure to it) but I left the doc speechless when it came to repeating numerical strings.
The drugs don't help me but understanding and recognizing how my attention wanders helped me immensely in learning how to control it when it really matters.
Posted by glassman on :
but I left the doc speechless when it came to repeating numerical strings.
my wife is like that. but her spatial cognition is bankrupt. she obviously don't got ADD
she got her phd with a 3.9something (physics only B)
i have been able to watch a guy like ht guy above in the vidoe and then replicate his work almost exaclty the next day.
i avoid replication for anything but practice tho.
when i get a so-called "new idea"? i spend alotof time on image google search to verify that nobody else is doing it...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Your wife and mine should get together sometime. Mine makes me look like a dimwit.
frequently Posted by glassman on :
i've never been diagnosed, too old, and too late to make a difference..
last month? i made five scupltures all at the same time and finished them all on the same day, one day before the show. it went very well
i also did three festivals that month
no drawings, but they all came out just as i planned them.. i figured out a few "tricks" to make it work...
one sculpture at one time would prolly never get finished.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: So...Robot and Mach...what I am hearing you both say, is that you REALLY do want to see guns banned...
surprise...surprise
This is EXACTLY why people like Glass and I will fight new gun laws and restrictions to the end...because the REAL agenda is to get rid of all guns...
Nope, just agreeing with Robot that in the perfect world that is what should be done but I know that is not the reality... For reality I agree with BF more so...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: And here is where the conversation is sidetracked to what type of guns are used for what crime. Good information to have but not what I was speaking about.
Where are all these guns (no matter the type) coming from that end up in the hands of all these criminals for whom it is illegal to purchase a gun? If our laws are being circumvented to allow illegal transport and distribution of firearms on such a large scale without any ability to backtrack the weapons previous history so that we can hold the illegal traffickers responsible then it stands to reason that our laws need a review and rewrite.
I am not out to take your guns away. I am out to find a way to hold responsible those who choose to ignore the law and give or sell guns to these 18 yr old kids who are killing each other along with innocent bystanders. With fewer weapons being released in such an illegal and irresponsible fashion the end result should be fewer gun related crimes and fewer gun related homicides. This is my ultimate and only goal.
As always you say it the best BF... at least you are not in denial... Posted by Robot on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: So...Robot and Mach...what I am hearing you both say, is that you REALLY do want to see guns banned...
surprise...surprise
This is EXACTLY why people like Glass and I will fight new gun laws and restrictions to the end...because the REAL agenda is to get rid of all guns...
Posted by Robot: "If and when guns are restricted or some models are band........"
Thanks for putting words in my mouth Retired.
Glass, kinda surprised you jumped in on this one. I have gone over my post and uh, you guys are gonna hafta show me where I indicate I would like to ban all guns.
I would like to see some of the guns gone but I have said and indicated that from day one. Not news.
Posted by glassman on :
uh? this is fairly clearly stated.
If and when guns are restricted or some models are band it will take 20, 30, 40 years to get rid of the illegal ones on the streets.
the very last guns to "go" will be the illegal ones. honest people will turn over theirs first. ofcourse criminals always seem to be able to get what they want anyway
law enforcement and military will then do as they please because there will be no-one to stop them..
what's the difference between restricted and banned?
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Robot...here is your post in it's entirety...
Another problem with guns is that they last a very long time. If and when guns are restricted or some models are band it will take 20, 30, 40 years to get rid of the illegal ones on the streets. And yes the crime rate will go up, for a while. The kicker is will it eventually go down. Lots of us believe it will, and make for a better place for our children.
I don't have to put words in your mouth...it is very clear that you hope/want to see guns banned....
Posted by Robot on :
uh? this is fairly clearly stated. **************************************************** Posted by Robot: If and when guns are restricted or some models are band it will take 20, 30, 40 years to get rid of the illegal ones on the streets. ****************************************************
Don't agree. Maybe I could have added ""some" guns" at the beginning.
As you say guns are already restricted and not available to everyone. Maybe not restricted enough.
the very last guns to "go" will be the illegal ones. honest people will turn over theirs first. ofcourse criminals always seem to be able to get what they want anyway
I just said almost the same thing.
law enforcement and military will then do as they please because there will be no-one to stop them..
This is where we have a problem. It may be as simple as a cultural difference but I do not feel that any one should have the same or greater fire power than the police or the military.
I am not willing to keep increasing the available fire power to the people only to have a percentage of them stolen because they are not locked up. Yes, I know locking them up is an issue. It is a compound problem involving many different points of view and law. Then comes the militia VS military point of view. Sorry, don't have anything for you on that one.
what's the difference between restricted and banned?
For most people, no difference at all. For the gun collector who has a good history and the intelligence not to let his weapons fall into the wrong hands it means a lot.
But gun dealers that have shown they are not capable of running a kool-aid stand let alone sell guns. Get rid of them. I have been in pawn shops that should not even be aloud to sell slingshots.
As far as banning guns, I don't know but there must a few that serve as killing machines and should not be offered up for sale, anymore.
There has been more than a few post regarding how guns get into criminal's hands and no one is saying anything about locking up the guns. What about gun shops that are not required to lock up their inventory. Why not? By locking them up I'm talking about not being able to get at the weapons, no mater what.
I can't see it hurting sales. May raise the costs a little. That for some would be an acceptable cost VS stolen guns and so on.........
Ban all guns? Nope. I will never say that, ever!
I have said "no guns, no gun crime". And that's always good for a few posts.
Posted by Robot on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Robot...here is your post in it's entirety...
Another problem with guns is that they last a very long time. If and when guns are restricted or some models are band it will take 20, 30, 40 years to get rid of the illegal ones on the streets. And yes the crime rate will go up, for a while. The kicker is will it eventually go down. Lots of us believe it will, and make for a better place for our children.
I don't have to put words in your mouth...it is very clear that you hope/want to see guns banned....
I don't have a problem with hunting, but some guns, and ya lots of hand guns, are just over the top and not needed. That being said, the "not needed" part is just my opinion and does not apply to your individual situation. Every one is different and that is what communication is all about.
I have more respect for others than to dictate what I think should be done. However, providing recommendations is, as always, a challenging conversation when it comes to this topic.
Posted by glassman on :
this is where we have a problem. It may be as simple as a cultural difference but I do not feel that any one should have the same or greater fire power than the police or the military.
I am not willing to keep increasing the available fire power to the people only to have a percentage of them stolen because they are not locked up. Yes, I know locking them up is an issue. It is a compound problem involving many different points of view and law. Then comes the militia VS military point of view. Sorry, don't have anything for you on that one.
we do not have the same firepower as the military or the police.
i get kinda ticked when the police start complaining about not having enough firepower.
lets take the infamous LA bank robbers who wrapped themselves in kevlar and used full auto assault weapons.
they had no reasonable plan. without looking it up? they all died is my recollection.
they were loaded down with armor and could not move.
as a repoman i was denied access to quality body armor. it is actually tightly controlled. go figure that. not allowed to wear protective body armor but allowed to have a concealed weapon.
my first point is that the govt tends to be more restrictive rather than less as part of it's nature.
my second point is that gun shops GAVE officers whatever they asked for in that robbery situation.
had i been on the scene? i would requested 25-06 high power rifle or maybe 7mm magnum.(cuz i am familair with their balistics) both guns are hunting rifles, and they generate more stopping power at 200 yds than a 45 calibre handgun does at point blank. the cops could stand outside the effective range of a full auto AK and snipe. some would prolly choose a heavier bullet since the 25 and the 7 mm are light, but i personally shoot better with a lighter, faster load..
all the armour in the world won't keep you standing up if you take one of them square. those are hunting guns and if you get hit in the hand by one? it spins you around, not like in the movies where people "shrugit off" and say it's just a flesh wound. the cops had no need for full aut0 agianst them, they only needed a couple of good snipers and planty of cover. which they have in form of SWAT. swat does use full auto H&K primarily for entering a room. assault weapons are not magic. they have very specific uses and are not much good otherwise.
banning "certain" guns won't make criminals act better. this is a movie mentality thing a la rambo.
people have fantasies about steroid loaded arms holding a bouncing machine gun. anybody who's ever fired a full auto weapon is surprised at how hard they are to aim as soon as you pull the trigger.
there are a couple like the H&K and the short m-16's that are easier than most to aim.
the problem is people not machines
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: they had no reasonable plan. without looking it up? they all died is my recollection.
they were loaded down with armor and could not move.
Actually they were very well planned robberies they did.. very military style precision... what I think they should of done was have a 3rd person... a driver if you may...
As for not moving because of their armor... that wasn't true.. .they were big guys.. muscle heads... they were just boxed in by the police... the reason for not being able to move.... go watch the videos on Youtube..
quote:the problem is people not machines
Machines and/or guns are extensions of those people...
Posted by Robot on :
we do not have the same firepower as the military or the police.
Military no, but some of the guns that show up against the regular duty officers on the street are scary. Swat and other special teams, no.
i get kinda ticked when the police start complaining about not having enough firepower.
Ya but what does a regular cop carry in his car at three in the morning? I don't know what your cops have as standard equipment. I'd want twice the fire power over the other guy.
infamous LA bank robbers
Glad that almost never happens.
as a repoman i was denied access to quality body armor. it is actually tightly controlled. go figure that. not allowed to wear protective body armor but allowed to have a concealed weapon.
This is where I was going with my ....'restricting guns'.... comment in my earlier post. Many people believe that some professionals are more responsible in the handling of higher powered guns and should be licensed to do so.
people have fantasies about steroid loaded arms holding a bouncing machine gun,
Not a fantasy. I stood in line and waited my turn. They called me up and I drop to the ground and took up a very formidable position behind a 50 cal. on a tripod surrounded with sand bags. The corporal gave me some instructions that I didn't here cuz before he was finished I "squeezed" the trigger. I can't say as I noticed him tapping me on the shoulder to stop. I am sure my body left the ground. Yes. It stopped on its own (finished the belt) and I jumped up and ran back to my dad. He was shaking his head and laughing. I still have some of that smile on my face. I waited for a changing of the "corporals" and went back to for more. That Air Force Day was Awesome. I was nine years old.
banning "certain" guns won't make criminals act better.
"act better", No it won't. But it will eventually take away some of their fire power and reduce the damage they cause. I think banning some guns would help to focus attention on gun issues and make people more aware of each others concerns. Education can only help.
the problem is people not machines
Everybody agrees with you. Guns do not go off by them selves. Just that over the last 100 years, nobody seems to have a viable solution other than to do something with the machines. Controlling people is proving to be impossible not to mention infringing on...............
The RFID thing is good though. It's in use for dogs, pigs, ect. and the transportation of cargo. I wounder if the price is so high cuz the pharmaceuticals have and interest in the human aspect?
The keys to start my cars and an atv are chipped. They cost $100 to replace but it's a cheap security system and very hard to bypass.
Posted by glassman on :
but some of the guns that show up against the regular duty officers on the street are scary.
there is no such thing as a scary gun, just scary people. guns are simply machines. all cops choose to be cops for personal reasons, just as all repo men do, bounty hunters, and crab fishermen, the most dangerous job in the world. they LIKE danger. it makes them fell alive
too many movies have portrayed gun use in Rambo terms.
most guns on the street are the same basic guns cops carry just cheaper, less reliable and accurate models because criminals will drop them into the drink after they use them- i already posted the most common guns on the street.
The RFID thing is good though.
not. you want to be chipped? you want ANYBODY with a scanner to ID you?
you are forgetting that the most comon victims of violent crime ARE poor people who cannot afford the extra cost. unfortunately? they are the most likely to have their gun stolen too,
i return to my original argument that the best way to lower all crimes is to provide headstart to everybody and make it mandatory for welfare moms.
then pay the headsart teacher professional wages so that we don't have worse people "warehousing" the kids.
early childhood development studies prove that children are taught how to learn (or not) at very early ages. sure, genes have alot to do with it, but little kids are blank slates and if left in front of the TV all day cannot develop into functional adults. esp. considering how awful alot of the cartoon network crap is now ever watch ed ed and eddy? just plain disgusting. it's nothing like the three stooges which i assume it was intended to mimic.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: they had no reasonable plan. without looking it up? they all died is my recollection.
they were loaded down with armor and could not move.
Actually they were very well planned robberies they did.. very military style precision... what I think they should of done was have a 3rd person... a driver if you may...
As for not moving because of their armor... that wasn't true.. .they were big guys.. muscle heads... they were just boxed in by the police... the reason for not being able to move.... go watch the videos on Youtube..
quote:the problem is people not machines
Machines and/or guns are extensions of those people...
mach, i can never understand how you come up with these types of arguments.
the mere fact that they were shot to hell proves the plan was wrong. it wasn't bad luck, it was muscleheads. yeah they shoulda had a driver. you sure they didn't? you sure the driver didn't wooooss and leave them?
as for why they got caught? don't you think that if you are in a bank and you see a dude looking like iron man walk thru the door that you will push the alarm button immediately?
comeon. be reasonable.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Where are all these guns (no matter the type) coming from that end up in the hands of all these criminals for whom it is illegal to purchase a gun? If our laws are being circumvented to allow illegal transport and distribution of firearms on such a large scale without any ability to backtrack the weapons previous history so that we can hold the illegal traffickers responsible then it stands to reason that our laws need a review and rewrite.
if we don't have the ability to track them then how can Mexico blame us for their problem?
U.S. Guns Arming Mexican Drug Gangs; Second Amendment to Blame? Officials: More Than 90 Percent of Weapons Used by Mexico's Drug Gangs Come From the U.S.
that story comes with a picture that just proves it's a lie anyway
that gun is some sort of AK variant that i don't recognise for sure because it's not available in the US. it appears to me to be a Russian PK/PKM-47 that's been modified heavily.
that gun is not a US product.
it is possible that it's a custom built M-60 which is a US military gun and available to a citizen with a tax stamp and complete background check. but it looks to be too light to be an M-60
the fact is that guns are bougth legally by citizens who then turn around and sell them, or have them stolen.
show me how many guns are invlved in th eillegal trade. i find that 80,000 guns were confisccted by cops in '05 BUT they were not all sold illegally.. just being used/carried illegally
as for the Mexican govt claiming that 90% of the guns in their country came from here? i BET you the Govt of Mexico supplied most of the illegal guns to their cartels- we all know that the Mexican govt is behind the drug trafickers at some time or another. the Mexican govt and many of the central american govt have been sponsors of drug trafficking.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Here are the 3 reasons I own/carry guns...
