New York Gun Owners

[quade 3]

There are very few state and local issues when it comes to skydiving and even fewer that the USPA wants to get involved in.

In fact, how often do we hear people moaning about just the opposite -- that the USPA doesn't get involved enough in local issues?

I think the USPA lobbying effort does most of its work where it does the most good, in D.C..

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Quote

However, there should be no fees associated with the exercise of constitutional rights. We shouldn't have to pay a government fee to vote, to make free speech, or to own a gun.

Such things should be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled this way when it comes to voting, on the "poll tax". But somehow the politicians seem to forget this same rule when it comes to guns...

So . . . then . . . like religion, gun manufacturing and sales should be tax exempt?

I mean, I'm pretty sure you'd go freekin' nuts if media companies were tax exempt.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

I've seen him post about other stuff. Apparently you have, too. Are you tired of new people coming to your little playground with views different than yours, CanuckinUSA?

I'm not here to debate whether guns are good or bad and whether or not people agree with whatever it is NY state is trying to do.

But I bet if you did a search for every post that John has ever made on DZ.COM, 95% (or more) are gun related. I don't know about you, but I come to DZ.COM to talk about skydiving. If I wanted to talk sports or aviation or whatever else, I'd be on some other forum.

Back to your regular scheduled programming...

I started posting here only in the last few weeks, and the same can be said of me: I have posted a large portion of my total number on the subject of guns.

Perhaps we just like discussing guns with fellow skydivers? It's like you can talk guns with gun people, you can talk skydiving with skydiving people, but sometimes you want to find out how the one feels about the other. I'm glad to read John's gun posts, and I suspect him not of being a "gun troll." He is erudite and articulate about the subjects he posts on, that's for sure. Frankly, his rationality and expression have earned him my respect. That and the fact that he maintains decorum even in the face of some really abject willfull ignorance... That's the kind of guy who really earns my respect. Me, I tend to lose patience and get condescending.

---Jeffrey

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

[mnischalke 0]

Umm

125% of 300%

Those numbers were each of their own category. (49% of all republicans)

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

True, of course. But the comparison is lop-sided, as shown by this 1994 Poll:

"Do you happen to have in your home any guns or revolvers?"
Republican .............. 49% Democrat ................ 37% Independent ............. 39%

Uh anything newer than 10 year old Data?????

[freeflir29 0]

That's skewed data anyway. I have enough guns to lend one to every member of Congess......and the aides.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

True, of course. But the comparison is lop-sided, as shown by this 1994 Poll:

"Do you happen to have in your home any guns or revolvers?"
Republican .............. 49% Democrat ................ 37% Independent ............. 39%

Uh anything newer than 10 year old Data?????

A fair question. Probably just stuff that shows that those Democrats who have since been mugged are now Pro Gun.

(There's that joke that a Conservative is a Liberal who's been mugged.)

---Jeffrey

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

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

However, there should be no fees associated with the exercise of constitutional rights. We shouldn't have to pay a government fee to vote, to make free speech, or to own a gun.

Such things should be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled this way when it comes to voting, on the "poll tax". But somehow the politicians seem to forget this same rule when it comes to guns...

So . . . then . . . like religion, gun manufacturing and sales should be tax exempt?

I mean, I'm pretty sure you'd go freekin' nuts if media companies were tax exempt.

You're right, I'm not looking for tax exemption, but how about not trying to outlaw every affordable firearm out there. You're in California, and it's a weekday, so there must be an article in the paper about "Saturday Night Specials." Ever stop to think what one of those really is?

[nb - look up the history of that phrase one of these days, gives an interesting peek into the history of gun control]

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

[quade 3]

If a person is pro personal ownership but anti assault weapon would you say the person is pro or anti gun?

If a person had those opinions, would that automatically make him, as Winsor might say, a person beneith contempt?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

If you do a quick Google on the term you'll have a lot of stuff from both sides pop up.

I suppose if you want to look at one side as fact and the other as fiction, then you can pick and choose which sites to look at.

Here is the first one that popped up.
http://www.millionmommarch.org/facts/gunlaws/saturday.asp

I'm sure the NRA site disagrees completely.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnischalke 0]

Well, that depends on your interpretation of the term "assault weapon."

