Democrats bite their own noses to spite their faces

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

oh... lookie.. its over 300 posts... so is this one been beat to death enuff yet??

What do you care? You can see the thread title and avoid it if you want to. Does the number of posts to this thread somehow limit your ability to enjoy the rest of dropzone.com?

If not, why not just leave the thread alone and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out?

You sound like b1jercat now, deliberately coming in here only to tell us that you don't care about the subject and wish we wouldn't bother to discuss it. Give it a rest.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Amazon 7]

and your choice of cheeze would be????

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Depends on the law. If it's a good law I'd be for it; if it's a bad law I'd be against it. For example, I would be in favor of a law that closes the "convicted felons can legally lie about their records when buying weapons" loophole. And note I _don't_ think that we should treat guns like cars; they are two completely different things, and I think most gun owners would be royally pissed off if we started trying that.

Uh, felons can't "legally lie about their records when buying weapons." Again I find myself asking people to NOT support anti-gun laws that supposedly address "problems" when those people know so little about the realities of the situation that they're usually completely wrong about how things truly are. I asked a friend's father one day why he supported the "assault weapons ban." (This was back in like '95 or so.) I asked him what he thought an "assault weapon" did. He made his fingers like a rifle, and gesticulated wildly as though firing a machine gun, making a rat-a-tat-a-tat sound, and he said, "When you hold the trigger, they go like this:" So I thanked him for making it evident that he was supporting a law in utter ignorance, having no knowledge of what was already under strict legal restraints, or what would be restricted by the legislation he was so blindly supporting. I'm sure he continued to support it even after I made clear to him that machine guns were not addressed by the "assault weapons ban."

Back on subject... It was found in court that a felon, who could not legally own a gun, could not be prosecuted for not REGISTERING a gun, because registering a gun would be a de-facto admission (for a felon) that he was engaged in a criminal act. That was considered to be compulsory testimony against oneself, running contrary to our rights under the 5th amendment. That does NOT mean that it is legal for a felon to attempt to buy a gun, nor to lie on an application (form 4473, I believe) to purchase a gun. But the one thing you can't prosecute a felon for is his failure to register a gun. Possession of an unregistered gun, sure. Different thing. So don't go pretending that there are not already enough laws to put away bad violent people for. I love it when you anti-gunners suggest that it is soooo crucial that we be able to prosecute MURDERERS for the crime of possessing a gun that holds a certain amount of rounds or whatever, when we're already talking about someone who faces LIFE in prison or maybe even EXECUTION. Make me LAUGH!

Quote

Again, I agree. Hence, another reason why owning a gun is not and should not be like owning a car.

>Bad parts? Like what? Maintenance? Guns and cars require
> maintenance, it's up to the owner of each to take care of that.

No, cars have state-mandated inspections periodically to ensure compliance with basic safety laws concerning brakes, taillights etc.

>An agreement not to use either in an irresponsible or dangerous
> manner?

?? Again, if you want to make owning a gun like owning a car, you're gonna have a _lot_ more laws. Look at how many traffic and parking laws a typical city has. Really want that many laws applied to guns?

Mostly the "treat guns like cars" line comes from anti-gunners who try to argue that guns should be at least as restricted as cars. They ignore a whole slew of restrictions that already apply to guns. What's more, it is THEY who suggest the cars-apply-to-guns analogy, and then they back the hell away from it when we point out just how much more free we would be to take guns all over the place, how we would have lifetime licenses good in every state, how we would not need licenses if we planned to keep the gun on private property, how we could take guns onto school or airport property...

The whole thing here is that the PRO-gun people are pointing out the fallacies of what the ANTI-gun people suggest when they raise the car analogy. Right from the get-go we tell the anti-gunners that this is NOT what they would want.

Now as far as " cars have state-mandated inspections periodically to ensure compliance with basic safety laws concerning brakes, taillights etc." -- Another statement of "fact" made in utter ignorance. Here in Florida, there IS NO state requirement for inspections -- at least not in Palm Beach County and others. This is by no means a requirement in every jurisdiction.

