GunControl

HTColeman · Aug 24, 2005

PhotonicLaceration said:
Hmm.. Irsrael is really a peaceful place as far as criminal activity is concerned. If you read the news everyday you'd think it was living hell. What's wrong with military training in schools? To me it sounds like practical knowledge that will be a lot more useful in your life than football ! I never said the reason they are safe is because they had guns... I was pointing out that everyone carrying guns in a region does not lead to crime. There are pleanty of safe places with lots of Gun Control, to include Britain and Australia. They were also safe before gun control.

Absolutely nothing is wrong with military training, but Israel wouldn't be as safe without the training. America does not have that training, nor will it enstate that training any time soon. Those countries are only safe with the guns because they have proper training, to give the general public those guns without proper training is foolish. However, if you are advocating that training, that is fine with me, but we don't have it now.

Hmm... Schools, Churches, Notice anything in common with those? Virtually all schools and most churches completey dissallow guns on their properties. Funny, I guess the serial killers didn't see the sign. While there isn't exactly a coorelation between violence and guns (as I have mentioned in an earlier post in this thread) there IS a coorelation between the severity. Like I said before, and yes, I'm going to use Israel again... In Israel, if you have a psycopathic serial killer, he's on his last leg pretty fast. Walks into a market place, or wherever he chooses and starts unloading, he gets about 1 or two guys and he gets nailed... Now, how many people were shot columbine and other schools? How about in D.C.? They have some pretty big shootings. Recently, the shooting that happened with that one student on the Indian reservation brought up something else. The schools already have school police and security guards, how come in most areas of the United States these security guards who are regularly on campass aren't armed? What is the purpose of even having them if they can't stop a threat? On the indian reservation, the armed security guard was the first guy targeted, meaning that if he retaliated, the kid who started it wouldn't have caused any more trouble (by the way, gun control wouldn't have stopped this kid, as he got his guns from his dads police car)

However, you are missing one thing. All of these criminals were average citizens at one point in time. I am not saying that Gun Control would stop crime, not at all, but it certainly wouldn't lessen it. If someone is going to commit a crime, make him get the gun illegally, don't make it legal for him. With all of the everyday violence, especially what children are exposed to, Americans have become desensitized to violence, so you want to them assault weapons? Comparing us to the other countries is apples and oranges, they have many factors surrounding their gun use that America does not have. Without these factors... Furthermore the Bureau of Justice shows a graph that most homicides in America are because of arguments, by average citizens. You want to put an Assault Weapon in their hand while they are argueing? Here is the graph and spreadsheet

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/circumst.htm#reasons
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/circumsttab.htm

Also, I found some statistics, Bureau of Justice.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.

After 1994, the proportion of nonfatal violent incidents involving a firearm declined.

Assault Weapons Ban was enstated in in 1994, coincidence?

You really think that criminals are nice enough to only use crappy guns until civilians use better ones? Right. :roll: Criminals use whatever is easiest to obtain and suits their particular need. Like I said before, do you have any proof or examples of a region where when civilians got bigger guns criminals got bigger guns? I can think of a lot of examples where exactly the opposite happened.

As I said, I was responding to a post. They said that statistics show most crimes are committed with small handguns. If you have another statistic to disprove that, feel free. I believe that they use handguns primarily because that is all they need. A slippery slope is logic, give me one of your many examples.

Criminals use whatever is easiest to obtain and suits their particular need.

Wouldn't less gun control make the guns easier to obtain?

Well, first off, kids who go on shooting sprees aren't the average criminal that's motivated by success or furthering there "career." Second off, they are usually thinking they need to exact revenge or something similar, and it's usually that these people are doing this because they are depressed. (I said suicide bombers exempt in my post) And additionally, the will to live still exists here. If there only goal was to die, than they'd just shoot themselves. Usually they want to do some damage first, and because of that, if they had the option of taking his uncles crappy pos gun, or his dads excellent gun (and was wise enough to know the difference) I don't think he'd have to think very hard.