If you are talking about the true meaning of the term (fully automatic rifle, coined by hitler himself), probably not.

If you are talking about the clinton-feel-good-black-guns-are-bad-even-though-they-are-operationally-the-same-as-every-other-semi-automatic-rifle-with-a-wood-stock, yes. Or at least terribly misinformed.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

If a person is pro personal ownership but anti assault weapon would you say the person is pro or anti gun?

And here I told myself I was going to bed. I should have known better.

quade, we've been over this. I'm not asking for full auto to be treated like every other gun. I 'm against the assault weapons ban, though, because it has nothing to do with assault weapons. It bans semi-automatic guns that look like military and other full auto firearms.

Quote

If a person had those opinions, would that automatically make him, as Winsor might say, a person beneith contempt?

Well, I don't think winsor thinks that way of me, and he knows where I stand.

ps - "beneath" sorry, but it's not often I get one on you.

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

[quade 3]

Well, let's say a politician made it known that she was gathering as much support as possible to continue, and in fact close some loopholes in, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

Would a politician like that not get your support for re-election based solely on that? Regardless of Party affiliation? I mean, what if she was a Republican with those views? Would you try to boot her out of office?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnischalke 0]

Without a second thought.

So what card are you holding back?

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[quade 3]

This.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-assaultweaponsbush.htm

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

If you do a quick Google on the term you'll have a lot of stuff from both sides pop up.

I suppose if you want to look at one side as fact and the other as fiction, then you can pick and choose which sites to look at.

I was just talking about the history of the phrase "Saturday Night Special." If you'll grant me some leeway, it comes from the original phrase Niggertown Saturday Night. If you seriously do homework on it, rather than one google search, you'll find most gun control actually has beginnings in racism.

And here I thought you actually read my posts. You'd know I don't take one side as fact and the other as fiction.

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

[quade 3]

Quote

. . . it comes from the original phrase . . .

Well, now come on, quote me a source!

And amidst the noise and haste of the internet, how the heck am I supposed to do research if not via Google?

Quote

If you seriously do homework on it, rather than one google search, you'll find most gun control actually has beginnings in racism.

And I'm REALLY gonna need a source for that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnischalke 0]

Ha,

Shall I explain political posturing to ya?

It won't even get to his desk, so he can say anything he wants to about it, publicly.

It's in the hands of congress, and I am sure most of them know what happened last time.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Here is the first one that popped up.
http://www.millionmommarch.org/facts/gunlaws/saturday.asp

I'm sure the NRA site disagrees completely.

I don't know about the NRA site, but I'm going to give a quick look at some of their logic. See if you follow me. [btw, love the pastels on the MMM site]

OK, so the anti gun group says: SNS guns are non-sporting, low-quality handguns with barrels less than three inches, and that they lack essential safety features.

Really? I say a gun can be used in any way you choose, sporting or otherwise. As to safety features, they have more than a Glock, which is a very expensive pistol used by the NYPD.

OK, so the anti gun group says: these handguns are not useful for sport or self-defense because their short barrels make them inaccurate and their low quality of construction make them dangerous and unreliable.

Really? I say a short barrel has na effect on inherent accuracy. I aslo say they are ideal for self defense because their short barrel makes then easy to manuver in close quarters, lighter so they are easier to carry, and most self defense happens at less than twenty feet, so target practice at 100 yard is not necessary.

As to the quality claims, some of the most respected manufacturers out there have had models put on SNS lists; Taurus, S&W, Ruger. Also, some people drive shitty used cars. Are we going to ban them because they are less safe than a brand new caddie or beamer, or because they don't perform like one?


I could easily go on to every single Q and A they list on the site, but I'll just hit the easiest one for now:

OK, so the anti gun group says: "There are currently no quality and safety standards in place for domestically manufactured firearms."

Really? I say apparently they've never heard of SAAMI.

OK, so the anti gun group says: "The Consumer Product Safety Commission is prohibited by law from imposing safety standards on guns."

Actaully, that's true, but only because legislators believe some bureaucrat should not be allowed to ban the manufacture of guns.

etc, etc, etc

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

[winsor 187]

Speak not of what you know not.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

If a person is pro personal ownership but anti assault weapon would you say the person is pro or anti gun?