You say that we'd have many more laws concerning guns if we treated them like cars. Like what? The only laws necessary would be those we have already, specifically those about not taking it out and threatening others with it. But if you were going to restrict guns from places like schools, hospitals, churches, airports, you would have to demonstrate some practical reason why they were somehow unsafe to have in those places, but not unsafe in equally crowded places like shopping malls and supermarkets and parks and roller rinks... I mean, you should have some sort of rhyme and reason to your restrictions or else you'll be accused of making arbitrary restrictions just to harass gun owners...
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Bill, which requires federally licensed gun dealers to perform background checks on all gun buyers. And the system has worked fairly well - since this law went into effect in 1994, background checks have stopped over 800,000 convicted felons, domestic abusers and other illegal buyers from getting guns. But because the Brady Bill does not apply to private gun sellers, criminals and other prohibited buyers who cannot buy firearms at gun stores can skirt the law and obtain guns from private sellers at gun shows. In most states, these gun sales do not require a background check. That means no ID, no questions asked.

Criminals and gun-runners have figured it out – according the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, gun shows are now the second leading source of guns recovered in illegal gun trafficking investigation. And it doesn’t stop with domestic criminals: AGS has uncovered cases in which known or suspected terrorists were able to obtain guns at gun shows.

Once again, Quade cites as his "source" a virulently anti-gun organization, in this case "Americans for Gun Safety." The problem is, AGS has never met a gun it didn't consider "unsafe."

What's more, the so-called "Americans for Gun Safety" have how many programs for teaching people "gun safety"? Exactly ZERO. Do they have programs for training police officers, or women, or target shooters, or anyone interested in self-defense with a firearm, or safe gun handling? Nope. How they hell can they be "Americans for Gun SAFETY" if they don't teach a goddamned thing? Their only version of gun safety is NOT HAVING a gun.

It's funny, but in the quoted material above, nothing is said about the fact that it is illegal for a felon to attempt to buy a gun, to actuall buy a gun, to possess a gun, to possess gun ammunition... The paragraphs above characterize it as though felons are ALLOWED to buy guns without a background check -- as though it's LEGAL as long as they're not buying from a licensed dealer. Of course, that is patently false.

As far as "background checks have stopped over 800,000 convicted felons, domestic abusers and other illegal buyers from getting guns": Each of these supposed 800,000 people have committed a federal crime, a felony, punishable by TEN YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON. Where are they all? Were they prosecuted? NOPE. I remember reading that the Clinton administration -- so hot to keep felons from getting guns -- had prosecuted something like SIX of them.

Besides, the claim above is a gross overstatement. Even if 800,000 actual felons had been prevented from buying a gun at that juncture, that means nothing at all since they were left free to see about obtaining a gun elsewise. It would have been more accurate if the article said, "background checks have stopped over 800,000 convicted felons, domestic abusers and other illegal buyers from getting guns legally." Does anyone really think that a felon who wants a gun but can't get it legally is just gonna give up trying to obtain one? Puhlease.

Oh, by the way, I also read that some staggeringly high percentage of those gun purchasers who were declined were declined IN ERROR, or for various non-disqualifying reasons. Some were as simple as having a name similar to a felon's, or for charges that were dropped, or for b.s. like parking tickets.

Quote

Quote

So far, only 18 states have closed the gun show loophole and require background checks for all gun show sales (or require some kind of firearms ID card for purchasing a gun). Colorado and Oregon recently closed the loophole by a vote of the electorate – loophole-closing ballot initiatives in both states passed by wide margins in the 2000 election. But in 32 states, the loophole remains wide open.

Uh, yeah, the "loophole" to committing a felony remains wide open. Let's all pretend that it's not a felony for a felon to buy a gun, just because a background check is not required on the felony transaction.

Quote

Quote

The fact is, gun show background checks, like checks at gun stores, are a fast, convenient and effective way to help keep guns out of the wrong hands. In fact, 96% are completed within two hours.

Yes, and let's not mention that the same sponsors of these background checks also have been pushing to allow SEVENTY TWO HOURS for the checks, which would essentially mean that if you started your check in the first minute of the gun show on Saturday, you may not even be able to finalize your purchase until late Monday night -- effectively nullifying the idea of the gun show.

