According the an excerpt of the 5000 Year Leap p.172 Justice George Sutherland of the US Supreme Court once told the New York State Bar Association: It is not the right of property which is protected, but the right to property.
Property, per se, has no rights; but the individual-the man- has three great rights, equally sacred from the arbitrary interference; the right to his LIFE, the right to his LIBERTY, the right to his PROPERTY...The three rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right.
To give a man his life but deny him his liberty is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty is to still leave him a slave.
(Principal or Expedient? Annual Address to the New York State Bar Association, 21 January 1921, p.18)
Just a thought...
According the an excerpt of the 5000 Year Leap p.172 Justice George Sutherland of the US Supreme Court once told the New York State Bar Association: It is not the right of property which is protected, but the right to property.
Property, per se, has no rights; but the individual-the man- has three great rights, equally sacred from the arbitrary interference; the right to his LIFE, the right to his LIBERTY, the right to his PROPERTY...The three rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right.
To give a man his life but deny him his liberty is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty is to still leave him a slave.
(Principal or Expedient? Annual Address to the New York State Bar Association, 21 January 1921, p.18)
In a perfect world your plan sounds fine, but this is not a perfect world. You are counting on our incompetent government to enforce a law which, like many laws, is not completely enforceable.
You say ban military style weapons and semi-automatic military weapons. You said these are not used for protection or hunting. I assume you mean high-capacity type weapons? As many hunters use semi-automatic rifles for hunting, I have one myself (and a semi-auto shotgun). (I dislike the killing of animals for sport by the way) And many hand guns are also semi-automatic, my 1911 army issue Colt is semi-automatic.
Now with all that said, let's look at something hypothetically. We'll use the Colorado shooting as a example. He killed 12 people, which in theory would take 12 bullets or less. He could have use 2 revolvers and killed the same amount of people. Or he could have used 2 semi-automatic pistols and been carrying 100 rounds or 1000 rounds in loaded clips. It would take less than 2 seconds to drop a clip and install a fully loaded one and pull back the slide (slide is automatically back at empty of clip). So even if assault weapons were banned he would have still been able to kill the same amount of people, in theory.
Me personally, I've seen very few assault military style weapons in my life. And I know very few people that own them. But, if someone wants one, ban or no ban they will get one. Even if there is a ban, these guns will be on the black market. In fact, if there is a ban it will create a market for them. When you tell people they can't do something, they will show you they can. You'll have Youtube videos showing how to build these weapons in your garage. You'll have organized crime setting up tooling to build these to sell to drug lords. The guns will trickle down into the hands of everyone that has a true desire to acquire one. Sure, some will be caught, but how many? And all these weapons will have no serial number and never be registered or traced in any way. At least now there is some regulation in place.
So what will banning assault style weapons do? Cost us more tax payer dollars and do very little. Life can sometimes be a dangerous place, sometimes people are in the wrong place at the wrong time...it's just how it is. This is not a perfect world, things are not fair and never will be. If you want to ban all military assault weapons, I'm not going to argue with you. I see your point that they have no use in civil society. All I'm saying is that it will ultimately do no good as people will get them if they want them. And crazy people will still go out and kill people, assault weapon or not. Only difference will be that tax payers will be paying for another law to be enforced, a law that is unenforceable for the most part.
To prove my point. If you pay me, I'll build you a fully automatic assault style weapon in my shop. That's of course against the law. But I'll sell it to you behind closed doors and I'll deny ever knowing you. What you do with it is your business. If you go out and kill people, it wasn't me that sold it to you. Now how would passing a law prevent me from doing this??? Oh, you want ammo? We'll I'll make your weapon so it uses the same ammo as your 30-06 hunting rifle. No sense in making it complicated. There is always a loop-hole and what good is a law after someone kills 12 people?
Diana,
In a perfect world your plan sounds fine, but this is not a perfect world. You are counting on our incompetent government to enforce a law which, like many laws, is not completely enforceable.
You say ban military style weapons and semi-automatic military weapons. You said these are not used for protection or hunting. I assume you mean high-capacity type weapons? As many hunters use semi-automatic rifles for hunting, I have one myself (and a semi-auto shotgun). (I dislike the killing of animals for sport by the way) And many hand guns are also semi-automatic, my 1911 army issue Colt is semi-automatic.
Now with all that said, let's look at something hypothetically. We'll use the Colorado shooting as a example. He killed 12 people, which in theory would take 12 bullets or less. He could have use 2 revolvers and killed the same amount of people. Or he could have used 2 semi-automatic pistols and been carrying 100 rounds or 1000 rounds in loaded clips. It would take less than 2 seconds to drop a clip and install a fully loaded one and pull back the slide (slide is automatically back at empty of clip). So even if assault weapons were banned he would have still been able to kill the same amount of people, in theory.
Me personally, I've seen very few assault military style weapons in my life. And I know very few people that own them. But, if someone wants one, ban or no ban they will get one. Even if there is a ban, these guns will be on the black market. In fact, if there is a ban it will create a market for them. When you tell people they can't do something, they will show you they can. You'll have Youtube videos showing how to build these weapons in your garage. You'll have organized crime setting up tooling to build these to sell to drug lords. The guns will trickle down into the hands of everyone that has a true desire to acquire one. Sure, some will be caught, but how many? And all these weapons will have no serial number and never be registered or traced in any way. At least now there is some regulation in place.
So what will banning assault style weapons do? Cost us more tax payer dollars and do very little. Life can sometimes be a dangerous place, sometimes people are in the wrong place at the wrong time...it's just how it is. This is not a perfect world, things are not fair and never will be. If you want to ban all military assault weapons, I'm not going to argue with you. I see your point that they have no use in civil society. All I'm saying is that it will ultimately do no good as people will get them if they want them. And crazy people will still go out and kill people, assault weapon or not. Only difference will be that tax payers will be paying for another law to be enforced, a law that is unenforceable for the most part.
To prove my point. If you pay me, I'll build you a fully automatic assault style weapon in my shop. That's of course against the law. But I'll sell it to you behind closed doors and I'll deny ever knowing you. What you do with it is your business. If you go out and kill people, it wasn't me that sold it to you. Now how would passing a law prevent me from doing this??? Oh, you want ammo? We'll I'll make your weapon so it uses the same ammo as your 30-06 hunting rifle. No sense in making it complicated. There is always a loop-hole and what good is a law after someone kills 12 people?
Diana........ "But if you go to Bass Pro Shop and buy 4 machine guns….the Feds don’t know anything about it. "
While we disagree about gun control, I respect your right to do so.
However, your statement, quoted above, is 100 % wrong. The Feds are notified of EVERY gun purchased at Bass Pro Shop or any other retailer, except blackpowder firearms. As a side note, no "machine guns" are sold to the general public without an additional extensive licensing procedure. Same with silencers. (Machine guns would normally be defined as a fully automatic weapon. One which continues to fire (until empty) as long as the trigger is held down. A semi-automatic (and all other firearms) fire one round per trigger pull.)
Re Machine guns: Yes I know that a true machine gun is actually an automatic weapons. I was just being lazy and didn't want to type out 'military style semi-automatic assault rifle'. However, when the San Jose, California police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semi-automatic. Precious little difference in a packed movie theater.