1. Hunting
2. Personal Protection
3. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
Thomas Jefferson
Posted by glassman on :
3. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
here's the part that really ticks me off.
the Dems seem to me to be well-meaning people who will build that govt and the GOP seems to me to be the ones that use it to take everything they can.
that's not really an opinion either, that's what's happened.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: mach, i can never understand how you come up with these types of arguments.
the mere fact that they were shot to hell proves the plan was wrong.
Obviously you didn't look up the details of the robbery. First that wasn't their first robbery, only their last. 2nd one of the robbers committed suicide. Put his gun under his chin and fired. The cops didn't kill him.
The other robber was shot in his legs and died of blood loss. They have a famous picture of him when they took off his mask and he was still alive looking at the camera.
quote: it wasn't bad luck, it was muscleheads.
They were avid bodybuilders at Gold's Gym and my point was that wearing body armour for them was nothing so lack of movement was not what kept them back.
quote: yeah they shoulda had a driver. you sure they didn't? you sure the driver didn't wooooss and leave them?
A full documentary by the History Channel as well as witnesses (including the 2 cops who first saw them going from their car to the bank)to their various robberies proved it was only them two.
quote:as for why they got caught? don't you think that if you are in a bank and you see a dude looking like iron man walk thru the door that you will push the alarm button immediately?
I guess you were not listening to me. They committed several robberies that were very well planned out.Military style so to speak. In fact this one was planned months in advance and wasn't a spur of the moment thing. Their plan was to be in the bank no longer then 8 minutes. I believe it was said in the documentary they were either inspired by this 8 minute rule from the movie Heat or Point Break. This robbery ran them into bad luck:
"However, as they walked into the bank they were spotted by an LAPD patrol car driving down Laurel Canyon, and the officers in the car radioed in a possible 211, code for an armed robbery.[15]"
quote:comeon. be reasonable.
Your not being reasonable because you immediately dispute what I say before looking into the facts of the robbery to see if I'm blowing smoke. Go watch the documentary on History Channel or their website or perhaps it's on Youtube. Here I'll help you with some links:
2. It's a rare but (inaudible) moment:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAcMKt5htqY
Are you going to backtrack or for once say I was right? Doubt either.
Posted by glassman on :
ok a quick look at wiki still shows they were idiots.
Backgrounds
Larry Phillips, Jr. and Emil Matasareanu first met at Gold's Gym in Venice, Los Angeles, California in 1989. They had a mutual interest in weightlifting and bodybuilding.[citation needed] Phillips imported steel-core ammunition for his illegally modified assault rifles, and acquired Aramid body armor.[5]
In October 1993, Phillips and Matasareanu were arrested in Glendale, northeast of Los Angeles, California, for speeding.[6] A subsequent search of their vehicle—after Phillips surrendered with a concealed weapon—found two semi-automatic rifles, two handguns, over 1,600 rounds of 7.62 mm rifle ammunition, over 1,200 rounds of 9x19mm Parabellum and .45 ACP handgun ammunition, radio scanners, smoke bombs, improvised explosive devices, body armor vests, and three different California license plates.[7] Though they were initially charged with conspiracy to commit robbery,[8] neither of them served more than 100 days in jail, though they each were put on three years' probation.[9] After their release, most of their seized property was returned to them.[10]
Sometime in 1995, the pair ambushed a Brinks armored car and killed one guard in the robbery. In May 1996, they robbed two branches of Bank of America in San Fernando, stealing approximately US$1.5 million.[11] Phillips and Matasareanu were dubbed the "High Incident Bandits" by investigators due to the heavy weaponry they had used in three bank robberies prior to their attempt in North Hollywood.[12]
you'll note that they illegally modified thier own weapons and were caguth and released before they committed the north hollywood shootout.
just more proof that the system failed not the laws.
furthermore? the fact that they got away with two-three jobs before that means nothing in terms of smarts.
they had over amillion bucks? they were addicted to adrtenalin and committted to becoming dead in the street.
the full body armor that was shown on TV slows down anybody, what was shown was that it was on legs as well or the cops would have taken their legs out.
Philli0ps killed himself after being shot up bad. so what?
Posted by glassman on :
Your not being reasonable because you immediately dispute what I say before looking into the facts of the robbery to see if I'm blowing smoke. Go watch the documentary on History Channel or their website or perhaps it's on Youtube. Here I'll help you with some links:
actually it sounds alot like you admire them.
they were idiots they are dead. end of story.
i have much better things to do with my time than watch a story about this in TV,
after getting over million in cash they keep on doin' it? stooopid.
do you know how many bank robberies most peopl get away with 'fore they are caught? do yo know how few bank robbers are ever caught? it's a very high number these guys not only got caught -they got dead, that's even rarer.
do you know what the instructions are to bank employees who are in a robbery? comply.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: as for the Mexican govt claiming that 90% of the guns in their country came from here? i BET you the Govt of Mexico supplied most of the illegal guns to their cartels- we all know that the Mexican govt is behind the drug trafickers at some time or another. the Mexican govt and many of the central american govt have been sponsors of drug trafficking.
Wow your blowing smoke on this one. Alot of the guns confiscated in Mexico are U.S. made. Not saying all of them but 90% sounds reasonable. What is more easier? Smuggling them in from Russia or your next door neighbor the U.S.? These are experts at smuggling Glass. Not difficult to understand.
And no the Mexican Gov't as a WHOLE is not behind the drug traffickers. That is like saying that if Hillary Clinton was behind drug traffickers here in the U.S. then the whole U.S. Gov't are backing the drug traffickers. Does that make sense? No. Individual people in the Mexican Gov't, Military, police etc. are paid off to help the Drug traffickers with their business but that does not mean at all that it is officially sanctioned by the Govt/military/police. They are INDIVIDUALS AND NOT WHOLE AGENCIES that are abusing their jobs for the benefit of the drug traffickers and money.
Costa Rica has it's own drug trafficking problems lately and i can assure you the Gov't is not "sponsoring" them. It's just crooked customs agents, coast Guard, police etc. getting paid off to look the other way. Nothing more and nothing less.
I am quite surprised at you Glass, for a person who condemns the media for being inaccurate and sensationalizing the gun issue you sure take it's word on other issues like drug trafficking etc. at face value.
Anyways as for the gun issue with Mexico like i said they are not pulling 90% out of a hat. It is evident when they confiscate guns where they are made and when traced who smuggled them into Mexico and it wasn't the Mexican Gov't. Read it carefully and research it's accuracy:
Btw don't tell me that guns play no part in the drug trade problem. Money and Guns keep the drug cartels in business. One corrupts and the other one kills when necessary to keep their power. We should be attacking all 3: drug smuggling, money laundering and gun trafficking. Because you and I both know it affects the U.S. and if it hasn't officially yet, the violence will cross into our borders. It already has imo.
Posted by glassman on :
And no the Mexican Gov't as a WHOLE is not behind the drug traffickers
the hell they aren't. the recent war is due to a new president shaking up the old presidents boyz.
Mexico's federal police are in it all the way.
this is common knowledge amongst the DEA
Posted by glassman on :
anyways as for the gun issue with Mexico like i said they are not pulling 90% out of a hat
and my point is that we can track and trace US-made guns ;thanks for making MY point
see how easy it is to get people to verify the underlying points?
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the full body armor that was shown on TV slows down anybody, what was shown was that it was on legs as well or the cops would have taken their legs out.
2nd robber was killed by being shot in the legs. Perhaps the other one was armoured there and this one wasn't. the 2nd one was the driver in the car so his legs were somewhat protected til he got out of the car and was ultimately brought down.
quote:Philli0ps killed himself after being shot up bad. so what?
His hand(s) were wounded but I wouldn't say he was shot up bad. He saw no way out and wasn't going to go back to jail so he took his only way out. Point being you were wrong about how he died.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
actually it sounds alot like you admire them.
they were idiots they are dead. end of story.
Nope, don't admire then and I agree they were idiots. But only for not quitting while ahead. Million dollars was enough imo.
quote:i have much better things to do with my time than watch a story about this in TV,
Ironic, when you are right about something you have all the time to look all these articles, youtube etc. up but when you are wrong all of a sudden you have much better things to do with your time then look at evidence and such lol And for someone who works 70 hours a week making glass artwork you sure are on here alot during day and night.
quote:after getting over million in cash they keep on doin' it? stooopid.
Already agreed with this. They should of quit while ahead.
quote:do you know how many bank robberies most peopl get away with 'fore they are caught? do yo know how few bank robbers are ever caught? it's a very high number these guys not only got caught -they got dead, that's even rarer.
They made a pact they wouldn't go back to jail so was obvious where they were heading if they didn't quit early. But as for bank robbers, they get caught sooner or later. Some sooner and some later. Most don't quit while ahead, some get caught because they are amateurs:
quote:do you know what the instructions are to bank employees who are in a robbery? comply.
Your point being? It goes without saying.
You can just not bring yourself to saying someone else is right and you were wrong about facts on something lol When you are wrong you go to your standby of "I have much better things to do with my time".
Posted by glassman on :
I wouldn't say he was shot up bad
uh? how do you define bad? shot in both hands is pretty bad, and pretty good shooting by a sniper too...
In this case, approximately 650 rounds were fired at two heavily armed and heavily armored men, who had fired 1,100 rounds.[3] The responding police officers directed their fire at the "center mass" or torsos of Matasareanu and Phillips. Each man was shot and penetrated by at least ten bullets, yet both continued to attack officers.
that's shot up bad, you see? even if the bullet is stopped? the force is still transmitted to the body, a little 9 milli might not be much but 10 of them add up
the picture in the article i posted is most definitley a Russkie made wepon.
you just make my points more valid with most every post.
the Mexican smugglers are experts at smuggling, they will just get guns wherever they want them from.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: track and trace US-made guns ;thanks for making MY point
see how easy it is to get people to verify the underlying points?
What point? Did I say guns could never be tracked? Of course they can if they have serial numbers.They can be tracked by the manufacturer as to which retailer recieved it and sold it to whom and if it was stolen or not. So I don't see what point you are making? Please explain further.
Posted by glassman on :
What point? Did I say guns could never be tracked?
i brought the Mexican issue up to show that we can track and trace guns, i was responding to BF who you falsely accused me of ignoring before.
i toally disagree with you that these guys were anything other than complete stupid jack asses and you won't find very many people that will agree with you.
i offered speculation as specualtion, that does not make me wrong. you are trying way too hard here Mach.
look up there and see that it quotes BF.
quite frankly? i think you are slipping here. this is just ridiculous the way you want to try to make me wrong so hard. take a break from it man.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: I wouldn't say he was shot up bad
uh? how do you define bad? shot in both hands is pretty bad, and pretty good shooting by a sniper too...
Bad can be defined by each individual. To this robber it wasn't bad. What was bad is he was running out of ammo and was not going to be taken alive back to jail.
quote:that's shot up bad, you see? even if the bullet is stopped? the force is still transmitted to the body, a little 9 milli might not be much but 10 of them add up
10 of them did not bring them down for 2 reasons that are most likely:
1. They were bodybuilders so therefor the armour stopped the bullets and their physically fit bodies could take the force much better then perhaps the average joe. 1 bullet would of tooken me down because im not a big guy like those 2.
2. They were high on drugs for adrenaline and such. Ever wonder how alot of drunk drivers are able to come out of a bad crash while the person they hit doesn't?. drugs and alcohol play a part sometimes in people surviving things they nornally wouldn't.
quote:the picture in the article i posted is most definitley a Russkie made wepon.
you just make my points more valid with most every post.
Again what point are you talking about? I never disputed what weapon was in the photo. And btw we don't even know if that weapon and photo is from Mexico. Could be from Sierre Leone, Afghanistan etc. But thats not the point. Point is I never disputed the photo and it's weapon. And also I said 90% of weapons in Mexico are U.S. made so that leaves 10% non-U.S. made. Perhaps that russkie weapon is one of those 10%?
quote:the Mexican smugglers are experts at smuggling, they will just get guns wherever they want them from.
Your point again? Yes they will get guns wherever they want them from and they prefer U.S. made weapons over others and they will smuggle them from the U.S. which is easier for them to do so.
Posted by glassman on :
more from Wiki:
a SWAT officer reported during the final gunfire exchange that his M16 rounds could not penetrate Matasareanu's armor (due to the trauma plates),[citation needed] suggesting that the outcome could have been different had both robbers been wearing leg protection.[12] The homemade body armor was heavy, reportedly weighing as much as three bowling balls,[citation needed] and limited the robbers' mobility.
keep in mind that i remebered this stuff from when it happened.
why are you doing this? i recalled commentary from the time of the incident as it was offered on the news. in other words? i was not "wrong" to say htat they were weighed down by body armour as you want to sugggest
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
i brought the Mexican issue up to show that we can track and trace guns, i was responding to BF who you falsely accused me of ignoring before.
You quoted me and not BF when you made that comment.
quote:i toally disagree with you that these guys were anything other than complete stupid jack asses and you won't find very many people that will agree with you.
Did i say they weren't stupid jackasses? But they were above the average bank robber that is for sure. They planned their jobs in advance and not like the typical Bloods or CRips gang members that do not. And a million bucks before the Bank of America job definetly makes them above the average robber. Most do not get much. So as for "totally disagreeing" with me, I do not get what we were totally disagreeing with other then the facts of the robbery. That they were total stupid goes without saying and is not something i disagreed with you.
quote:i offered speculation as specualtion, that does not make me wrong. you are trying way too hard here Mach.
That you were totally speculating and then I showed you that you were wrong in your speculation does make you wrong. But you could never admit that ever. It is not in your nature to "be wrong" with anyone.
quote:look up there and see that it quotes BF.
U quoted me and not BF and directed your post to me and that is quite evident to me and everyone. If you had wanted to dispute BF you would of quoted him and/or quoted me and said to BF, "See, Mach just made my point". but you didn't...
quote:quite frankly? i think you are slipping here. this is just ridiculous the way you want to try to make me wrong so hard. take a break from it man.
