Like Tree279Likes

Thread: 18 Children Dead in CT Mass Shooting

  1. #401
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    While I actually agree with you, we're sadly going to be in the minority overall. If we, like the anti-gun banners take hardlines and make zero compromise, only one side can win. I fear that without some reasonable measures the next step will be wider spread bans, which penalize the same law abiding citizens as registration.

    The registration is not a restriciton on your right to bear arms, merely a means to ensure proper tracing of firearms, it is the most sensible measure that doesn't adversily effect law abidijg gun owners. The teachers unions put up the same argument against being fingerprinted, stating this was a presumption of guilt, when in fact the courts and court of public opinion concluded that ti was a reasonable measure in preventing sex offenders from working in schools.
    Perhaps gun owners pay closer attention to history than the compromisers and gun grabbers do.

    * In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. This doesn't include the 30 million 'Uncle Joe' starved to death in the Ukraine.

    * In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    * Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo and SS. Hundreds of thousands died as a result.

    * China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    * Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    * Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million

    * Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    * Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million at a bare minimum.

    * Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results:

    Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent

    Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent

    Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)

    In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns.
    Chenzo and tbzep like this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  2. #402
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    In fairness, that's taking it a little far. Basically what he's saying is that if it's a semi-auto designed for military use, it's an assault weapon. That would exclude nearly any hunting rifle, including the Ruger Mini-14 (which Obama has listed in his previous plans) and all .22's that I know of.

    If you take the first part and combine "assault" and "rifle", then a number of rifles would fit that description. Muskets, bolt actions, etc. would be defined as an assault rifle.

    If we're going to put the military useage test into play, we need to add a number of shotguns (including pumps) and handguns (including the 1911).
    There are several civilian bolt action rifles and pump shotguns that were adopted by the military. Some soldiers even had privately owned firearms shipped to them and used them in combat. I'm going by his definitions. He split "assault" and "rifle". His definition included any rifle, not just semi-auto. He keeps spouting that Springfields and Enfields are assault weapons (they are bolt actions).

    My point is that terminology and definitions are extremely important when discussing any form of gun control, contrary to what SC thinks. If not, any new laws can be interpreted or twisted into any direction they please. This could go either way. It can become all inclusive, banning almost any firearm, or loopholes can be exploited, allowing many more firearms to stay legal than what is intended.
    Last edited by tbzep; 01-12-2013 at 06:20 PM.

  3. #403
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Perhaps gun owners pay closer attention to history than the compromisers and gun grabbers do.
    This post goes hand in hand with the Russian Pravda article I linked in post #366.

  4. #404
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent
    They had 30 homicides by guns last year. I'll take those numbers over the US rate anytime.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #405
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    You wish to restrict firearms accessories, like high capacity magazines. You have railed on and on about about assault rifles, where your definition is NOT anything more than the anti-gun crowd's definition. If you are not anti-gun why arfe you nothing more than a mouthpiece for everything they say?
    Wanting magazine limits is not taking away the right to bear arms. The definition I cited was out of the American Heritage Dictionary. I had no idea they are part of the anti-gun crowd.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    If not wanting my rights whittled away by a government that if it can't get its agenda passed by the legislature resorts to executive action to pass unpopular controls on the citizenry makes me paranoid...then I am okay with being called paranoid by YOU, an anti-gun rights person.
    Once again, you only prove your position is extreme to the point where any discussion is viewed as completely anti-gun.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #406
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    Would it no be much simpler (and a smaller list) to have a "restricted from owning a firearm list"? If someone has mental issues, put them on the list. If they're a criminal, put them on the list. If they for any reason whatsoever have no business with a gun, put them on the list.
    How do you intend to determine if someone has mental issues? An eval at the time of purchase with continuing checkups?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    Gun registration isn't going to do a damn thing. There are enough weapons out there that aren't going to be registered or are brought in from outside the country that they'll never be able to track them.
    If you believe it doesn't matter then there should be no opposition to the idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    I'm not necessarily against registering guns, but I'm to the point I'm sick of having to jump through hoops due to laws created from a knee-jerk reaction to an incident created by someone who doesn't care about the law and isn't going to follow it. Making new laws only law-abiding citizens are going to follow to "keep an honest man honest" is the last step.

