Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 22 of 35 FirstFirst ... 121920212223242532 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 440 of 689
Like Tree279Likes

Thread: 18 Children Dead in CT Mass Shooting

  1. #421
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,859

    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


  2. #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.

  3. #423
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    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."

  4. #424
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    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."

  5. #425
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    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."

  6. #426
    Forum Member Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    They had 30 homicides by guns last year. I'll take those numbers over the US rate anytime.
    Considering they have a fraction of the population we have (Australia Population-22,620,600 USA Population- 311,591,917) I would hope they have a lower homicide, violent crime, etc rate.

    Anyone with any common sense could see that it's not a fair comparison. You can't compare when the population difference is so great.

    You sound like Piers Morgan now. Portraying only the facts that you believe will advance your agenda, not ALL of the facts.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  7. #427
    Forum Member Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post

    Once again, you only prove your position is extreme to the point where any discussion is viewed as completely anti-gun.
    Not extreme at all, considering that's how everyone who isn't a member of the anti-gun crowd feels. Again, you're not presenting all of the facts, just your perception of what is right.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  8. #428
    Forum Member Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post


    If you believe it doesn't matter then there should be no opposition to the idea
    It does matter, because country wide gun registration is the precursor to gun confiscation. If they know who has the guns, and where they are, it's easier to come get them.

    Open you eyes man. While I've agreed with you in the past (whether I've posted it or just thought to myself I concur), you're way off the ball on this issue. You're looking at what you hope will bring reductions in gun violence. I sincerely believe there is more going on behind all of this that the sheeple of the world who don't think outside the box don't see.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  9. #429
    Forum Member Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    I've pointed out the rationale for referring to several semi-auto weapons as assault rifles.
    You're rationale is asinine. By your definition, everything is an assault weapon. That means right now within my reach, I have an assault hammer, an assault knife, an assault glass, an assault screwdriver, etc. It's VERY important to have a direct, concise, to the point definition, because leaving something open to interpretation by the government is dangerous. Give them an inch,they'll take a mile.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  10. #430
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    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.
    Why wouldn't they? We're not talking about frivolous claims by some psychiatrist that saw an interview on TV, we're talking about a doctor that has actually evaluated the patient and has determined they have a mental deficit that precludes them from being a responsible gun owner.

    We're talking about people like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Thomas White, Jared Loughner, etc. Not a normal citizen that is practicing responsible gun ownership. If you'll research the NRA's stance on the issue, you'll see they are pushing for more mental healthcare to keep these nuts from doing these things.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    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 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?
    Make it like child abuse reports. Have a list of mandated reporters and allow a certain level of confidentiality. We are talking about potential psychos that will retaliate with those weapons, so there has to be a certain level of confidentiality. However, there has to be some kind of repercussion for those making false claims.

    If they are accused and they go to a qualified person and are found to be sane and competent, take them off the list.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    It's also not as simplistic as you claim for the reasons I pointed out earlier.
    It's not simplistic, but it's a lot more simplistic and less invasive than accumulating a list of law-abiding citizens. Again, criminals don't give a damn about the law!

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    If you believe it won't make any difference, then you have no problem with it.
    That's a BS argument and you know it. It invades the privacy of law-abiding gun owners.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Yet you believe filing a complaint against someone isn't?
    Nope, it's probably cause if it's properly investigated. If LE determines the complaint is legitimate, they follow the 4th Amendment and get a warrant for further.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    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?
    I don't fear our government, I fear our corrupt politicians. We have this thing called the Bill or Rights and they are trying to infringe upon those rights. Hell, Biden is insinuating the President is threatening to do so without the consent of Congress!

    Besides, let's look at history. What happens when a government disarms it's people? That's the direction we're heading. Push this ban through, then what do we do when someone kills a bunch of people with a less than 10-round mag? Ban semi-automatics? Then someone kills dozens with a pump, do we ban them? See this progression?

    Read what Thomas Jefferson has to say about the Second Amendment. Or shall we ignore what he said cause that was 200 years ago, despite using his opinions to bastardize the First Amendment and seperation of church and state?

    All the while the gov't is turning a blind eye to the real problem- we have a mental health system that is a joke.

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    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.
    Never said we shouldn't do anything. I'm all for enforcing the laws we have now. The problem is we aren't doing that. Look at Chicago and DC. They have strict gun control and lead the country in violent crime. Gun control really works, don't it.

    While I think Ted Nugent is a bit of a blow-had on this topic, if you watch the entire video he had with Piers Morgan (it wasn't a few weeks ago, it was actually in May of 2011). The man is educated and has the states. Morgan couldn't argue Nugent's states, I dare you to do so.

    Argue that 96% of these crimes aren't committed by prior offenders that shouldn't even have a gun. If it's illegal for them to have a gun, how did they get it? THEY DON'T FREAKING CARE ABOUT THE LAW! They'll get the gun no matter what!

    How about we attack the black market firearms. Attack the vendors who aren't following the law. Attach the criminals that are in possession of them illegally. Attack those who are provent to be using them to kill people (including the mentally ill). How about we leave the law-abiding citizens alone, which is the whole intent of the 4th Amendment.

    Research the FBI's statistics and argue that "assault rifles" are a problem when 73% of gun-related homocides are committed by a handgun. Only 4.4% are committed by rifles (including "assault rifles". Can't ban handguns, the federal courts have already determined that is unconstitutional with Illinois CCW ban.
    Chenzo likes this.

  11. #431
    Forum Member Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post


    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.
    http://www.impactguns.com/kel-tec-ks...otgun-ksg.aspx

    7+7+1 for 15 rounds. Again, your lack of knowledge on the subject is showing. Readily available for purchase by civilians.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  12. #432
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Considering they have a fraction of the population we have (Australia Population-22,620,600 USA Population- 311,591,917) I would hope they have a lower homicide, violent crime, etc rate.

    Anyone with any common sense could see that it's not a fair comparison. You can't compare when the population difference is so great.

    You sound like Piers Morgan now. Portraying only the facts that you believe will advance your agenda, not ALL of the facts.
    Interesting little read...
    https://www.osac.gov/Pages/ContentRe...aspx?cid=12250

    What I get out of it, they made it difficult to get guns so they've started using knives for assault. And imagine that, drugs and alcohol are factors in the majority of assaults and robberies!

    Oh, and most violent crimes occur in the urban areas, which the US has a lot more of than Australia. That also accounts for a difference between the two nations.

    I would hate for someone to address the root of the problem instead of the tool. What is going on now it akin to banning lighters and gasoline because they're used in arson. Or banning vehicles to reduce drunk-driving deaths.
    DeputyMarshal and Chenzo like this.

  13. #433
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    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.
    As far as I know, you haven't come straight out and typed an individual statement that you are anti-gun. However, as an example, you make statements that pro-gun advocates have narrow definitions of assault rifles, and your definition is opposite, as broad as the Mississippi is wide. The sum of your statements points to an anti-gun direction.

  14. #434
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,859

    Default

    I've offered several solutions. You just don't like them or claim they won't work.

    The only thing you keep pushing over and over is magazine limits and bans of legally owned magazines already in the hands of law abiding citizens. Who will compensate all of these gun owners for those magazines? At a fair market price? Not for some ludicrous $50 gift card.

    Your initial rants talked incessantly about assault rifles and why anyone needs one when the fact is fully automatic weapons are heavily restricted, take an extreme permit process and include added fees and taxes. You wanted assault rifles out of the hands of law abiding citizens...that seems pretty clear.


    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.

    Good luck with that...there is no way at all of knowing who has what for magazines. The truly paranoid, conspiracy wackos, could bury dozens if not hundreds of those magazines, and use legal 5 or 10 rounders to be able to remain proficient with their rifles. If they believe that the government is out to take their guns they will do what they feel is necessary to stop it.

    I believe laws that make sense, and have a positive impact on society are valuable...Laws that punish those that are law abiders will always find resistance and as those rights are further and further attacked the resistance will increase.



    Cool. As long as the background check includes a paper trail and wait period. Something that doesn't occur at many gun shows.

    Any time you go through an FFL there would be a required 48 hour waiting period (It may be longer in some states) when you purchased a pistol. There is currently no federal waiting period for long guns or shotguns. What would have to end is private sales at gun shows and that could easily be handled through an on site area with FFL dealers to do the paperwork, for a fee of course, or being paid by the gun show organizers to be there.


    Same here. I've never advocated disarming law abiding citizens. Despite your claims to the contrary.

    If not why have others said the same things I have said to you about you being anti-gun?


    Which types of rifles have I advocated banning? I've done no such thing. Your paranoia reveals itself.

    Initially, what you tried to broad stroke as assault rifles.


    Wow!! So you believe an accepted dictionary is now generic blather? I'm not surprised.

    Okay, perhaps generic blather was a bit harsh. Your accepted dictionary is NOT using firearms industry correct defintions for specific types of firearms. You know like the newspapers calling SCBA oxygen masks.


    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.

    Duh, it was just as ridiculous as you comparing legal firearms ownership to explosives and rocket launchers. Thanks for helping bolster the point I was trying to make.


    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 shotgun that isn't plugged to allow more than three rounds. At least it used to be in CA.

    Again, your knowledge of current firearms laws makes discussing any of this with you very difficult. A fully automatic shotgun would require an FFL Class 3 license, a mountain of paperwork, extra fees and a $200 tax paid to the feds. You can't just walk into a gun store and buy one, anymore than you could go in and buy a select fire M-4, Ak-47, FNFAL, M14, Thompson submachine gun, Uzi, MP5, etc. The law, maybe you should do some research before you try to speak on a topic you clearly have zero knowledge of. Or are the laws as irrelevant to you as the proper nomenclature for the types of firearms?


    Hypothetical. Let's hope no one tries to prove this point.

    It's not hypothetical. A shotgun with buckshot is chosen by police departments and militaries the world over for its close range killing ability. The shotgun is also a favorite for home defense because of that same ability.

    I've never advocated banning them. Yet you continue to claim otherwise.

    You said no one needed an assault rifle...and then defined an assault rifle as a bolt action '03 Sringfield, a semi-automatic M1 Garand, and semi-automatic military styled rifles...And your chapion Feinsteain has declared my squirrel hunting .22 as an assault rifle...


    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.

    Yet you have said repeatedly that if the Sandy Hook shooter had had a smaller capacity magazine in his rifle, that may have been left in the trunk of his car, it would have been possible for him to be jumped by bystanders and stopped...So which is it? Case specific to Sandy Hook or just another diversion to support your ban of magazines from law abiding citizens?


    .
    I enjoy reading your fantastic claims and ever evolving hypotheticals.

    I haven't posted a single hypothetical other than to show how absolutely ridiculous most of the nonsense you post is. Nice try though, no points will be awarded.

    Your turn...
    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

  15. #435
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    http://www.impactguns.com/kel-tec-ks...otgun-ksg.aspx

    7+7+1 for 15 rounds. Again, your lack of knowledge on the subject is showing. Readily available for purchase by civilians.
    The Saiga 12 is a semi-auto, magazine-fed shotgun. Numerous options for magazine capacities. A number of mods are avaiable for various semi-auto and pump shotguns so they can accept a magazine.

    They are out there and are probably a growing market. I wouldn't be surprised to see a model of the AA-12 come to the market without the selector switch.

    How many 10-round mags can one fit in their pockets for a handgun? Put on a jacket/coat and some cargo pants and how many then? Ban semi-auto handguns and they'll start using revolvers and carry multiple cylinders and change them out.

    Ban guns and we'll have the situation in China, where they're using knives.

    These people are going to find the tools they need to accomplish their goals. The only solution is to take care of the root of the problem, the people performing the deed. The gun control crowd can't wrap their head around this. They'd rather use the media and these incidents to push their agenda. Perhaps they should go to Guyana with the next Jim Jones. After all, he advocated gun control there.
    Chenzo likes this.

  16. #436
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    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.
    There isn't a single solitary DUI law in the books that puts restrictions on law abiding citizens in my state, and I doubt it for any other state. I haven't been denied my F150 because somebody else drives drunk. I have no restrictions to purchase a Ferrari because somebody else drives drunk...I just can't afford one. Nobody has forced me to put in a breathalyzer because other people drive drunk. No DUI related law prevents me from installing a high capacity fuel tank or second fuel tank in my F150. The current DUI laws deal with people who are breaking the law (driving drunk and going to jail), or have broken the law (breathalyzers installed/fines/suspensions). DUI penalties have increased a bit and legal limits lowered a couple hundredths, but the real key is that the laws are being enforced more consistently.
    Last edited by tbzep; 01-13-2013 at 01:57 PM.
    johnsb, Chenzo and bcjack like this.

  17. #437
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    ...
    Ban guns and we'll have the situation in China, where they're using knives.
    ...
    Between the 2 choices....I'll take the guy with the knife coming after me any day over a guy with a gun. And that would be any type of gun.
    "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?

  18. #438
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Between the 2 choices....I'll take the guy with the knife coming after me any day over a guy with a gun. And that would be any type of gun.
    it truly is a horse a piece. Generally a guy that uses a knife in an attack is good with a knife, Someone that decides to do a mass shooting spree may, or may not be good with a gun.
    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

  19. #439
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Between the 2 choices....I'll take the guy with the knife coming after me any day over a guy with a gun. And that would be any type of gun.
    Yeah, but eventually their opressive govt. will follow. For our own good, of course.

  20. #440
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Between the 2 choices....I'll take the guy with the knife coming after me any day over a guy with a gun. And that would be any type of gun.
    They wont' go after you, they'll go after kids and women who they think can't defend themselves. These guys go to soft targets, not where they'll have a fight. And when they encounter resistance, they tend to kill themselves.

    Do you think it's a coincidence that Columbine happened when the lone resource officer was known to be at a remote location? Coincidence Lanza chose an elementary school? Or Holmes a theater? This isn't suicide by cop or something like that, it's making a statement on their way out (sound a bit like terrorism, don't it).

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