Do you own a firearm?

[counter]

I want a gun buy i want to make one

Same here I'd like a 3D printed gun or I'd like to learn how to put one together and buy the parts separately.  I think that is a real good way to better understand a

Just a thought...

Do any of you with American Enemy Obama bumper stickers on your cars expect Americans, those of us with Emergency Medical Training to actually stop at any car wreck in which you may be involved?

Just curious!

weapon if you plan you use it.

do you plan to keep you job for a very long time?  I can already see and hear the news stories now.  The IRS scandal x10 lol.

[IamCANADIAN013]

WOW! If I'm reading that correctly, thats a little over the top. So pretty much any knife with a sharp edge is considered a weapon to harm people.

Not just knives. A saw is also considered to have a cutting edge. Scissors have cutting edges... Those common items fall into category 4 I guess. So if you're caught "open carrying" a saw in an urban area without trees one could argue there is no other intended purpose than to hurt someone, right?  There is no other use for a saw there, is there?

The same could even be said about scissors... If you're "open carrying" a pair of scissors at a cross road.... Well, there's no obvious purpose for the scissors. You must be a psycho murderer waiting for a victim!

Catch all rules are very open to interpretation and thus abuse. Do you trust your law enforcement and/or department of justice to make the right decision?

Not at all.  Right now here in Canada we have politicians that are trying to ban handguns in Toronto.  Their logic is that no one needs a handgun who lives in the city, even though firearms offenses are on the decline.  

In Alberta last year the RCMP went into homes illegally after people were evacuated because of flooding, they said it was for public safety and they took peoples firearms from their homes.  People are still fighting to have their firearms returned.  They are now trying to pass into law that would allow them to confiscate any firearms in the event of a disaster/emergency.

There is a real movement taking place to remove firearms from people here.  Their end goal is to disarm every citizen and only have the police/military to have access to them.

[LostDutchman]

WOW! If I'm reading that correctly, thats a little over the top. So pretty much any knife with a sharp edge is considered a weapon to harm people.

Not just knives. A saw is also considered to have a cutting edge. Scissors have cutting edges... Those common items fall into category 4 I guess. So if you're caught "open carrying" a saw in an urban area without trees one could argue there is no other intended purpose than to hurt someone, right?  There is no other use for a saw there, is there?

The same could even be said about scissors... If you're "open carrying" a pair of scissors at a cross road.... Well, there's no obvious purpose for the scissors. You must be a psycho murderer waiting for a victim!

Catch all rules are very open to interpretation and thus abuse. Do you trust your law enforcement and/or department of justice to make the right decision?

Not at all.  Right now here in Canada we have politicians that are trying to ban handguns in Toronto.  Their logic is that no one needs a handgun who lives in the city, even though firearms offenses are on the decline.  

In Alberta last year the RCMP went into homes illegally after people were evacuated because of flooding, they said it was for public safety and they took peoples firearms from their homes.  People are still fighting to have their firearms returned.  They are now trying to pass into law that would allow them to confiscate any firearms in the event of a disaster/emergency.

There is a real movement taking place to remove firearms from people here.  Their end goal is to disarm every citizen and only have the police/military to have access to them.

Thank you for your post!

Well worth reprinting!

+100

[ABitNut]

I'm siding with the people who think you shouldn't own a gun then. At least 1/6 of them is still alive. Everyone in the other group is dead.

Come on, stop the cherry picked propaganda and bring some real arguments.

[TheButterZone]

LOL "at least 1/6 of them is still alive", as if that's a real argument.

How about this? Every single one on the bottom row has non-"collateral damage" innocent blood on his hands and thought they were doing "the right thing".

The same cannot be said for the entire top row.

[ABitNut]

LOL "at least 1/6 of them is still alive", as if that's a real argument.

How about this? Every single one on the bottom row has non-"collateral damage" innocent blood on his hands and thought they were doing "the right thing".

The same cannot be said for the entire top row.

The argument is about as valid as the propaganda image. It is an appeal to authority, and a poor one at that. It holds no value.

Good luck cherry picking some more (out of context) quotes of famous people and interpreting their stance on a current issue.

[TheButterZone]

LOL "at least 1/6 of them is still alive", as if that's a real argument.

How about this? Every single one on the bottom row has non-"collateral damage" innocent blood on his hands and thought they were doing "the right thing".

The same cannot be said for the entire top row.

The argument is about as valid as the propaganda image. It is an appeal to authority, and a poor one at that. It holds no value.

Good luck cherry picking some more (out of context) quotes of famous people and interpreting their stance on a current issue.

Good luck quoting me quoting anyone on that chart in this topic, and welcome to my ignore evil bastards list.