    Registering firearms is like putting a no tresspassing sign up. It doesn't do jack unless the tresspasser fears the reprecussions. Criminals don't fear the reprecussions, because the reprecussions are so light.
    See above response.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  7. #407
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tbzep View Post
    Every single solitary unmounted rifle ever sold in world history, from a .177 single shot air rifle (pellet/BB gun) to a Barrett .50BMG M82 fits your definition.

    Your definition of an assault rifle would mean that every single rifle in the USA would become illegal with ratification of any form of an assault rifle ban. That's why FyredUp's definition is not only more accurate, but that kind of specifics is needed for any legislation put down on paper, if you truly aren't totally anti-gun.
    I believe the definitions claimed by FyredUp is too narrow for reasons I'm not going to delineate again. I've pointed out the rationale for referring to several semi-auto weapons as assault rifles. More importantly the people pushing total confiscation aren't concerned about narrow definitions by gun enthusiasts. What they see is a crazy person mowing down a bunch of six year olds with a weapon that resembles the type of weapon they see in the hands of soldiers patrolling in Afghanistan.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  8. #408
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    More importantly the people pushing total confiscation aren't concerned about narrow definitions by gun enthusiasts.
    I thought you weren't anti-gun? Your definition in earlier posts included bolt actions from WWI, and that is about as un-narrow as it gets.

    From post #101
    Besides, I could easily make the argument that GI's carried a semi-auto assault rifle in WW II and Korea. Prior to that, the main assault rifle used by the American military was a bolt action.
    DeputyMarshal and Chenzo like this.

  9. #409
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I believe the definitions claimed by FyredUp is too narrow for reasons I'm not going to delineate again. I've pointed out the rationale for referring to several semi-auto weapons as assault rifles. More importantly the people pushing total confiscation aren't concerned about narrow definitions by gun enthusiasts. What they see is a crazy person mowing down a bunch of six year olds with a weapon that resembles the type of weapon they see in the hands of soldiers patrolling in Afghanistan.
    Ok, here we go.....

    How about the fact that drunk drivers kill more kds in this country every year than guns ever will. I propose that every single car in the United States be retrofitted with a Ignition Breathalyzer so that we will never have a drunk driver on the road again. That will save far more children's lives than any gun legislation or executive order being discussed ever will.

    Also given that drownings kill far more children each year that will ever be killed by guns I would like to propose that all backyard swimming pools meet stringent safety and security requirements, must be registered and inspected yearly to insure that they still comply. In addition all parents must pass lifeguard training as well as CPR and renew bi-yearly so that children will have immediate medical care if they do drown. If you want to save kids lives you should have no problem with trampling on personal property rights like you wish to trample on gun rights.

    Given that bike accidents also kill far more children than gun accidents in the street yearly, I would like to ban all bikes from any public street and restrict their use to designated bike parks and trails, and all bikes will be registered.

    We could also talk about charging parents for neglect or possibly manslaughter if a child dies in a fire in a home without an adequate number of working smoke detectors as hundreds more die that way each year compared to guns. Same with four wheelers. Same with car seats. Should i continue?

    You keep bringing up Sandy Hook as the impetus for this zealous left wing assualt on a Constitutional right. As unfortunate as it was it was one incident. I could sit here and talk about other MVA, drowning and fire incidents where multiple children were killed in one swoop as well, but nobody seems to be demanding that we eliminate backyard swimming pools and beaches, travel by car or living in a home.

    Sorry, but you can't even define by gun nomenclature the weapons you and many other left wing anti-gun nuts want to ban.