So hard? Actually in this case I did it quite easily and you tried to run away with : I have better things to do with my time. If anyone tries hard to make anyone wrong it is you. You do it constantly with me, BF, Pagan etc. and with speaking for Cowman as well instead of letting Cow do it himself. You really should take a break and let the gang dispute each other. I rarely post. Usually i go weeks without posting when the topics are boring but I do let others post each other when I do get involved in a issue. I don't hog up the threads as much.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: keep in mind that i remebered this stuff from when it happened.
why are you doing this? i recalled commentary from the time of the incident as it was offered on the news. in other words? i was not "wrong" to say htat they were weighed down by body armour as you want to sugggest
And how heavy and built were those guys? The average joe like me couldn't carry that weight in armour but they obviously did. Watch the video of the shootout. They were moving their bodies naturally and not holding back. To them wearing that armour was like a weight lifting exercise. I admit i couldn't wear something that weighs 3 bowling ballsl but doesn't mean they couldn't and they obviously could.
But anyways that is not the point. the point is armour or no armour they were going nowhere. They were boxed in and trapped by the police. The ending was obvious before it happened.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: more from Wiki:
a SWAT officer reported during the final gunfire exchange that his M16 rounds could not penetrate Matasareanu's armor (due to the trauma plates),[citation needed] suggesting that the outcome could have been different had both robbers been wearing leg protection.[12] The homemade body armor was heavy, reportedly weighing as much as three bowling balls,[citation needed] and limited the robbers' mobility.
keep in mind that i remebered this stuff from when it happened.
why are you doing this? i recalled commentary from the time of the incident as it was offered on the news. in other words? i was not "wrong" to say htat they were weighed down by body armour as you want to sugggest
WIKI is hardly a factual source to cite. Notice the [citation needed] on most of those claims. I watched it live at the time. I watched a couple times on Discovery channel as well. Those dudes were not immobile at all. Looks like they moved pretty damn well to me. Not justifying anything, I just saw the video footage completely differently than you I guess. Have you actaully watched the footage glass? Or just quoting what you have read? Just curious.
Posted by glassman on :
i brought the Mexican issue up to show that we can track and trace guns, i was responding to BF who you falsely accused me of ignoring before.
You quoted me and not BF when you made that comment
i have no idea where you are coming from Mach, this is just up the page look there, i was responding to BF here's the post
glassman Member
Icon 1 posted May 22, 2009 09:59 Profile for glassman Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Where are all these guns (no matter the type) coming from that end up in the hands of all these criminals for whom it is illegal to purchase a gun? If our laws are being circumvented to allow illegal transport and distribution of firearms on such a large scale without any ability to backtrack the weapons previous history so that we can hold the illegal traffickers responsible then it stands to reason that our laws need a review and rewrite.
you are basically trying to say i was wrong when in fact i was not that's what i mean by trying so hard.
the fact that i have no interest in watching a history channel show about it is not an excuse. i don't want to.
get it?
you are just being unreasonable again. you accused me of backtacking last week when i wasn't too...
let it go. it's not even funny
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
the hell they aren't. the recent war is due to a new president shaking up the old presidents boyz.
Mexico's federal police are in it all the way.
this is common knowledge amongst the DEA
The DEA does not say they do it as a WHOLE but as individual corrupted ones.
Two cops in NYC were recently convicted and sentenced to life for carrying out hits for the NY Mob. Now it was more then one person being partners in their crimes but does that mean the whole NYPD as a WHOLE were working for the Mob? Hell no.
What you are doing is guilt by association. If only 1 or 2 or even 10 Mex cops are corrupt then you are saying the whole Dept is in on it.
Posted by glassman on :
Carlos Rico, Mexico´s under-secretary of foreign affairs for North America, said at a meeting with Mex. congressmen that "it´s not up " to the Mexican government to resolve the traffic of drugs towards the United States as long as that demand market exists.
Felipe Calderon also told reporters that "Drug trafficking in the United States is fuelled by the phenomenon of corruption on the part of the American authorities," he said.
Have you actaully watched the footage glass? Or just quoting what you have read? Just curious.
i already said not.
but i did see photos of their gear.
fact is? they were wearing 45 pounds of gear plus carrying a bunch of other gear. they were loaded down
this is getting stupider by the second.
they were idiots, dumeber than **** and wanted to die the way they did or they would not have done it.
AND THIS ARGUMENT IS DUMBER THAN **** TOO
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
i have no idea where you are coming from Mach, this is just up the page look there, i was responding to BF here's the post
Here's the quote you posted:
"anyways as for the gun issue with Mexico like i said they are not pulling 90% out of a hat
and my point is that we can track and trace US-made guns ;thanks for making MY point
see how easy it is to get people to verify the underlying points?"
Who did you quote? Was it BF or me?
quote:you are basically trying to say i was wrong when in fact i was not that's what i mean by trying so hard.
When did i say you were wrong about the tracking of guns when it comes to Mexico?
quote:the fact that i have no interest in watching a history channel show about it is not an excuse. i don't want to.
get it?
What I do get is that when you think you are right and have to prove your point you have all the time in the world to look at videos, articles etc. to prove that point no matter what. But when someone else is correct about something when you were "speculating" or just outright wrong you have "no interest" in watching or reading what they have to present. The clip is only 10 minutes long and I only wanted you to watch perhaps the first minute or two on how they were discovered to be committing the bank robbery to show it was by chance they were caught and not by the bank employees. I was disputing your "speculation". But it seems to eat you up if you are wrong so you refuse to watch it.
quote:you are just being unreasonable again. you accused me of backtacking last week when i wasn't too...
let it go. it's not even funny
I find it quite funny actually how you refuse to watch someone else's sources for proving a point or you wrong lol Glad you are doing this publicly though because when it's us you do it all the time.
Posted by glassman on :
this is exaclty what i posted this i what i meant, and i was not wrong:
lets take the infamous LA bank robbers who wrapped themselves in kevlar and used full auto assault weapons.
they had no reasonable plan. without looking it up? they all died is my recollection.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Have you actaully watched the footage glass? Or just quoting what you have read? Just curious.
i already said not.
but i did see photos of their gear.
fact is? they were wearing 45 pounds of gear plus carrying a bunch of other gear. they were loaded down
this is getting stupider by the second.
they were idiots, dumeber than **** and wanted to die the way they did or they would not have done it.
AND THIS ARGUMENT IS DUMBER THAN **** TOO
Dont bother Pagan, Glass only read and didn't watch the footage of how they carry that armour like it's nothing. And they had most of their gear in the car and not on their bodies. The non armour.
Posted by glassman on :
I find it quite funny actually how you refuse to watch someone else's sources for proving a point or you wrong lol Glad you are doing this publicly though because when it's us you do it all the time.
i find it quite funny that you lose arguments here non-stop and you keep coming back for more. that you have to twist the argumnet inot some osrt of knot and falsely claaim victory implying i say things that i did not.
the fact that i don't care to watch a "documantary" on TV is an admission of nothing except that you are desperate to score a single point out of thousands Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: I find it quite funny actually how you refuse to watch someone else's sources for proving a point or you wrong lol Glad you are doing this publicly though because when it's us you do it all the time.
i find it quite funny that you lose arguments here non-stop and you keep coming back for more.
You lost this one with the N. Hollywood one Glassy... just admit you did and move on.
Plus a difference in opinions is not losing an argument. But when its factual like this bank robbery it is.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Have you actaully watched the footage glass? Or just quoting what you have read? Just curious.
i already said not.
but i did see photos of their gear.
fact is? they were wearing 45 pounds of gear plus carrying a bunch of other gear. they were loaded down
this is getting stupider by the second.
they were idiots, dumeber than **** and wanted to die the way they did or they would not have done it.
AND THIS ARGUMENT IS DUMBER THAN **** TOO
Not saying they weren't dumb. Just think it odd for you to make definitive comments about they're mobility never having actually watched the footage.. But as you said, this line of posts is getting pretty far from the original points being made on this thread. I've only made two posts about it, I won't persue this line of posts any further. Have a great weekend glass.
Posted by glassman on :
Not saying they weren't dumb.
actually MACH said it. so you agree he's wrong or not? answer is required yes or no?
this about the stupidest thing i've seen online sine i was last at islum.
Just think it odd for you to make definitive comments about they're mobility never having actually watched the footage
like i said? even the police said they had limited mobility.
admit it i said something that was not presented as anything other thna banter and this is become a game of glass effed up. but i did not effup-it's written in wiki whether you like it or not it's simply an opinion.
i'd like a soldier to chime in. tell us how much mobility they give up with a standard pack and body armor. they'll tell you the same thing i did.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i find it quite funny that you lose arguments here non-stop and you keep coming back for more. that you have to twist the argumnet inot some osrt of knot and falsely claaim victory implying i say things that i did not.
the fact that i don't care to watch a "documantary" on TV is an admission of nothing except that you are desperate to score a single point out of thousands
It's ok Glass you da man you can never be wrong. I didn't twist any argument other then to show your inaccuracy as to a bank robbery you brought up. But it's ok ignore the facts because you are right about the bank robbery lol
Also don't watch the documentary, i could care less. Your actions speak louder then words. You only want people to read or watch your sources for making points but no one elses. That is ok no problem. Like Pagan said have a nice weekend. I proved you wrong on this and I'll let BF prove you wrong on the rest.
BTW Mexico saying the drug problem is our problem because of demand is also the same way we tell Mexico the gun problem is their problem because of demand.
Have a nice weekend. Me have to get ready for work and such.
Posted by glassman on :
LOL.. i was wrong! the bank robbers were military geniuses and 45 pounds of kelvar never slowed anybody down
don't let the door hit ya on the way out
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: LOL.. i was wrong! the bank robbers were military geniuses and 45 pounds of kelvar never slowed anybody down
don't let the door hit ya on the way out
I'll leave you to your domain. Btw shouldn't you be blowing glass more then smoke. This board is taking away from your 70 hours per week.
Anyways have fun and honestly have a nice weekend. (no insults intended). Posted by glassman on :
actually i'm doing sculptures while the weather is hot and i've built half of one today in between posts and it's only 1:30 here. i shut down the furnaces three weeks ago.
as for the video you want me to watch? is it the actual guys with the video shot onsite or was it re-enactment?
cuz i don't think i saw much video on the news. maybe a little..
fact is re-enactments are worthless.
Posted by glassman on :
youtube has clips that are re-enactments.. youzguyz are silly. and i'm sillier for even repsonding
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: actually i'm doing sculptures while the weather is hot and i've built half of one today in between posts and it's only 1:30 here. i shut down the furnaces three weeks ago.
as for the video you want me to watch? is it the actual guys with the video shot onsite or was it re-enactment?
cuz i don't think i saw much video on the news. maybe a little..
Have a nice weekend... show us pic of sculpture sometime...
Posted by glassman on :
both of those videos support my claim in words and pictures.
the chnnel 9 video is what i remember seeing :
perps walking slowly while under fire instead of making tracks for the next county.
the perps deserved to die. Darwin rules,
Posted by glassman on :
reading up on the case supports my claims that we already have alotof laws on the books already that should work, but don't because they are not enforced.
the guys were arrested in 93 with explosives and were barely slapped on the hand
In October 1993, Phillips and Matasareanu were arrested in Glendale, northeast of Los Angeles, California, for speeding.[6] A subsequent search of their vehicle—after Phillips surrendered with a concealed weapon—found two semi-automatic rifles, two handguns, over 1,600 rounds of 7.62 mm rifle ammunition, over 1,200 rounds of 9x19mm Parabellum and .45 ACP handgun ammunition, radio scanners, smoke bombs, improvised explosive devices, body armor vests, and three different California license plates.[7] Though they were initially charged with conspiracy to commit robbery,[8] neither of them served more than 100 days in jail, though they each were put on three years' probation.[9] After their release, most of their seized property was returned to them.[10]
they had not purchased full auto weapons they illegally modified them..
phillips had a jammed gun when his thumb was shot, mayb cuz he didn't do a good job of modifying it?
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: both of those videos support my claim in words and pictures.
the chnnel 9 video is what i remember seeing :
perps walking slowly while under fire instead of making tracks for the next county.
the perps deserved to die. Darwin rules,
I just got out of shower and dressing for work so i'll make this quick.
There were 350 + cops surrounding them covering all exits pretty much. They were walking slowly because of that and not because of their armour.
As for your "deserved to die" comment. I don't remember if you are but I think you are. Anyways it's a very unchristian thing to say if you are christian. I don't know what I am in terms of religion though i leaned towards more of the non-believing side but I would never say such a thing about a life, good or bad. But if you mean survival of the fittest in a gun battle then the odds were stacked against them and i understand what you mean but if you mean a life in general then I would have to disagree.
IMO it would of been interesting if they were caught alive and there was a trial but to tell you the truth the way it ended was probably better because it was a Hollywood movie made alive ala the movie Heat.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: reading up on the case supports my claims that we already have alotof laws on the books already that should work, but don't because they are not enforced.
the guys were arrested in 93 with explosives and were barely slapped on the hand
Yah, in the case it was not enforced but you have to ask yourself how did they obtain the guns and explosives in the first place? Was it a legal purchase directly from them which i doubt or did they steal them or purchase them from a strawbuyer? That is where I think the law was not enforced more so then when they were given a slap on the wrist.
quote:they had not purchased full auto weapons they illegally modified them..
phillips had a jammed gun when his thumb was shot, mayb cuz he didn't do a good job of modifying it?
That's only one weapon out of many they had that were functioning. Who knows why not the good modification on that one. Perhaps they didn't know how to on that one or were in a rush and didnt do or were aware they didnt do the job properly. Posted by glassman on :
the description is that the spent casing jammed in the chamber (back end of the barrel).
it could be that the extractor broke due to being not made for full auto. factory full auto made guns are made with better parts and cost more too.
the extractor is just a little "hook" with spring on it that grabs the rim of the cartridge to extract it from the chamber. the spring can break, the hook can break or dirt can clog it open. dirt is also generated by firing and full auto also heats the chamber and barrel alot more than semi-
in any case, these guys should have been in jail- who knows why they weren't? we have plenty of laws restricting people like them from having guns but people find ways around them.
criminals in particular.
had these guys been hit with a deer rifle? they would have been knocked over.
