So how about banning all semi-automatic weapons?

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
In the interest of preserving the majority of your gun rights, what ARE you willing to do? Anything at all? Do you have a problem with any curtailment of free speech? Those folks who picket funerals of veterans and call everyone fags, should they be in any way controlled? Should in the interest of unfettered right to worship, children be forced in all situations to abide by their parent's decision to withold lifesaving treatment? that permit to assemble could easily be seen as a slippery slope and yet you don't seem to believe it is.


Now again, what, as a gun owner and dealer, are you willing to stand up and advocate for in the way of regulation?
I would opine job 1 is restoring some gun rights, and that must come first. Once the Ratchet has been broken, and it has been plainly communicated that Gov't is not in the gun-restriction business, then a more healthy atmosphere has been established in which both sides can meet and talk as notional equals. The very best first step in seeking truce? Lift the siege. As long as the Ratchet is evident, the siege is real. cn
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
In the interest of preserving the majority of your gun rights, what ARE you willing to do? Anything at all? Do you have a problem with any curtailment of free speech? Those folks who picket funerals of veterans and call everyone fags, should they be in any way controlled? Should in the interest of unfettered right to worship, children be forced in all situations to abide by their parent's decision to withold lifesaving treatment? that permit to assemble could easily be seen as a slippery slope and yet you don't seem to believe it is.


Now again, what, as a gun owner and dealer, are you willing to stand up and advocate for in the way of regulation?
I am not willing to do anything. Exactly what about the current system vs the new system they are proposing would change the problems as you see them? Your opinion may be different, but none of the things they are suggesting would help. The simple fact is Connecticut already has more of the new rules that the gun control crowd wants to implement and it still happened there. How would nationwide expansion of failed laws help the situation?

I am not willing to budge at all. Why should I sacrifice something I hold dear for something that you don't like? I don't think I should need a permit to get together with 50 people at a park. However, I do recognize some responsibility to notify the city in case I need to have police or the like there and that is the real purpose of the permit I believe. You don't need a permit to simply stand in the street with a sign and yell or be retarded. Registering guns isn't even close to that sort of situation that would have a reason for registration. Gun registration is simply a guise for controlling what I do in my private life in my house. I don't walk down the street or shoot in the park - why should I have to register my private property? I am not paying taxes or using public property in my use of my private property like with a car.

I disagree with the people protesting at funerals - I find it disrespectful. However, they can do what they like and I accept that. Do you believe a parent should not get to decide the proper medical treatment for their child? Talk about slippery slope. If you start forcing people to do some medical treatments - where does it end? Is it mandatory to get flu shots and mandatory to get a lapband if you are fat?

I am unwilling to advocate regulation. I am willing to fight against it in whatever way necessary.
 

ASMALLVOICE

Well-Known Member
My understanding is that the vast majority of these shooters used semi-automatics. They did not use revolvers or hunting weapons. If this is the case, wouldn't the numbers of casualties go down if they were forced to reload after 6 shots?
Well, here are a couple of people that prove changing magazine capacities or semi auto weapon bans will not accomplish nothing.

[video=youtube;0PDzE55esIE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PDzE55esIE&feature=player_detailpage[/video]


Peace

Asmallvoice
 

ASMALLVOICE

Well-Known Member
Here is second video.

[video=youtube;Ls4Uq1aCiTA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ls4Uq1aCiTA[/video]

Peace

Asmallvoice
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
In the interest of preserving the majority of your gun rights, what ARE you willing to do? Anything at all? Do you have a problem with any curtailment of free speech? Those folks who picket funerals of veterans and call everyone fags, should they be in any way controlled? Should in the interest of unfettered right to worship, children be forced in all situations to abide by their parent's decision to withold lifesaving treatment? that permit to assemble could easily be seen as a slippery slope and yet you don't seem to believe it is.


Now again, what, as a gun owner and dealer, are you willing to stand up and advocate for in the way of regulation?
Propose something sensible and we can discuss it.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
I am not willing to do anything. Exactly what about the current system vs the new system they are proposing would change the problems as you see them? Your opinion may be different, but none of the things they are suggesting would help. The simple fact is Connecticut already has more of the new rules that the gun control crowd wants to implement and it still happened there. How would nationwide expansion of failed laws help the situation?

I am not willing to budge at all. Why should I sacrifice something I hold dear for something that you don't like? I don't think I should need a permit to get together with 50 people at a park. However, I do recognize some responsibility to notify the city in case I need to have police or the like there and that is the real purpose of the permit I believe. You don't need a permit to simply stand in the street with a sign and yell or be retarded. Registering guns isn't even close to that sort of situation that would have a reason for registration. Gun registration is simply a guise for controlling what I do in my private life in my house. I don't walk down the street or shoot in the park - why should I have to register my private property? I am not paying taxes or using public property in my use of my private property like with a car.