    Guns, including those evil semi-automatic and even fully automatic weapons are an American right guaranteed by the Constitution.Doing anything, including banning large quantity magazines is nothing but a pile of left wing liberal crap.
    Chenzo likes this.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  10. #410
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,688

    Default

    LA, it's funny how you keep harping on every American's right to own a weapon...yet you freely admit there are exclusions/restrictions on that. Adding more exclusions/restrictions does not change the Constitution.

    As to cars killing people....cars are a necessity in many people's lives. Guns, as stated by posters here, are largely for hobby. Difference there.


    Can give many reasons why a car is needed.
    Have yet to hear a reason for some types of guns to be needed.

    PS - I'd be ok with that breathalyzer thing too.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  11. #411
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Wanting magazine limits is not taking away the right to bear arms. The definition I cited was out of the American Heritage Dictionary. I had no idea they are part of the anti-gun crowd.

    The problem is the people you are supporting to make those decisions are so extreme that one of them has my 10 shot .22lr semi-automatic rifle listed as an assault rifle. THAT is the problem with your inability to understand my concern, and obviously the concern of other actual gun owners here, with vague, incorrect definitions of firearms. I much prefer having the proper information when discussing something and I also prefer talking to people, whether they agree or disagree with me, that care enough to be correct also. Try it, you might like it


    Once again, you only prove your position is extreme to the point where any discussion is viewed as completely anti-gun.

    I prefer to be thought of, by you anyways, as an extremist rather than a wolf in sheep's clothing sell out like you. Not a single thing you have said about being a gun owner and defender of the 2nd Amendment is supported by what you actually say about bans and gun control.
    Just admit it...it will be so cathartic.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  12. #412
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I believe the definitions claimed by FyredUp is too narrow for reasons I'm not going to delineate again. I've pointed out the rationale for referring to several semi-auto weapons as assault rifles. More importantly the people pushing total confiscation aren't concerned about narrow definitions by gun enthusiasts. What they see is a crazy person mowing down a bunch of six year olds with a weapon that resembles the type of weapon they see in the hands of soldiers patrolling in Afghanistan.
    Yet, you are wrong in your definition and no amount of quoting sources that are incorrect make you any more right.

    The one point you said here that is right is "What they see is a crazy person mowing down a bunch of six year olds." Let me ask you this, what does the rifle have to do with this incident anyways? If the cops found it in his truck, how could he have used it inside the school? The other point here is what if he had used a hunting shotgun filled with 00 buck shot for his shooting spree. Would you support banning shotguns? Or would you be calling them assault shotguns?
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  13. #413
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    While I actually agree with you, we're sadly going to be in the minority overall. If we, like the anti-gun banners take hardlines and make zero compromise, only one side can win. I fear that without some reasonable measures the next step will be wider spread bans, which penalize the same law abiding citizens as registration.

    The registration is not a restriciton on your right to bear arms, merely a means to ensure proper tracing of firearms, it is the most sensible measure that doesn't adversily effect law abidijg gun owners. The teachers unions put up the same argument against being fingerprinted, stating this was a presumption of guilt, when in fact the courts and court of public opinion concluded that ti was a reasonable measure in preventing sex offenders from working in schools.
    I understand where you're coming from, but at some point the government has to quit making law-abiding citizens jump through hoops to practice their rights and priveledges. This is especially the truth when the unlawful are bypassing the system at will. Enforce the freaking laws we have already before we start cramming more laws down our throats that the criminals are going to ignore along with the ones already in place.

    All the while, our gov't is ignoring the bigger problem- there are some crazy bastards that simply have no business in society and need institutionalized or some other action taken to make sure they stay in treatment and remain harmless.

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    Please cite a credible source for this! That information alone, if true would blow this whole assault rifle ban out of the water. If the media and/or law enforcement participated in a sham to help push an anti-gun agenda there will be a huge backlash. I've seen this "factoid" thrown around by a few people based on some reporters' early quote that a Bushmaster was found in Lanza's car, but this has been refuted by "officials", thus it's a pretty big deal. We can't wish it true, it has to be actual fact.
    It depends on where you get the definition. One definition is that an "assault rifle" is one with a selectible fire switch. However, the legal definition is going to be whatever Congress determines it to be. In 1994 it was a weapon that featured two characteristics on the list within the law or had a certain name.
    Chenzo likes this.