From the Website Danger Room:
If you want to kill large numbers of people, you should seriously consider buying a handgun or assault rifle. As the movie-theater massacre in Aurora, Colorado demonstrated, chances are federal law enforcement and homeland security and counterterrorism agents won’t see you amassing an arsenal of assault rifles, handguns and ammunition.
Longtime law enforcement and intelligence veterans say that the feds simply don’t have ways of spotting stockpiles of firearms.
In short, one of the most useful tools for killing people is effectively excluded from the attention of federal agents who have received sweeping powers over the last decade to prevent mass-casualty events. “I don’t know of anything” about Holmes’ gun purchases “that would’ve notified law enforcement as a matter of policy right now,” says Jack Cloonan, a retired FBI counterterrorism agent.
For those that aren’t on terrorist watch lists and don’t have criminal records: Someone seeking to buy two or more of certain kinds of rifles — semi-automatics; calibers higher than .22; detachable magazines — will attract the attention of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) along four southwest states bordering Mexico. So will someone who tries to buy two or more handguns within five days, wherever the sale occurs. The ATF can retain information on those individuals for up to two years, if there’s no active investigation resulting from it. Several counterterrorism sources consulted for this story were unclear as to whether intelligence or counterterrorism operatives could access that ATF data.
Ammunition purchases, however, are functionally unregulated and off-limits to federal law enforcement. The only way law enforcement would know about bulk ammo purchases is if the dealer decides he or she is dealing with a shady customer and alerts the authorities.
I know you want to correct me CG….and that’s ok…but you’re trying to split hairs. I do not believe the Feds are monitoring weapon sales .....and if they are...they are doing a mighty poor job!
Quoting Conyersguy:
Diana........ "But if you go to Bass Pro Shop and buy 4 machine guns….the Feds don’t know anything about it. "
While we disagree about gun control, I respect your right to do so.
However, your statement, quoted above, is 100 % wrong. The Feds are notified of EVERY gun purchased at Bass Pro Shop or any other retailer, except blackpowder firearms. As a side note, no "machine guns" are sold to the general public without an additional extensive licensing procedure. Same with silencers. (Machine guns would normally be defined as a fully automatic weapon. One which continues to fire (until empty) as long as the trigger is held down. A semi-automatic (and all other firearms) fire one round per trigger pull.)
Re Machine guns: Yes I know that a true machine gun is actually an automatic weapons. I was just being lazy and didn't want to type out 'military style semi-automatic assault rifle'. However, when the San Jose, California police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semi-automatic. Precious little difference in a packed movie theater.
From the Website Danger Room:
If you want to kill large numbers of people, you should seriously consider buying a handgun or assault rifle. As the movie-theater massacre in Aurora, Colorado demonstrated, chances are federal law enforcement and homeland security and counterterrorism agents won’t see you amassing an arsenal of assault rifles, handguns and ammunition.
Longtime law enforcement and intelligence veterans say that the feds simply don’t have ways of spotting stockpiles of firearms.
In short, one of the most useful tools for killing people is effectively excluded from the attention of federal agents who have received sweeping powers over the last decade to prevent mass-casualty events. “I don’t know of anything” about Holmes’ gun purchases “that would’ve notified law enforcement as a matter of policy right now,” says Jack Cloonan, a retired FBI counterterrorism agent.
For those that aren’t on terrorist watch lists and don’t have criminal records: Someone seeking to buy two or more of certain kinds of rifles — semi-automatics; calibers higher than .22; detachable magazines — will attract the attention of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) along four southwest states bordering Mexico. So will someone who tries to buy two or more handguns within five days, wherever the sale occurs. The ATF can retain information on those individuals for up to two years, if there’s no active investigation resulting from it. Several counterterrorism sources consulted for this story were unclear as to whether intelligence or counterterrorism operatives could access that ATF data.
Ammunition purchases, however, are functionally unregulated and off-limits to federal law enforcement. The only way law enforcement would know about bulk ammo purchases is if the dealer decides he or she is dealing with a shady customer and alerts the authorities.
I know you want to correct me CG….and that’s ok…but you’re trying to split hairs. I do not believe the Feds are monitoring weapon sales .....and if they are...they are doing a mighty poor job!
Thank you for your kind response and open mind.I have no concern for any legitimate civilian ownership of normal guns. No one does….and that was the point I was trying to make about the preposterous fantasy that “liberals” want to take away all the guns. That fear is just not based on any truth.Gun ownership is a long held American tradition and clearly protected by the Second Amendment.In fact I support having a gun in the home for protection if desired…and if someone enjoys recreational activities with guns, I can see no harm.
But when we talk about military style semi-automatic assault rifles and high capacity clips, I can see no useful purpose for them expect in the hands of trained military personnel.I know many men here in Texas who enjoy hunting….and none of them use these kinds of weapons.
It’s not just the nightmare of these mass murder incidents, but it is the increase of gun violence in so many of our towns and cities.Here are a few statistics:34 Americans are murdered with guns every day; 6,100 Americans have died from gun violence since the Tucson shooting; 81 police officers have been killed in the line of duty this year by illegal guns.(That’s just the death statistics)
While it is true that background checks are supposed to be done, the system is woefully ineffective. A recent investigation by the City of New York, found that 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to individuals who said they couldn’t pass a criminal background check.That’s illegal.The report also illustrates major failure by 23 states in submitting mental health records to the database, with 17 states reporting fewer than 10 records and four submitting none at all – Alaska, Delaware, Idaho and Rhode Island.
Again, I am not and never have advocated taking away all guns.I’m saying that in order to protect our children, families and communities, that it is time to have a national conversation about this problem and to insist that our politicians ACT, to implement measures in an effort to reduce gun violence.We need to stop the sale of assault rifles and high capacity clips to the public, hold irresponsible gun dealers accountable and close loopholes or weaknesses in our laws that make it too easy for criminals and other dangerous people to get guns.
In my opinion, these types of common sense measures should not be viewed as any conflict with the Second Amendment.
Fondly,
~Diana
Dearest Hope,
Thank you for your kind response and open mind.I have no concern for any legitimate civilian ownership of normal guns. No one does….and that was the point I was trying to make about the preposterous fantasy that “liberals” want to take away all the guns. That fear is just not based on any truth.Gun ownership is a long held American tradition and clearly protected by the Second Amendment.In fact I support having a gun in the home for protection if desired…and if someone enjoys recreational activities with guns, I can see no harm.
But when we talk about military style semi-automatic assault rifles and high capacity clips, I can see no useful purpose for them expect in the hands of trained military personnel.I know many men here in Texas who enjoy hunting….and none of them use these kinds of weapons.
It’s not just the nightmare of these mass murder incidents, but it is the increase of gun violence in so many of our towns and cities.Here are a few statistics:34 Americans are murdered with guns every day; 6,100 Americans have died from gun violence since the Tucson shooting; 81 police officers have been killed in the line of duty this year by illegal guns.(That’s just the death statistics)
While it is true that background checks are supposed to be done, the system is woefully ineffective. A recent investigation by the City of New York, found that 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to individuals who said they couldn’t pass a criminal background check.That’s illegal.The report also illustrates major failure by 23 states in submitting mental health records to the database, with 17 states reporting fewer than 10 records and four submitting none at all – Alaska, Delaware, Idaho and Rhode Island.