See, these anti-gun sneak scumbags don't tell you what they hope to accomplish down the road -- they tell you they want only "reasonable" restrictions. When you accost them with their true intentions, they deny deny deny, even when they're on the record about it. They're liars, and their ultimate goal is the abolition of gun ownership in this country. If they had any balls, they'd at least admit that and we could just duke it out like adults and see who prevails.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

• Quote

[newsstand 0]

Quote

[...

Which just goes to show that some anti-gun folks are so stuck in the rut of their own misbeliefs, that even smacking them in the face with facts won't make them see the light.

Just like I am sure you don't like being called a "gun-nut" I don't like being called "anti-gun." I am the closest thing to a friend ya'll have on the liberal side of the fence. I don't think guns in general should be outlawed. I do think they should be registered and heavily regulated. Owners should be required to go threw extensive training before a purchase of any kind and not just for a concealed carry license. Why? Because so many of them are used for illegal and dangerous purposes.

My opinion of the assault weapon ban has changed based on what I have learned here. I don't think it went far enough. Quite possibly removeable magazines in rifles should be banned all together and there should be minimum size and weight requirements that make them to big and clumsy to be easily used in crime. And while I have pointed out more than once that this thread is about rifles and not handguns don't even get me started there. To many people are killed intentionally or accidently by people they know with handguns.

You are right guns are used all over the place in safe, legal and fun ways but their intent is to be used to kill. Kill might be game for dinner or to defend my home and country but the purpose of a gun is to kill.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

There's no legal loophole that allows a felon to buy a new gun.

Technically correct. In practicality however, yes, there is. In many states it's called a "Gun Show".

No, it is not gun shows, per se. It is private transactions, which occur not only at gun shows, but in homes, on the internet, through newspaper ads, gun clubs, and so forth. If you ban private transactions at gun shows, then they'll also claim that private gun sales outside of gun shows are a "loophole", and then Dad will have to get a background check on his 16-year-old son before he can give him a .22 rimfire rifle for xmas. That goes too far.

Calling it a "gun show" loophole is just a way of fooling the public into believing that only gun shows will be affected. In fact, it is an attack on all private sales.

Criminals will always get what they want on the black market, or by theft. Laws don't stop that. The proof is in England and Australia.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

we know that there are a good amount of irresponsible people out there. So, the question is, do we have any way of knowing who is responsible and who is not? Are you willing to undergo a complete psychological analysis prior to purchasing your ak or m-16?

Noboby can predict who is going to be "dangerous" in the future.

To restrict freedoms based upon such witchcraft, would be an injustice.

If someone exhibits dangerous tendencies, they quickly develop a police record. And then at that point you have valid reason to deny them a gun purchase.

However, we shouldn't deny guns to someone, who has not exhibited any such dangerous tendencies, simply because some shrink says that he "might" do something in the future.

All women are capable of being prostitutes by virtue of having a vagina. All men are capable of being rapists, by virtue of having a penis. Should we remove all sexual organs at birth in order to prevent future incidents of rape and prostitution?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

If you ban private transactions at gun shows, then they'll also claim that private gun sales outside of gun shows are a "loophole", and then Dad will have to get a background check on his 16-year-old son before he can give him a .22 rimfire rifle for xmas. That goes too far.

Ummm....as far as I know, there aren't any background checks for long guns. Or am I mistaken?

Personally, I don't have a problem with background checks on everyone and all sales going through a FFL dealer. Take little Johnny down to the range, fire off some rounds, and then complete the transfer.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Just like I am sure you don't like being called a "gun-nut" I don't like being called "anti-gun." I am the closest thing to a friend ya'll have on the liberal side of the fence.

Actually there are much better friends we have on the "liberal" side of the fence. Senator Zell Miller (D- GA), PhillyKev, and others who associate closely with the democratic party but still believe in the right to self defense. You are about as anti-gun as a person can be without calling for a full ban on all private ownership.

Quote

I don't think guns in general should be outlawed. I do think they should be registered and heavily regulated. Owners should be required to go threw extensive training before a purchase of any kind and not just for a concealed carry license. Why? Because so many of them are used for illegal and dangerous purposes.

OK, newsflash: THEY ARE ALREADY HEAVILY REGULATED.

There's no need for gun owners to go through mandatory government training. Citizens manage to stop 2.5 million crimes without it. They get the training themselves. I don't think we need another bloated government bureaucracy playing with our freedom.