  14. #414
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Have yet to hear a reason for some types of guns to be needed.
    Which guns? Semi-automatic centerfire rifles? Predator hunting and self-defense. One of the favorite weapons of farmers/ranchers in my area is the Ruger Mini 14. It's used to eliminate predators and nuisance animals for the most part. Get a ****ed off wild dog at you while you're checking cattle and I guarantee you'll want the range and firing rate of that semi-auto rather than a bolt or a pistol.

    The Mini 14 is one of the guns on Obama's ban list.

    An AR-15 is the same type of rifle with only cosmetic differences.
    DeputyMarshal likes this.

  15. #415
    Forum Member
    bcjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Ok, here we go.....

    How about the fact that drunk drivers kill more kds in this country every year than guns ever will. I propose that every single car in the United States be retrofitted with a Ignition Breathalyzer so that we will never have a drunk driver on the road again. That will save far more children's lives than any gun legislation or executive order being discussed ever will.

    Also given that drownings kill far more children each year that will ever be killed by guns I would like to propose that all backyard swimming pools meet stringent safety and security requirements, must be registered and inspected yearly to insure that they still comply. In addition all parents must pass lifeguard training as well as CPR and renew bi-yearly so that children will have immediate medical care if they do drown. If you want to save kids lives you should have no problem with trampling on personal property rights like you wish to trample on gun rights.

    Given that bike accidents also kill far more children than gun accidents in the street yearly, I would like to ban all bikes from any public street and restrict their use to designated bike parks and trails, and all bikes will be registered.

    We could also talk about charging parents for neglect or possibly manslaughter if a child dies in a fire in a home without an adequate number of working smoke detectors as hundreds more die that way each year compared to guns. Same with four wheelers. Same with car seats. Should i continue?

    You keep bringing up Sandy Hook as the impetus for this zealous left wing assualt on a Constitutional right. As unfortunate as it was it was one incident. I could sit here and talk about other MVA, drowning and fire incidents where multiple children were killed in one swoop as well, but nobody seems to be demanding that we eliminate backyard swimming pools and beaches, travel by car or living in a home.

    Sorry, but you can't even define by gun nomenclature the weapons you and many other left wing anti-gun nuts want to ban.

    Guns, including those evil semi-automatic and even fully automatic weapons are an American right guaranteed by the Constitution.Doing anything, including banning large quantity magazines is nothing but a pile of left wing liberal crap.
    Don't forget lighters too!!!

    http://www.firehouse.com/news/108524...-four-siblings
    everyonegoeshome.com

  16. #416
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Ok, here we go.....