Again, I am not and never have advocated taking away all guns.I’m saying that in order to protect our children, families and communities, that it is time to have a national conversation about this problem and to insist that our politicians ACT, to implement measures in an effort to reduce gun violence.We need to stop the sale of assault rifles and high capacity clips to the public, hold irresponsible gun dealers accountable and close loopholes or weaknesses in our laws that make it too easy for criminals and other dangerous people to get guns.
In my opinion, these types of common sense measures should not be viewed as any conflict with the Second Amendment.
Two great points, Hope. One, everyone in every state in our USA union does have to go through a background check to purchase a gun, whether it's a long gun or a hand gun. [Long gun, for those who don't know, means a rifle or a shotgun] And this includes anyone purchasing a gun [long gun or hand gun] at a show. If dealers at a show are not putting purchasers through the proper background check, those dealers are in violation of federal laws big time. Two, you are quite correct when you suggest that the laws on the books now are not being enforced properly. They are indeed not being enforced properly. We don't need more gun laws, more restrictions. We need the gun laws on the books now to be enforced properly. In many cases, for the authorities--local police agencies, even State police agencies as in the case of my locale--don't want to bother going to all the trouble it would take for them to enforce these laws properly. I'm sure I posted this info a couple of years ago, but here goes again. A few years ago a local resident of my tiny little village, a gun owner, was getting on in years and had developed some serious mental deficencies. He was shooting a hand gun out the back window of his house at a neighbor's dog, I think, it was. The local cops--meaning the State police, since my village doesn't have a police force--and yet nothing was done to curtail his felonious activities because--I'm not sure why, but I think had something to do with the enormous amount of paperwork that would have been involved. Just not sure now. The nutcase's attacks on his neighbor didn't end until the nutcase suddenly died--and a majority of us in my tiny village celebrated his demise. So...point being: Gun laws on the books are definitely not enforced when they should be. This lunatic I'm talking about was certificable, and yet, when the cops went to his home to ask him about his alleged gun assaults on his neighbor's dog, and it was clear he was doing what the neighbor said he was doing, the State police did not confiscate his guns. Yet, the law here in PA clearly states that his guns should have been confiscated. So there you are. The gun laws already on the books are not being enforced. At least not in my neck of the woods. Thank God for my .38 on my person 24/7 when I'm out there walking with my dog.
Quoting Hoping4Love2000:
Hi Lady DI...
It's been a while since I've gotten heavily involved in a particular blog.. but here's my thoughts...
285 is 55 MPH, as is most of 85...
I speed on it DAILY, as does EVERYONE in Hotlanta! WHY? Because it is our choice..
And here in Atlanta.. if you DON'T keep up with the traffic, your azz will get run over.. PERIOD!
I left McKendricks at 10:30 last night. I only drove 70 and ppl were still screaming by me!!
Point is.. People who want to obey the law.. WILL..
And ppl who don't care..... WON'T... PERIOD!!
Now could there be "stricter" laws.. Possibly.. I don't know what all the laws are.. I thought everyone had to have background checks for ANY gun purchase?
But the point is that people who want to do drugs.. find them.... regardless...
And when you say we should all care about one another, well.. the ones out there killing don't care about ANYONE.. So that is of futile argument..
I would ask you DI.. What does your point on PREMBLE underlining ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY have to do with this? Do you feel if all guns were abolished this would ENSURE TRANQUILITY?
Are you for ALL GUNS being out of citizens hands or only military style? I am thinking you are just referring to "militia style?" guns.. but I feel in your fervor, I am missing what you are stating? I don't see anyone has said cops are robots, etc... going around maming others.. just cuz they can.. But thi is becoming a 2 page blog... so I may have missed it? I think your point may be amiss here due to your frustration. You are ONLY for military style .. (More rounds than necessary for self-defense) being illegal??? Is this what you refer?
So if this be your point.. I would ask others here...... HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT? If the gun has more rounds than say a citizen needs for SELF DEFENSE, HUNTING, etc.. HOW DOES EVERYONE FEEL ABOUT "THAT TYPE" of GUN CONTROL? I would say it is similar to "abortion being legal.. but only to a certain point of pregnancy." We do have "aboriton control" in a sense...
Now I will state as well... For the amount of guns out there.. these massacres are very few in reality... One is much more likely to get killed via car accident, plane, train, where alcohol, drugs, TEXTING, makeup users, reading, etc.. is involved.... than to get shot up in a theater.... We don't take cars away because there are some who choose to drive drunk... or carelessly... So why take away ANY guns at all? (Just food for thought if anyone has an opinion.. Tossing in the grenade since V is being quiet! LOL)
Fact is: We DO have laws on books, like the Brady Law that mandates all handgun purchasers get an FBI backgournd check.. The problem? Not all sellers enforce this... Just like Drug dealers sell drugs illegally...
I am ALL FOR, as CG stated, the "MANDOTORY GUN SAFETY CLASSES" .. I believe.. (but don't quote me) when one rides a bike, they must complete a special motorcycle course they go through to receive their license first time..
And for anyone thinking it is easy everywhere to purchase a gun.. THINK AGAIN.. I had a BF once who was a sporting good mgr at WalMart.. and they RUN BACKGROUND CHECKS AT HIS DEPT for EVERY GUN SOLD!!!
Perhaps the proper laws are already on the books.... BUT THEY AREN'T BEING ENFORCED PROPERLY? Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are.. I'm trying to follow this blog a bit to see what others insights are..
Quoting Hoping4Love2000:
Hi Lady DI...
It's been a while since I've gotten heavily involved in a particular blog.. but here's my thoughts...
285 is 55 MPH, as is most of 85...
I speed on it DAILY, as does EVERYONE in Hotlanta! WHY? Because it is our choice..
And here in Atlanta.. if you DON'T keep up with the traffic, your azz will get run over.. PERIOD!
I left McKendricks at 10:30 last night. I only drove 70 and ppl were still screaming by me!!
Point is.. People who want to obey the law.. WILL..
And ppl who don't care..... WON'T... PERIOD!!
Now could there be "stricter" laws.. Possibly.. I don't know what all the laws are.. I thought everyone had to have background checks for ANY gun purchase?
But the point is that people who want to do drugs.. find them.... regardless...
And when you say we should all care about one another, well.. the ones out there killing don't care about ANYONE.. So that is of futile argument..
I would ask you DI.. What does your point on PREMBLE underlining ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY have to do with this? Do you feel if all guns were abolished this would ENSURE TRANQUILITY?
Are you for ALL GUNS being out of citizens hands or only military style? I am thinking you are just referring to "militia style?" guns.. but I feel in your fervor, I am missing what you are stating? I don't see anyone has said cops are robots, etc... going around maming others.. just cuz they can.. But thi is becoming a 2 page blog... so I may have missed it? I think your point may be amiss here due to your frustration. You are ONLY for military style .. (More rounds than necessary for self-defense) being illegal??? Is this what you refer?
So if this be your point.. I would ask others here...... HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT? If the gun has more rounds than say a citizen needs for SELF DEFENSE, HUNTING, etc.. HOW DOES EVERYONE FEEL ABOUT "THAT TYPE" of GUN CONTROL? I would say it is similar to "abortion being legal.. but only to a certain point of pregnancy." We do have "aboriton control" in a sense...