You think a lot of guns are used in crimes? Prove it. Give me a number of how many guns were used in crimes. Find armed robberies involving a gun, homicides with a gun, suicides with a gun, all of them. Now compare that number to 260 million. That's how many guns are owned in this country. Then tell me again how "so many of them are used in crimes."

Quote

My opinion of the assault weapon ban has changed based on what I have learned here. I don't think it went far enough. Quite possibly removeable magazines in rifles should be banned all together and there should be minimum size and weight requirements that make them to big and clumsy to be easily used in crime.

You're still going to tell me you're not anti-gun?!? I can't even respond to these ideas they are so ludicrous.

Another NEWSFLASH for newsstand: THERE ARE ALREADY LENGTH REQUIREMENT FOR RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS.

And once you require every long gun be heavy and bulky, next you're going to tell me that heavy, bulky rifles are all sniper weapons with no place in public hands, so they all have to be banned.

Are we all seeing how this works now?

Quote

And while I have pointed out more than once that this thread is about rifles and not handguns don't even get me started there.

Actually this thread was about political maneuvering by some anti gun US senators.

Quote

To many people are killed intentionally or accidently by people they know with handguns.

Care to offer some proof? Do you realize when the FBI uses the word "acquaintance" in the UCR, they are including a hooker and her pimp, an addict and his dealer, and cabbie and his fare. Do you qualify meeting someone in the street as a person you know?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[benny 0]

I really should just let this thread die its miserable death but this new job I have has kept me from postwhoring so long I just can't resist. Zell Miller can hardly be called a democrat.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[Kennedy 0]

Well I don't exactly see him getting tossed from the party.

Besides, that's not exactly a rare thing. Democrats from the south are regularly more conservative than republicans from the north east and California.

Would you tell Philly he's not allowed to vote democrat anymore, either?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[benny 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just want the ability to go after virus makers and torture them to death, as they deserve. Could you imagine if we put some real adept, truly honest and dedicated detectives to work finding these people, and then actually did put them to death? We currently give them slaps on the wrists, and the go and deface government websites with taunts. Kill a few of them and see how long this shit goes on. The world is too fuckin' mamsy-pamsy about handing out STIFF, ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT to people who do things that really harm us and that really piss us off.

I think tirades like this are the reason some of us like gun control. I mean really, get a handle on yourself. If you didn't want to kill everyone who pisses you off maybe we wouldn't have a problem with you playing with guns...

You obviously don't know how to differentiate between venting and tendency toward violence.

Besides, we've seen how good "gun control" is at preventing bad people from getting guns and doing bad things with them. I've had guns for over ten years and no one has so much as even been in the sights of an unloaded gun of mine.

Which "we" were you speaking for, by the way?

I was venting my frustration/anger about the human shitwads who plague what could be a wonderful thing (the internet) and suggested that crimes against something so pervasive in modern life (the internet) will need to be dealt with severely if we expect it to ever be usable to its full potential. Currently, I think one must admit that we haven't been able to NEARLY ensure security and prevent identity theft, fraud and deception over the internet.

So Benny you can take your insinuations and shove 'em. I don't give a damn if you're comfortable with my exercise of my freedom. In the course of a day you probably are passed by many many worse people that you should worry about in the world than me, but you single out a guy (me) who has never done shit to harm anyone else and imply that gun control should maybe prevent me from owning one? Puhlease.

Well tone of voice is a bit hard to decifer in internet forums, however, on more than one occasion you have been known to exhibit hostilities toward people who do so little wrong as to disagree with your personal interpretation of the constitution. My guess is this happened more than one time in this entire thread... hold on while I check it out.

Clicky
Quote: Congratulations to the democrat schmucks in the Senate who fucked themselves over because they are so goddamned shortsighted, misguided, and ignorant. You won the battle and lost the war! We've wanted THIS far more than we wanted or needed the lawsuit shield! BWAHAHAHAHAA!

Now this doesn't exactly advocate violence but I'd definitely say you show maybe just teensy weensie bit of hostility here. Correct me if I'm wrong, really.

Clicky
Quote: They're liars, and their ultimate goal is the abolition of gun ownership in this country. If they had any balls, they'd at least admit that and we could just duke it out like adults and see who prevails

Now the outright accusation of being liars is I'm sure a display of powerful contempt by you and it seems to be that you'd rather them pony up so you could simply beat their asses, as a true adult would.