    How about the fact that drunk drivers kill more kds in this country every year than guns ever will. I propose that every single car in the United States be retrofitted with a Ignition Breathalyzer so that we will never have a drunk driver on the road again. That will save far more children's lives than any gun legislation or executive order being discussed ever will.
    Stricter laws have been passed on DUIs with stronger enforcement coupled with breathalyzers installed in cars for repeat offenders with campaigns promoting sober driving to the point where the incidence of DUIs has dropped dramatically in the last 30 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Also given that drownings kill far more children each year that will ever be killed by guns I would like to propose that all backyard swimming pools meet stringent safety and security requirements, must be registered and inspected yearly to insure that they still comply. In addition all parents must pass lifeguard training as well as CPR and renew bi-yearly so that children will have immediate medical care if they do drown. If you want to save kids lives you should have no problem with trampling on personal property rights like you wish to trample on gun rights.
    The difference is that it is pretty difficult for a crazy person to grab more than one child and shove them into a pool till they drown. Then repeat the process numerous times. Realizing the pro-gun crowd has reading comprehension challenged, maybe you can point me to where I've advocated the elimination of private gun ownership. I've yet to advocate any such thing. I've not even advocated eliminating the possession of semi-auto weapons.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Given that bike accidents also kill far more children than gun accidents in the street yearly, I would like to ban all bikes from any public street and restrict their use to designated bike parks and trails, and all bikes will be registered.
    When was the last time a crazy person smuggled a kid's bike into a crowded theater and killed 30 people with it? I always enjoy reading these false equivalencies.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    We could also talk about charging parents for neglect or possibly manslaughter if a child dies in a fire in a home without an adequate number of working smoke detectors as hundreds more die that way each year compared to guns. Same with four wheelers. Same with car seats. Should i continue?
    When was the last time someone tried to shoot a congressional representative with a smoke detector?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    You keep bringing up Sandy Hook as the impetus for this zealous left wing assualt on a Constitutional right. As unfortunate as it was it was one incident. I could sit here and talk about other MVA, drowning and fire incidents where multiple children were killed in one swoop as well, but nobody seems to be demanding that we eliminate backyard swimming pools and beaches, travel by car or living in a home.
    And I've pointed out how your comparisons are invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Sorry, but you can't even define by gun nomenclature the weapons you and many other left wing anti-gun nuts want to ban.
    Actually I've not defined it according to the nomenclature that is accepted by pro-gun nuts who believe the status quo shouldn't be changed. I did define according to sources that it would seem are not read by pro-gunners. The dictionary.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Guns, including those evil semi-automatic and even fully automatic weapons are an American right guaranteed by the Constitution.Doing anything, including banning large quantity magazines is nothing but a pile of left wing liberal crap.
    Once again you reveal your stupidity by spouting something that is a complete falsehood. The Supreme Court (you might have heard about them) has ruled the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute. In fact there are certain weapons (aka arms) one is not allowed to bear as a citizen. And numerous laws have been passed to restrict gun ownership that have been upheld.

    But......since you believe the Bill of Rights are absolutes, then you would agree the Journal News was well within their rights under the 1st Amendment to publish the names and addresses of gun owners in Westchester and Rockland counties in upstate NY. Right? Especially since I could easily make the case that exceptions were made to the 1st Amendment before the ink was dry.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-13-2013 at 11:40 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #417
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tbzep View Post
    I thought you weren't anti-gun? Your definition in earlier posts included bolt actions from WWI, and that is about as un-narrow as it gets.

    From post #101
    I did say that in the context of showing how the term assault rifle is a moving target (no pun intended) and is not the absolute as accepted by gun enthusiasts.

    I'll ask you since no one else will answer. Where have I advocated the elimination of private gun ownership? Since you are willing to do the research on my previous posts I'm sure it will be a snap for you to find.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #418
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Post deleted by user.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-13-2013 at 10:55 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  19. #419
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    I prefer to be thought of, by you anyways, as an extremist rather than a wolf in sheep's clothing sell out like you. Not a single thing you have said about being a gun owner and defender of the 2nd Amendment is supported by what you actually say about bans and gun control.

    Just admit it...it will be so cathartic.
    I will be more than willing to admit that you are blinded to the fact that I've never advocated the elimination of private firearms ownership. Yet you somehow believe that restricting magazine capacity and eliminating gun shows makes me anti-gun. If you believe those two beliefs make me completely anti-gun I could care less. With the two items I support, Americans will still be able to purchase and enjoy firearms and shooting sports.

    It is you who is the wolf in sheep's clothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Yet, you are wrong in your definition and no amount of quoting sources that are incorrect make you any more right.
    Funny. Words only mean what YOU believe they mean. I'll keep my fingers crossed you never run afoul of the legal system.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    The one point you said here that is right is "What they see is a crazy person mowing down a bunch of six year olds." Let me ask you this, what does the rifle have to do with this incident anyways? If the cops found it in his truck, how could he have used it inside the school? The other point here is what if he had used a hunting shotgun filled with 00 buck shot for his shooting spree. Would you support banning shotguns? Or would you be calling them assault shotguns?
    Because had Lanza been using a front loading musket, many more of his victims would still be alive.