7mm Rem. Mag. rifle 150 grain bullet boat tail: generates 3221 ft pounds at the muzzle, 2520 at 200 yards
a 45 caliber (colt 45) semi auto only generated 587 at teh muzzle.
a 9mm is between 300 and 500 depending on the load...
so at 200 yds the rifle is about five times as powerful as the handgun at point blank. give me the accurately scoped rifle any day Posted by retiredat49 on :
I agree...my 7mm magnum is by far my favorite (and most powerful) weapon...and I have lots of em
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: and I have lots of em
How am i not surprised lol jk
Posted by glassman on :
deserved to die? because they chose to put themselves into that situation. they also chose to use high power rifles on civilians and cops. the cops choose to go there with the crooks, thatmakes them heroes, the civvies are colateral damage they are there by accident/chance.
i don't see what Christianity has to do with it.
God Judges peoples souls, my bet is those two had none
Posted by jgrecoconstr on :
Personally I prefer to shoot one of my 22 cal. handguns, cheaper and much more accurate for me. My wife is dead on with the Mark2. The 9mm is very inaccurate shooting semi from the recoil. I never shot my 38 special. The most fun thing to shot is the muzzleloader. I took my third buck with that this past fall. I could shot a piece of corn of your head with that. Anyone volunteer??
Posted by glassman on :
my favorite to shoot is a ruger 10-22 with a volquartsen heavy barrel. i've got a 20X scope on it and i can see and shoot bugs at 75 yds....
i use subsonic rds too... try'em sometime, you have to re-sight but they sound like a screen door slamming Posted by jgrecoconstr on :
really......subsonic? I've never heard of those. I haven't shot the handguns in quite awhile maybe I'll brush the dust off and do it this weekend, although I'm dying to go for some brook trout. That reminds me......... years ago when I hung out with my brother we would go up to this swamp and hunt bullfrogs. What a blast, we would wade out in the water hip high and take the 22's and shot frogs. They were alot bigger then.... I don't ever see the big bullfrogs that I used too. Of coarse back then there weren't any blue heron around either, now their everywhere. You take those legs and put them on the grill with garlic, butter and lemon juice wrapped in foil.... the best. But above all getting them was a blast. I miss those days. Life was easier then.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by jgrecoconstr: Personally I prefer to shoot one of my 22 cal. handguns, cheaper and much more accurate for me. My wife is dead on with the Mark2. The 9mm is very inaccurate shooting semi from the recoil. I never shot my 38 special. The most fun thing to shot is the muzzleloader. I took my third buck with that this past fall. I could shot a piece of corn of your head with that. Anyone volunteer??
I have a family friend who lives just outside Georgetown, KY. He hunts all 3 deer seasons. Bow, blackpowder, and regular. He told me once that if he was ever forced to choose only one season to hunt, it would hands down be the black powder season.
I've never actually fired a black powder/muzzle loader. Had no idea they were so accurate until your post. Guess you just gave me another new project to try Posted by jgrecoconstr on :
Their just a blast to shoot and there's a challenge to it also. Stalking within range, will the rifle even go off. I've had that happen before with faulty caps. CCI are the best caps, never like remington ones. My first muzzleloader I screwed up the barrel shooting plastic cased sabots. I could be dead on one shot and the next miss an entire sheet of plywood. That gun gave me nothing but headaches. My new one about 12 years old actually is a Ruger 50cal stainless barrel with a beautiful laminated wood stock. Nothing goes in that barrel but a greased ball and powder. If you ever buy one stay away from the plastic casing balls. In my opinion that's what ruined my first one.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by jgrecoconstr: Their just a blast to shoot and there's a challenge to it also. Stalking within range, will the rifle even go off. I've had that happen before with faulty caps. CCI are the best caps, never like remington ones. My first muzzleloader I screwed up the barrel shooting plastic cased sabots. I could be dead on one shot and the next miss an entire sheet of plywood. That gun gave me nothing but headaches. My new one about 12 years old actually is a Ruger 50cal stainless barrel with a beautiful laminated wood stock. Nothing goes in that barrel but a greased ball and powder. If you ever buy one stay away from the plastic casing balls. In my opinion that's what ruined my first one.
Thanks for that bit of info. Will come in very handy knowing that.
Posted by glassman on :
i get the best accuracy with them, but i am mostly cutting paper or very small targets. they have bounced offa birds if they catch them at an angle...
as to eh frogs? they seem to be gone here pretty much too...
the real trick is to knock them onto the bank when you hit'em...
i've had frogs attack my jitterbug... i dunno why they were doing it but it wasn't eating, maybe they wanted to mate? it looked like mating action, but i would expect them to wait for eggs first Posted by jgrecoconstr on :
Odd thing, frogs love the color red. Next time your out fishing or whatever and there's a frog just hand a piece of red cloth or red plastic in front of it and he'll jump right at it.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Do you guys still use lead bullets when you are hunting or have you switched over to copper or one of the other alternatives?
Went drinking with one of the guys who did the smaller MN study on deer meat, the amount of lead he said they were finding so far away from the impact site was crazy.
Posted by jgrecoconstr on :
I never knew there was a problem with lead bullets. I knew there was with loons and lead sinkers but not bullets.
Posted by glassman on :
hunting rds? i usually use copper jacketed soft or hollow points, they do have lead inside.
lead also fouls the barrels so almost everything i shoot anymore is not bare lead, but i'm pretty sure they all have some lead inside
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
The problem with lead bullets lies in the fragmentation jg. Came out a couple years ago in a small MN study and a bigger ND study that there is a lot more trace lead fragments spread throughout a much larger area of meat when an animal is hit with a lead bullet than first thought. The fragments are so small you wouldn't necessarily even recognize they were there and it has some debating about if people (kids especially) should be eating meat brought down by lead bullets or if that could lead to mental/developmental problems or minor lead poisoning.
The lead has been proven to scatter in the meat, what is debated is if it is harmful to ingest these trace amounts in this manner or not.
There is a secondary debate being caused by this (at least locally) because most of the butchers around here will give you pound for pound meat for deer but don't make any attempt to be sure the meat you bring home is from the deer you shot. The hunters who are wary of lead bullets want the butchers to guarantee they will only be given meat from the same deer that was brought in to be certain they aren't bringing home "tainted" meat.
It looks like there are some alternatives out there, Glass. I wouldn't know the quality but I read something that said "93% of experts agree that non-lead bullets are as good as lead bullets" while I was looking it up.
quote:Originally posted by jgrecoconstr: Personally I prefer to shoot one of my 22 cal. handguns, cheaper and much more accurate for me. My wife is dead on with the Mark2. The 9mm is very inaccurate shooting semi from the recoil. I never shot my 38 special. The most fun thing to shot is the muzzleloader. I took my third buck with that this past fall. I could shot a piece of corn of your head with that. Anyone volunteer??
We have both a regular firearms season and a muzzleloader season up here...you can only use a center fire caliber in the upper half of the State, the lower half is shotgun/muzzle loader only...
A smokepole is the ONLY firearm I use to hunt deer in Michigan...extremely accurate and twice the range of a 12ga...
I shoot an Austin-Halleck 50 cal. with a Leupold 3.5 x 10 vari-X III scope. I use 150 grains of triple seven powder and 300 grain SST ballistic tipped sabot slugs...deadly combination.
I shot 5 deer last year 4 of which were 175 to 200 yard shots....the 5th was with my bow at 30 yds.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
I have been butchering the deer I shoot (a minimum of 5 per year) for the last 7 years...I completely debone all of my meat and I also do all of my own grinding...
If you shoot a deer where you should be (through both lungs) you will not normally find any type of bullet fragments at all. That is because 9 times out of 10 your bullet will pass through the animal. And even if the bullet doesn't pass through, you will usually find the mushroomed slug buried in the hide on the exit side. Also there is no edible meat in that area of the animal anyway.
When I do find bullet fragments, they are usually very easy to see (dark red meat). I always trim that off along with any dark red areas around entry/exit wounds and discard it anyway...
All in all, I have butchered well over 60 deer and have found very few lead fragments in my meat...and...I have never found any type of fragmentation that I didn't detect during the butchering process (biting into a chunk of lead)...
I would NEVER take my deer to a commercial processor...there is nothing worse than poorly trimmed venison...
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by jgrecoconstr: Their just a blast to shoot and there's a challenge to it also. Stalking within range, will the rifle even go off. I've had that happen before with faulty caps. CCI are the best caps, never like remington ones. My first muzzleloader I screwed up the barrel shooting plastic cased sabots. I could be dead on one shot and the next miss an entire sheet of plywood. That gun gave me nothing but headaches. My new one about 12 years old actually is a Ruger 50cal stainless barrel with a beautiful laminated wood stock. Nothing goes in that barrel but a greased ball and powder. If you ever buy one stay away from the plastic casing balls. In my opinion that's what ruined my first one.
jgrecoconstr...I replaced my breech plug and nipple with a new conversion kit that uses shotgun primers instead of caps...much more reliable and instant ignition. Primers eliminate that annoying "ignition pause" you get using caps. If you can get one of these conversion kits for your gun...I highly recommend it!
Plastic sabots were probably not the problem with your gun...I have been shooting them for years, and I wouldn't use anything else...
You really have to spend quite a bit of time with a muzzle loader at the range, to find the right load...if you use too light of a bullet and/or too much powder your slug will actually start tumbling and your accuracy is lost...I find heavier bullets to be more accurate, and as long as you use enough powder, it will provide much better knock down power and still shoot flat...
First and foremost though for accuracy....you must keep your barrel CLEAN...smokepoles get real dirty real fast...
There is a relatively new muzzlelaoder out now made by Ultimate Firearms...this thing will produce velocities close to 2400 fps with a 300 grain bullet and shoot accurately out to 500 yards! It uses a .45 caliber brass casing with a magnum rifle primer for ignition and can handle up to 200 grains of Pyrodex powder...
Ret....Back when I had those troubles with that gun I tried everything, it was always clean so that wasn't the problem. A gunsmith I knew told me to use pistol powder which is finer grained, that wasn't it either, someone else told me to go to straight black powder and not pyrodex, that didn't work, varied the loads too. it wasn't my ability to shot consistently because I can do that. The gun was deadly for a few years then it just went crazy. Honestly, 25 yards and miss a sheet of plywood. I used to just shot a paper targets and when I wasn't hitting them consistently I got pissed and set up a sheet of plywood to see where the hell the slug was going. What do you think my reaction was when I totally missed a 4 x 8 area. I couldn't trust hunting with it. There is no worse feeling hunting than losing an animal. As far as the primers go, I know I'm not traditional blackpowder but I'm trying to keep it somewhat close. I'll never put a scope on it unless I get really shakey in the years to come. One of the reasons they set up the blackpowder seasons in new York was to have somewhat of a traditional season. Then they kept tweaking it and now most people hunting muzzle loader season are just as well fitted as regular season with a 30.06 which I don't agree with. I'm suprised you get so many deer per season in Michigan. I thought they nearly killed the whole herd off a few years ago due to CWD.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Your precautions are good retiredat, but the fragments that I am talking about could only be found by X-ray.
quote: Concerned by these findings, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources then studied the fragmentation of bullets in deer and sheep carcasses shot with different types of lead bullets.
The results were terrifying. On average, each carcass contained between 60 and 141 lead fragments; one had nearly 500. Most lead pieces were so small that people could not detect them without X-rays or chemical analysis. Fragments also were often far from bullet exit holes -- in some cases, up to 14 inches away. Lead levels unsafe for children were detected up to 18 inches away from exit holes.
This is a very good source page for the information I am pseaking of but it is a positional statement. Just an FYI.
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Where are all these guns (no matter the type) coming from that end up in the hands of all these criminals for whom it is illegal to purchase a gun? If our laws are being circumvented to allow illegal transport and distribution of firearms on such a large scale without any ability to backtrack the weapons previous history so that we can hold the illegal traffickers responsible then it stands to reason that our laws need a review and rewrite.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: if we don't have the ability to track them then how can Mexico blame us for their problem?...
I know it is related, the world is getting smaller, and we should care about what is happening in our neighbor countries...but I have a little trouble truly comprehending the situation beyond our Southern border and because of that it just doesn't raise my ire much other than I know I don't want that chaos here in the states.
I can't understand why shrines are popping up across Mexico to different gods of death and crime for warlords to donate to when a job goes well or where a drug farmer will hire a band to play to give thanks for a good harvest.
I don't understand why the police have such a hard time tracking down these kidnappers and drug czars when they seem to be very public about their actions.
I don't know why the populace seems to accept the deaths and kidnappings as acceptable and why we don't see Mexicans rioting in the streets of Mexico City demanding protection.
The best I can do personally when thinking about Mexico right now is to compare it to the mobster days of Al Capone and such. But that doesn't seem to fit very well either.
All that to say that I don't know what to think about Mexico and I don't know that it is our problem unless our gun manufacturers and retailers are illegally selling weapons down south and promoting the destabilization of our sister to the south. I would have a BIG problem if it was discovered that willful enterprise corruption within the arms sector like that was going on.
I should also state though that I agree with Mach in that one picture of a gun that you say isn't American made (I accept that you are probably right, I wouldn't know) doesn't invalidate the claims that the overwhelming majority of weapons being confiscated are American made.
Posted by glassman on :
my bet is that the Mexican govt has suplied alot of those guns, purchased legally by them.
the reason the Mexicans accept the situation is cuz that's how it's always been there.
the Federales have always been amenable to cash contributions to get you out of almost anything short of murdering one of their own. this i know from personal experience and i always carried cash just to stay out of jail, even when i wasn't up to anything that would land me there. do they have a fith ammendment down there? Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote: the fact is that guns are bougth legally by citizens who then turn around and sell them, or have them stolen.
OK, see...this is where I have a problem. The evidence chain is broken without recourse the way things stand now. I can understand that if weapon is stolen, but I don't understand why we are allowing the evidence chain to be broken when a second sale on a weapon takes place. Especially considering the limits we put on original sales. We are purposefully not allowing our protection agencies to collect the information that they need to curtail the black market in guns by holding the suppliers accountable for their illegal transactions. I understand the concerns and they are valid but there has to be some sort of middle ground.
Posted by glassman on :
here's why the average people don't complain
Kidnap Consultant Taken in Mexico Gunmen Abducted American Last Week
MEXICO CITY, Dec. 15 -- An American anti-kidnapping negotiator, whose company says he has resolved almost 100 kidnapping cases in Latin America, was abducted by gunmen last week -- while meeting with Mexican business executives and their bodyguards to discuss ways to thwart such crimes.
The abduction of Felix Batista was bold and chilling, and the report of his disappearance, which hit the news media here Monday morning, had Mexicans wondering whether anyone was safe.