In 2002, Students age 12 through 18 were victims of about 88,000 serious violent crimes at school. It is becoming more of the average crime. I am not sure what your point is for the rest of the argument.

Did you even read my posts?

Okay... an Assault Rifle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

is NOT an assault weapon. ASSAULT RIFLES fire a lot of rounds when you pull the trigger, hence they are "machineguns" Assault Weapons, let me reiterate myself about those.

Okay, for the last few decades, some really smart journalists thought "Hey, if I add the word "assault" to all of the weapons used in the crimes I report, it'll add some spice and make things exciting!"

So then, from that point on, new journals around the country began refferring to virtually EVERY gun used in a crime is an Assault Weapon. This included the average semi-automatic handgun or revolver.

:::::READ THIS:::::
Semi-automatic is NOT a machine gun, that means it will fire once EVERY time you pull the trigger, not to be confused with FULL AUTO. Revolvers, crank guns have existed for a long time that could all a semi-auto can today, but operate off of a different mechanism (rotating chamber or spring instead of gas)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;

[/QUOTE]

I am not sure about Assault Rifles, I will research to see if they are legal. I posted that so everyone would know what Assault Weapons were. BTW, Assault Weapon is not a media term, it was a legislation put in by Bill Clinton. It was a law, not some hyped up media lingo.

Busta · Aug 24, 2005

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Hehehehe

Assault S.U.V.
http://www.detroithummer.com
From WikiBustapedia, the free encyclopedia.
An assault S.U.V. is a type of automobile. It is generally defined as a selective-speed Car or Truck (depending on the particular Vehicle's size), using a liquid-fuel propelled internal combustion engine. It can be considered a compromise between the M-1 Abram Tank, going where ever the h*ll it d**n well pleases, and the less powerful hippy-driven supersubcompact commuter-car, which uses Dolphin-safe hydro-power. Assault S.U.V.'s are standard light armored transport in most modern armies.

HTColeman · Aug 24, 2005

PhotonicLaceration said:
This also included your dads hunting rifle, any given shotgun, any surplus weapon (Not guns that fall under the AWB which is entirely different, according to the military an assault weapon is an assault rifle (which is pretty different from the dictionary definition), and with the exception of its hasty addition to the dictionary(Which most words don't get) it's not a recognized term among anybody who speaks guns snd know firearm terminology. Essentially, a meaningless word.), and finally, in 1989 and 1994, the government started to say "Hmm, these assault weapons are really becoming a problem" So they went to their buddies at the Brady Campaign and said, "Oh you guys must know a lot about guns! What are Assault Weapons and what can we ban to make our cities safer?"

Click to expand...

Statistics show that after 1994, gun crimes decreased due to gun control.

So they said

AK47s and AK47s clones are two different breeds of weapons, same goes for Uzi's... Neither of these covered by the ban were assault rifles. Also, the specific names they banned didn't do anything. Everything that was a clone of specified on list was still produced legally. (no loophole as they always claim, the clones were made under different names before the ban)

Semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and two or more of:
Pistol Grip... In other words, something for your hand to grab onto at a natural angle. Pistol grips don't do crap to enhance performance, and usually many models of the same hunting gun will come with different types of grips to suit the shooter. Almost all rifles [Hunting rifles as well as whatever else you can think of]accept detatchable magazines)

Folding stocks were designed and produced with the hunter in mind, because it's easier to sling it to your back if the rifle is lighter and small enough that it doesn't get in the way. They were also designed for Paratroopers for obvious reasons. Most of the time, folding stocks fold over the trigger, so to me that sounds real useless if it can't fire. Brady will tell you it makes them easier to handle in close range. Which is true of anything shorter, including pistols which aren't covered by the ban. If you had to defend yourself in close range would you rather have something that was easy to handle or hard to handle?