    What type of shotgun? Single shot? Double barrel (either side by side or over/under)? Pump action? Semi-auto? The largest magazine capacity I've seen is eight rounds. Maybe ten max. Not a good comparison to the weapon Lanza used. You just made my case for limiting magazine capacity. Lanza would have had to reload far more frequently had he used that type of weapon. Giving the good guys time to either overwhelm him or run away. Something they didn't have with a 30 round interval.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-13-2013 at 10:59 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  20. #420
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bcjack View Post
    I could only hope that if someone is trying to kill me they are going to run after me while trying to set me on fire.

    This is yet another ridiculous comparison to a semi-auto high powered rifle with a 30 round magazine.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  21. #421
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I will be more than willing to admit that you are blinded to the fact that I've never advocated the elimination of private firearms ownership. Yet you somehow believe that restricting magazine capacity and eliminating gun shows makes me anti-gun. If you believe those two beliefs make me completely anti-gun I could care less. With the two items I support, Americans will still be able to purchase and enjoy firearms and shooting sports.

    You seem to have no problem limiting the rights of law abiding citizens while offering no solutions at all to the criminals that use guns in the commission of crimes, or the mentally ill that commit crimes using guns. To me and other here that makes you anti-gun. When you attack the inanimate object and not the perpetrators of the crime you show your true colors.

    Further, show me your master plan for consfiscating all the high capacity magazines in the hands of criminals. Because if you believe they wwill willingly line up to hand them over if they are banned you are delusional. There are millions of those magazines out there, both legally and illegally owned.

    Why blanketly eliminate gun shows? Why not just make every sale there have to go through an FFL dealer? You see, I offer a legal solution that requires a background check and you offer yet ANOTHER ban. Remind me again how you believe you are not anti-gun...


    It is you who is the wolf in sheep's clothing.

    Not a chance. I have been completely 100% open with my position. I am 100% for law abiding citizens not having any more of their gun rights stripped away in the false belief of the anti-gun crowd that disarming those that aren't criminals will deter criminal activity.

    You on the other hand protest too vigorously that you are pro-gun while offering banning of magazines, certain types of rifles, and the elimination of gun shows. Oh yeah, that sounds pro-gun...NOT. Just admit your hidden agenda and get it over with.



    Funny. Words only mean what YOU believe they mean. I'll keep my fingers crossed you never run afoul of the legal system.

    No they don't. I prefer to use definitions from the firearms industry than from a general public dictionary. The technical nomencalture of the industry mean more to me than generic blather.

    I won't, because I follow the law. Especially when I am using my firearms, when I actually do own and do shoot.



    Because had Lanza been using a front loading musket, many more of his victims would still be alive.

    I suppose so. But then again if he had used a thermonuclear weapon the entire town would be dead. I love readign your idiotic diversions. Bt that is typical anit-gun rhetoric.

    What type of shotgun? Single shot? Double barrel (either side by side or over/under)? Pump action? Semi-auto? The largest magazine capacity I've seen is eight rounds. Maybe ten max. Not a good comparison to the weapon Lanza used. You just made my case for limiting magazine capacity. Lanza would have had to reload far more frequently had he used that type of weapon. Giving the good guys time to either overwhelm him or run away. Something they didn't have with a 30 round interval.

    Actually, there are shotguns with 20 round magazines. I'll bet you didn't know there is asuch a thing as an assault shotgun that can fire fully automatically. Did you?

    Actually, a pump shotgun with a 6 round tube magazine, or an extended 9 round magazine, loaded with buckshot with a wide spread may have killed as many as he did with the pistols he used.

    Again, depending on which distorted media report you wish to believe, the police supposedly found the Bushmaster rifle in the trunk of the car. meaning that it never made it inside the school and was not used during the attack. So, if that plays out as true, how does banning those types of rifles have any impact on future incidents like this, where it wasn't even used?