Good luck trying to claim that their actions, like MLK Jr. having an "an arsenal" of guns (according to Glenn Smiley) at his and his civil rights brethren's disposal, applying for a concealed carry permit (but being denied, thanks to Jim Crow), and then being assassinated after "embracing non-violence" (which may have meant eschewing even the protection of those around him who could otherwise have posted as countersnipers and stopped James Earl Ray) had no meaning. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

We didn't need MLK Jr. to be a martyr, we needed him to live a long life and fight to his natural death for the civil rights that are STILL being infringed today by white presidents like Barack Obama, and everyone below his rank.

[ABitNut]

Good luck quoting me quoting anyone on that chart in this topic, and welcome to my ignore evil bastards list.

Good luck trying to claim that their actions, like MLK Jr. having an "an arsenal" of guns (according to Glenn Smiley) at his and his civil rights brethren's disposal, applying for a concealed carry permit (but being denied, thanks to Jim Crow), and then being assassinated after "embracing non-violence" (which may have meant eschewing even the protection of those around him who could otherwise have posted as countersnipers and stopped James Earl Ray) had no meaning. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

We didn't need MLK Jr. to be a martyr, we needed him to live a long life and fight to his natural death for the civil rights that are STILL being infringed today by white presidents like Barack Obama, and everyone below his rank.

The only claim I made is that just posting some names and saying they're for/against gun control is not an argument. I did not state or even implied that MLK had no meaning and I can't even fathom how you reached that conclusion.

Also I did not resort to an ad hominem.

[zolace]

I feel obligated to support laws that make it harder for criminals and mentally ill people to get their hands on them.

Such as?  I mean, it's already pretty hard to buy a firearm and sometimes mental illness descends upon someone unexpectedly.

I also recognize that some places - some states and cities - have been reactionary in their approach, and always thinking that they have gun laws, but crime is still happening, they've instituted stricter and stricter laws that really only affect the law abiding.

That's true.  The 'law abiding' are, by definition, not the problem and there is this risk;  being made into a criminal when a law is created.  A gun owner hasn't actually done anything wrong and is not about to yet some dweeb in a legislature passes a law and 'poof', the gun owner is a criminal.

You should have read the whole post before starting to pick it apart. I addressed this - the point is that I support a national standard that would supersede all state and local regulation.
Hysterical reaction - the law I'm talking about would not make people who own firearms into criminals. The truth is, neither do the bans - which I don't support. Let's say your state bans all handguns (again - NOT something I'd support). Owning one prior to the ban going into place does not make you a criminal. Even if the law (as it likely would) required citizens to turn in their handguns, or have them permanently disabled, you STILL would not become a criminal unless you made the conscious decision to disregard the law and not do it.

I really do not understand your hostility.  You seem to be suggesting that it's not possible for a government to make criminals with the stroke of a pen.  Governments occasionally make laws 'retroactive'.  Additionally, passing a law that the legislators know is going to be ignored... what is that if not creating criminals out of thin air?  Suppose next year Congress decides that all US citizens must purchase bell bottom jeans.  After all, the bell bottom jeans industry is in crisis!  Literally 100's of jobs are on the line here.  But you DD, you anarchist scofflaw, refuse to buy your bell bottoms and blatantly walk around in your kilt, brazenly not even wearing drawers.  You're a criminal not because of something you did but because of something you didn't do... buy your damned bell bottoms.  :-)

Merely because something is law does not mean it should be obeyed.  In fact, un-just laws should not be.

MY hostility? That's downright comical, dude. Look at your bizarre hysterical  arguments on this - you paint this idiotic scenario about how the government is going to make you a criminal by passing a law. No, the government does NOT make you a criminal by passing laws. YOU make yourself a criminal by CHOOSING not to abide by those laws. Like I said, even if the government did pass a law banning all handguns, you would not be a criminal unless you chose not to divest yourself of those guns. But in the REAL world, that's not going to happen. Yes, there are some who WANT it. But there are not NEARLY enough people who want it to EVER get it passed. It's not going to happen. But people like you and Cowboy use THAT as a silly excuse to oppose ANY reasonable regulation of guns or the sale and purchase of them. What's funny is that it has about the same chance of being passed as your hypothetical requirement to buy bell bottomed pants.

[umair127]

Just a thought...

Do any of you with American Enemy Obama bumper stickers on your cars expect Americans, those of us with Emergency Medical Training to actually stop at any car wreck in which you may be involved?

Just curious!

You'd let em bleed to death just because they're political opponents,umair? I think you've been hitting the Palin juice a little too hard this early.

Yes, I would. More importantly, if I came upon a car wreck that YOU were involved in, I WOULD stop and render aid. It's what decent, civilized people do. Are you suggesting that you would not?

