NRA offensive exposes deep U.S. divisions on guns

AdamFencepost said:
Conscripts vs Volunteers? Let me see if I can make any sense out of this (you can tell me later how faulty my thought process is, I'm sure). You are saying that in the interest of "a well-regulated militia" that there should be no changes to US gun laws - remember, that topic?

You are basing this strongly on comparisons with the situation on the Korean Peninsula. And, concerned about comparable situations in Texas.

Any comparison of gun crime, gun suicides, gun accidents cannot be made:

Is this some kind of punji pit or just a fruit market we are venturing into, Jiro? And, I couldn't care less.
Click to expand...
"Conscript vs. Volunteers" had veer way off topic but I'll redirect it to the essence of Amendment Two.

Texans would fare much better off than Koreans when it comes to defending their homes. That's why I listed examples in my previous post - Japanese Occupation and Korean War. In both cases - Koreans did not own firearms like what most Americans did at that time. Because of that - they opened themselves to any enemy.

Koreans were under brutal Japanese Occupation for 35 years until Americans bombed Japan twice. and then look at Korean War. unable to defended themselves against tyranny until Americans came.... again.

when will Koreans ever learn? they should ratify Amendment Two into its Constitution :cool2:
 
CrazyPaul said:
They are smart in a way, saving human lives.
Click to expand...

smart? they simply do not have much resource for such thing. its military capability is bare minimum and its defense fund is very limited - only 0.8% of its GDP compared to Americans - 4% and South Korean - 2.76%.
 
Jiro said:
"Conscript vs. Volunteers" had veer way off topic but I'll redirect it to the essence of Amendment Two.

Texans would fare much better off than Koreans when it comes to defending their homes. That's why I listed examples in my previous post - Japanese Occupation and Korean War. In both cases - Koreans did not own firearms like what most Americans did at that time. Because of that - they opened themselves to any enemy.

Koreans were under brutal Japanese Occupation for 35 years until Americans bombed Japan twice. and then look at Korean War. unable to defended themselves against tyranny until Americans came.... again.

when will Koreans ever learn? they should ratify Amendment Two into its Constitution :cool2:
Click to expand...

Without American help, South Korea will be under one Korea with brutal, communist government. Under Japanese rule, North Korea was industrialized and South Korea was rural, farmland.
 
Reba said:
Are you sure that's the case in every state? As I recall, G. Gordon Liddy, on his radio program, used to always refer to the guns that were owned by Mrs. Liddy, even though it was obvious she was the owner in name only. (Liddy was a convicted Watergate felon.)
Click to expand...

The law may not specifically state it as such but if the subject (convicted felon) is on probation or parole it may be a condition of their probation or parole that they not have contact with other convicted felons, law breakers or criminals, drug abusers (alcohol & other drugs) and even those that possess firearms. The law does state that a convicted felon must not possess a firearm. So in the case where a resident of a home legally owns a firearm where a convicted felon resides it must be secured and the felon must have no access to it or the ammunition. So technically I was incorrect but partially correct depending on the situation! :lol: Anyhow, I would certainly not recommend it. If a cop is called to a home like this where the felon is causing problems and should a loose firearm be located this subject could be prosecuted as such.
 
Last edited:
airportcop said:
The law may not specifically state it as such but if the subject (convicted felon) is on probation or parole it may be a condition of their probation or parole that they not have contact with other convicted felons, law breakers or criminals, drug abusers (alcohol & other drugs) and even those that possess firearms. The law does state that a convicted felon must not possess a firearm. So in the case where a resident of a home legally owns a firearm where a convicted felon resides it must be secured and the felon must have no access to it or the ammunition. So technically I was incorrect but partially correct depending on the situation! :lol: Anyhow, I would certainly not recommend it. If a cop is called to a home like this where the felon is causing problems and should a loose firearm be located this subject could be prosecuted as such.
Click to expand...
The problem is that a gun owner may not know about the resident/tenant/roommate's background or it can be that a gun owner doesn't care.
 
part of another problem with this Crazypaul, if you make law for EVERYthings....then you'd run a risk of a Totalitiration society, with no freedom, thoughts policing will be too far...even heck there's been a few sci-fi films about this made in the 1970's....watch THX1138 for example...sorry if this seem veering off topic, but yes people are unpredictable, as we can only exert an amount of control, otherwise there will be problmes, and complaints as it does not 'uphold' the 'ideals' of a democracy society in that we as we know it, as supposed to have some amount of freedom...
 