    So who was going to overpower the Sandy Hook shooter? Elementary kids? Teachers busy trying to herd their students to safety? WHO? I would bet that not a single person in that school thought about charging the shooter to try to disarm them.
    Your turn, I can't wait for more silly premises, or fanciful tales.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  22. #422
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    How do you intend to determine if someone has mental issues? An eval at the time of purchase with continuing checkups?
    Pretty easy, if a doctor feels that you have a psychiatric disorder that precludes you from being a competent gun owner, he sends your name and info to the BATFE to be put on the ban list. If you want off, you have to prove that you are sane and competent.

    Create a process so that those who see guys like James Holmes can file a "complaint" so that person is investigated. If nothing else, put them on the ban list until proven otherwise.

    This isn't freaking rocket science. It makes a helluva lot more sense to make crazy bastards prove they are sane than to make the sane prove they aren't crazy bastards.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    If you believe it doesn't matter then there should be no opposition to the idea.


    See above response.
    You're kidding, right? The intent of this gun registry is to keep guns out of the hands of mass killers, right? Tell me how registering guns is going to do that?

    I am a law-abiding citizen. What gives the gov't the right to know what I have or don't have? We're creeping into 4th Amendment territory here.

    I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but they have a point when they say gun registration gives the gov't a roadmap to the guns. Besides, tell me how this is going to do anything to lead the authorities to illegally owned weapons?

    This idea of making law-abiding citizens jump through hoops to stay law-abiding citizens has to stop. What's going to happen is the gov't is going to force law-abiding citizens to become criminals to protect their rights.

  23. #423
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    You seem to have no problem limiting the rights of law abiding citizens while offering no solutions at all to the criminals that use guns in the commission of crimes, or the mentally ill that commit crimes using guns. To me and other here that makes you anti-gun. When you attack the inanimate object and not the perpetrators of the crime you show your true colors.
    I've offered several solutions. You just don't like them or claim they won't work.

    Further, show me your master plan for consfiscating all the high capacity magazines in the hands of criminals. Because if you believe they wwill willingly line up to hand them over if they are banned you are delusional. There are millions of those magazines out there, both legally and illegally owned.
    Making it a felony to own them would be a start. That would be a start to taking them out of circulation. Your premise is "lets do nothing as nothing is perfect attitude." If that were the logic we used with everything, we would have zero laws.

    Why blanketly eliminate gun shows? Why not just make every sale there have to go through an FFL dealer? You see, I offer a legal solution that requires a background check and you offer yet ANOTHER ban. Remind me again how you believe you are not anti-gun...
    Cool. As long as the background check includes a paper trail and wait period. Something that doesn't occur at many gun shows.

    Not a chance. I have been completely 100% open with my position. I am 100% for law abiding citizens not having any more of their gun rights stripped away in the false belief of the anti-gun crowd that disarming those that aren't criminals will deter criminal activity.
    Same here. I've never advocated disarming law abiding citizens. Despite your claims to the contrary.

    You on the other hand protest too vigorously that you are pro-gun while offering banning of magazines, certain types of rifles, and the elimination of gun shows. Oh yeah, that sounds pro-gun...NOT. Just admit your hidden agenda and get it over with.
    Which types of rifles have I advocated banning? I've done no such thing. Your paranoia reveals itself.

    No they don't. I prefer to use definitions from the firearms industry than from a general public dictionary. The technical nomencalture of the industry mean more to me than generic blather.
    Wow!! So you believe an accepted dictionary is now generic blather? I'm not surprised.

    I suppose so. But then again if he had used a thermonuclear weapon the entire town would be dead. I love readign your idiotic diversions. Bt that is typical anit-gun rhetoric.
    Umm....just in case you didn't know. The ownership of those types of weapons is not legal. In fact they and their components are tightly regulated and controlled.

    Actually, there are shotguns with 20 round magazines. I'll bet you didn't know there is asuch a thing as an assault shotgun that can fire fully automatically. Did you?
    I'm sure there is an automatic shotgun. I'm also sure that owning one is much more difficult than the 870 Wingmaster I used to hunt quail. Are you okay with those restrictions on the weapons you listed? I'm also sure it is illegal to hunt with a shotgun that isn't plugged to allow more than three rounds. At least it used to be in CA.