Bayonet mount... Okay. So in other words, any rifle made before 1930 is an assault weapon? Virtually all rifles made back then had these, and usually included other features. A bayonet is a fancy term for a knife. It doesn't make your gun a super-charged killing machine. This also is aimed at taking a cheap shot at the millions of surplus rifles (which can easily be made into hunting rifles or kept in their original configurations as such) from WWII, post WWII, WWI and before. Why? Surplus rifles are cheap because back when there values haven't quite kept up with inflation. A rifle similar to my surplus WWII 98 Mauser (that I got for $300) would have cost me ($1000-3000) in todays bolt action manufactures. My rifle has a bayonet, and a "semi-pistol grip" (which looks like a traditional rifle grip but has a little groove in it), and can also except a rifle-grenade launcher (But mine doesn't have one) Additionally, ANY Rifle can except a bayonet, as there are bayonets that fit right over the barrel. So essentially, if a barrel is a bayonet mount, every rifle has one.

Flash suppressor. Okay, THIS IS NOT a silencer. A flash suppressor does not effect sound in any way. A FLASH SUPPRESSOR will eliminate FLASH. For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, if you try to shoot a rifle at night, you will become blind really fast. "Oh there's no legitimate purpose to shooting at night" might be your rebuttal. which is totally lame, some game can only be hunted at night, and any activity done at day can just as easily be done at night. Many hunting rifles also have these. They wouldn't even look like an Ak47, they'd just look like what you see in movies when joe wants to go huting.

Grenade launcher. Hmm... Well since nobody has made the grenades for these rifle grenades (Rifle grenade launches require you to put a blank charge into the gun, and mount a grenade over the barrel.)

Click to expand...

Why are you argueing this with me, I posted what the law was for clarification, I did not make the law.

Okay for pistols.

Magazine out side of the grip? What difference does it make where it goes? There are just as many .22lr plinking pistols that do this to "look" cool just as well as the so called "Assault Weapons" (Why would this make it a more desirable feature? It'd add bulk to the weapon(double the space it takes up), and thus be less useful for sneaking into places, which according to the brady campaign would make it less useful to a criminal) The only possible thing I can think of is that it could be used as a grip, and for the calibers pistols that have external magazines are chambered in (.22lr, .32ACP .380, and some in 9mm except some russian guns in 9x18 which is less powerful then our 9mm) All of which don't have enough recoil in them to make for much compensation. If they did, target shooters would want them to reduce there groupings.

Barrel shroud to be used as hand-hold. Geez, ever held a barrel shrowd of a gun that you've been firing (at least the ones that are on pistols). It's STILL really hot after shooting a while. no way you'll be using that as a handhold I take it the people who wrote that never grabbed one.

Unloaded weight of 50oz? What does that have ANYTHING to do with it's effectiveness? A heavier gun may have less recoil, but it will also be harder to conceal, harder to tote, and harder to manage. The recoil advantages of added weight are not very good at all for attacking moving targets. If they were, the miltary would put a hunk of lead underneath all of their guns.

Semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm. Again, the same reasons the military want them is the same reason the public wants them. They are durable, light, and can be filled full of dirt and still use them. When hunters go out into the wild to hunt, they are filled with similar tasks, and these firearms are in fact ideal for these conditions. If you were a hunter, would you want a rifle that jammed all the time, broke if you dropped it, exploded when you shot it(I thought the Brady Campaign wanted safe guns?) or filled full of mud and wouldn't work? How about when the automatic version of a firearm is made after the semi-auto version? For example, the Glock 17 is a standard handgun used by many militaries for it's reliability. Police wanted a fully-automatic version of this pistol to help them when they are outgunned. Now, the glock 18 looks just like an ordinary handgun, but is fully auto. Does that make the glock-17 an assault weapon? How about the 92FS (visible in my avatar) The policia di stato italiano requested a version (93R)that fired three times when the trigger is pulled. The 92FS and Glock -17 are not considered assault weapons though.

Hmm, that seems to cover most semi-auto shotguns. Most can hold more than 7 rounds, have a pistol grip and/or a detatchable magazine. I already covered folding stocks.
(Detatchable magazine automatically qualifies any gun for more than 5 round capacity)

Click to expand...

Why are you argueing this with me, I posted what the law was for clarification, I did not make the law.