I disagree with the people protesting at funerals - I find it disrespectful. However, they can do what they like and I accept that. Do you believe a parent should not get to decide the proper medical treatment for their child? Talk about slippery slope. If you start forcing people to do some medical treatments - where does it end? Is it mandatory to get flu shots and mandatory to get a lapband if you are fat?

I am unwilling to advocate regulation. I am willing to fight against it in whatever way necessary.

And so my points remain. You are unwilliing to do anything to alleviate the situation or even curtail the mounting sentiment against you and your unwillingness. Further, I stated that the gun toters see children as collateral damage to their right to keep and bear - your statement underlines my own.

None of the "new rules" apply to the manufacture of weapons and the root of the problem is the continuing influx of potent,powerful and deadly weapons.

I see that you do as most in your position, you turn this into the theoretical, you claim that you shouldn't have to give up your "rights" - rights that are subject to interpretation except by you. You have no right to 100 round magazines, you have no right to semi or fully automatic weapons and yet you group all of those things into a "right". Further you try to claim that your "right" is in balance with "something I don't like". This is not a question of what I "like" or dislike but one of the death of children by the arm full. In fact you now actually DO, in some instances need a permit to stand alone in a public place with a plackard.

You are dancing around the fact that with all rights come responsibilities and for the most part the gun toters don't believe they have any responsibility in the matter - everythig to them is that slippery slope, every attempt to regulate, oversee, or control their absolute desire to have all of the guns they wish, to have all of the methods of quick death they wish is somehow different than all other rights enumerated in the Constitution - and this attitude one day will result in actions they will regret.

That you don't do this or that, that you personaly won't ever shoot up a schoolyard is not at issue here. What is, is that the laws or lack of regulation surrounding your particular right enables others to do what you yourself might not.

Do I believe that a parent should have total say as to how their child is medicaly treated? no, I do not. If there is a method, a commonly accepted method of treating a child for a life threatening condition then that child should be treated no matter what religious rights the parents claim.

"where does it end"? is the cry but we have a society that is perfectly capable of determining where "it ends" and that society does so often. This slippery slope idea that is so often interjected into every debate about proper and properly administered regulation is a false argument that presuposes a society that is boundless and incapable of basic limits. You do not live in such a society. If we say - in residential areas you are not to drive your car faster than 45 miles per hour - where does it end? at 30 mph? 20? perhaps, according to your slippery slope we will outlaw cars at any speed - we have yet to do so.

So long as you are unwilling to limit your own actions in the interest of your continued right to keep and bear then it is evident that you should not abide by any self limits nor should others. This is the sort of ultimate anarchy that governments finally root out simply because the majority are tired of their constant refusal to abide by any limit at all.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Propose something sensible and we can discuss it.

A tough request because it presumes that you are the arbiter of "sensible".


Limit the manufacture and sale of all magazines with the capacity of over 10 rounds.

Make the owner of all semi-automatic weapons civily liable for their use in any situation and furthermore make manufacturers liable as well. Single killings are exempt but any incidence of groups being killed will make the owner of the weapon personaly liable unless he immediately proved that his weapon was stolen. After a number of years, if any magazine in excess of 10 was used in a mass shooting, the manufacturer of the weapon is to be charged with making each of the victims and or the victim's families whole.

Sound tough? consider that the host of a party is liable if they serve alcohol and a guest drives away and kills someone. The same holds true when a bar gives drinks to an obviously inebreated person and that person winds up killing someone with their vehicle. Hell, if a policeman lets someone he pulls over for drunk driving go and that person runs over someone he can be held accountable as well (or so I have been told while being given a sobriety test).


Unreasonable? why?
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Well, here are a couple of people that prove changing magazine capacities or semi auto weapon bans will not accomplish nothing.

[video=youtube;0PDzE55esIE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PDzE55esIE&feature=player_detailpage[/video]




Peace

Asmallvoice
That's nice. You managed to find a video of a guy who has spent hundreds of hours practicing reloading his revolver and use that as "proof" that the average deranged child killer would clearly be at least that fast in the mayhem and horror of a highschool.


So because this particular expert can reload in half a second it means that we may as well continue to make 100 round magazines available to everyone. Of course there is another argument all together. If one can get this fast then why are we arming our military with large capacity magazines at all? Surely they don't need them, right?
 

ASMALLVOICE

Well-Known Member
That's nice. You managed to find a video of a guy who has spent hundreds of hours practicing reloading his revolver and use that as "proof" that the average deranged child killer would clearly be at least that fast in the mayhem and horror of a highschool.


So because this particular expert can reload in half a second it means that we may as well continue to make 100 round magazines available to everyone. Of course there is another argument all together. If one can get this fast then why are we arming our military with large capacity magazines at all? Surely they don't need them, right?
Whats to stop anyone from doing the same, maybe nowhere near as fast, but he principal is the same. If a criminal wants it he/she is going to get it, one way or another. Simple as that

Ya'll can cry about all this shit ya'll want to, just save yourself a heartache and never make the mistake of asking me for my weapons or any of thier parts and noone will get hurt...lol

Peace

Asmallvoice
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
And so my points remain. You are unwilliing to do anything to alleviate the situation or even curtail the mounting sentiment against you and your unwillingness. Further, I stated that the gun toters see children as collateral damage to their right to keep and bear - your statement underlines my own.

None of the "new rules" apply to the manufacture of weapons and the root of the problem is the continuing influx of potent,powerful and deadly weapons.

I see that you do as most in your position, you turn this into the theoretical, you claim that you shouldn't have to give up your "rights" - rights that are subject to interpretation except by you. You have no right to 100 round magazines, you have no right to semi or fully automatic weapons and yet you group all of those things into a "right". Further you try to claim that your "right" is in balance with "something I don't like". This is not a question of what I "like" or dislike but one of the death of children by the arm full. In fact you now actually DO, in some instances need a permit to stand alone in a public place with a plackard.

You are dancing around the fact that with all rights come responsibilities and for the most part the gun toters don't believe they have any responsibility in the matter - everythig to them is that slippery slope, every attempt to regulate, oversee, or control their absolute desire to have all of the guns they wish, to have all of the methods of quick death they wish is somehow different than all other rights enumerated in the Constitution - and this attitude one day will result in actions they will regret.

That you don't do this or that, that you personaly won't ever shoot up a schoolyard is not at issue here. What is, is that the laws or lack of regulation surrounding your particular right enables others to do what you yourself might not.

Do I believe that a parent should have total say as to how their child is medicaly treated? no, I do not. If there is a method, a commonly accepted method of treating a child for a life threatening condition then that child should be treated no matter what religious rights the parents claim.

"where does it end"? is the cry but we have a society that is perfectly capable of determining where "it ends" and that society does so often. This slippery slope idea that is so often interjected into every debate about proper and properly administered regulation is a false argument that presuposes a society that is boundless and incapable of basic limits. You do not live in such a society. If we say - in residential areas you are not to drive your car faster than 45 miles per hour - where does it end? at 30 mph? 20? perhaps, according to your slippery slope we will outlaw cars at any speed - we have yet to do so.

So long as you are unwilling to limit your own actions in the interest of your continued right to keep and bear then it is evident that you should not abide by any self limits nor should others. This is the sort of ultimate anarchy that governments finally root out simply because the majority are tired of their constant refusal to abide by any limit at all.
It is a right guaranteed to me by the constitution. Though I honestly would not relinquish the right even if the constitution did not exist. I never called it a right in my statement, however. I have the right to not be fucked with if I am not fucking with someone else. You are using the whole social contract/communism/socialism argument that society is more important than the individual. This is completely incorrect. You are the same sort of person who would immediately go and support abortion(the legalized killing of people) but then look down on people who decide that their faith doesn't let them get a certain medical treatment or look down on those who want to own an inanimate object. The truth is that you, like most of the country, takes the 'I like or don't like' thing way too far.

"Where does it end?" It is a very good question, and I think I know the answer. Look at every civilization that moved all power from the individual to the government. When 50.1% of the population can vote to take from the other 49.9% of the population and does then there is a problem.

The controls you/demos/ect are suggesting are mostly already in place in many states in the country and many places in the world. You can't even claim that those rules are really working. When you look at a list of the states with the highest murder rates the list is all over the place. So the question becomes why are some places like that and others aren't? There are some trends but none of them are gun control.

Once again - please explain how enacting tougher gun laws is going to stop this from happening short of outright banning of almost all guns. The laws in Conn are pretty touch already - what laws would of stopped this from happening?

The children were collateral damage. The term applies. There were 40k or deaths that came from driving cars too. They were collateral damage also. You using such crude terms and trying to attribute them to gun owners is pretty fucked up. Do you really think that we don't mourn for the lives lost?

This is a moment in time. Everyone is excited because of what happened. This is an obvious push by the left to accomplish something that the people of the country do not really want by using a single occurrence. Much like the D-bags of our government used 9/11 to completely rape our freedom.

The laws that you propose will at best stop 20-30 deaths a year if any all. Short of outlawing all semi-automatic weapons , which laws would of saved any of the lives lost? Even banning semi automatics would not have saved them all, and you can't prove it would of saved 1 single life.
 

ArcticGranite

Well-Known Member
Ban all semi's, no, imo. Can't get them all out of circulation for one, laws or not. So-there will always be an imbalance of power if the criminals or government (same thing) have firearms and "those other people", I'm mean, we the people can't have them. No one is in a position to deny another the ability to defend themselves be it with rocks, clubs, blades, or arms, no one! There is meant to be a balance of power between the governed and the governing. NRA was castigated for suggesting arms at Sandy Hook. Now look. Anyway- I won't relenquish nor register arms, laws or not. Most folks I know have the same mindset. 0.02
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
A tough request because it presumes that you are the arbiter of "sensible".


Limit the manufacture and sale of all magazines with the capacity of over 10 rounds.

Make the owner of all semi-automatic weapons civily liable for their use in any situation and furthermore make manufacturers liable as well. Single killings are exempt but any incidence of groups being killed will make the owner of the weapon personaly liable unless he immediately proved that his weapon was stolen. After a number of years, if any magazine in excess of 10 was used in a mass shooting, the manufacturer of the weapon is to be charged with making each of the victims and or the victim's families whole.

Sound tough? consider that the host of a party is liable if they serve alcohol and a guest drives away and kills someone. The same holds true when a bar gives drinks to an obviously inebreated person and that person winds up killing someone with their vehicle. Hell, if a policeman lets someone he pulls over for drunk driving go and that person runs over someone he can be held accountable as well (or so I have been told while being given a sobriety test).


Unreasonable? why?
The bits in blue are punitive. How can one acknowledge the right to own and use a gun, and then punish someone for stuff that was not his fault? It's every bit as silly as holding the party host liable for some fool's decision to drive drunk. My opinion. cn
 

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
The bits in blue are punitive. How can one acknowledge the right to own and use a gun, and then punish someone for stuff that was not his fault? It's every bit as silly as holding the party host liable for some fool's decision to drive drunk. My opinion. cn
All states don't hold the bar responsible and then it is usually only in civil suits. However, didn't they pass a law that outlawed personal responsibility?:)
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
We have the right to worship as we please but when that includes denying children life saving transfusions or anti-biotics, the religious right takes a subordinant position.
Yes, don't you gun nuts realize that pregnant women are the only ones who are Constitutionally protected against prosecution for killing children?
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
A tough request because it presumes that you are the arbiter of "sensible".


Limit the manufacture and sale of all magazines with the capacity of over 10 rounds.

Make the owner of all semi-automatic weapons civily liable for their use in any situation and furthermore make manufacturers liable as well. Single killings are exempt but any incidence of groups being killed will make the owner of the weapon personaly liable unless he immediately proved that his weapon was stolen. After a number of years, if any magazine in excess of 10 was used in a mass shooting, the manufacturer of the weapon is to be charged with making each of the victims and or the victim's families whole.

Sound tough? consider that the host of a party is liable if they serve alcohol and a guest drives away and kills someone. The same holds true when a bar gives drinks to an obviously inebreated person and that person winds up killing someone with their vehicle. Hell, if a policeman lets someone he pulls over for drunk driving go and that person runs over someone he can be held accountable as well (or so I have been told while being given a sobriety test).


Unreasonable? why?
Very reasonable. I think we should go even further and jail the parents and grandparents of those who do harm to others. After all, they are responsible for their children's behavior, no matter their age. While we're at it, jail all the teachers that these misfits had in school, they obviously didn't do their job. How about all the friends and acquaintances, they hold some responsibility for not recognizing and reporting the violent nature.
Ultimately, we should line up all the pro second amendment supporting politicians and let them feel the other end of the barrel.
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Are infants collateral damage to our unwillingness to pesticide out of existence honey bees? More children die from clostridium botulinum, than mass gun murders. Think the children! Let's work together to make a bill banning guns and honey bees.
 

Canna Connoiseur

Active Member
I forget where I saw this statistic at ,but, anyway more people die every year from pen caps then guns kill people. Including ppl that lawfully self defended themselves and killed someone. Now with that info why are we even worrying about guns.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Whats to stop anyone from doing the same, maybe nowhere near as fast, but he principal is the same. If a criminal wants it he/she is going to get it, one way or another. Simple as that

Ya'll can cry about all this shit ya'll want to, just save yourself a heartache and never make the mistake of asking me for my weapons or any of thier parts and noone will get hurt...lol

Peace

Asmallvoice

Nothing is to stop "anyone from doing the same", now what are the odds that each and every schoolroom shooter will take the time to learn these tequniques. You folks all seem so funny with your attempts to use the obscure in order to prove your point.

Again, if this is such a widespread practice, why do we have 100 round magazines in the first place?

And so you represent to me that should i ask, politely for any of your weapons or the parts thereof you will attempt to harm me - now there is the picture of a well balanced, reasonable human being who can be absolutely trusted with a firearm.
 
Top