"This kidnapping is as serious as any other kidnapping in Mexico, where, according to official statistics, two people are kidnapped every day," said María Elena Morera, president of Mexicans United Against Crime. Independent watchdog groups in Mexico estimate that there are as many as 500 kidnappings a month in the country, most never reported because families choose to privately negotiate ransoms without help from police officers, who are often involved in kidnapping crews.
according to an ex FBI agent's recent book? most of the kidnappings are actually govt sanctioned.
this may have recently changed, and the murder rate which had been dropping suddenly jumped in the recent change of power.
the Mexican govt is on record as saying that their crime rates are our fault. IMO that's just them saying that they aren't going to do much about it.
Posted by glassman on :
Mexico has had a problem with organised crime for decades: Lawless Roads - truck hijackings common in Mexico Latin Trade , March, 2000 by John Suval
Mexican truckers fight roadside bandits at every turn.
AFTER LOSING TWO COSTLY TRUCKLOADS OF CALIFORNIA ALMONDS AND one of Norwegian cod to marauders, Adolfo Juarez knew it was time to fight back. So, the businessman from Mexico City began hiring security guards to escort his goods from the Veracruz coast and the Texas border to their final destination in the stores and markets of the capital.
On Mexico's roads, robberies of merchandise have grown almost as common as gaping potholes. Organized bands of thieves steal hundreds of millions of dollars worth of goods each year, spawning a hostile climate for entrepreneurs, truckers and insurers alike.
The National Cargo Transport Chamber (Canacar), an organization comprising some 180,000 truck owners, says an average of 800 trucks are reported hijacked every year at a loss of US$253 million. That's bad news for a country where 90% of all goods are transported by truck.
The vast majority of robberies, however, go unreported, officials say. In a few rural areas like Fib de Caballo, Guerrero, local militias are even administering their own justice: They hang hijackers.
Jun 1, 2000 ... Since the mid-1990s, an epidemic of truck hijackings has swept Mexico. Medicines, clothing, food, appliances, and consumer electronics are
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:
show me how many guns are invlved in th eillegal trade. i find that 80,000 guns were confisccted by cops in '05 BUT they were not all sold illegally.. just being used/carried illegally
I can find confiscated numbers, reported stolen numbers, ... a couple of surveys that list how many students in such and such area own a gun and how many believe they could get one, but I have yet to find an estimate on the size of the black market (surprise surprise...it IS the black market after all) in the United States that is anything beyond pure speculation. I'll keep looking but I'm not gonna spend my whole night on this one thing.
In the meantime, If you are interested in reading about straw buying this is a good (though long and somewhat repetitive) paper written for Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: in any case, these guys should have been in jail- who knows why they weren't? we have plenty of laws restricting people like them from having guns but people find ways around them.
criminals in particular.
Weird thing is nothing was ever mentioned about how they got their firepower, whether legally or illegally. Not as far as I know at least. If someone got it for them etc.
I'm a true crime buff so such things interest me.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: deserved to die? because they chose to put themselves into that situation. they also chose to use high power rifles on civilians and cops. the cops choose to go there with the crooks, thatmakes them heroes, the civvies are colateral damage they are there by accident/chance.
i don't see what Christianity has to do with it.
God Judges peoples souls, my bet is those two had none
Still shouldn't wish death on anyone regardless of good or bad and yes they probably didn't have souls...
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by jgrecoconstr: Ret....Back when I had those troubles with that gun I tried everything, it was always clean so that wasn't the problem. A gunsmith I knew told me to use pistol powder which is finer grained, that wasn't it either, someone else told me to go to straight black powder and not pyrodex, that didn't work, varied the loads too. it wasn't my ability to shot consistently because I can do that. The gun was deadly for a few years then it just went crazy. Honestly, 25 yards and miss a sheet of plywood. I used to just shot a paper targets and when I wasn't hitting them consistently I got pissed and set up a sheet of plywood to see where the hell the slug was going. What do you think my reaction was when I totally missed a 4 x 8 area. I couldn't trust hunting with it. There is no worse feeling hunting than losing an animal. As far as the primers go, I know I'm not traditional blackpowder but I'm trying to keep it somewhat close. I'll never put a scope on it unless I get really shakey in the years to come. One of the reasons they set up the blackpowder seasons in new York was to have somewhat of a traditional season. Then they kept tweaking it and now most people hunting muzzle loader season are just as well fitted as regular season with a 30.06 which I don't agree with. I'm suprised you get so many deer per season in Michigan. I thought they nearly killed the whole herd off a few years ago due to CWD.
Well it sounds like maybe your barrel ended up damaged or bent...I really couldn't tell without looking at it...I have been shooting my AH for about 8 years and it is still dead nuts accurate...
If you really want a "traditional" hunt for deer, then bowhunting is by far the most challenging... If I had to pick only one season, it would be with a bow hands down...very up close and personal hunting method...
Our deer herd in Michigan is still very healthy at approximately 2 million animals. The problem that we had a few years back was a few cases of TB (not CWD,) and that was only found in the northeast section of the lower peninsula...
Two years ago I could legally buy 1 doe license per day for the entire season which runs from Oct. 1st to Jan. 1st...YES, I could legally shoot 90 deer if I wanted...As of now, we can legally shoot 2 bucks and 3 does per year...
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Your precautions are good retiredat, but the fragments that I am talking about could only be found by X-ray.
quote: Concerned by these findings, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources then studied the fragmentation of bullets in deer and sheep carcasses shot with different types of lead bullets.
The results were terrifying. On average, each carcass contained between 60 and 141 lead fragments; one had nearly 500. Most lead pieces were so small that people could not detect them without X-rays or chemical analysis. Fragments also were often far from bullet exit holes -- in some cases, up to 14 inches away. Lead levels unsafe for children were detected up to 18 inches away from exit holes.
This is a very good source page for the information I am pseaking of but it is a positional statement. Just an FYI.
Well BF...I have been eating venison shot with lead bullets 3 to 4 times a week for the last 20 years, and I have never been treated for, or experienced any symptoms of lead poisoning...
Posted by jgrecoconstr on :
2 million!!! They must have high auto insurance rates there, your odds of hitting a deer run pretty high I would think. Used to bowhunt years ago until I got tendonitis in my elbow. It was enjoyable but a tad painful trying to practice. It's hanging right here in front of me with a half inch of dust on it.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by jgrecoconstr: 2 million!!! They must have high auto insurance rates there, your odds of hitting a deer run pretty high I would think. Used to bowhunt years ago until I got tendonitis in my elbow. It was enjoyable but a tad painful trying to practice. It's hanging right here in front of me with a half inch of dust on it.
i lived in NE for five years and we had a deer hit a very five miles or so year round.
i moved to the MS Delta wher the deer are almost never on the road. we have huge tracts of swampland her for them to stay in cover and they just don't get on the raod, but the trophy bucks here are absolute monsters. anyway, my insurance doubled with the same company just for moving here, the reason is that our average household income is like 25 grand and half or more drivers have no insurance, so those of us that have insurance pay more..
kinda like health (un)insurance
it's been a very strange experience living in an area where 60% plus of the people live on foodstamps, and people think they are wealthy for making 50grand/year in their household.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: deserved to die? because they chose to put themselves into that situation. they also chose to use high power rifles on civilians and cops. the cops choose to go there with the crooks, thatmakes them heroes, the civvies are colateral damage they are there by accident/chance.
i don't see what Christianity has to do with it.
God Judges peoples souls, my bet is those two had none
Still shouldn't wish death on anyone regardless of good or bad and yes they probably didn't have souls...
Mach, i'm going to assume this is another case of language confusion.
wishing somebody dead is entirely different from making a logical statement about their right to life.
if i set up a ladder on a power pole and climb up it to attach my workshop main for free power and i get fried? i deserve it. plain and simple Darwin rules.
you seem to have this habit of (IMO) intentionally misinterpreting/misrepresenting my statements if English is your first language.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: deserved to die? because they chose to put themselves into that situation. they also chose to use high power rifles on civilians and cops. the cops choose to go there with the crooks, thatmakes them heroes, the civvies are colateral damage they are there by accident/chance.
i don't see what Christianity has to do with it.
God Judges peoples souls, my bet is those two had none
Still shouldn't wish death on anyone regardless of good or bad and yes they probably didn't have souls...
Mach, i'm going to assume this is another case of language confusion.
wishing somebody dead is entirely different from making a logical statement about their right to life.
if i set up a ladder on a power pole and climb up it to attach my workshop main for free power and i get fried? i deserve it. plain and simple Darwin rules.
you seem to have this habit of (IMO) intentionally misinterpreting/misrepresenting my statements if English is your first language.
No language confusion because I said in a reply to your post if you meant survival of the fittest as opposed to anything else then that I understood what you meant. Reason i said such a thing is because i recall reading a post or two of yours in some thread where you make a comment where you wish death upon a human life. So wanted to clarify it. If you wish I could paste the comment I said survival of the fittest in this thread?
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
WASHINGTON -- Frustrated liberals are asking why a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House can't manage to close the Guantanamo prison or keep new gun-rights laws from passing.
After all, President Barack Obama pledged to shut down the military detention center on Cuba for suspected terrorists. And Democratic control of the government would suggest that any gun legislation leads to tighter controls on weapons, not expanded use.
Even as they grouse, however, liberal lawmakers acknowledge that no one factor explains last week's disappointing back-to-back votes in Congress.
The Obama administration is focused on other priorities, they say. Party leaders don't want to endanger Democratic lawmakers from conservative districts by stressing divisive issues such as gun control.
On Guantanamo, many say, Obama and his allies were caught napping as Republicans stirred public fears about relocating suspected terrorists.
"I think it's one of the few times that he didn't think it all the way out," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., an unabashed admirer of the president.
As for trying to keep loaded guns out of national parks, Cummings said, "I don't think he put a lot of energy into it." Issues such as national security and the distressed economy deserve greater attention, at least for now, he said, adding that the president "picks his fights very carefully."
Such explanations provide small comfort to left-leaning Democrats after eight years of George W. Bush's presidency and nearly a dozen years of Republican control of Congress.
"We'll probably end up passing more gun bills" that expand owners' rights "than we did during the Republican administration," said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a leading gun control advocate. "That is what surprises me."
She placed less blame on the White House than on ordinary Americans and advocacy groups that are consistently outflanked by gun owners' groups, especially the National Rifle Association.
"Until the American people say enough is enough, and get active in it," Democratic control of Congress and the White House will not be enough to turn the tide, said McCarthy, whose husband was killed by a gunman in 1993.
Two votes in Congress last Wednesday dismayed many liberals and exposed the limits of their influence even with Obama as president and Democrats holding solid majorities in both houses.
The Senate voted 90-6 to join the House in blocking the transfer of any prisoners from Guantanamo. Harsh treatment and indefinite detention of suspects there have sparked worldwide criticisms of the U.S. government and helped al-Qaida recruit volunteers, said Obama, who pledges to close the prison early next year. Lawmakers say they want more details on where detainees will be sent.
Also Wednesday, the House voted overwhelmingly to join the Senate in letting people carry loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges. More than 100 House Democrats and 174 Republicans voted for the gun measure, which was attached to an Obama-backed bill imposing new restrictions on credit card companies.
Earlier this year, gun-rights supporters derailed a bill to give the District of Columbia voting rights in Congress by adding a provision that would repeal the city's strict gun regulations.
The gun votes were less surprising to many Democrats than were the Guantanamo developments. The NRA remains among the most powerful lobbies, and many lawmakers take care to stay off its political enemies list.
"People do not want to be on the wrong side of this particular cultural divide," said Rep. David Price, D-N.C., who supports tougher gun controls. "It's too bad there's not a more responsible national organization" to counteract the NRA, he said.
In some ways, the gun-control lobby is choking on Democratic success in congressional races. "The seats we're picking up come disproportionately from those more conservative areas," Price said, where linking the Democratic Party to gun control can be dangerous at re-election time.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California is another Democrat frustrated by the gun debate. When she asks colleagues why they don't support tougher restrictions, she said, they reply, "You just don't get it, Woolsey. You don't have our districts."
"It has to do with being afraid they'll lose their election if they stand up against guns," she said. Guantananamo is a more pressing issue for the administration.
For months, congressional Republicans and conservative commentators said Obama's plan to close the prison would place terrorists on U.S. soil, even though the locations presumably would be prisons. By the time the administration offered more details and reassurances, congressional Democrats were backpedalling, voting to block funds to relocate detainees.
"I'm not sure they realized the opposition they were going to come up against," Woolsey said. Many Democratic lawmakers predicted that Obama will resolve the Guantanamo problem and eventually turn to gun issues, where he has advocated ownership rights with "common sense" regulations.
"I do believe that down the road the president will start working on some of the gun violence issues," said McCarthy, the New York Democrat. "But let's face it," she said. "We've got an awful lot of issues on our plate right now."
Posted by glassman on :
Reason i said such a thing is because i recall reading a post or two of yours in some thread where you make a comment where you wish death upon a human life.
really? you seem to have some erroneous recollections.
you claim to remember somewhere where i wished someone dead in the past? and you wish to challenge my religious or philosphical beleif system with bullcrap now? at some much later date?
actually you are just making excuses for being wrong again.
in any case? you are beginning to become mildly annoying with the personal chit. i assume that's your goal. if it is? you should try harder cuz this passive aggressive stuff is so feminine.
i can be alot worse than i have been if i so choose, you ain't seen nothing.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: in any case? you are beginning to become mildly annoying with the personal chit. i assume that's your goal. if it is? you should try harder cuz this passive aggressive stuff is so feminine.
i can be alot worse than i have been if i so choose, you ain't seen nothing.
I'm not making this a personal chit at all but looks like you are making it out to be. I say you shouldn't wish death upon anyone because it is a human life and that is making it personal chit?
I don't make anything into personal chit til someone else makes it so. If you throw an insult at me I will reply in kind. Simple as that. If you talk civil to me without the insults then i do the same. But lately you been an azz to me so i have done the same. Ball is in your court, want to be an azz or talk civil even if we disagree on things?
Posted by glassman on :
I say you shouldn't wish death upon anyone because it is a human life and that is making it personal chit?
exackly that IMO- esp. when i didn't do it. you bring it today and then say i did it some other time? that's lame. it's real passive aggressive...
what are you lookin' for here? i'm curious.
go back thru the thread to the beginning,th every first sentence... you began it with a chip on your shoulder you asked to be told off in the first sentence.
you are making all of this personal.
you are choosing to find a fight and i'm happy to oblige you, just trying to figure out how much you want.