The Assault Weapons ban also covered something else which isn't mentioned.
All magazines were required to contain no more than 10 rounds and have special nutered magazines... First of all, this did not apply to magazines already in circulation (which is enough that all shooters for the next two decades could have as many standard capacity mags as they wanted.)
-----
Second, if you had to defend yourself against ten thugs (where you're probably screwed anyways) would you rather have

A. Six rounds
B. 10 rounds
C. 15 rounds
D. 30 rounds
-----

Third, if you were plinking would you rather reload your magazines every
A. six rounds
B. 10 rounds.
C. 15 rounds.
or D. 30 rounds.

Have you ever loaded a magazine? it's a major PITA and will make your fingers sore. The larger mags also have looser springs, thus easier on your fingers.

Click to expand...

If you were a thug would you rather have

A. Six rounds
B. 10 rounds
C. 15 rounds
D. 30 rounds
-----

Third, if you were looking to commit a homicide would you rather reload your magazines every
A. six rounds
B. 10 rounds.
C. 15 rounds.
or D. 30 rounds.

I am alot more concerned about making gun crime as difficult as possible than inconveniencing a recreational hunter

PhotonicLaceration · Aug 24, 2005

are you leading into the whole "we need guns to control the government" angle?

because if all of us pooled all of our money on weapons, we could probably buy like a tenth of a modern tank

You're jumping to conclusions... That's not where I'm going.

I'm trying to be direct.... What's more important to you? Potential safety or freedom and persuit of happiness?

HTColeman · Aug 24, 2005

PhotonicLaceration said:
You're jumping to conclusions... That's not where I'm going.

I'm trying to be direct.... What's more important to you? Potential safety or freedom and persuit of happiness?

I can't much practice freedom or pursue happiness if I'm shot, so I think it requires a balance of the two, as one is necessarry for the other.

PhotonicLaceration · Aug 24, 2005

HTColeman said:
Statistics show that after 1994, gun crimes decreased due to gun control.

Due to gun control? What gun control? In fact, the percent of the population owning guns actually increased during these years. I don't attribute that to less crime, but noting that guns went up, and crime didn't. I stand by the LACK of coorelation between guns and violence (Though there is a coorelation between them and the SEVERITY of crimes but that has to do more with mass-shootings where the shooting already occurred.) The assault weapons ban was the only peice of legislation written in 1994, and I thought I just wrote this huge post about how all the features it banned were aesthetic features as well as features that would be no use to criminals, and that the guns were still produced without these aesthetic features? Do you think those features make any difference to the lethality of the gun or capabilities of the criminal? I bet the criminal doesn't even know the difference, and that probably you couldn't tell the difference between a gun effected by the ban and one that wasn't. They still produced AK47 clones during the ban, and as far as anyone could tell they were identical to the ones before the ban unless if you really know your guns and can tell minor differences such as the lack or addition of a flash suppressor.

Busta · Aug 24, 2005

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicid...st.htm#reasons
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicid...ircumsttab.htm

Those are some really good links.

They list all of the meager reasons for violent crime;
Felony, Argument, Gang, Other, and Unknown.

Oh...wait...guns aren't on that list? It's almost like people, and not the guns, commit the crimes.
What the h*ll are you trying to pull.....claiming that PEOPLE commit the crime and not the gun!?!?!
You must be one of thoughs "Rush 'the pill-Popper' Limbaugh Far Right-wing Conservative Wacko's" who say that people are responsible for their own actions!!!

How dare you say that guns are not responsible for crime!!!!

Personal responsibility.....who needs it?

PhotonicLaceration · Aug 24, 2005

HTColeman said:
I can't much practice freedom or pursue happiness if I'm shot, so I think it requires a balance of the two, as one is necessarry for the other.

Maybe so... I can't persue happiness if they ban guns. If you weren't shot, you might be stabbed. I haven't seen strong coorelations between the amount of crime and guns.

PhotonicLaceration · Aug 24, 2005

HTColeman said:
If you were a thug would you rather have

A. Six rounds
B. 10 rounds
C. 15 rounds
D. 30 rounds
-----

Third, if you were looking to commit a homicide would you rather reload your magazines every
A. six rounds
B. 10 rounds.
C. 15 rounds.
or D. 30 rounds.