Now I will state as well... For the amount of guns out there.. these massacres are very few in reality... One is much more likely to get killed via car accident, plane, train, where alcohol, drugs, TEXTING, makeup users, reading, etc.. is involved.... than to get shot up in a theater.... We don't take cars away because there are some who choose to drive drunk... or carelessly... So why take away ANY guns at all? (Just food for thought if anyone has an opinion.. Tossing in the grenade since V is being quiet! LOL)
Fact is: We DO have laws on books, like the Brady Law that mandates all handgun purchasers get an FBI backgournd check.. The problem? Not all sellers enforce this... Just like Drug dealers sell drugs illegally...
I am ALL FOR, as CG stated, the "MANDOTORY GUN SAFETY CLASSES" .. I believe.. (but don't quote me) when one rides a bike, they must complete a special motorcycle course they go through to receive their license first time..
And for anyone thinking it is easy everywhere to purchase a gun.. THINK AGAIN.. I had a BF once who was a sporting good mgr at WalMart.. and they RUN BACKGROUND CHECKS AT HIS DEPT for EVERY GUN SOLD!!!
Perhaps the proper laws are already on the books.... BUT THEY AREN'T BEING ENFORCED PROPERLY? Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are.. I'm trying to follow this blog a bit to see what others insights are..
Two great points, Hope. One, everyone in every state in our USA union does have to go through a background check to purchase a gun, whether it's a long gun or a hand gun. [Long gun, for those who don't know, means a rifle or a shotgun] And this includes anyone purchasing a gun [long gun or hand gun] at a show. If dealers at a show are not putting purchasers through the proper background check, those dealers are in violation of federal laws big time. Two, you are quite correct when you suggest that the laws on the books now are not being enforced properly. They are indeed not being enforced properly. We don't need more gun laws, more restrictions. We need the gun laws on the books now to be enforced properly. In many cases, for the authorities--local police agencies, even State police agencies as in the case of my locale--don't want to bother going to all the trouble it would take for them to enforce these laws properly. I'm sure I posted this info a couple of years ago, but here goes again. A few years ago a local resident of my tiny little village, a gun owner, was getting on in years and had developed some serious mental deficencies. He was shooting a hand gun out the back window of his house at a neighbor's dog, I think, it was. The local cops--meaning the State police, since my village doesn't have a police force--and yet nothing was done to curtail his felonious activities because--I'm not sure why, but I think had something to do with the enormous amount of paperwork that would have been involved. Just not sure now. The nutcase's attacks on his neighbor didn't end until the nutcase suddenly died--and a majority of us in my tiny village celebrated his demise. So...point being: Gun laws on the books are definitely not enforced when they should be. This lunatic I'm talking about was certificable, and yet, when the cops went to his home to ask him about his alleged gun assaults on his neighbor's dog, and it was clear he was doing what the neighbor said he was doing, the State police did not confiscate his guns. Yet, the law here in PA clearly states that his guns should have been confiscated. So there you are. The gun laws already on the books are not being enforced. At least not in my neck of the woods. Thank God for my .38 on my person 24/7 when I'm out there walking with my dog.
Thanks for clarifying, CG. I think a lot of people don't know this. You are 100% correct.
Quoting Conyersguy:
Diana........ "But if you go to Bass Pro Shop and buy 4 machine guns….the Feds don’t know anything about it. "
While we disagree about gun control, I respect your right to do so.
However, your statement, quoted above, is 100 % wrong. The Feds are notified of EVERY gun purchased at Bass Pro Shop or any other retailer, except blackpowder firearms. As a side note, no "machine guns" are sold to the general public without an additional extensive licensing procedure. Same with silencers. (Machine guns would normally be defined as a fully automatic weapon. One which continues to fire (until empty) as long as the trigger is held down. A semi-automatic (and all other firearms) fire one round per trigger pull.)
Quoting Conyersguy:
Diana........ "But if you go to Bass Pro Shop and buy 4 machine guns….the Feds don’t know anything about it. "
While we disagree about gun control, I respect your right to do so.
However, your statement, quoted above, is 100 % wrong. The Feds are notified of EVERY gun purchased at Bass Pro Shop or any other retailer, except blackpowder firearms. As a side note, no "machine guns" are sold to the general public without an additional extensive licensing procedure. Same with silencers. (Machine guns would normally be defined as a fully automatic weapon. One which continues to fire (until empty) as long as the trigger is held down. A semi-automatic (and all other firearms) fire one round per trigger pull.)
Thanks for clarifying, CG. I think a lot of people don't know this. You are 100% correct.
It's been a while since I've gotten heavily involved in a particular blog.. but here's my thoughts...
285 is 55 MPH, as is most of 85...
I speed on it DAILY, as does EVERYONE in Hotlanta! WHY? Because it is our choice..
And here in Atlanta.. if you DON'T keep up with the traffic, your azz will get run over.. PERIOD!
I left McKendricks at 10:30 last night. I only drove 70 and ppl were still screaming by me!!
Point is.. People who want to obey the law.. WILL..
And ppl who don't care..... WON'T... PERIOD!!
Now could there be "stricter" laws.. Possibly.. I don't know what all the laws are.. I thought everyone had to have background checks for ANY gun purchase?
But the point is that people who want to do drugs.. find them.... regardless...
And when you say we should all care about one another, well.. the ones out there killing don't care about ANYONE.. So that is of futile argument..
I would ask you DI.. What does your point on PREMBLE underlining ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY have to do with this? Do you feel if all guns were abolished this would ENSURE TRANQUILITY?
Are you for ALL GUNS being out of citizens hands or only military style? I am thinking you are just referring to "militia style?" guns.. but I feel in your fervor, I am missing what you are stating? I don't see anyone has said cops are robots, etc... going around maming others.. just cuz they can.. But thi is becoming a 2 page blog... so I may have missed it? I think your point may be amiss here due to your frustration. You are ONLY for military style .. (More rounds than necessary for self-defense) being illegal??? Is this what you refer?
So if this be your point.. I would ask others here...... HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT? If the gun has more rounds than say a citizen needs for SELF DEFENSE, HUNTING, etc.. HOW DOES EVERYONE FEEL ABOUT "THAT TYPE" of GUN CONTROL? I would say it is similar to "abortion being legal.. but only to a certain point of pregnancy." We do have "aboriton control" in a sense...
Now I will state as well... For the amount of guns out there.. these massacres are very few in reality... One is much more likely to get killed via car accident, plane, train, where alcohol, drugs, TEXTING, makeup users, reading, etc.. is involved.... than to get shot up in a theater.... We don't take cars away because there are some who choose to drive drunk... or carelessly... So why take away ANY guns at all? (Just food for thought if anyone has an opinion.. Tossing in the grenade since V is being quiet! LOL)
Fact is: We DO have laws on books, like the Brady Law that mandates all handgun purchasers get an FBI backgournd check.. The problem? Not all sellers enforce this... Just like Drug dealers sell drugs illegally...
I am ALL FOR, as CG stated, the "MANDOTORY GUN SAFETY CLASSES" .. I believe.. (but don't quote me) when one rides a bike, they must complete a special motorcycle course they go through to receive their license first time..
And for anyone thinking it is easy everywhere to purchase a gun.. THINK AGAIN.. I had a BF once who was a sporting good mgr at WalMart.. and they RUN BACKGROUND CHECKS AT HIS DEPT for EVERY GUN SOLD!!!
Perhaps the proper laws are already on the books.... BUT THEY AREN'T BEING ENFORCED PROPERLY? Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are.. I'm trying to follow this blog a bit to see what others insights are..