Yup, that is why constitution of the United states were written to make sure government not going over control citizen. Part reason why there is 2nd Amendment that gives citizen right to bear arms.


Grummer said:
part of another problem with this Crazypaul, if you make law for EVERYthings....then you'd run a risk of a Totalitiration society, with no freedom, thoughts policing will be too far...even heck there's been a few sci-fi films about this made in the 1970's....watch THX1138 for example...sorry if this seem veering off topic, but yes people are unpredictable, as we can only exert an amount of control, otherwise there will be problmes, and complaints as it does not 'uphold' the 'ideals' of a democracy society in that we as we know it, as supposed to have some amount of freedom...
Click to expand...
 
CrazyPaul said:
The problem is that a gun owner may not know about the resident/tenant/roommate's background or it can be that a gun owner doesn't care.
Click to expand...

I'm much more concerned about resident/tenant/roommate being a child molester or pedophile than a shooter.
 
Yeah, the chances of child molester shows up is greater than shooters. I have to agree with you that felony record should be made public just like sex offenders. That way if somebody see this scumbag carries gun and see felony record could have easily call 911 and report.

Jiro said:
I'm much more concerned about resident/tenant/roommate being a child molester or pedophile than a shooter.
Click to expand...
 
Grummer said:
part of another problem with this Crazypaul, if you make law for EVERYthings....then you'd run a risk of a Totalitiration society, with no freedom, thoughts policing will be too far...even heck there's been a few sci-fi films about this made in the 1970's....watch THX1138 for example...sorry if this seem veering off topic, but yes people are unpredictable, as we can only exert an amount of control, otherwise there will be problmes, and complaints as it does not 'uphold' the 'ideals' of a democracy society in that we as we know it, as supposed to have some amount of freedom...
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand. That's why gun control is discussed rather than gun ban. However I don't understand why those people still complain about the idea of banning assault weapons (meaning not all guns). It may not stop gun violence but it's better (and maybe safer) than doing nothing at all. Know what I mean? Mass murderers prefer that kind of weapon. Can you see the pattern, AR-15 used in many shootings now such as Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook and most recent NY firefighters?
 
CrazyPaul said:
Yes, I understand. That's why gun control is discussed rather than gun ban. However I don't understand why those people still complain about the idea of banning assault weapons (meaning not all guns). It may not stop gun violence but it's better (and maybe safer) than doing nothing at all. Know what I mean? Mass murderers prefer that kind of weapon. Can you see the pattern, AR-15 used in many shootings now such as Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook and most recent NY firefighters?
Click to expand...


I thought its already controlled in USA,i mean ive seen 'fun' actioner films often shows blackmarketers arms-dealers or organised groups have already got those ...or secret sales showing the selling of AK47s to would-be-mass killers in hotel rooms, etc... (watch God Bless America - if that's not banned already) another problem, turn back 40-30 even 10 years, people talk less about 'how criminal gets these weapons and how to use it'..films have progressively changed from 'watch the pros shoot, to now a more, 'watch this 16 year old girl shoots better than the army...sort of scenario, films shows these types of violence as 'being easy to do' and audience believes it..its that scary... back then 30 years people have doubts of their own capability to kill, and now its just getting too crazy, so the results? we got people doing crazy things like mass killing...
i blame the media for it too (and to quite a large extent)
but also,
so I suppose, the choice(s) of guns like AR-15 is a symptom of a 'copy cat' crimes from those cracking under sociological pressure that psychologists can't pick it up...(sociopaths) but criminologists (yes its real), are too fucking lazy, they are only interested in academic forms of justice...they are not working hard enough...stop using that in schools...might be more effective..just my own view...guns can be tracked to a point, but what we really need to do is track is, killing intents...and that's a LOT harder to do...law changes arent going to do much
 
I personally hope that I may buy AR-15 someday, I love this rifle. I have seen AK-47, man it is small rifle and yes very lightweight.