On the third one... If I was a criminal looking to commit homicide, I wouldn't care too much about the capacity of my magazine. I'd just carry a whole lot of magazines. After all, it isn't like I'm going to be in a situation where I need to worry about getting shot reloading. IF I do think I'm going to be shot at, I'd rather just avoid the situation all together and find a way to do it without risking my life. (As the one being attacked BY a criminal, you don't always get that legacy) If you're talking about crowd killing here, they won't be refilling their mags on the spot. They'll just put more mags in which virtually takes no time at all considering the time ratio that occurs here. If you look at the amount of shots fired at any one mass-shooting, they usually could have fired the same number of rounds in the same time period using a single shot rifle putting the individual bullet in every time it needs to be fired. Taking your mag out and putting a new one in takes a very short amount of time, which usually isn't too critical for the maniac who probably isn't even being shot at until police arrive 10 minutes later.

On the second one...
Pretend for a second that all criminals had 10 round magazines. You are attacked by 10 criminals. They have 100 rounds together, not counting reloads. That means, that without reloading they have 100 rounds for one target. And if you also had a 10 round magazine, you'd have 1 round per target. That means if you miss at all you are screwed. Also, that means, if you go to reload you'll have to waste precious seconds while they can continue shooting at you with their extended firepower. Reloading could mean your life, they have the numbers. That's in a pretend world however... Criminals won't be all using 10 round magazines. For the same reason that police want standard and high capacity magazines is the same reason the ordinary citizen wants them... In fact, I'd say more so. The police can call for backup (and usually do have more than one person to begin with), usually carry long guns in the trunk, and wear level IIIA body armor. If they feel like they'd be at a disadvantage using low-capacity mags, than I would too.

HTColeman · Aug 24, 2005

Busta said:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicid...st.htm#reasons
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicid...ircumsttab.htm

Those are some really good links.

They list all of the meager reasons for violent crime;
Felony, Argument, Gang, Other, and Unknown.

Oh...wait...guns aren't on that list? It's almost like people, and not the guns, commit the crimes.
What the h*ll are you trying to pull.....claiming that PEOPLE commit the crime and not the gun!?!?!
You must be one of thoughs "Rush 'the pill-Popper' Limbaugh Far Right-wing Conservative Wacko's" who say that people are responsible for their own actions!!!

How dare you say that guns are not responsible for crime!!!!

Personal responsibility.....who needs it?

Don't be stupid of course people commit the crime, so why make it easier to commit the crime. People kill over stupid things like arguments, so your going to put assault weapons in their hands?

HTColeman · Aug 24, 2005

PhotonicLaceration said:
Maybe so... I can't persue happiness if they ban guns. If you weren't shot, you might be stabbed. I haven't seen strong coorelations between the amount of crime and guns.

Really, I found sights depicting a decrease in gun ownership
http://www.usatoday.com/snapshot/news/nsnap165.htm

And then i found this
"Gun death rates are highly correlated to the rate of gun ownership in Canada. Provinces with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun death and injury."
at http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html#more

I guess it depends on who you go to?

HTColeman · Aug 24, 2005

PhotonicLaceration said:
On the third one... If I was a criminal looking to commit homicide, I wouldn't care too much about the capacity of my magazine. I'd just carry a whole lot of magazines. After all, it isn't like I'm going to be in a situation where I need to worry about getting shot reloading. IF I do think I'm going to be shot at, I'd rather just avoid the situation all together and find a way to do it without risking my life. (As the one being attacked BY a criminal, you don't always get that legacy) If you're talking about crowd killing here, they won't be refilling their mags on the spot. They'll just put more mags in which virtually takes no time at all considering the time ratio that occurs here. If you look at the amount of shots fired at any one mass-shooting, they usually could have fired the same number of rounds in the same time period using a single shot rifle putting the individual bullet in every time it needs to be fired. Taking your mag out and putting a new one in takes a very short amount of time, which usually isn't too critical for the maniac who probably isn't even being shot at until police arrive 10 minutes later.