Hi Lady DI...
It's been a while since I've gotten heavily involved in a particular blog.. but here's my thoughts...
285 is 55 MPH, as is most of 85...
I speed on it DAILY, as does EVERYONE in Hotlanta! WHY? Because it is our choice..
And here in Atlanta.. if you DON'T keep up with the traffic, your azz will get run over.. PERIOD!
I left McKendricks at 10:30 last night. I only drove 70 and ppl were still screaming by me!!
Point is.. People who want to obey the law.. WILL..
And ppl who don't care..... WON'T... PERIOD!!
Now could there be "stricter" laws.. Possibly.. I don't know what all the laws are.. I thought everyone had to have background checks for ANY gun purchase?
But the point is that people who want to do drugs.. find them.... regardless...
And when you say we should all care about one another, well.. the ones out there killing don't care about ANYONE.. So that is of futile argument..
I would ask you DI.. What does your point on PREMBLE underlining ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY have to do with this? Do you feel if all guns were abolished this would ENSURE TRANQUILITY?
Are you for ALL GUNS being out of citizens hands or only military style? I am thinking you are just referring to "militia style?" guns.. but I feel in your fervor, I am missing what you are stating? I don't see anyone has said cops are robots, etc... going around maming others.. just cuz they can.. But thi is becoming a 2 page blog... so I may have missed it? I think your point may be amiss here due to your frustration. You are ONLY for military style .. (More rounds than necessary for self-defense) being illegal??? Is this what you refer?
So if this be your point.. I would ask others here...... HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT? If the gun has more rounds than say a citizen needs for SELF DEFENSE, HUNTING, etc.. HOW DOES EVERYONE FEEL ABOUT "THAT TYPE" of GUN CONTROL? I would say it is similar to "abortion being legal.. but only to a certain point of pregnancy." We do have "aboriton control" in a sense...
Now I will state as well... For the amount of guns out there.. these massacres are very few in reality... One is much more likely to get killed via car accident, plane, train, where alcohol, drugs, TEXTING, makeup users, reading, etc.. is involved.... than to get shot up in a theater.... We don't take cars away because there are some who choose to drive drunk... or carelessly... So why take away ANY guns at all? (Just food for thought if anyone has an opinion.. Tossing in the grenade since V is being quiet! LOL)
Fact is: We DO have laws on books, like the Brady Law that mandates all handgun purchasers get an FBI backgournd check.. The problem? Not all sellers enforce this... Just like Drug dealers sell drugs illegally...
I am ALL FOR, as CG stated, the "MANDOTORY GUN SAFETY CLASSES" .. I believe.. (but don't quote me) when one rides a bike, they must complete a special motorcycle course they go through to receive their license first time..
And for anyone thinking it is easy everywhere to purchase a gun.. THINK AGAIN.. I had a BF once who was a sporting good mgr at WalMart.. and they RUN BACKGROUND CHECKS AT HIS DEPT for EVERY GUN SOLD!!!
Perhaps the proper laws are already on the books.... BUT THEY AREN'T BEING ENFORCED PROPERLY? Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are.. I'm trying to follow this blog a bit to see what others insights are..
Diana........ "But if you go to Bass Pro Shop and buy 4 machine guns….the Feds don’t know anything about it. "
While we disagree about gun control, I respect your right to do so.
However, your statement, quoted above, is 100 % wrong. The Feds are notified of EVERY gun purchased at Bass Pro Shop or any other retailer, except blackpowder firearms. As a side note, no "machine guns" are sold to the general public without an additional extensive licensing procedure. Same with silencers. (Machine guns would normally be defined as a fully automatic weapon. One which continues to fire (until empty) as long as the trigger is held down. A semi-automatic (and all other firearms) fire one round per trigger pull.)
Diana........ "But if you go to Bass Pro Shop and buy 4 machine guns….the Feds don’t know anything about it. "
While we disagree about gun control, I respect your right to do so.
However, your statement, quoted above, is 100 % wrong. The Feds are notified of EVERY gun purchased at Bass Pro Shop or any other retailer, except blackpowder firearms. As a side note, no "machine guns" are sold to the general public without an additional extensive licensing procedure. Same with silencers. (Machine guns would normally be defined as a fully automatic weapon. One which continues to fire (until empty) as long as the trigger is held down. A semi-automatic (and all other firearms) fire one round per trigger pull.)
If I sound annoyed….it’s because I really am!Out of the face of another horrifying national tragedy, all that can be offered is utter nonsense!!
“Even if gun control laws were to be passed, criminals would still find ways to make or get weapons”.
If this was a credible reason for not passing common sense laws regarding guns, then why have laws of any kind?Why have speed limits if it doesn’t stop ALL unlawful speeding?Why have Stop signs if it doesn’t stop all people from running them?Why not make drunk driving legal….since the laws don’t stop ALL drunk driving?Maybe we should forget about school zones?Shall I go on???Every law is violated by someone.Laws don’t stop all bad things from happening.Passing laws has never been about stopping every person, who is intent on breaking them.But we sure don’t have to make it SO very easy for these bad individuals to get highly lethal weapons!
It’s ridiculous!If you take a flying lesson, the Feds know about it.But if you go to Bass Pro Shop and buy 4 machine guns….the Feds don’t know anything about it.If you go on the internet and buy 6000 rounds of high powered ammo…the Feds aren’t alerted.
The ultimate right wing fantasy of where liberals come and snatch up your guns - because law enforcement personnel are evil robots willing to take up arms against their fellow citizens without due cause…..is as stupid as it sounds!Legitimate civilian gun owners/enthusiasts are fed this ridiculous fantasy by an out of control, increasingly militarized gun industry which is selling profoundly lethal weapons… to virtually anyone! They are making billions of dollars and have little care for the death, pain and suffering of families and communities.
This is a REAL problem….it is terrorizing our society and the violence is deteriorating the character of our Nation!It is going to require that we have faith in one another and come together to solve problems.How we treat one another…and how we love one another is important!
If I sound annoyed….it’s because I really am!Out of the face of another horrifying national tragedy, all that can be offered is utter nonsense!!
“Even if gun control laws were to be passed, criminals would still find ways to make or get weapons”.
If this was a credible reason for not passing common sense laws regarding guns, then why have laws of any kind?Why have speed limits if it doesn’t stop ALL unlawful speeding?Why have Stop signs if it doesn’t stop all people from running them?Why not make drunk driving legal….since the laws don’t stop ALL drunk driving?Maybe we should forget about school zones?Shall I go on???Every law is violated by someone.Laws don’t stop all bad things from happening.Passing laws has never been about stopping every person, who is intent on breaking them.But we sure don’t have to make it SO very easy for these bad individuals to get highly lethal weapons!
It’s ridiculous!If you take a flying lesson, the Feds know about it.But if you go to Bass Pro Shop and buy 4 machine guns….the Feds don’t know anything about it.If you go on the internet and buy 6000 rounds of high powered ammo…the Feds aren’t alerted.
The ultimate right wing fantasy of where liberals come and snatch up your guns - because law enforcement personnel are evil robots willing to take up arms against their fellow citizens without due cause…..is as stupid as it sounds!Legitimate civilian gun owners/enthusiasts are fed this ridiculous fantasy by an out of control, increasingly militarized gun industry which is selling profoundly lethal weapons… to virtually anyone! They are making billions of dollars and have little care for the death, pain and suffering of families and communities.