Posted by glassman on :
myabe i am not being clear, it's not the arguing that annoys me it is only the passive aggressive stuff that does, does that make sense?
in other words, changing around what i say to mean something else is passive aggressive. then to call me out on it? that's wierd IMO.
if it's a language issue then say so. if it's just your deabte style? then i'll just ignore you from now on, cuz it's not worthy IMO.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
I like to moo
Posted by glassman on :
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: if it's a language issue then say so. if it's just your deabte style? then i'll just ignore you from now on, cuz it's not worthy IMO.
Sowwwy, wasn't home. Went to CVS Pharmacy on a errand. But if you feel like you need to ignore me Glass, then please do. We used to have pleasant convo's even when we didn't agree til lately especially with your ego's need to be right all the time and I don't mean with just me. But please ignore me then if your going to take things personal even when they are not. Like you said it's not worth it.
Posted by glassman on :
But please ignore me then if your going to take things personal even when they are not
this is stupid Mach
you chided me for wishing death upon people then you say it's not personal..
that's personal in my book, you are trying to score points with airballs.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
Agreed, stupid. I've moved on, you can too.
Posted by Robot on :
Robot: but some of the guns that show up against the regular duty officers on the street are scary.
Glass: there is no such thing as a scary gun, just scary people. guns are simply machines. all cops choose to be cops for personal reasons, just as all repo men do, bounty hunters, and crab fishermen, the most dangerous job in the world. they LIKE danger. it makes them fell alive [Big Grin]
too many movies have portrayed gun use in Rambo terms.
most guns on the street are the same basic guns cops carry just cheaper, less reliable and accurate models because criminals will drop them into the drink after they use them- i already posted the most common guns on the street.
I think you know what I mean.
Robot: "The RFID thing is good though."
Glass: not. you want to be chipped? you want ANYBODY with a scanner to ID you?
Your asking the wrong person. About twenty years ago I started to provide my passport every time I crossed a boarder. I get asked to verify my finger prints and or an eye scan every once in a while. I'm a good boy and never have a problem. I understand what your saying regarding privacy.
It is a long way off but chip the criminals so the chipped guns don't work. Kinda like an ankle bracelet used today. You could also chip the house so that a gun used to defend a home, only works for that house.
GM OnStar can shut down a "stolen" car. Might not be legal yet but they can do it.
you are forgetting that the most comon victims of violent crime ARE poor people who cannot afford the extra cost. unfortunately? they are the most likely to have their gun stolen too,
i return to my original argument that the best way to lower all crimes is to provide headstart to everybody and make it mandatory for welfare moms.
Absolutely Not! Welfare moms are the end recipient of violence caused by a poorly managed gun toting society, IMHO. No offense to anyone in the poor sections of society, but welfare does tend to be related to education.
You want to mandate weapons to the undereducated. Wow. Even people with education can't always figure out how to keep their guns under control. Yes I did note your reference to them (moms) being at higher risk of having their guns stolen.
If you arm 100% of all who are Willing, you will only increase the number of guns stolen (proportionate) and used against others unless you also look at your "safe storage" laws, of which I don't know if you have any. I have no idea if any of your states require weapons to be locked up when not in use. Yes, As I Have Stated, I agree this causes other conflicts with other points of view and also the 2nd amendment.
If you give weapons to welfare moms, most are gona sell em or trade em.
then pay the headsart teacher professional wages so that we don't have worse people "warehousing" the kids.
early childhood development studies prove that children are taught how to learn (or not) at very early ages. sure, genes have alot to do with it, but little kids are blank slates and if left in front of the TV all day cannot develop into functional adults. esp. considering how awful alot of the cartoon network crap is now [Wink] ever watch ed ed and eddy? just plain disgusting. it's nothing like the three stooges which i assume it was intended to mimic.
I noticed education was touched on in more than a few posts but does anyone remember when the study came out on who was the "smartest race" and I think the Japanese and the Chinese scored higher in comparison to many others. Most people were very offended, but didn't have a clue as to what a child in China or Japan has to endure growing up in their school system. Discipline and Respect, ten times greater than what we got away with. Punishment was also greater than ours.
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x:
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: So what are you suggesting to prevent these types of incidents Pagan since it is the people and not the weapons that harm and kill? How do you propose to stop the bloodshed?
Authorities should have been out there before hand, to check out wackos based on their posted "sign."
Yeah....I gues they thought having a sign saying "tresspassers will be shot" would protect them legaly.
But any redneck that puts a sign like that out....you know they were probably waiting everyday for a chance to shoot a tresspasser.
Posted by T e x on :
ya...
"here's yur sign!"
Posted by glassman on :
You want to mandate weapons to the undereducated. Wow. Even people with education can't always figure out how to keep their guns under control. Yes I did note your reference to them (moms) being at higher risk of having their guns stolen.
OK, headstart is not guns. if you thought that has something to do with gun ownership.
as for arbitrarily increasing the price of guns? it would be discriminatory which is my original point.
headstart is prekindergarten formal education.
it would make a huge difference for the children of welfare parents, said children being out of control of their destiny and having their destiny in the hands of other uneducated people is a handicap to them and to society.
getting kids into well designed age-apropriate studies at an earlier age would decrease crime across the board. it would increase thei chances of being able to compete in society in the way that society wants them to compete, rather thna leaving them out on the street. sure some will still choose the street, but for alot of the kids on the street? it chose them
as for Asians being smarter? that's not what the tests indicated. education and smarts are two different things.
i am very well aware of Asian cultures. I am much more familiar with Japanese culture than Chinese, and i know that they score higher on pure science math and literacy tests. However, they are not nearly as good at the Artistic side of the sciences. They take American technology and refine it all the time, but the American system consistently develops more brand new technology than they do. thier population test scores tend have higher averages, not higher scores, there is a difference their to. and i agree that it come down to work ethic. however, Americans by overall consensus have a better way of life, indicating more reward for said work and more play relative to accomplished work.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Americans by overall consensus have a better way of life, indicating more reward for said work and more play relative to accomplished work.
I wouldn't say more play... all we do is work and work with less play compared to other parts of the world... and our salaries definetly do not go up proportionally with the cost of living...
But anyways as for the poor children and early education... nice and correct in theory but alot of it gets blocked by right wing interests who do not believe in social programs, increased education costs to the poor etc. imo...
Posted by glassman on :
all we do is work and work with less play compared to other parts of the world... and our salaries definetly do not go up proportionally with the cost of livin
shhesh that's ridiculous; you just want to argue, you don't even care what the truth is as long as it's and argument.
i don't see people emmigrating to the Asain countries because of their standard of living.
America enjoys a great standard of living compared to all of east Asia the few countries that can claim a better standard of living are far western asian countries that are oil rich, .
Posted by Robot on :
OK, headstart is not guns. if you thought that has something to do with gun ownership.
My bad. Not familiar with your headstart program. Sounds like a great idea.
as for Asians being smarter? that's not what the tests indicated. education and smarts are two different things.
Yes there are different ways to look at the data. Bill Gates did a fantastic job of creating designing 80% of each software release and then selling it to millions, following up on each one with "updates".
The Asian country's will continue to improve on other peoples products until there wages match ours and it's not profitable.
Education needs a lot more attention to bring us back to the focus and respect our parents had, and were taught to have for their teachers and elders.
Americans by overall consensus have a better way of life, indicating more reward for said work and more play relative to accomplished work.
For now. With all of international trading going on that is going to change. There is no way any country can help a poorer country with out giving up something.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
shhesh that's ridiculous; you just want to argue, you don't even care what the truth is as long as it's and argument.
i don't see people emmigrating to the Asain countries because of their standard of living.
America enjoys a great standard of living compared to all of east Asia the few countries that can claim a better standard of living are far western asian countries that are oil rich, .
I'm not looking for an argument. Jus stated my opinion and you already down my throat. You should re-evaluate whose doing the arguing. And what truth? The truth according to Glass? lol
Why do people not immigrate to Asian countries? I been to Thailand and there are alot of expatriates there from around the world. Yes, most likely due to the girls but it is cheap to live there for westerners.
But anyways back to the topic, the reason imo why people do not immigrate to Asian countries is cultural differences as well as language barriers and peoples' own prejudices. Us Americans do not like to immigrate to any country that is not Western in culture or has english as a primary or secondary language. That is just is. We do not go out of our way to learn other cultures and languages but we expect everyone to do so ours.That is just a fact about Americans. While people from other countries are more willing to learn english as well as other languages.Most Europeans imo know 2 and sometimes 3 or more languages. Can you say the same about Americans in general who do not have immigrant families/parents here?
Westerners not immigrating there due to standard of living is not true. We like to visit the Exotic East but because it's a strange place and experience for us we do not move there. How many whites and such do you see living in the Chinatown's of America? lol In some of these places we can live much richer then we can here because our $$ goes a long way in their countries. In Thailand (where i have been and stayed at a friends place) you can live in a decent apartment for around $200 USD per month. Not extravagant but decent.
But anyways another thing i want to touch on is that i was not only talking about Asia, Glass. I do not know where you get the idea I was. I meant all different parts of the world. For example it's not always dollars and cents unlike you make it out to be. You think our standard of living is better due to money? We die of heart attacks, obesity, cancer etc. due to our wealth I would say much more so then in other parts of the world. Because we can afford more luxurious foods we can eat meat for example more then 1 time per week and we do so. Which leads to all sorts of health problems. We also have some of the most obese people on earth which leads to diseases as well.
While in the Mediterrean area the people live longer healthier lives due to their diet which is very plant based and because they cannot afford meat as much as we can so it's more for special occasions then a constant like us in the West. If you don't believe me go look it up on Wiki, books etc. I been reading up on it because I have my own health problems that my doctor told me I have to change my eating habits to reverse my condition.
So how do you measure standard of living Glass? Who can buy the next version of the Ipod, Iphone, HDTV?
Or who lives healthier and longer lives (excluding accidents, wars, crime related deaths etc.), spend more time with their family and not their jobs, etc.. etc.. Because I'll tell you right now it is definetly not us.
Standard of living is not always measured by $$ though it is with Americans because we live in a money culture. All we care about is $$ and what it can purchase us.
Here is what our standard of living has done to us healthwise at least:
The United States life expectancy of 77.8 years at birth[149] is a year shorter than the overall figure in Western Europe, and three to four years lower than that of Norway, Switzerland, and Canada.[150] Over the past two decades, the country's rank in life expectancy has dropped from 11th to 42nd in the world.[151] The infant mortality rate of 6.37 per thousand likewise places the United States 42nd out of 221 countries, behind all of Western Europe.[152]U.S. cancer survival rates are the highest in the world.[153] Approximately one-third of the adult population is obese(must be all those gun owners LOL) and an additional third is overweight;[154] the obesity rate, the highest in the industrialized world, has more than doubled in the last quarter-century.[155] Obesity-related type 2 diabetes is considered epidemic by health care professionals.[156] The U.S. adolescent pregnancy rate, 79.8 per 1,000 women, is nearly four times that of France and five times that of Germany"
Let's talk about holidays too. In other countries people get more holidays or longer holidays as well as longer vacations then us. In some countries they even take 2 or 3 hour lunches.I also attribute this to lesser deaths and life longevity in Asia and Europe. Hell, some countries you get 2 or 3 hour lunches while here 1/2 hour to 1 hour if your lucky.They have less stress in those places. Btw in CR whatever your 1 months' salary is you get paid that as an additional bonus in the month of December according to national law. Do we get that here? lol Imagine being paid a $10,000 bonus in December if that is your 1 month salary here ($20,000 total). Wouldn't that be nice and appreciative of the company worker. Again who has a better standard of living?
So again, what were you saying about standard of living? Oh yes, who can buy the next version of the Iphone while clogging their arteries & other "pretty" things declining our bodies.
As for your mind thinking the U.S. is #1 because of standard of living and other issues, I think Bill Maher said it best (this is a old clip but so true):
i was not only talking about Asia, this what i'm talkin' about Mach.
we were talking about Asia.
as in me and the person i was reponding to were talking about Asia. you can't just cut into the middle of a converstaion disagree with something and then tell them you were responding to something else.
fact. i told you i was simply going to point out the problem rather than getting into some long extended debate about who did what, you asked for it a couple weeks back, i been doing it. now you say i just what to argue? i am avoiding arguments by doing this.
but i'm simply giving you what you asked for.
as for Thailand? that's laughable to compare tehir lifestyle tours. the only comparable in East Asia is japan, and it impossible to make a straight comparison cuz they don't have any natural resources like we do.
Posted by glassman on :
For now. With all of international trading going on that is going to change. There is no way any country can help a poorer country with out giving up something.
the global economy is too dependant on chep oil right now.
in the future? if we come up with better ways to use energy? the global economty can become a real leveler.
what happened over the last two years is just as much a function of too much dependence on one single energy source as it was to bad lending practices.
when you can build a wooden frame for a couch in China using chinese wood, ship it to North Carolina for upholstering using fibers from all over the owrld and then ship it back to China and sell it to the retail customer at a profit? transportation is way too cheap. that's just plain insanity from an efficiency sense. the only way it really works is that China has nothing like a free market. Once they go freemarket? the North American worker can easily compete with the Chinese. I see chinese glass products for sale here cheaper than i can melt glass that's already made. in other words? somehow they can make glass then form it and ship it here at wholesale prices and then somebody can take a retail profit on it; all for less than it costs me in electricity to simply melt glass that's already been made. how does that work? govt manipulation of currency for starters. take that away and no amount of cheap labor will overcome our productivty here.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i was not only talking about Asia, this what i'm talkin' about Mach.
we were talking about Asia.
as in me and the person i was reponding to were talking about Asia. you can't just cut into the middle of a converstaion disagree with something and then tell them you were responding to something else.
fact. i told you i was simply going to point out the problem rather than getting into some long extended debate about who did what, you asked for it a couple weeks back, i been doing it. now you say i just what to argue? i am avoiding arguments by doing this.
but i'm simply giving you what you asked for.
as for Thailand? that's laughable to compare tehir lifestyle tours. the only comparable in East Asia is japan, and it impossible to make a straight comparison cuz they don't have any natural resources like we do.