On the second one...
Pretend for a second that all criminals had 10 round magazines. You are attacked by 10 criminals. They have 100 rounds together, not counting reloads. That means, that without reloading they have 100 rounds for one target. And if you also had a 10 round magazine, you'd have 1 round per target. That means if you miss at all you are screwed. Also, that means, if you go to reload you'll have to waste precious seconds while they can continue shooting at you with their extended firepower. Reloading could mean your life, they have the numbers. That's in a pretend world however... Criminals won't be all using 10 round magazines. For the same reason that police want standard and high capacity magazines is the same reason the ordinary citizen wants them... In fact, I'd say more so. The police can call for backup (and usually do have more than one person to begin with), usually carry long guns in the trunk, and wear level IIIA body armor. If they feel like they'd be at a disadvantage using low-capacity mags, than I would too.

All of this is wonderful, however, my argument is that American citizens do not have the knowledge, training, or mindset to carry such firepower. I also want to make it as difficult as possible for criminals to obtains such firepower.

Busta · Aug 24, 2005

Posted by HTColeman;

"Don't be stupid of course people commit the crime, so why make it easier to commit the crime. People kill over stupid things like arguments..."

That's right...PEOPLE, not guns, PEOPLE commit crimes. We do it with guns, knifes, drugs, cars.....all of these things, when left alone, do not hurt anyone.
Maybe what we need is an assault person ban......hmmmm....

Assault Person

From WikiBustapedia, the free encyclopedia.
An Assault Person is a type of Human. It is generally defined as a selective-attitude Man or Woman (depending on the particular Human's gender), using an opinionated predisposition propelled living neural network. It can be considered a compromise between the United Sates Marine, capable of kicking anyone's @$$, and the less powerful spineless liberal hippie looser, which uses Politically Correct anti-American propaganda. Assault Person's are the caws of all violence, ever.

"All of this is wonderful, however, my argument is that American citizens do not have the knowledge, training, or mindset to carry such firepower."

Then we should make sure that American citizens get the knowledge, training, or mindset to carry such firepower.
We should put firearms training next too sex ed. in public schools.

"I also want to make it as difficult as possible for criminals to obtains such firepower."

You can not stop someone from illegally possesing a firearm with law.
HELLO...CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW....THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CRIMINALS.....HELLO....

PhotonicLaceration · Aug 24, 2005

I am not sure about Assault Rifles, I will research to see if they are legal. I posted that so everyone would know what Assault Weapons were. BTW, Assault Weapon is not a media term, it was a legislation put in by Bill Clinton. It was a law, not some hyped up media lingo.

Not actually... That's really all it is is hyped up media lingo. In september of 2004, when they were thinking about redoing the ban, they completely changed what was being banned. The Assault Weapons Ban basically created a temporary name for them. They didn't ever have a finite meaning. All of those features that it banned were just that, features. They defined an Assault Weapon as something that had those features, or something on their list. Of course, then listen here, when they went to rewrite it for renewal, they CHANGED the definition to mean anything semi-automatic that accepts a detatchable magazine. (In otherwords, suddenly guns that weren't assault weapons before would have been had it been renewed) By the same logic, you can say that definition no longer exists as there is no longer a law defining an "assault weapon" [ Additionally, The legal definition, by all acounts is gone now that the legislation has expired ]

The term "Assault Weapon" once again isn't recognized by any real gun enthusiast. And In fact, the militaries definition of Assault Weapon somehow means something different from the medias and the AWB's original definition. According to the military definition which has existed for half a century, it's a synonym for an Assault Rifle (and is an archaic unused term originating from when the submachinegun and standard infantry rifle were being merged into an Assault Rifle.) So, you're saying that the term which was misused by the media for a few decades (with no definition, and applying to any gun used in a crime) and then put into legislation under an Assault Weapons ban (with a non-static changing definition) override the military definition for Assault Weapon?

Wouldn't that suck if they kept changing the definition of milk to include orange juice and other things?