    Actually, a pump shotgun with a 6 round tube magazine, or an extended 9 round magazine, loaded with buckshot with a wide spread may have killed as many as he did with the pistols he used.
    Hypothetical. Let's hope no one tries to prove this point.

    Again, depending on which distorted media report you wish to believe, the police supposedly found the Bushmaster rifle in the trunk of the car. meaning that it never made it inside the school and was not used during the attack. So, if that plays out as true, how does banning those types of rifles have any impact on future incidents like this, where it wasn't even used?
    I've never advocated banning them. Yet you continue to claim otherwise.

    So who was going to overpower the Sandy Hook shooter? Elementary kids? Teachers busy trying to herd their students to safety? WHO? I would bet that not a single person in that school thought about charging the shooter to try to disarm them.
    Overpowering the shooter has been done in other instances. I have no idea what those folks were thinking and neither do you. What I do know is that bystanders have overwhelmed the shooter in other cases.


    Your turn, I can't wait for more silly premises, or fanciful tales.
    I enjoy reading your fantastic claims and ever evolving hypotheticals.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-13-2013 at 12:34 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  24. #424
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    Pretty easy, if a doctor feels that you have a psychiatric disorder that precludes you from being a competent gun owner, he sends your name and info to the BATFE to be put on the ban list. If you want off, you have to prove that you are sane and competent.
    Ha ha ha. You actually believe the NRA is going to allow that? What happens when a doctor claims Wayne LaPierre is judged mentally incompetent? Or that other nutcase who had a meltdown on Piers Morgan a couple nights ago. Blabbering something about tyranny and 1776.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    Create a process so that those who see guys like James Holmes can file a "complaint" so that person is investigated. If nothing else, put them on the ban list until proven otherwise.
    Would this complaint be allowed confidentially? Or should the accused be allowed to know their accuser? If it can't be done confidentially what would motivate someone to file a complaint knowing that a crazy person with a weapon knows their identity? Conversely, if it is allowed confidentially, what would prevent someone from harassing an individual (like yourself) with numerous complaints that would cause multiple investigations?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    This isn't freaking rocket science. It makes a helluva lot more sense to make crazy bastards prove they are sane than to make the sane prove they aren't crazy bastards.
    It's also not as simplistic as you claim for the reasons I pointed out earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    You're kidding, right? The intent of this gun registry is to keep guns out of the hands of mass killers, right? Tell me how registering guns is going to do that?
    If you believe it won't make any difference, then you should have no problem with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    I am a law-abiding citizen. What gives the gov't the right to know what I have or don't have? We're creeping into 4th Amendment territory here.
    Yet you believe filing a complaint against someone isn't?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but they have a point when they say gun registration gives the gov't a roadmap to the guns. Besides, tell me how this is going to do anything to lead the authorities to illegally owned weapons?
    If you've not broken the law, why do you fear the government? Who do you fear in the government? Black helicopters? The U.N.? Barney Frank?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    This idea of making law-abiding citizens jump through hoops to stay law-abiding citizens has to stop. What's going to happen is the gov't is going to force law-abiding citizens to become criminals to protect their rights.
    So we should do nothing since nothing is 100%? Great logic. Let's remove stoplights since they aren't going to stop everyone from running red lights.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  25. #425
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,317

    Default

    Heading out for the day folks.

    I'll check in tomorrow.

    Enjoy what's left of the weekend.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Shooting is West Palm Beach leaves firefighter, gunman dead.
    By SouthFlaHopeful in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 05:54 AM
  2. At least 2 dead in Kansas City mall shooting
    By RspctFrmCalgary in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-30-2007, 11:06 AM
  3. India-At Least 100 children dead
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-16-2004, 05:08 AM
  4. Children that cheered dead Americans
    By Waterboy620 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-12-2003, 05:01 PM
  5. Haysville, KS - 2 children dead
    By NJFFSA16 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-22-2002, 03:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register