Clicky
Quote: This is why I call supporters of the ban FILTHY SCUMBAG SHITWAD LIARS

Once again, not actually advocating outright violence, but still, I think it's easy to see that at the very least your temper leads you to verbal abuse.

Clicky

I'm not even gonna give a quote on this one because you really need to read the whole thing. But do you understand how funny you sound when explaining in one paragraph how you really are "peaceful" jeffrey and the next your screaming about how pissed off you are at those damn mindless senators who kept you from having your guns. You want to have those guns and by god you'll have em.

Clicky
Quote: Alright, alright, get back to talking about guns, will you?! I won't suffer this hijacking by talk about computer viruses, especially since I now have to reinstall my system (including re-downloading the current Explorer for an hour and a half!) because of these fuckwad shitbrained criminal hackers sending viruses around the internet! I've had about enough of viruses to think about for the rest of my life!

I'd love to be faced with the piece of shit who wrote this thing -- or any hacker who wrote any virus -- and have leave to take out my frustration/revenge. These people are the lowest of the fuckin' low.
---Jeffrey

Well I really thought this one needed to be quoted in full. I'll just let this sink in a bit. Yep, it seems to me you really would like to do violent harm to these people. Sometimes I get mad enough at people that I'd like to hurt them, then again, I'm not building an arsenal either.

Oh, I can't go on like this anymore, it's making me feel queazy. But I really, I think it's quite obvious that your tone tends toward the "angry" side. I think there are alot of people who aren't exactly comfortable with angry people having weaponry. I think I recall you saying that you'd laugh your ass off if someone on this forum who didn't choose to excercise his 2nd ammendment rights was then the victim of a crime. Whereas, the forementioned person probably wouldn't laugh at any harm that came to you from the fact that you do choose to excercise it (like someone you know killing you with your own weapon, it does happen). But, what do I know, I mean, your buddy says I couldn't possibly be above the bottom two percent of intellects in the world, it must be true.

By the way, does you buddy realize that if this were the case, I probably wouldn't be able to get to the site to type this reply in the first place, much less learn how to save my life jumping out of an airplane?

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[billvon 2,400]

>- If we license and register the guns, can we then take them with us
> anywhere we're legally allowed to be? We do take our cars to school
>and banks, and airports. Presumably it's safe because they're
>licensed, but would be unsafe if they were not, right?

No. You are not allowed to drive your car on a school playground or in an airport terminal, because such operation would be dangerous to the people in the terminal. Same thing with a gun. You can carry it in approved areas (i.e. as cars can be operated on roads) only.

>If we license and register the guns like we do cars, does that mean
> we don't need a license or registration if we purchase the guns to
> never be taken in public --- since you don't have to license and
>register a car that you will never drive on public roadways?

Depends on the state. You'd have to get a certificate of planned nonoperation in California and a few other states.

>If we get licenses to own guns, does that mean they will be good in
> all 50 states and U.S. territories, and all we have to do is go to NRA
> to get "international gun licenses" for a modest fee so we can take
> them to, say, England when we go on vacation? This same is true of
> licensed car drivers.

Yes on any state, no on international travel - each country could continue to enforce its own gun (and driving) laws.

>If we license and register guns, can we buy as many as we wish to
> (and can afford) in whatever period of time? No "one-car-a-month"
> scheme has ever been enacted, to my knowledge.

Sure, if you can afford the registration, inspection and insurance costs.

>If we license guns like cars, and no law says cars can't be capable of
> XXX speed, does that mean our guns can have more than 10 round
> magazines?

It can have whatever you want as long as it passes its yearly safety inspection. In car terms, your car can have a bigger engine but not a glasspack muffler, and it has to have functioning brakes, taillights, airbags (if equipped) etc.

>Since cars can be modified to accelerate faster, have higher top
> speeds, handle better, can we do the same to our guns? Increase
> the ammunition capacity . .

Yes

>rate of fire

Yes

>augment them with things like flash suppressors . .

Perhaps. It is illegal to modify cars so their normal operating indicators (turn signals, brake lights etc) are supressed. Would be a judgement call on the part of the inspection division.

> bayonet attachments...