This is a REAL problem….it is terrorizing our society and the violence is deteriorating the character of our Nation!It is going to require that we have faith in one another and come together to solve problems.How we treat one another…and how we love one another is important!
Seems pretty simple... Do we abolish alcohol b/c a minority of people who partake get behind the wheel endangering, maming and killing others? Think about it! PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHOICES... NOT GUNS... OR SPOONS! ;) ***** DAKOTA!!! WELCOME BACK SWEETHEART!! ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU!!! XOXOX
Seems pretty simple...
Do we abolish alcohol b/c a minority of people who partake get behind the wheel endangering, maming and killing others?
Think about it!
PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHOICES... NOT GUNS... OR SPOONS! ;)
*****
DAKOTA!!! WELCOME BACK SWEETHEART!!
ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU!!! XOXOX
Most of us are not going to make a weapon, even if we can. The ease with which an ordinary citizen can purchase a weapon necessary only for killing lots of people is distressing. Restricting the clip or magazine size to something sensible for self-defense would seem reasonable to me.Five is probably enough.Ten is a reasonable compromise.I think that fits California and Massachusetts law although the strict number seems to vary with the caliber; probably with the weapon as well.Yes I know good machinists can extend or make their own.Most of us do not know we could do so, and most of us would not do so even if we could.
As I have said I am considering buying a nine millimeter, probably a Ruger.I probably also will go ahead and get a concealed carry permit.This so I will not distress people when they see an armed person walking around.I am tired of being harassed and/or attacked by unleashed dogs when I take a walk.I don’t plan on shooting on sight or any such nonsense – only when it becomes necessary to prevent harm to me.
Also, a friend has told me that there are more and more sightings of cougars in our area.It is unlikely that they would attack a person.They do not need to, too many deer.The road kill alone probably would sustain them.Likely a nine mil would be a bit small for a cougar, but it beats a walking sick and a pocket knife.I have fired at targets with a forty five and I do not like them.
rmac
Most of us are not going to make a weapon, even if we can. The ease with which an ordinary citizen can purchase a weapon necessary only for killing lots of people is distressing. Restricting the clip or magazine size to something sensible for self-defense would seem reasonable to me.Five is probably enough.Ten is a reasonable compromise.I think that fits California and Massachusetts law although the strict number seems to vary with the caliber; probably with the weapon as well.Yes I know good machinists can extend or make their own.Most of us do not know we could do so, and most of us would not do so even if we could.
As I have said I am considering buying a nine millimeter, probably a Ruger.I probably also will go ahead and get a concealed carry permit.This so I will not distress people when they see an armed person walking around.I am tired of being harassed and/or attacked by unleashed dogs when I take a walk.I don’t plan on shooting on sight or any such nonsense – only when it becomes necessary to prevent harm to me.
Also, a friend has told me that there are more and more sightings of cougars in our area.It is unlikely that they would attack a person.They do not need to, too many deer.The road kill alone probably would sustain them.Likely a nine mil would be a bit small for a cougar, but it beats a walking sick and a pocket knife.I have fired at targets with a forty five and I do not like them.
First of all, no one has belittled "Sarah". I'm grateful she has the ability to make a statement which shows her true views on the matter. The issue is that so many of us have "opinions" which are not based on fact but rather the conditioning of our belief system by what we are told or see by a very slanted media and governments with an agenda to maintain rate of continuing to acclimate us to accept losing our freedom. Since MM has limited space on its blog site, the rest of the post was not included which may help one understand why Sarahs perspective is as she stated "just her opinion". I disagree that there is no difference between right and wrong. Evil is wrong, lies are wrong, murder is wrong and the willingess to trust what we are told just because it comes out of a media pipehole is a form of complacency which has slowly eroded the foundation of our freedom like termites behind the scenes often destroying the structure before we notice. When are we going to be willing to take a stand on one side or the other for what is right? The "wishy washy mid of the roaders" are helping to decay or freedom one opinion at a time. Although I am grateful for Sarah's willingness to be honest about what she believes, I hope that her beliefs are not so set that she is not open to change them based on the evidence and common sense. I know that there have been times in my life where my eyes were opened to truth as I became aware that many of my opinions were simply based on a false premise or idea having no real basis in reality, not founded on fact and often fueled by emotionalism and the power of suggestion where I acted as if in a trace only because I didn't question why I beleived what I did but rather just held an unfounded "fact" as true without verifying it's true validity. I can tell by Sarah's comments that she has a compassionate heart and truly is troubled by the tragedy which occured. People like Sarah are expecially suseptable to the media playing on their hearts to accomplish the aims of the ones in control of the media who seek greater control over our individual rights. The Courts have ruled that cops have no duty to protect, and in fact, cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you, if you don't believe that: when was the last time a cop jumped in front of you, or anybody for that matter, they don't, they take cover, they shoot to save themselves. Which is exactly what you should do too, by the way, what you should be able to do is defend yourself. Cops have no duty. Still, most people believe, somebody else will save them, the cops are there to protect you, you don't need to be able to protect yourself. Here is the truth, it's the Warren versus District of Columbia case, the case that resulted in the No Duty Ruling:
Three young girls living together in a nice DC neighborhood were awakened one morning. The two girls sleeping up stairs heard their friend, who slept downstairs (with her 3-year-old daughter), screaming. Frightened and not able to defend themselves (it is DC, after all), they called 911. The operator assured them the cops would be there, and they were, in about 12 minutes. Problem is, the call was given a Code 2, not a Code 1: crime in progress. Code 2 is "investigate" to the best of your ability. The best that the 4 police cruisers that responded to the Code 2 had to do was a drive-by "investigation" first, then a knock on the door. Surprise, no answer when they knocked, the screams stopped, the cops didn't see or here anything, "investigation" over.
The two girls upstairs thought the cops were there, they crept downstairs to check on their friend, the guy was still there. For 14 hours he brutally raped, sodomized and beat all three women and left only after he got tired and thought they were dead. When the girls took it to court, complaining: "I called 911, why wasn't I saved?" The court ruled that the cops have no duty to protect, point blank, they have no duty. And this is a precident, the courts have said that the government and its agents are under no duty to provide public service such as police protection to any one. Cops will not protect you, ONLY YOU CAN PROTECT YOU.
I probably still have not convinced her, she is a hoplophobe, after all, and the tragedy in Colorado just happened for gosh sakes. We all know that it was because of guns, it wouldn't have happened if we could get rid of the guns. Really? I heard on the radio this morning, someone said, "Like it or not, Colorado is now forever tied to the Netherlands." Like it or not, the Netherlands has the strictest gun laws in the world, and yet they had a massacre recently, it was "allowed" to happen, despite the laws. NO law will stop a criminal or a deranged person from committing a crime. Nothing makes my blood boil more than hearing people say, if only we could get rid of the guns. Even if you told me that you got rid of all of the criminals and deranged individuals in the world, I'll keep my guns, still, I'll keep my guns because I refuse to be anybody's defenseless victim, not my government's defenseless victim, not anybody's defenseless victim.
Which leads me to the number one reason, why I will keep my guns and why I will fight for the right for America to remain a Bible thumping, gun clinging country. Your writer lives in the UK, a tyrannical government, who has banned guns. Figures she is in the UK and figures she "feels safe" there, she is a hoplophobe. Truth is her government told her that she would be safer if she let them take away her guns, they told her all she "needs" is a knife. The UK took away guns because they want a defenseless citizenry, they want control, period. Fact is knife crimes have soared in the UK. Today, you are twice as likely to be killed/assaulted with a knife in the UK than with a gun in the US. Hum… whose safer? The criminal is safer, YOU ARE NOT SAFER because YOU ARE A DEFENSELESS VICTIM, your government wants it that way, you allow it, you live with it. You stay in the UK, little girl, I'll keep my guns, and my knives, and my dogs, my freedom, and everything else that prevents me from being a helpless, defenseless victim.
Parting quote, The (wo)man who gives up a little liberty for "security," deserves (and will have) neither.
First of all, no one has belittled "Sarah". I'm grateful she has the ability to make a statement which shows her true views on the matter. The issue is that so many of us have "opinions" which are not based on fact but rather the conditioning of our belief system by what we are told or see by a very slanted media and governments with an agenda to maintain rate of continuing to acclimate us to accept losing our freedom. Since MM has limited space on its blog site, the rest of the post was not included which may help one understand why Sarahs perspective is as she stated "just her opinion". I disagree that there is no difference between right and wrong.
Evil is wrong, lies are wrong, murder is wrong and the willingess to trust what we are told just because it comes out of a media pipehole is a form of complacency which has slowly eroded the foundation of our freedom like termites behind the scenes often destroying the structure before we notice. When are we going to be willing to take a stand on one side or the other for what is right? The "wishy washy mid of the roaders" are helping to decay or freedom one opinion at a time.
Although I am grateful for Sarah's willingness to be honest about what she believes, I hope that her beliefs are not so set that she is not open to change them based on the evidence and common sense. I know that there have been times in my life where my eyes were opened to truth as I became aware that many of my opinions were simply based on a false premise or idea having no real basis in reality, not founded on fact and often fueled by emotionalism and the power of suggestion where I acted as if in a trace only because I didn't question why I beleived what I did but rather just held an unfounded "fact" as true without verifying it's true validity. I can tell by Sarah's comments that she has a compassionate heart and truly is troubled by the tragedy which occured. People like Sarah are expecially suseptable to the media playing on their hearts to accomplish the aims of the ones in control of the media who seek greater control over our individual rights.
The Courts have ruled that cops have no duty to protect, and in fact, cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you, if you don't believe that: when was the last time a cop jumped in front of you, or anybody for that matter, they don't, they take cover, they shoot to save themselves. Which is exactly what you should do too, by the way, what you should be able to do is defend yourself. Cops have no duty.
Still, most people believe, somebody else will save them, the cops are there to protect you, you don't need to be able to protect yourself. Here is the truth, it's the Warren versus District of Columbia case, the case that resulted in the No Duty Ruling:
Three young girls living together in a nice DC neighborhood were awakened one morning. The two girls sleeping up stairs heard their friend, who slept downstairs (with her 3-year-old daughter), screaming. Frightened and not able to defend themselves (it is DC, after all), they called 911. The operator assured them the cops would be there, and they were, in about 12 minutes. Problem is, the call was given a Code 2, not a Code 1: crime in progress. Code 2 is "investigate" to the best of your ability. The best that the 4 police cruisers that responded to the Code 2 had to do was a drive-by "investigation" first, then a knock on the door. Surprise, no answer when they knocked, the screams stopped, the cops didn't see or here anything, "investigation" over.
The two girls upstairs thought the cops were there, they crept downstairs to check on their friend, the guy was still there. For 14 hours he brutally raped, sodomized and beat all three women and left only after he got tired and thought they were dead. When the girls took it to court, complaining: "I called 911, why wasn't I saved?" The court ruled that the cops have no duty to protect, point blank, they have no duty. And this is a precident, the courts have said that the government and its agents are under no duty to provide public service such as police protection to any one. Cops will not protect you, ONLY YOU CAN PROTECT YOU.
I probably still have not convinced her, she is a hoplophobe, after all, and the tragedy in Colorado just happened for gosh sakes. We all know that it was because of guns, it wouldn't have happened if we could get rid of the guns. Really? I heard on the radio this morning, someone said, "Like it or not, Colorado is now forever tied to the Netherlands." Like it or not, the Netherlands has the strictest gun laws in the world, and yet they had a massacre recently, it was "allowed" to happen, despite the laws. NO law will stop a criminal or a deranged person from committing a crime. Nothing makes my blood boil more than hearing people say, if only we could get rid of the guns. Even if you told me that you got rid of all of the criminals and deranged individuals in the world, I'll keep my guns, still, I'll keep my guns because I refuse to be anybody's defenseless victim, not my government's defenseless victim, not anybody's defenseless victim.
Which leads me to the number one reason, why I will keep my guns and why I will fight for the right for America to remain a Bible thumping, gun clinging country. Your writer lives in the UK, a tyrannical government, who has banned guns. Figures she is in the UK and figures she "feels safe" there, she is a hoplophobe. Truth is her government told her that she would be safer if she let them take away her guns, they told her all she "needs" is a knife. The UK took away guns because they want a defenseless citizenry, they want control, period. Fact is knife crimes have soared in the UK. Today, you are twice as likely to be killed/assaulted with a knife in the UK than with a gun in the US. Hum… whose safer? The criminal is safer, YOU ARE NOT SAFER because YOU ARE A DEFENSELESS VICTIM, your government wants it that way, you allow it, you live with it. You stay in the UK, little girl, I'll keep my guns, and my knives, and my dogs, my freedom, and everything else that prevents me from being a helpless, defenseless victim.
Parting quote, The (wo)man who gives up a little liberty for "security," deserves (and will have) neither.
Curious, you once got on my case about spacing out my paragraphs, which you were totally correct! What I wrote was in humor and I rarely take offense to anything.
CG, thanks for the kind words and agreement. Perhaps it's the southerner in us that makes us believe the way we do. And I've heard through the grapevine that you are a genius as well :)
Sarah, I've always viewed you as the sweetest kindest person, so I'm on your side even if I disagree with you on gun control.
Voyager, I consider myself to have mental issues (don't we all?) and no matter how hard I try, I cannot understand how or why anyone would kill a bunch of people that they have no connection to or knew in any way.
Hoping, I always marvel at your point of view as they are full of thought and never fall very fare from my own.
Diana, I have a lot of respect for you, as you truly debate what you believe because you actually believe it. Many people have no convictions to one side or the other yet take a side and are hypocrites. That's the people I have a problem with...I can think of a few in our political system.
Lastly, Speaking of the Colorado shooting. Hypothetically lets say that Colorado had the strictest gun control laws in the world. Not a single gun was available in Colorado. This apparently insane individual had no access to any type of gun whatsoever. Would that have kept him from killing and wounding all these people? Look at it with common sense. He had a car. People stand in long lines to wait for events such as this to open. He could have just drove his car into the crowd at 100mph. How many would that have killed. Gasoline is available to us all, he could have filled jugs of gas and brought them into the theater along with explosives and a cell phone timer. You can get almost any chemical you need for a explosive, and this guy had more access than most due to his medical background. Bottom line, if someone wants to kill a bunch of people, a gun is not their only option. They will find a way. I'm sure the cavemen thought about banning sticks and rocks but were actually smart enough to know it was impossible. :)
Hello all,
Curious, you once got on my case about spacing out my paragraphs, which you were totally correct! What I wrote was in humor and I rarely take offense to anything.
CG, thanks for the kind words and agreement. Perhaps it's the southerner in us that makes us believe the way we do. And I've heard through the grapevine that you are a genius as well :)
Sarah, I've always viewed you as the sweetest kindest person, so I'm on your side even if I disagree with you on gun control.
Voyager, I consider myself to have mental issues (don't we all?) and no matter how hard I try, I cannot understand how or why anyone would kill a bunch of people that they have no connection to or knew in any way.
Hoping, I always marvel at your point of view as they are full of thought and never fall very fare from my own.
Diana, I have a lot of respect for you, as you truly debate what you believe because you actually believe it. Many people have no convictions to one side or the other yet take a side and are hypocrites. That's the people I have a problem with...I can think of a few in our political system.
Lastly, Speaking of the Colorado shooting. Hypothetically lets say that Colorado had the strictest gun control laws in the world. Not a single gun was available in Colorado. This apparently insane individual had no access to any type of gun whatsoever. Would that have kept him from killing and wounding all these people? Look at it with common sense. He had a car. People stand in long lines to wait for events such as this to open. He could have just drove his car into the crowd at 100mph. How many would that have killed. Gasoline is available to us all, he could have filled jugs of gas and brought them into the theater along with explosives and a cell phone timer. You can get almost any chemical you need for a explosive, and this guy had more access than most due to his medical background. Bottom line, if someone wants to kill a bunch of people, a gun is not their only option. They will find a way. I'm sure the cavemen thought about banning sticks and rocks but were actually smart enough to know it was impossible. :)
Not only that, Hope, but incarcerated felons have been known to manufacture handguns in their cells at night using nothing but the metal they can garner from the mess hall and other places they may work during the day. Heck, a would-be shooter who is barred from buying a gun because of a police record could simply go on the internet and learn how to manufacture a gun and the ammo to go with it in his basement.
Take away my guns, or CG's guns, or yours, and what's left? That felonious madman in his basement manufacturing his own gun or guns which he will then use to rob or otherwise harm me, or CG, or you, or any other law-abiding citizen who is, because of exteme gun control measures, rendered defenseless except for maybe a baseball bat.
I've yet to see a baseball bat fly as fast at the head of an attacker as an attacker's bullet can fly at the head of the one he/she wants to attack.
I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone thinks that by restricting law-abiding, utterly sane individuals from having guns the epidemic of criminals killing people with guns will be abated. To me that's utter madness.
Quoting Hoping4Love2000:
~~AMEN~~ ARAKA!! FACT: The MASS MAJORITY of PEOPLE THAT KILL.... Do NOT purchase their weapons "legally." Kind of like drugs people... They ARE ILLEGAL.. But the ones who want them... KNOW WHERE TO FIND THEM... Best keep the "good guys" armed.. cause the bad guys will ALWAYS carry guns.. Thought you ladies might enjoy this picture! :) WELCOME TO THE BLOGS ARAKA!!
Quoting Hoping4Love2000:
~~AMEN~~ ARAKA!! FACT: The MASS MAJORITY of PEOPLE THAT KILL.... Do NOT purchase their weapons "legally." Kind of like drugs people... They ARE ILLEGAL.. But the ones who want them... KNOW WHERE TO FIND THEM... Best keep the "good guys" armed.. cause the bad guys will ALWAYS carry guns.. Thought you ladies might enjoy this picture! :) WELCOME TO THE BLOGS ARAKA!!
Not only that, Hope, but incarcerated felons have been known to manufacture handguns in their cells at night using nothing but the metal they can garner from the mess hall and other places they may work during the day. Heck, a would-be shooter who is barred from buying a gun because of a police record could simply go on the internet and learn how to manufacture a gun and the ammo to go with it in his basement.
Take away my guns, or CG's guns, or yours, and what's left? That felonious madman in his basement manufacturing his own gun or guns which he will then use to rob or otherwise harm me, or CG, or you, or any other law-abiding citizen who is, because of exteme gun control measures, rendered defenseless except for maybe a baseball bat.
I've yet to see a baseball bat fly as fast at the head of an attacker as an attacker's bullet can fly at the head of the one he/she wants to attack.
I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone thinks that by restricting law-abiding, utterly sane individuals from having guns the epidemic of criminals killing people with guns will be abated. To me that's utter madness.
Since I read your blog on that "other site" I came in here to see who pounced on your for having a different opinion. I'm afraid I don't see any "pounce" on you, nor do I see a first post of yours that would have engendered such a "pounce" and prompted your reply.
All I show on my computer is this first page, and your "You are entitled to your opinon..." post is the first I see from you.
Assuming someone somewhere that I can't get to "bad mouthed" you and tried to "belittle" you, I would like to say right now, that while I probably disagreed with your post 180 degrees, I would like the badmouther/belittler to know that if he or she wants to engage in a debate with Sarah in the hopes of changing her mind, that's fine. But, if he or she thinks that shouting insults will get Sarah to change her mind, he or she is very wrong indeed.
Sarah is not only one of our youngest intelligent bloggers, with a clear mind of her own, she is--and has been for longer than most of the people on here now--a well-respected member of this blogging community, and other blogging communities as well, where she has always held her own with much older, far-more experienced bloggers.
So, whoever it was who jumped on her case, I hope you will recognize that while Sarah's opinion on guns is, no doubt, frustrating as hell to you [as it probably would be to me, if I could find it on here], Sarah and her opinion deserves to be treated with respect.
Quoting MissMonteCarlo:
You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. That's the whole point of a discussion. Not to bad mouth people. Do not presume to tell me what I do and do not know. This debate has been discussed time and time again. You can strongly agree with your view point but that does not make you right. The same applies with me. It's a discussion. The fact that you try to publically belittle me reflects more on your maturity.
Sarah
Quoting MissMonteCarlo:
You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. That's the whole point of a discussion. Not to bad mouth people. Do not presume to tell me what I do and do not know. This debate has been discussed time and time again. You can strongly agree with your view point but that does not make you right. The same applies with me. It's a discussion. The fact that you try to publically belittle me reflects more on your maturity.
Sarah
Hi, Sarah.
Since I read your blog on that "other site" I came in here to see who pounced on your for having a different opinion. I'm afraid I don't see any "pounce" on you, nor do I see a first post of yours that would have engendered such a "pounce" and prompted your reply.
All I show on my computer is this first page, and your "You are entitled to your opinon..." post is the first I see from you.
Assuming someone somewhere that I can't get to "bad mouthed" you and tried to "belittle" you, I would like to say right now, that while I probably disagreed with your post 180 degrees, I would like the badmouther/belittler to know that if he or she wants to engage in a debate with Sarah in the hopes of changing her mind, that's fine. But, if he or she thinks that shouting insults will get Sarah to change her mind, he or she is very wrong indeed.
Sarah is not only one of our youngest intelligent bloggers, with a clear mind of her own, she is--and has been for longer than most of the people on here now--a well-respected member of this blogging community, and other blogging communities as well, where she has always held her own with much older, far-more experienced bloggers.
So, whoever it was who jumped on her case, I hope you will recognize that while Sarah's opinion on guns is, no doubt, frustrating as hell to you [as it probably would be to me, if I could find it on here], Sarah and her opinion deserves to be treated with respect.
Build your Millionaire dating site / affiliate