ElGringo17 · Aug 24, 2005

Re: Gun rights infringement

It doesn't say; "The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, providing you're properly trained"

It doesn't say; "The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, providing you get government permission via a permit"

It doesn't say; "The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, providing you wait to exercise your right at least 15 days"

It doesn't say; "The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, providing it doesn't hold too many rounds"

It doesn't say; "The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, providing it doesn't have an evil black paint job"

It doesn't say; "The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, providing it is an expensive high quality gun instead of a cheapie"

It doesn't say; "The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, providing the bullet cannot kill someone"

It doesn't say; "The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, providing, you don't want to exercise that right near schools, or in buildings"

It doesn't say; "The Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, providing you have to pull the trigger each time to discharge a round"

It says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

GET IT?!

SKILMATIC · Aug 26, 2005

Anyways, does anyone have a gun they want to sell? :lol:

Preferably a unlicensed one, :lol:

cherokee · Aug 26, 2005

No new laws.

Enforce the laws on the books now.

Martyr_Machine · Aug 26, 2005

No regulations, no registration.

Busta · Aug 26, 2005

cherokee said:
No new laws.

Enforce the laws on the books now.

I could not agree with you more.

Busta · Aug 26, 2005

Martyr_Machine said:
No regulations, no registration.

I already agree with the first, and I concede the second.

ElGringo17 · Aug 27, 2005

Re: Gun rights infringement

No regulations, no registration, swift, intense punishment for any violence or misuse.

NO INFRINGEMENT!

AlbqOwl · Aug 27, 2005

Busta said:
I already agree with the first, and I concede the second.

New Mexico has a 'visible carry law' in which anybody may carry a firearm, registered or unregistered, in public just about anywhere so long as the weapon is in plain view. (Exceptions are the usual places: jails, courthouses, school buildings, banks.) You rarely ever saw anybody with a weapon anywhere though.

New Mexico's concealed carry law went into effect something over 2-1/2 years ago and some 4000 to 5000 permits have now been issued. At last check, those folks are almost all carrying.

And yet we have had zero negative incidents reported to date.

Day before yesterday in Albuquerque some nut went into a Wal-mart, grabbed a woman at random and started stabbing her. The woman's husband was carrying a hand gun, drew it, and shot the guy dead. They got the woman to the hospital in time to save her life. Both the police and the D.A. have stated on the record no charges will be filed.

We still have had zero negative incidents reported to date.

PhotonicLaceration · Aug 27, 2005

http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=11742

Here's the actual article... You're wrong on a few of the specifics.

The person who stabbed this woman was her ex-husband, and the person who shot him was a 72 year old man unrelated using a ccw license.

The man with the CCW was put in custody temporarily, but will probably be released without charge.

AlbqOwl · Aug 27, 2005

PhotonicLaceration said:
http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=11742

Here's the actual article... You're wrong on a few of the specifics.

The person who stabbed this woman was her ex-husband, and the person who shot him was a 72 year old man unrelated using a ccw license.

The man with the CCW was put in custody temporarily, but will probably be released without charge.

Okay that may be right. It is different from what another local television station and a local radio station was reporting yesterday morning, and our newspaper was confiscated by a neighbor, but then media often gets stuff wrong.

At any rate, we still have zero negative results from concealed carry. :smile:

Busta · Aug 27, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
Okay that may be right. It is different from what another local television station and a local radio station was reporting yesterday morning, and our newspaper was confiscated by a neighbor, but then media often gets stuff wrong.

At any rate, we still have zero negative results from concealed carry. :smile:

I'm glad that I live in a "shall issue" state.

GunControl

Position on Gun Control?

All guns should be banned.

You should have to have a license to own guns.

All guns should be allowed except for machineguns.

There should be no or very few limits on possession or carrying of firearms.

There should be significant limits on the types, features, possesion and strict carry laws

Other- Please Specify

HTColeman

HTColeman

Member

HTColeman

Member

Member

Member

HTColeman

HTColeman

HTColeman

Member

Member

Devil Dog

New member

Member

Member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency