Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And lacking in foresight, to say the least. What happens when they ban the gun with the "30 round clip" (actually it's a "magazine" as any gun owner should know). Then the next mentally ill shooter uses a semi auto with a 10 round mag, and wears a vest full of mags. So we ban those. Then bolt gun with a 3 round mag. So we ban those. Finally we're left with single shots, whereupon somebody takes a pair of Thompson contenders into an elementary school and calmly shoots away, reloading between shots, and daring any teacher to charge him knowing that while he reloads one of his single shot guns, the other one is still fully loaded. So we ban single shots too.
I see it, you see it, many of us see it. For some reason though, even as the writing is on the wall, a few don't see it. I think their problem is that they are under the impression that the congressmen and woman who propose these types of bills actually want to do some good, that they are in fact not "coming for our guns"
They take everything government officials say at face value and do not look any deeper. I think the problem is that some just can't conceive a reality where their most basic squirrel guns get targeted for a ban.
That is exactly what will happen if we allow it. We have audio recordings of lawmakers who admit as much when they thought their mics were off. It's just a shame that some are so blind.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 11-08-2013 at 12:56 AM..
Location: Anchorage Suburbanites and part time Willowbillies
1,708 posts, read 1,862,281 times
Reputation: 885
We have a local survival training company that teaches a course called Bear Awareness and Defense. They briefly cover the use of pepper spray. They say it may be better than nothing, more likely it will further p*ss off the bear, and you just wasted the only chance you had to use a firearm to save your life.
You go ahead and use bear spray I will stick with my firearms.
Good luck. I'm off to nighty-night land. Short day at work tomorrow then off for 10 days. A .338 Sako and a Savage O/U in the camper and lightly loaded pack. Time to put some wild ungulates in the freezer for the year.
I'm not sure what I will do without my copper clad boar buster ammo but I will manage somehow. Gadzooks- I only have a box of shells for each. I hope I don't encounter mad raging bands of grouse intent on ill will or some zombie mule deer. I will regret the day I passed on the street sweeper as a field gun!
And if I encounter a bear? I will most certainly inform them of my right to bear arms as they will surely argue their right to be bears. I'll make sure to spray my nether regions to protect the jewels just in case, lol.
that's ironic because that's exactly how I feel about gun owners like you. You feel entitled to be able to buy whatever you want whenever you want or sell whatever you want exempted from any culpability.
Where have I ever said any of this junk? You don't know what I think or where I fall on the political landscape of guns. You just assume....
I actually support measures that will help prevent gun violence. Such measures include entering the names of the mentally ill into the NICS system, more uniformed gun laws across the country, and background checks on all purchases at gun shows. Gun shows are small enough environments to contain and control, and so a requirement for background checks on all sales at those venues could easily be enforced.
What I do not support is useless, sound-good feel-good laws such as "universal" background checks which are completely unenforceable with a complete and detailed registry, and therefore would be ineffective. The bill that failed in April had no registry requirement [ and I wouldn't support a registry ]
As far as being "able to sell whatever I want, whenever I want, to whomever I want and without any culpability? Hogwash. Any responsible citizen worth his salt would do his due diligence in vetting any potential buyer before making a sale, and we don't need a law to make us do it. Irresponsible citizens and criminals will not do their due diligence, and no law, short of requiring every gun owner to have an ATF agent handcuffed to them 24 hrs. a day, is going to change that.
As far as culpability? What exactly do you mean? Culpability for what they do after the sale? How is that my responsibility? So long as the sale was legal, that is where my culpability ends.
I sure as Hell support their effort to make a change! I generally do not refuse to support a group because I may not believe in one facet of their policy. I, unlike others I have encountered, I actually believe in, *GULP* compromise! They have some sound ideals and I laud them for that. And I send them some money and not the NRA. And I let them know how I feel about outright bans.
(However I feel that some folks shouldn't be allowed to own a sharp pencil, but that's another story ).
Bully for you for writing an article! I'm glad you're published! I'm sure it was titillating for your audience.
I think you'd better look up the definition of the word "compromise"..... Compromise means both sides giving something up in order to achieve mutual gain. In other words, neither side gets exactly what they want, but both sides get something.
So, we know what the anti-gunners want, so what do we get in return for giving them what they want? How about in return for a magazine limit, we get a national Right-To-Carry law? THAT would be a compromise. [ albeit one I wouldn't support ] Compromise isn't one side giving something up without getting something in return. Gun owners have been partaking in THAT type of compromise for far too long;
See National Firearms Act of 1934
See Gun Control Act of 1968
See Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986
I sure as Hell support their effort to make a change! I generally do not refuse to support a group because I may not believe in one facet of their policy. I, unlike others I have encountered, I actually believe in, *GULP* compromise! They have some sound ideals and I laud them for that. And I send them some money and not the NRA. And I let them know how I feel about outright bans.
(However I feel that some folks shouldn't be allowed to own a sharp pencil, but that's another story ).
Bully for you for writing an article! I'm glad you're published! I'm sure it was titillating for your audience.
you might think that you are a gun owner that does not mind compromise, but in fact you don't really own any firearms at all. if you did you would already know that gun owners have been compromising with governments both state and federal since the Sullivan act was put in place in 1911.
well guess what, when will gun owners get their part of the compromising?
compromising means that both parties compromise, and right now only gun owners have been compromising, nothing from the hoplophobes yet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