Speaking of Asia. I visited Singapore a few years back, and the immigration requirements there are extreme. You have to have property worth over 500k in country, and verifiable assets of like 500k as well. That's pretty strict.
They have some strict laws there as well. For instance, you can be arrested for dropping gum on the sidewalk. And the real killer diller is this one: If you commit a crime, and they can't find you, they take your next of kin as a substitute! I'm sure that's quite a crime deterrent!
Posted by glassman on :
yeah, i wouldn't want to live there.
Korea? great people, i have many good friends from there, and they work very hard and play very hard.
the friends that i have that have moved here have no intention of moving back.
they are all devoted Christians and they love the fact that they can buy and own a home here. in Korea? even wealthy people have hard time buying a home with a yard. they are all research scirntists and in Korea? research scientists are treated like rock stars. i have seen this first hand.
i think that highly conforming societies have a difficult time raising independant thinkers.
i assume we will eventually get that way here too, but we do not have to. it's only inevitable if we do not regulate growth and immigration with forethought.
i invite anybody that's against environmental protection laws in favor of big business to go highly industrialsed areas of China and other parts of Asia.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i invite anybody that's against environmental protection laws in favor of big business to go highly industrialsed areas of China and other parts of Asia.
If ya go, just don't forget to take your respirator with ya! Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i was not only talking about Asia, this what i'm talkin' about Mach.
we were talking about Asia.
as in me and the person i was reponding to were talking about Asia. you can't just cut into the middle of a converstaion disagree with something and then tell them you were responding to something else.
fact. i told you i was simply going to point out the problem rather than getting into some long extended debate about who did what, you asked for it a couple weeks back, i been doing it. now you say i just what to argue? i am avoiding arguments by doing this.
but i'm simply giving you what you asked for.
as for Thailand? that's laughable to compare tehir lifestyle tours. the only comparable in East Asia is japan, and it impossible to make a straight comparison cuz they don't have any natural resources like we do.
Of course I can cut in the middle of a conversation on a forum... this isn't owned by Glass and his rules lol plus you cut into conversations all the time... what did you say to me to long ago pot and kettle?
And yes I can include Europe or other parts of the world because you are stating the U.S. has the best standard of living in the world << key word that you opened to include other areas other then Asia.
As for Thailand, it is obvious that you know nothing about it other then the stereotypes of it. Just with your mention of "lifestyle tours".Alot of people go there not in lifestyle tours. I seen alot of families there especially at the beach areas.
I been there so at least I can say i know more about it. So don't bother to look up thailand in wiki and pretending to know about it. But here's some economic facts on them:
"Thailand is an emerging economy and considered as a Newly Industrialized Country. After enjoying the world's highest growth rate from 1985 to 1996 - averaging 9.4% annually "
"Thailand exports an increasing value of over $105 billion worth of goods and services annually.[27] Major exports include Thai rice, textiles and footwear, fishery products, rubber, jewelry, automobiles, computers and electrical appliances. Thailand is the world’s no.1 exporter of rice, exporting more than 6.5 million tons of milled rice annually."
Tourism is only 6% of Thailand's economy, Glass. The only reason Thailand hasn't grown as big as it should be is because of the Asian Financial Crisis of the 90's and it's current political instability. You should check out their new airport in Bangkok. Makes alot of our own airports look like nothing. Thailand is now a major stopover and such due to that airport and that country's growth. Here is the airport:
Anyways as for other Asian countries/areas I would include Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China(in the near future if they fix their sh*t) to having good standards of living. Just their healths' are better then us as well as education imo.
But other then that the U.S. is overrated in standard of living Glass whether you like to admit it or not and i'll say it again I include Europe and other areas of the world and not just Asia. Again it's not about $$.
Posted by glassman on :
And yes I can include Europe or other parts of the world because you are stating the U.S. has the best standard of living in the world << key word that you opened to include other areas other then Asia.
this is where the issue of language subtleties comes in again Mach i clearly stated that "Americans by overall consensus have a better way of life,"
that doesn't mean i agree with it for starters, but it does mean that if you asked a million people, 501,000 would say so.. and they would. you hate America so much yet you choose to live here. it's sad.
As for Thailand, it is obvious that you know nothing about it other then the stereotypes of it
as for Thailand? once again you are FOS aqain. been there done that, along with most of the eastern caost of Asia both as a civvie and in the militiary. don't you get tired of this crap?
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: And yes I can include Europe or other parts of the world because you are stating the U.S. has the best standard of living in the world << key word that you opened to include other areas other then Asia.
this is where the issue of language subtleties comes in again Mach i clearly stated that "Americans by overall consensus have a better way of life,"
that doesn't mean i agree with it for starters, but it does mean that if you asked a million people, 501,000 would say so.. and they would. you hate America so much yet you choose to live here. it's sad.
as for Thailand? once again you are FOS aqain. been there done that, along with most of the eastern caost of Asia both as a civvie and in the militiary. don't you get tired of this crap?
I could care less about consensus. That is not reality.
And I don't hate America per say but I won't overrate it based on perception.
As for Thailand, I been there more recently then you. But I do believe you are FOS most of the time in your claims of you did this or u did that or you know this person or you know that person. There is nothing that isn't mentioned on this board that you haven't done and that is where the FOS part comes in my mind about you.
But anyways I will humor you since you ignored the economic facts that i gave you about Thailand including that tourism is only 6% of their economy. When did you go to Thailand? Where in Thailand? How long were you there? are you still in contact with people there? Do you know anything about present day Thailand without looking it up?
Btw other then me being there in recent times (I do have photos of me in thailand do you?) I am constant contact with two thai native friends of mine and an American friend of mine from Chicago who divides his time between the Philippines and Thailand (btw include the Philippines in my list of asian countries with good standard of living)... and before you say you know the Philly's and been there the Gf who died was Filipina and I am still in constant contact with her family. Suppose to visit them sometime but i have no time as of yet. Have issues to deal with here and in CR.
Posted by glassman on :
I could care less about consensus. That is not reality.
And I don't hate America per say but I won't overrate it based on perception.
actaully you attack most everything about America if i post it,
and the funny part is that you tend to contradict yourself.
an' yeah i have begun to ignore most of your rants and will continue to do so because you keep trying to personalise everything.
i can go to othe boards to share personal crapola.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: I could care less about consensus. That is not reality.
And I don't hate America per say but I won't overrate it based on perception.
actaully you attack most everything about America if i post it,
and the funny part is that you tend to contradict yourself.
an' yeah i have begun to ignore most of your rants and will continue to do so because you keep trying to personalise everything.
i can go to othe boards to share personal crapola.
If I attack anything about America is because it has faults that need to be fixed. Even you can agree with that. I am not going to praise it when there is bad with the good but it's ignored and only the good is praised.
As for me personalize anything, I tried to debate you on Thailand and such. And you call that being personal? lol That was not being personal but you made it so. The only thing I agree with you about Asia is the environmental issues in general and human rights issues in China but nothing else. And I try to point out to you errors about Thailand based on your visit there millions of years ago and how it has and is progressing and you choose to ignore it and say im "FOS" << this isn't personal?
I even laid out economic facts about it that were not my own opinions but cold hard facts and you ignore it... So you better evaluate who is taking it personal and who isn't.
Posted by glassman on :
yawn, it isn't a question of choosing between Thialnd and the US:
Is the Party Just Getting Started for Thailand's Yellow Shirt Protesters?
By Robert Horn / Bangkok Wednesday, May. 27, 2009 Protestors from the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) cheer near the end of their siege at Suvarnabhumi international airport in Bangkok,
Thailand, on Dec. 2, 2008
Having helped to bring down two Thai governments through street protests, invading airports and seizing the offices of the prime minister, members of a controversial Thai protest movement want to lay claim to those same offices again — through the ballot box.
the yellowshirts are upset about something.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: yawn, it isn't a question choosing between Thialnd and the US:
Is the Party Just Getting Started for Thailand's Yellow Shirt Protesters? By Robert Horn / Bangkok Wednesday, May. 27, 2009 Protestors from the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) cheer near the end of their siege at Suvarnabhumi international airport in Bangkok, Thailand, on Dec. 2, 2008
Is the Party Just Getting Started for Thailand's Yellow Shirt Protesters? By Robert Horn / Bangkok Wednesday, May. 27, 2009 Protestors from the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) cheer near the end of their siege at Suvarnabhumi international airport in Bangkok, Thailand, on Dec. 2, 2008 Having helped to bring down two Thai governments through street protests, invading airports and seizing the offices of the prime minister, members of a controversial Thai protest movement want to lay claim to those same offices again — through the ballot box.
Yes, I knew about that when it started. In fact they started wearing red shirts and switched to Yellow. I called my friends to make sure they were ok when it started.
But anyways if you read my posts about Thailand entirely you would of read me saying that it's growth has been stumped due to their "present political instability". Politically they are a mess right now because of their current PM and their ousted PM.
Posted by glassman on :
so they have a better way of life?
cuz i thought that was waht we discissing?
and my issue with you is specifically about changing the topic midtopic in some attempt to "prove me wrong" and then caliming you did. it's wierd.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: so they have a better way of life?
cuz i thought that was waht we discissing?
and my issue with you is specifically about changing the topic midtopic in some attempt to "prove me wrong" and then caliming you did. it's wierd.
I said economically they were getting there til the asian financial crisis of the 90's and their current political problems... the stats indicate they are getting there if they can clear up this political mess..
Posted by glassman on :
Mach, when i discussed my opinions about the Chines economy? you made the same sorts of claims, you even said that the media protrayal of the way Chinese live is wrong and that i don't know anything about how they live too. yet i know for fact how they live. I even have Chinese Natioanls bugging me to move there to teach glass and make lots of dough. i don't wanna.
this is the same argument with a different country name now.
fact is? i know alotof people here in th eStates from all over asia. i grew up studyiong Judo from a half Japanese half American US citizen. i actually speak just enough Japanese to be polite over there. you've accused me of being racist when i'm not, you accused me of being US biased toady when i am not, but if you polled the wolrd on where they would choose to live? you would definitley get the the US as a top pick if not the top pick.
it's getting old and i'm done with these ridiculous conversations.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: but if you polled the wolrd on where they would choose to live? you would definitley get the the US as a top pick if not the top pick.
it's getting old and i'm done with these ridiculous conversations.
The difference between China (of which i speak to people who currently live there, while you speak to nationals here who for all i know are from HK and not Beijing or Shanghai) and Thailand is I been to Thailand recently and seen it with my own eyes and still speak to people who live there both thai nationals and an american. You haven't been there since the 80's it sounds. My bad if I'm wrong if not the 80's but that is what it sounds.
As for your poll on people coming here as their #1 choice. That is probably true now as it was in the late 1800's to early 1900's. But I will tell you why and that is because of the perception that our streets are paved with gold. Ever hear of that expression as one used back in the late 19th century and early 20th century by immigrants in your history books in high school?. Alot of immigrants think that they move here and whatever job they get they will automatically be rich or very well off. We all know that is not true.
Anyways why don't we approach this a different way excluding the insults. Why don't you tell me and the board which aspects of American life you considered a higher standard of living then other countries (all including asian, european etc.) and which aspects you do not. You can't tell me all are the highest then around the world. But anyways tell us your thoughts and we can take it from there.
Posted by glassman on :
we have better plumbing and transportation than much of the world.
in China? according to the world bank 300 million of their population still lives as peasant farmers. they make about 300$ per year at most, many make half that. that's severeal hundred million people- about the same as the whole US
so add economic disparity to the list for China.
also add the schools that all fell down in the quake due to lax building codes and prolly bribed govt officials they were new buildings.
then take the Tibet issue too.
as it is i'm not that interested in rating standards of living .
i live in one of the most poverty stricken areas of the US and i don't HAVE to. i am an agent of change myself.
my point to robot was that Asians do in fact get higher average scores on aptitude tests (not IQ tests) and this is primarily due to the fact that they are "conformist" societies. they are very rigid and demanding of the people to follow rules. their kids are well trained to follow the rules and they do... i think i was agreeing on that point with Robot.
as for the US and it's play? name me one other country that can support so many professional athletes and artists.
that's always a good measure of society..
we have thriving pro football, baseball, hockey, car racing and COULD have thriving soccer if people cared enough.
no other country can boast that at the level we do. that is why i claim we work hard and play hard. as for economics? the US worker is the most productive worker in the world as measured by GDP U.S. workers most productive; Average American produces $63,885 of wealth; Irish come in 2nd
Article from: Chicago Sun-Times Article date: September 3, 2007
American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year.
They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a U.N. report released today, which said the United States "leads the world in labor productivity."
The average U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, followed by Luxembourg at $55,641, Belgium at $55,235 and France at $54,609.
so as you can see? i am not just blowing smoke when i say we work hardest and play hard too...
China could not compete with US workers IF the govt of China was not manipulating their currency and subsidizing their businesses.
it is crime for the US to not impose import duties on a nation that does what the Chinese govt does.
Posted by glassman on :
oh yeah i forgot pro basssetball too.. then there's all the college sports... these are just some of the reasons people consider the US to have the highest standard of living.
as for my personal tastes? there are places i would rather be, but then i'm not normal Iceland would be nice if they didn't just go bankrupt last year.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: no other country can boast that at the level we do. that is why i claim we work hard and play hard. as for economics? the US worker is the most productive worker in the world as measured by GDP [b] U.S. workers most productive; Average American produces $63,885 of wealth; Irish come in 2nd
Exactly my point... everything in this country is about money... and that to me at least does not always measure a higher standard of living when all we do is work work work work etc. Yes we are highly productive in the workplace but at what price?
We neglect our kids/family more because of no time (and I don't mean you in particular but just in general), our health due to stress/bad eating habits-diets/no exercise etc.
If you look at the stats for various issues such as health, education, crime,environment, taxes etc. we are not even close to the top in alot of them though not all of them... so how do you measure that we have the highest standard of living? With Money? Who makes the most? Again that is not the be all end all of measuring a countrys' standard of living though certainly it is a important factor but not the only factor. And let's not forget alot of our wealth is false wealth because this is a debtor nation. We buy alot on credit and live way above our means. The country as a whole owes alot of debt to China. So false wealth like I said.