[zolace]

What hostility? I stated a fact. My response was no more hostile than your declaration that you would not accept "because this is 'merica".

But the truth is, that is essentially the answer - as you and others have pointed out hundreds of times, a good percentage of the American people own firearms. Even more support the right to own them. No, I DON'T believe that in America, you'd get away with what you describe here.

[umair127]

Registration of ALL guns would do that; but then, it would also let the government know what guns you have, and with your delusional paranoia, you think that the government would then come for your guns and you would be defenseless.  Even though it would stop criminals from obtaining guns, because the undocumented flow would cease, your fear of your own government prevents you from advocating it.  Is this not the truth?

[zolace]

Yes, sana, I am amongst the center. I lean left, but I am, overall, a moderate. In fact, Alaska, this issue is one of those that PROVES I'm part of the middle. I don't support bans on civilian ownership of guns. I DO support gun ownership, and even concealed carry. I just support reasonable regulation on both. What regulation of guns do YOU support?

[sana8410]

Study: Murder, Violent Crime Fall as Concealed Carry Rises 130 Percent           
A study released by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) shows the murder and violent crime rate has fallen significantly while concealed carry in this country surged 130 percent.

According to the CPRC, concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. rose from 4.6 million in 2007 to 11.1 million during the time period of 2007 to 2013.

And during that span, as more Americans got permits to carry guns with them for self-defense, the murder rate fell from "5.6 to 4.4 per 100,000." This is a 22 percent drop.

"Overall violent crime also fell by 22 percent over that period of time."

The report indicates that the number of concealed carry permits is not only still growing, but is doing so at a "faster and faster" rate.
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/07/new-report-from-crime-prevention-research-center-shows-11-1-million-americans-hold-concealed-carry-permits/

[RodeoX]

In America we believe that without gun ownership it is not America anymore.  We insist that our ability to overpower the government is at hand all the time. Unlike most of the world, the government is our servant. It is not allowed to make rules that change that balance.

[zolace]

What I'm saying is that a national policy will help in two major ways - first, it will reduce availability (notice I said reduce, not eliminate) of black market guns by shutting down at least PART of the flow source by making unregistered sales illegal everywhere.

What's your source for making that claim?

It's called an opinion - and one based in sound logic. The problem you and I have is that you seem to think I'm calling this a magic bullet - which I'm not, and without a magic bullet, you're unwilling to consider ANY  measures.

I'm willing to consider any measure that is guaranteed to drastically cut down on crime without violating our right to keep and bear arms. If you can't guarantee that, then no, I will not support another useless law on top of the 29,000 already on the books.

That's your copout way of saying that you would not support any regulation. You demand absolute guarantee. You ain't gonna get that. And NO law is going to INSTANTLY solve the problem - or likely even completely eliminate it. There is no magic bullet. But I'll give you a chance here - show me you can be reasonable. Don't lay down demands for guaranteed results from a suggestion of mine - you tell me - specifically - what measures YOU would support. Go ahead.


By the way, I'm talking about REPLACING the "29,000 already on the books" with one national policy that is standard everywhere. My proposal does not stack anything on top of what is already there.


But again, I'm eager to hear YOUR idea for a solution. Lay it on me.

[sana8410]

I feel obligated to support laws that make it harder for criminals and mentally ill people to get their hands on them.

Such as?  I mean, it's already pretty hard to buy a firearm and sometimes mental illness descends upon someone unexpectedly.

I also recognize that some places - some states and cities - have been reactionary in their approach, and always thinking that they have gun laws, but crime is still happening, they've instituted stricter and stricter laws that really only affect the law abiding.

That's true.  The 'law abiding' are, by definition, not the problem and there is this risk;  being made into a criminal when a law is created.  A gun owner hasn't actually done anything wrong and is not about to yet some dweeb in a legislature passes a law and 'poof', the gun owner is a criminal.

You should have read the whole post before starting to pick it apart. I addressed this - the point is that I support a national standard that would supersede all state and local regulation.
Hysterical reaction - the law I'm talking about would not make people who own firearms into criminals. The truth is, neither do the bans - which I don't support. Let's say your state bans all handguns (again - NOT something I'd support). Owning one prior to the ban going into place does not make you a criminal. Even if the law (as it likely would) required citizens to turn in their handguns, or have them permanently disabled, you STILL would not become a criminal unless you made the conscious decision to disregard the law and not do it.