No. It's illegal to drive with a pointed ram on the front of your car in place of a bumper. It makes it too dangerous to operate in public.

>Gee, it seems that the gun-controllers will get a little more than they
>bargained for if we treat guns like cars, doesn't it.

Oh, I think you'd hate it. The first time your gun insurance rates went up because someone shot their foot off, you'd be pretty upset I think.

[billvon 2,400]

>Second, you can't drive a car into a shopping mall or movie theater
> because they are not built to handle it. A car would cause
>destruction driving though a mall. A handgun can travel anywhere I
> can unobtrusively and not cause a bit of damage.

I see cars on display in malls all the time. They can be IN malls, they just can't be parked, transported, or driven through them unless the mall is deserted (which is when they get the car in there.) Similarly, guns can be displayed in malls, no problem. They just can't be transported through them since operation of a gun in a mall is unsafe to the people there.

>The fact remains that a powerful set of politicians would be willing,
> and some of them happy, to take all firearms.

And some powerful lobbies would be willing, and some of them happy, to do away even with gun laws that make sense. Fortunately, neither extreme dominates most of the time.

>(A) This is another opportunity for gun controllers to price gun owners out of existence.

No more so than they price SUV's (which are pretty hated in some places) out of existence.

>(B) The acts you listed are crimes. No insurance will cover you
>against committing a crime.

Insurance wouldn't be for a crime. It would be for accidental discharge injuring yourself or others, just as car liability insurance covers accidental injury or damage to others.

>Are you going to require insurance on buckets?

If you claim they should be just like cars (which is silly) then yes, you'd have to require insurance on them too. But buckets, like guns, are different from cars.

>I already deal with all the negatives of car ownership, I just don't get
> the benefits. Like I said, I wouldn't mind treating gun licenses like
> car licenses, but I'd never want to treat guns like cars.

We agree on that! But would you really be OK with a "gun test" administered by the government before you were allowed to own any weapons?

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

They just can't be transported through them since operation of a gun in a mall is unsafe to the people there.

Should your average beat-cop be allowed to posess a gun in a shopping mall, church, or movie theatre?

Quote

But would you really be OK with a "gun test" administered by the government before you were allowed to own any weapons?

Just one test at 16? Or maybe one test for each category of weapon? Then no more government interference?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Kennedy 0]

I think we've established treating guns like cars is a ridiculous idea. What you have to separate out is licensing and licensing.

That's where your argument falls apart bill.

Cars can be driven anywhere they don't automatically cause damage or interfere with other people driving. Guns can go anywhere I can and not cause a bit of damage.

See, the other thing you are missing is operation. Having a car inside a shopping mall is not dangerous. They do it for contests and advertisements in malls all the time. However, allowing the public to operate their car in a mall would result in property loss and injury.

Bringing a gun into a mall/church/school does not automatically cause damage. Operating one [aka shooting] does.

So why is it you think there would need to be areas where "licensed" people are not allowed to carry? What do you think these areas should be.

I can only think of two areas: (A) police/sheriff stations and (B) court houses.


edit: remember, private citizens have more rights than cops, not the other way around. (the ones who want to carry tend to have more training than cops, too)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[benny 0]

This whole gun in a mall tanget is irrelevant. Malls, churches, the other places you mention where you could have a gun and not do harm are private places. If the owner of the mall says you cannot have a gun, you must leave the gun or leave the mall. I was undert he impression that the only places that the law restricted gun carrying (in the private realm) was bars. I may be mistaken.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[billvon 2,400]

>Guns can go anywhere I can and not cause a bit of damage.

Guns can not be operated anywhere you go and not cause a bit of damage.

>See, the other thing you are missing is operation. Having a car
> inside a shopping mall is not dangerous. They do it for contests and
> advertisements in malls all the time.

Exactly! You could arrange to have a car brought in when the mall was deserted. You just can't haul it around with you as you walk through the mall; it could injure someone through it even being there. (I am sure that you, as a careful driver, could navigate the car through the crowds, but since the potential for injury is there it's prohibited as a matter of course.)

>So why is it you think there would need to be areas where "licensed"
>people are not allowed to carry? What do you think these areas should be.