Imo Europe is very much up there in alot of categories and collected as a whole I think they have better standards of living then us.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: oh yeah i forgot pro basssetball too.. then there's all the college sports... these are just some of the reasons people consider the US to have the highest standard of living.
as for my personal tastes? there are places i would rather be, but then i'm not normal Iceland would be nice if they didn't just go bankrupt last year.
Sports is in alot of countries not just ours and not just soccer...
As for Iceland... only good for the gorgeous blondes that live there... and i plan to visit there someday... Posted by glassman on :
We neglect our kids/family more because of no time (and I don't mean you in particular but just in general), our health due to stress/bad eating habits-diets/no exercise etc.
i agree. for instance? i am often asked why i am not famous (yet) it's purely because i am staying close to home for another couple of years till the kids are all growed up. it really pisses some people off, but i'm pretty happy with it and the kids would definitley prefer i was on the road alot more so i must be doing my job keeping an eye on them - i still remeber what i was up to as a teenager and it wasn't good and i am using the time to myself to refine my designs and techniques. it's not wasted at all....
while our standard of living is CONSIDERED the highest it is based on money and when a person tells me greed is good, i take issue with them go figure that
we have traded something for this "prosperity".
i hate it when i see (for instance) a South American tribe in ratty t-shirts swim trunks instead of their own cultures clothes. it does make them seem poor.
Posted by glassman on :
As for Iceland... only good for the gorgeous blondes that live there... and i plan to visit there someday...
Icelandics are the most literate people in the world. they are (as awhole) very smart and very quirky, i've enjoyed knowing several. they also have geothermal energy which would be good for my business. Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
i agree. for instance? i am often asked why i am not famous (yet) it's purely because i am staying close to home for another couple of years till the kids are all growed up. it really pisses some people off, but i'm pretty happy with it and the kids would definitley prefer i was on the road alot more so i must be doing my job keeping an eye on them - i still remeber what i was up to as a teenager and it wasn't good and i am using the time to myself to refine my designs and techniques. it's not wasted at all....
Your one of the exceptions but for the most part we do not have time in our lives due to our careers/jobs... while other cultures such as Europeans/Asians do have more time, less stress, better health (their diets are better then ours that is for sure), a closer knit family etc. They may not be richer then us or make more money on average then us but I would say they are more happy and healthier then us.
quote:while our standard of living is CONSIDERED the highest it is based on money and when a person tells me greed is good, i take issue with them go figure that
Greed isn't always money neither
quote:we have traded something for this "prosperity".
i hate it when i see (for instance) a South American tribe in ratty t-shirts swim trunks instead of their own cultures clothes. it does make them seem poor.
Ya, I'm not too fond when a culture is or is starting to get wiped out due to outside influences.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: As for Iceland... only good for the gorgeous blondes that live there... and i plan to visit there someday...
Icelandics are the most literate people in the world. they are (as awhole) very smart and very quirky, i've enjoyed knowing several. they also have geothermal energy which would be good for my business.
I admire their culture, language etc. from what I read but i admire their blonde women the most Posted by glassman on :
I must be frank on this. If you don't on a gun you're a fool.
The reason for me saying that is this.....the guy that may break into your house....or assault your family....or go ape **** crazy due to a mental breakdown....or etc. etc. etc.....Probably has a gun.
Governments overstep bounds,Accidents happen, Stupid people exist. It is for these reasons responsible citizens not only own guns, but teach their children about gun ownership and respect.
Posted by glassman on :
i never tried it on a gun before
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by rounder1: I must be frank on this. If you don't on a gun you're a fool.
The reason for me saying that is this.....the guy that may break into your house....or assault your family....or go ape **** crazy due to a mental breakdown....or etc. etc. etc.....Probably has a gun.
Governments overstep bounds,Accidents happen, Stupid people exist. It is for these reasons responsible citizens not only own guns, but teach their children about gun ownership and respect.
Ever used yours on another person?
Posted by rounder1 on :
No...and hopefully I never will, but it is nice to know that I am afforded an effective means to deal with an imposing threat; if need be. I am from south Georgia and I gave up hunting years ago......(yeah I am a sissy)....not really still love to eat deer; I just like to watch them also.
In a perfect world the ability make guns would not exist....but since it does; I want the same chance as the person that has bad intentions.
If guns were outlawed; criminals would be the only persons with them.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote: If guns were outlawed; criminals would be the only persons with them.
Sigh...I get so tired of that phrase. If beef were outlawed only criminals would have cows. If water were outlawed Nevada would become the most populous state in the nation. If Elmers glue were outlawed young children would burn themselves with hot glue guns a lot more often. If I were outlawed, you'd all be accomplices!!!
The phrase is overdone and meaningless.
Anywho...back to my original point...what was that???
Oh yes, I was trying to figure out why you were calling me a fool for not owning a gun to protect myself from all the big baddies in the world. I figured you must have a great story about how your gun saved you wife, property, and little Fido too since you are so ready to pronounce me, a non-gun owner, as a...
No Thanks. I already have the duck.
Posted by rounder1 on :
Thanks for the definitions, Webster, but I am not in the habit of using words that I don't know the meanings of (oh my....if you are an English teacher too; you will realize that I just used a preposition at the end of a sentence!)
Sorry for using a phrase that has been overdone. Wonder why you have heard it so many times????
Just because I have never shot the bad the guy does not mean that others have not. It would have been just easy to lie and say that I held off a hoard of sodomites heck bent on having there way with my grandmother, but that is not the case.
I did not mean any disrespect to any person that chooses not to own a gun, but I do feel that it is not just a right but a duty of responsible persons to know how to resposibly own and use a gun. However, I can acknowlede that "fool" may have been a poor word choice.
I have used my gun many times (killed a Rattle Snake yesterday)....but you are correct....never to deter hostile behaviour from another person. As I previously stated; I hope that I never have to.
Posted by rounder1 on :
Upon re-reading your post; I have to say that you are exactly right.....It is identical to insurance.....
I hope that you never have to rely on the "duck" due to your failure to rely on yourself.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
LOL (My mother was the english teacher, not ...I.)
I do respect your desire to protect your poor grandmother from all those raging sodomites and I think you will find that very few in this thread would support a ban on guns, but there are some like myself who don't believe it is acceptable to chalk up those who are hurt and killed by guns in the hands of criminals and youth as the necessary casualties of the right to bear arms.
Posted by glassman on :
the phrase is overdone and meaningless.
funny thing about cliches, they tend to be axiomatic.
it has much deeper implications than you give credit for.
the criminals with the guns will have much more power over you.
they will be much less concerned with worrying about who might be armed and who isn't...
much like the Mexican Govt that likes to blame US for their violence problems? it's not looking squarely a the issue.
In Mexico guns are basically banned, they are available legally to a select few...
Mexico went thru a terrible period recently when they had 100's of truck hijacking each year. Millions upon millions of dollars were just taken by road bandits. No guns makes the job easier. When Mexico blames US for the levels of violence their own people are willing to sink to? They are atttmpting to abrogate most of the responsibility that they have.
the police who will of course have them will also becom emuch more "assertive" in their manner....
as the police become more and ore assertive they will eventually just be well, criminals too...
there is absolutely no doubt that the Revolutionaries who founded our country were thinking about balance of power when they wrote the 2nd. It is found in their writings outside of the Constitution, several of us here have posted them numerous times.
Posted by rounder1 on :
Hey man (i think)....I know that I am doing the quote thing wrong.....still learning.....sorry. I will figure it out eventually.
"I do respect your desire to protect your poor grandmother from all those raging sodomites and I think you will find that very few in this thread would support a ban on guns, but there are some like myself who don't believe it is acceptable to chalk up those who are hurt and killed by guns in the hands of criminals and youth as the necessary casualties of the right to bear arms."
Now that is a position that I can respect. In truth, even agree with. I just fail to see the alternative as being viable. Everything has trade-offs....and I know how crummy it is to call such a thing a trade-off.....but like I said in my first post.....stupid people exist (the dumbasses that shot him....not the kid). Guns have emabled a tremendous amount of evil, but they have hindered just as much.
I am just of the opinion that I don't won't to be the one without the means. If I knew that all of them could be done away with tomorrow and noone would ever have another gun; I would probably vote for it......but that just ain't (south Georgia) so.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
quote:Originally posted by rounder1:
I hope that you never have to rely on the "duck" due to your failure to rely on yourself.
No no ...that's just it. I do rely on myself and have never found myself less than equal to the task. You rely on two guys named Smith and Wesson.
P.S. Welcome to the board. Good to get new blood in here from time to time. Otherwise it just ends up being a few of us oldies endlessly dancing around the same subjects.
Posted by glassman on :
use these [ ] in combination with i or b to begin a bold or italisized statement, and use /i or /b in between those [] to end the bold or italisze command ...
i tend to bold people that i am quoting cuz italics look feminine to me and most guys don't want to have their wors made "girly" Posted by rounder1 on :
Thanks B.F. and Glass,
I think I am going to enjoy this.
I look forward to the challenge of trying to keep up!
Thanks for the help on the quote thing too....I will have to play around with it. Have to say that I have no artistic capability whatsoever, but glass working does sound fun. Perhaps one day I can afford to have a piece commissioned!!!!
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by rounder1: Thanks B.F. and Glass,
I think I am going to enjoy this.
I look forward to the challenge of trying to keep up!
Thanks for the help on the quote thing too....I will have to play around with it. Have to say that I have no artistic capability whatsoever, but glass working does sound fun. Perhaps one day I can afford to have a piece commissioned!!!!
oooooooo fresh meat... Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
quote: If guns were outlawed; criminals would be the only persons with them.
Sigh...I get so tired of that phrase.
I also get tired when people keep using the word "ban" when we mean "control"... in the perfect world I would love guns to be banned outright, not exist at all. in the perfect world. But a perfect world we do not live in so i at least want it controlled properly which imo it is not... and before you jump in Glass... don't bother... because all of BF's posts/opinions in this thread is what I believe in... he says it best and reasonable...
Posted by rounder1 on :
Bring it on Mach,
I think I can handle a dead Italian Philospher!!!!
....Okay....so I had to Google it. Sue me.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
You googler!!! Posted by glassman on :
using the word "ban" when we mean "control"..
you know Mach? you basically say you want them banned in the same post.
at least be honest.
in the end you really mean "control people" no matter how much you want to make it about "controlling machines".
free people do not give up control. we will die first. and people will die trying to make us, now why would people want to die trying to enslave others?
ever hear of a domesticated Zebra? they don't exist. there's a reason for that too
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: using the word "ban" when we mean "control"..
you know Mach? you basically say you want them banned in the same post.
at least be honest.
in the end you really mean "control people" no matter how much you want to make it about "controlling machines".
free people do not give up control. we will die first. and people will die trying to make us, now why would people want to die trying to enslave others?
ever hear of a domesticated Zebra? they don't exist. there's a reason for that too
Oh ok, so basically you are saying humans are animals that can't or shouldn't be controlled... Posted by glassman on :
they can be controlled. the question is one of self-control or remote control.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
If history has shown us anything other then we can kill anyone is that humans are not very good at self control lol
Posted by retiredat49 on :
BACK DOOR GUN REGISTRATION
Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It may require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.
The bill was introduced on Feb. 24th and will become public knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law.. This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee can pass this without the Senate voting on it at all..
The full text of the proposed amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage
You can find it by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099.
The One Hundred Sixth United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It met in Washington, DC from January 3, 1999 to January 3, 2001, during the last two years of the second administration of U.S. President Bill Clinton.
it would not surprise me to see something like this get tried tho...
the Dems would be out on the very next elction cycle tho, and i beleive they figured that out when Gore lost his own state of TN in the '00
Didn't take time to research it Glass...I just recieve3d it via email from a good friend that owns a virtual arsenal...He was freaking out...at 50 bucks a gun, it would have cost him over 10 grand...lol
Posted by glassman on :
apparently it's an email being sent around.
i freaked for a minute too... my wife laughed and said no way would they be that stupid...( i sure did get lucky when i met her)
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
i freaked for a minute too... my wife laughed and said no way would they be that stupid...( i sure did get lucky when i met her)
Yes you did...my wife looked at me and said...HOW MANY guns do you have?...you could see the panic in her eyes...I just smiled Posted by glassman on :
since you got me looking in this direction? i did find this POS.
HR 45 Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009,
SEC. 101. LICENSING REQUIREMENT.
Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(aa) Firearm Licensing Requirement-
`(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license--
`(A) under title I of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under that title; or
`(B) pursuant to a State firearm licensing and record of sale system certified under section 602 of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which license has not been invalidated or revoked under State law.
`(2) APPLICABLE DATE- In this subsection, the term `applicable date' means--
`(A) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person before the date of the enactment of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 2 years after such date of enactment; and
`(B) with respect to a qualifying firearm that is acquired by the person on or after the date of the enactment of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, 1 year after such date of enactment.'.
SEC. 102. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General- In order to be issued a firearm license under this title, an individual shall submit to the Attorney General (in accordance with the regulations promulgated under subsection (b)) an application, which shall include--
(1) a current, passport-sized photograph of the applicant that provides a clear, accurate likeness of the applicant;
(2) the name, address, and date and place of birth of the applicant;
(3) any other name that the applicant has ever used or by which the applicant has ever been known;
(4) a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted;
(5) with respect to each category of person prohibited by Federal law, or by the law of the State of residence of the applicant, from obtaining a firearm, a statement that the individual is not a person prohibited from obtaining a firearm;
(6) a certification by the applicant that the applicant will keep any firearm owned by the applicant safely stored and out of the possession of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;
(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding--
(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;
(B) the safe handling of firearms;
(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;
(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and
(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;
(8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;
(9) the date on which the application was submitted; and
the bill is sponsored by Bobby Rush House Dem Ill. he ahs introduced it several times and it has failed every time..
it was last introduced as HR 2666 (no lie) in july of 2007.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
That bill is just as bad...if not worse than SB-2099 I have some letters to write...
Posted by glassman on :
it's incommittee at this time.
House Judiciary, House Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security
last time he only sent it to one commmmittee:Jul 16, 2007: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and it never came out of committee.
i cannot tell if that's more than committe or not, but i beleive it is.
the mor ei look, the more it appears it's in a sub-committee,
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
because they cannot afford 1000$ for a quality gun with an RFID chip that recognises the owner. said owner having spent another 5000$ gotting the matching implant chip that also ID's them at every police checkpoint and anyplace else that wants to know who they are automatically. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bang]](graemlins/wallbang.gif)
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