It does not make me murder or want me to be one, why ban me from owning one? If I really am murderer, I would have done already with other guns or anything. Two reasons why I don't believe in murder, first... what benefits me if I kill somebody? The answer is none, secondly I don't want to spend in cell for years and years, no thanks!

CrazyPaul said:
Yes, I understand. That's why gun control is discussed rather than gun ban. However I don't understand why those people still complain about the idea of banning assault weapons (meaning not all guns). It may not stop gun violence but it's better (and maybe safer) than doing nothing at all. Know what I mean? Mass murderers prefer that kind of weapon. Can you see the pattern, AR-15 used in many shootings now such as Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook and most recent NY firefighters?
Click to expand...
 
AK47 is the best machine gun/rifle in the world, it will work even after if falls into water...its that good and various sizes of magazines fits...
I like AK47...but dont see the point of having it, id rather a .177 and shoot possums and let my baby girl bring it back then i skin them to sell furs...that's returns
 
LOL yeah, it is based on personal preference and yes AK47 is one of best assault weapon, mainly by middle east.

Yeah, I have .177 too if I want shoot stupid animal in my backyard especially ground hog. I hate them digging under my house.

Grummer said:
AK47 is the best machine gun/rifle in the world, it will work even after if falls into water...its that good and various sizes of magazines fits...
I like AK47...but dont see the point of having it, id rather a .177 and shoot possums and let my baby girl bring it back then i skin them to sell furs...that's returns
Click to expand...
 
so..you dont celebrate Ground hog day??
Bill Murray not gonna be pleased with you lol
 
Debates on traffic laws, any traffic laws, were very serious ones 100 years ago. There was widespread violation of what laws were put in place.

When I had some wiring work done in my house a couple years ago, the building inspector nearly had a confrontation with one of the contractors. As he was leaving he turned to me and said, "You know, you won't always be the owner of your house." Of course, my house is already over 100 years old and has had at least 3 owners that I know about. Neighbors live only a few yards on all sides of me. I won't always be the owner of my guns either and I don't expect the neighbors to go away.

The assault rifle ban was a ban on the sale of new guns of only one type. It was also a ban on clips of large capacity. The ban was too much for some people despite the fact that there were no controls placed on any guns that were manufactured before the date the ban went into effect. New guns of that type have been made & sold since the ban failed to be renewed 9 years ago.

There are already gun control laws, many have been discussed here. There are other countries with other sets of gun control laws. We can look at the negatives and positives of those laws.

Guns are more than just toys. Other than shooting at paper, some guns have no other purpose than shooting people (or, fish in a barrel). They just are not suitable for hunting. Those guns are probably the majority of what is out there and they aren't going away.

Attempts to limit where guns are carried has been met with serious resistance. Still, no one in their right mind is interested in me carrying my 12 gauge with its 28" barrel into the elementary school down the road. A young girl of 20 just died yesterday not 20 miles from my home after being accidentally shot by a friend. He was showing the gun to another friend in another room.

How in the world can it be argued that if I shorten the shotgun barrel to 13 inches and put a pistol grip on it, that shotgun would be more suitable to carry into an elementary school? A post office? A restaurant? Down the street?

Should my gun be legal with that modification? What if it has exploding slugs in the magazine? If I make these modifications to the gun and buy that ammunition are they necessarily only for my own use or locked away in my home? I'll answer that question -- of course not.
 
CrazyPaul said:
Yes, I understand. That's why gun control is discussed rather than gun ban. However I don't understand why those people still complain about the idea of banning assault weapons (meaning not all guns). It may not stop gun violence but it's better (and maybe safer) than doing nothing at all. Know what I mean? Mass murderers prefer that kind of weapon. Can you see the pattern, AR-15 used in many shootings now such as Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook and most recent NY firefighters?
Click to expand...

Because "assault weapons" bans have already been tried and failed. Waste of time.
 
Back
Top