Gun Control. I believe in it.

i guess that i'm a nut case, stupid,ignorant,
politically incorrect, or something. i carry concealed on a regular basis and have for years. my state has a ccw law. you go to the class, go to the range
pay your money, and get yourself fingerprinted, and wait for your permit. i have nothing against any of these things except for the fingerprints. imo, that's just another way for the government to be able to
keep tabs on people. therefore i will not be getting a permit. i will carry anyway, if caught i will pay the fine, go to jail, or whatever diabolical thing they do. last i heard if they wanted to press it, it'll cost you $500.00. if i go to jail, then they can have my finger prints, but not until then.
so think what you may of me, right or wrong
that's the way i feel. i'm i a paranoid freakazoid? maybe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
If you carry illegally in VA:
We have a new thing called "Project Exile" and if your caught, the case is instantly turned over to the feds and it's an AUTOMATIC FIVE YEARS in jail.
I've got better things to do than spend five years reading books in a pen library.

See, this what I am talking about...
Most of us have already done it. You take a class. NRA ain't some big scary government agency... And they teach classes that don't cost alot of money or time. And if you have a good instructor - you will learn a lot. That is not a bad way to do things... in VA an NRA course completion form is proof to the county sheriff that you are compitent with the subject matter - this taken "On Good Faith" and if you falsified this- your subject to "Utterance" codes of the law. Meaning class 6 felony. Ouch.

If they know the gun... and there is no legal reason the should not have a gun... then they should be able to have what ever gun they want.

I have no idea why I posted that news article. Other than I thought is was interesting.

Needs... This whole country was based on something else - We didn't NEED freedom of religion... We didn't NEED to put an unprepaired colony at Jamestown. We didn't NEED to shrug off the tyrany of British oppresion...
We WANTED.
America is BUILT on WANTS. I WANT to own guns. I dont NEED them to survive... I can buy food at grocery stores... and we have police to come look at my body if I get killed by a criminal - hey, Natural selection, knock on wood has been in my favor so far... I dont NEED a TV or PC or microwave oven...
I WANT.

John Glenn didn't NEED to be shot back up into space... He, we, they - WANTED to put Glen back into space...

That's what makes the US such a great country. We WANT, and can HAVE - provided we PAY for it. Like our FREEDOM... We PAY for it. Every Day we PAY for it.
Because we WANT it.
 
Kodiac summed it up quite well: we WANT.

NEED is removed from the equation once you have food, shelter and health. NEED defines the neccessities of life; WANT defines the quality of life.
Where we make our greatest mistake is when we allow the anti-gunners to continually use the NEED arguement; and we attempt to respond to it and justify our position. We do not have to justify our wants, period.
 
Kodiac,

(My ire was not directed at you, which was why I pointed out that I was angry by the concept of politicians high-handedly and treasonously taking my freedoms.)

We have a serious difference of opinions here. Do I believe that, at the least, a modicum of weapons training is a terrific idea for those who choose to use any firearm? Of course I do. The crux is this: requiring that anyone submit to any specified training before legally acquiring/carrying any weapon (other than on the job) is an infringement of my 2nd Amendment rights. Period. End story. No argument. Whether anyone believes that folks "should" have mandatory training before being "allowed" [blood boiling again
frown.gif
] is not the issue. I can define "infringement" for any interested parties. Among the definitions is, "To make gradual inroads against..."

Do away with all federal gun laws. Do away with illegal substance and explosive laws. Do away with the IRS and every federal police agency. Reduce the size of federal government to about 1/6 the size it currently is, and every remaining law, ordinance, and employee should be judged based on the few stated functions of the federal government in the Constitution. I would call this "a good START", and the only gun control idea I like. I'm going to go lie down, now...
 
Kodiac,

Without flaming by any means, (and understanding and agreeing with the basic want vs need tenet you're expressing) we can buy food at the store CURRENTLY. This does not mean:
(1) This state of affairs will not change
(2) That folks in isolated areas have this luxury
(3) That everyone has the money to do this (I have heard a girl relate how her mother often went out with the shotgun, so the family could eat, and I know families who subsist to a large degree on game by necessity)

In fact, based on what you said, people don't NEED to live. (But then, "People suck", don't they?
smile.gif
)



[This message has been edited by Spectre (edited 10-30-98).]
 
Quote from ACLU (in the library section, check it out):

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms.

Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. [Spectre would!] But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction. "

Answer: there IS no "reasonable restriction".
 
I acutally spend a day away from the home office and all bloody hell breaks loose!