I don't think there should be any nationwide areas people can't bring guns, because they're not like cars. Each local and state government (and each private area) can decide for themselves where they want to prohibit the carrying of guns, depending on their own unique circumstances. A school in Montana where there has never been a shooting? Sure, allow students to carry rifles to the school rifle range. A school in Mississippi where there have been three fatal shootings? The town may decide to outlaw guns in that school. A restauraunt you own? You get to decide what people can or can't take into it.

[Kennedy 0]

damn, too bad we were posting at the same time.

OK, let me answer this one.

Quote

Similarly, guns can be displayed in malls, no problem. They just can't be transported through them since operation of a gun in a mall is unsafe to the people there.

Why is a gun unsafe to be transported through a mall? Is there a magical magnet in the walls that pulls the trigger when a person enters a mall?

Shooting is unsafe in a mall. Carry a firearm in a mall is not.

Quote

We agree on that! But would you really be OK with a "gun test" administered by the government before you were allowed to own any weapons?

As long as the test weren't (A) turned into defacto registraion and (B) along the lines of "literacy" tests for voters in the old south, I would have to seriously consider it beofre passing judgment.

I would prefer gun safety be taught in school and accepted in your training's stead.

Quote

Insurance wouldn't be for a crime. It would be for accidental discharge injuring yourself or others, just as car liability insurance covers accidental injury or damage to others.

Don't fix what isn't broken. There is no epidemic problem with accidental discharges. Why create a new bureaucracy? Also, car insurance isn't required everywhere. (e.g. Alabama just started requiring it last year, and the minimum doesn't even cover a busted bumper on most cars, but that's all I can afford at the moment. I payed less living on the DC beltway for more coverage. Tell me how that works out.)

Also, I'm talking comparing licesnsing to licensing. Talking about car insurance in comparing guns to cars again. We agreed that one's not a good idea.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

That depends on the state law concerning CCW/CHL/CWP (whatever it's called).

Some list churches, schools, and more as no carry zones, just like bars. I don't understand why, either.

Also, in most states, simply putting up a sign saying "no guns" is not legally binding. You have to put up the state approved sign in most places. e.g. in Texas, there is a large white and black sign in english and spanish citing the law and saying concealed firearms are not welcome.

Most public land is required to respect concealed carry laws. The only ones that are constantly exempt from this are police and sheriffs, and courthouses.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Really I'm just trying to understand why you believe it would be unsafe for a person to carry a firearm through a mall.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I don't like being called "anti-gun." I am the closest thing to a friend ya'll have on the liberal side of the fence. I don't think guns in general should be outlawed...

- I do think they should be registered and heavily regulated.
- Owners should be required to go threw extensive training...
- removeable magazines in rifles should be banned all together...
- there should be minimum size and weight requirements...
- To many people are killed intentionally or accidently with handguns...

Okay, so you're not "anti-gun". You just want to regulate them out of existence. I see. That's clear as mud.

So you would ban all handguns. And you would ban all rifles with external magazines. But you would allow us to own large, heavy rifles, presumably bolt-action single-shot only. Wonderful! But you're not anti-gun!

What size and weight minimum would you require to ensure that they wouldn't be used in crime?

How many cartridges would a gun be allowed to hold in a fixed internal magazine?

Would you outlaw stripper clips which are used to quickly reload internal magazines?

Oh, by the way, cars are registered and drivers are licensed, yet those drivers and cars cause 43,000 fatalities per year, as well as 2,000,000 disabling injuries. So I think there is something wrong with your idea that registration and licensing actually helps prevent death and injuries.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Ummm....as far as I know, there aren't any background checks for long guns. Or am I mistaken?

All firearm purchases, both handguns and long guns, require a background check when purchased from a licensed gun dealer.

Licensed gun dealers don't have to do it when buying from other licensed gun dealers - they've already been checked to get their license.

And a nice benefit from having a concealed handgun license, is that the same thing applies - instead of suffering the delay of a background check, I just show my CHL license, and I can walk out with the gun immediately. By having the CHL, it proves you've already been checked.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I really should just let this thread die its miserable death

I didn't realize that it was up to you to decide when a thread ends.

[Kennedy 0]

Is that a common thing, or just a Texas law? That's awesome that you can just show your concealed carry license and go about your business. (I'm still doing my homework on a CCW)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*