I really do not understand your hostility.  You seem to be suggesting that it's not possible for a government to make criminals with the stroke of a pen.  Governments occasionally make laws 'retroactive'.  Additionally, passing a law that the legislators know is going to be ignored... what is that if not creating criminals out of thin air?  Suppose next year Congress decides that all US citizens must purchase bell bottom jeans.  After all, the bell bottom jeans industry is in crisis!  Literally 100's of jobs are on the line here.  But you DD, you anarchist scofflaw, refuse to buy your bell bottoms and blatantly walk around in your kilt, brazenly not even wearing drawers.  You're a criminal not because of something you did but because of something you didn't do... buy your damned bell bottoms.  :-)

Merely because something is law does not mean it should be obeyed.  In fact, un-just laws should not be.

MY hostility? That's downright comical, dude. Look at your bizarre hysterical  arguments on this - you paint this idiotic scenario about how the government is going to make you a criminal by passing a law. No, the government does NOT make you a criminal by passing laws. YOU make yourself a criminal by CHOOSING not to abide by those laws. Like I said, even if the government did pass a law banning all handguns, you would not be a criminal unless you chose not to divest yourself of those guns. But in the REAL world, that's not going to happen. Yes, there are some who WANT it. But there are not NEARLY enough people who want it to EVER get it passed. It's not going to happen. But people like you and Cowboy use THAT as a silly excuse to oppose ANY reasonable regulation of guns or the sale and purchase of them. What's funny is that it has about the same chance of being passed as your hypothetical requirement to buy bell bottomed pants.

I rest my case... or is your 'ground state' that of an angry jerk? Cause and effect apply here... unless you are going to suggest that 'cause and effect' have been legislatively banned? In the 'real world' that has happened.  It has even happened here. The example was meant to be funny and illustrative of how one is made into a criminal with the stroke of a pen.

[Rigon]

What I'm saying is that a national policy will help in two major ways - first, it will reduce availability (notice I said reduce, not eliminate) of black market guns by shutting down at least PART of the flow source by making unregistered sales illegal everywhere.

What's your source for making that claim?

It's called an opinion - and one based in sound logic. The problem you and I have is that you seem to think I'm calling this a magic bullet - which I'm not, and without a magic bullet, you're unwilling to consider ANY  measures.

I'm willing to consider any measure that is guaranteed to drastically cut down on crime without violating our right to keep and bear arms. If you can't guarantee that, then no, I will not support another useless law on top of the 29,000 already on the books.

That's your copout way of saying that you would not support any regulation. You demand absolute guarantee. You ain't gonna get that. And NO law is going to INSTANTLY solve the problem - or likely even completely eliminate it. There is no magic bullet. But I'll give you a chance here - show me you can be reasonable. Don't lay down demands for guaranteed results from a suggestion of mine - you tell me - specifically - what measures YOU would support. Go ahead.


By the way, I'm talking about REPLACING the "29,000 already on the books" with one national policy that is standard everywhere. My proposal does not stack anything on top of what is already there.


But again, I'm eager to hear YOUR idea for a solution. Lay it on me.

Nothing you suggested will have any effect on criminals, so why would I support something that only burdens law abiding citizens? In your desperate zeal to do something, anything, you lose sight of common sense. Your ideas are hysterical non-starters, and you admit yourself that they are not solutions, so no, I won't support them. Don't be so stupid.

[sana8410]

What hostility? I stated a fact. My response was no more hostile than your declaration that you would not accept "because this is 'merica".

But the truth is, that is essentially the answer - as you and others have pointed out hundreds of times, a good percentage of the American people own firearms. Even more support the right to own them. No, I DON'T believe that in America, you'd get away with what you describe here.

Oh, I've never referred to myself as a 'law abiding' citizen... except ironically.  And, yes, I'm always willing to accept the consequences of my defiance.  Alaska will be voting on marijuana soon, it seems likely.  I will vote to end prohibition.  Unjust laws must be defied and they must be struck down, if possible.   I would have been part of the 'underground railroad' back in the slavery days... you?  Would you defy an unjust law?  That was 'humor'.  Applying a stereotypical 'drunken red neck' phrase to someone who is clearly neither is, 'humor'.

[sana8410]

Yes, sana, I am amongst the center. I lean left, but I am, overall, a moderate. In fact, Alaska, this issue is one of those that PROVES I'm part of the middle. I don't support bans on civilian ownership of guns. I DO support gun ownership, and even concealed carry. I just support reasonable regulation on both. What regulation of guns do YOU support?

I suggest that maybe you've isolated yourself among like minded people for so long that you may have lost track of what 'normal' is. See, that's where the problem begins because in my experience, people who have to say they support 'reasonable' regulation generally support nothing of the kind.  "Reasonable" becomes indicative of anything but reasonable. Oh, well that's easy.  Have you been convicted of a violent crime of any sort?  No gun for you, for 10 years. (back ground check by state governments).  Have you used a gun to commit a crime?  (aggravating factor at sentencing).  Are you under the care of a psychiatrist/psychologist?  A word from them to the local police... no guns for you.