Longhair, I did exactly wha tyou do for YEARS.. then I stopped when I became "Mr. Pro-Gun" and starting working on the fringes of the spotlight, now I try to stay as legal as possible. Obviously, when I'm in NJ, DC, etc., that is not possible, so I take the necessary risk, as I see it. I'm one of those Dorks who actually did apply to register his wallet holster as an AOW. So I play their game to a certain extant, but only so I can be righteous when I inevitably cross up some stupid little "ATF Addendum" that thye don't announce and no one could ever really keep up with. Example, apparently the ATF recently decided that pistol grip shotguns (with butts, ie- not Benelli) are now no longer shotguns as defined by GCA, and musst be sold as handguns, to persons over 21 onle. I was in a gunshop today I casually asked the proprietor if he could sell a winchester 1300 defender to any adult, he said, sure its a shotgun and proceeded to show me a SBS and tell me that IT was covered by NFA, Yada, yada, yada. Point is, that guy could seel that shotgun to a 19 year old informant tomorrow and Whammo! (yes, I told him about what I had heard...) All of us on this list could fall into a situation like that, the way things are going.
 
Agreed. I was pointing out that even they said it was an "all or nothing" concept if applicable against despots.
 
A Moss 590 fully loaded... a PISTOL? Who is going to shoot it one handed? The Hulk?

Hmmm okay...
Here is what I see happening. Shotguns will all be sold with FULL stocks and on the shelves will be all different folding stocks and pistol grips...
19 year old goes in. "Yeah, I'll take that Defender, and one of those pistol grips to go with it..."
So the grip gets installed when the guy gets home. What has the ATF gained? Or are they going to require grips be tracked like handguns too?
 
they have gained one more half page in the book that justifies their existance.

No surprise, few of the dealers at the gun show today were aware of the change in status of PG shotguns, or whatever they are now.
 
Re: The ACLU
I stopped being amazed and infuriated a long time ago at the selective nature at what they allow to be a true civil liberty. The hypocritic bastiches should call themselves what they really are the OTOOL/SAAWCLU - Only The Ones Our Liberal / Socialist Agenda Agree With Liberties Union. Don't get me started on the ACLU. They have done nothing to protect our combined civil liberties, only the selective support of those that justify their worthless existence.
 
Currently, I agree. According to them, the only reason they cannot back the 2nd amendment as an individual right is that it would justify ANY weapon's possession. Which it does.
 
I think criminals should have gun.

I think good people should have more guns.

I think criminals with guns should be shot on sight :)

That way we keep the lawmakers doing what they are good at. Nothing.

------------------

Mouse Assassins inc.
 
Criminals are typically lazy. They want to do things that are easy, such as taking from others who actually work for what they possess. If everyone had guns, it stands to reason that the law-abiding would tend to be more apt to actually train with their weapons.
 
1) CCW's convert a right into a privilege. In Georgia, one could carry a gun unconcealed without the state's permission prior to our wondrous CCW law. With CCW this RIGHT was converted into a privilege.

2) Violent criminals shouldn't have guns? If you do some minimal research, I think you will be horrified at some of the people who are incarcerated for what is self defense to everyone but the government. Goetz (remember him) is a violent criminal in New York. The self defense laws are entirely too narrow and the assault laws are entirely too broad. I know a man who was assaulted three times while trying to escape without offering any violence at all. He killed his assailent on the fourth assault. He is now a violent criminal after spending ten years in prison.
 
Just found this list. And found it interesting.

We might look at 2 concepts.

First on criminals; if they are too dangerous to allow them to possess arms, they are too dangerous to be released into the general population.
After all, there is a large subsection of the general population which they could overpower without arms, therefore the prohibition on arms protects only that portion of the general population that is physically stronger then then the criminal.
(An aside, if we can't rehabilitate them within 5 years, render them.)

The second is the problem of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD, a weapon that has the capacity to kill thousands in a single application). Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological

While I am quite comfortable with allowing anyone to proceed through life without restrictions, unless or until they screwup,
I am uncomfortable with the thought of the aberrated individual killing thousands before he is destroyed.

And as our Founding fathers had never envisioned WMD, an amendment to the Constitution may be in order.

Something like this:

Amdt. # XXX.

Notwithstanding Amdt. # II above, Weapons of Mass Destruction may not be possessed by the Citizens or the States.
Weapons of Mass Destruction may only be possessed by the Federal, Department of Defense. The use of Weapons of Mass Destruction within the United States and./or its Territories is prohibited. Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction within the United States and./or its Territories is Prima Fascia evidence of commission of a Capital Crime by the Initiator of the Weapon of Mass Destruction and every Officer and Civilian in the Chain of Command from the Initiator up to and including the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

Just food for thought.


------------------
Tactical !
Definitely NOTLimited !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top