If a person had those opinions, would that automatically make him, as Winsor might say, a person beneith contempt?

I would first attempt to determine, through questioning, what is this person's understanding of what "assault weapon" means.

I have found that most people -- and make no mistake, this is by design of the anti-gunners -- are CLUELESS about what is implied by the term.

Josh Sugarmann of Handgun Control Inc. (which interestingly changed its name to The Brady Center To Prevent Handgun Violence after it realized that Americans who are concerned with rights don't like the term "control" very much) has been quoted saying that gun controllers should, essentially, capitalize specifically on the confusion that many non-gun-owners (i.e. people unfamiliar with guns and how they work) have in distinguishing the "good" guns from the "bad." Here is the quote:

"Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, "Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation", March 1989

That is telling. Here he is admitting that while assault weapons are not in fact machine guns, anti-gun forces should trade on that confusion in garnering public support for a ban. In other words, get the people to support a ban before they figure out that what you are trying to get them to support is not what they think you are trying to get them to support.

I wonder, quade: DO you know what an "assault weapon" is?

DO you know that the AR-15 I have, which fires only one bullet per pull of the trigger regardless of how long it is held, is what Sugarmann is calling an "assault weapon"?

DO you know that the Department of Defense defines an "assault rifle" as one which has a selector switch that can make it fire in semi-automatic OR fully-automatic modes?

DO you know that the "assault weapons ban" did not ban anything? It did not call for the collection of or surrender of any guns currently in private possession. It did not ban any MACHINE guns, as those have been strictly controlled since 1934. It singled out a group of gun models that LOOKED like military rifles, except they did not fire in full-auto mode. The menacing attributes of these guns? They had bayonet attachment points, flash suppressors (which simply disperse the flame from the muzzle so that it does not blind a shooter using the gun in low light), pistol grips, collapsible stocks, or grenade launcher attachment points. The guns are not allowed to have any 2 or more of these features. Oh, also, magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds of ammunition.

Apart from that, the guns do not function ANY differently from many many other guns that no one singled out to "ban." The "ban" on the aforementioned types of guns simply meant no more manufacture of them for sale to civilians. They are still made, but sold only to police and military. But how safe did this law make anyone, when ALL of the previously manufactured models (even those on the shelves waiting to be sold) are still able to be sold, bought and owned by civilians? No one had to turn in their AR-15 with a pistol grip, flash suppressor and bayonet lug. I can still go to a store and pay a jacked-up price for a 15 round magazine for my Glock. The price is high because supply is now cut off, but they're still around and obtainable.

So I bought an AR-15 that has only a pistol grip. No flash suppressor, no bayonet lug. It would now be illegal for me to add those things after the fact. The exact same ammunition is used and fires at the exact same speed. The gun was made after the ban and COMPLIES WITH THE TERMS OF THE BAN. The anti-gunners characterized the re-release of the banned models WITHOUT the offending accessories as "skirting the ban," and tried to make it seem like this was dishonest or immoral. Let's see about that.

In California, it is illegal to drive an RV that is over a certain number of feet. (I don't know the exact number, it's something like 35-or 40 feet I guess.) Does that mean that if the length limit is 40 feet, and a company makes and sells an RV that is 39'6", it is a bad nasty company that is "skirting the law"??

Quade, I don't know what it is about this subject that causes you to have such difficulty accepting facts from people like me, winsor and johnrich, among others, without disputing or remaining so recalcitrant about it. You spitefully demand "cite" when we tell you something that we have no reason to lie about. Truth is truth. Hopefully now you know more about assault weapons than you did. Hopefully you trust that I'm not making shit up -- because you know, that'd be pretty stupid of me since these things could be independently checked on and you could come back and say, "Jeff, I checked, and you were full of shit."

An interesting story:
When I was in college, I was at my friend Ian's with my other friend Matt. Matt and I both owned guns. Ian and his parents were quite opposed to the idea of gun ownership, being educated suburbanite elites who always had 911 at their beck and call. The subject of guns came up, and Ian's dad exhorted that people shouldn't be able to have "these semi-automatic assault weapons." I said, "Mr. R., do you know what an 'assault weapon' IS?" He said, "Sure, you pull the trigger and bratatatatatatatat!" And he made the motion of a soldier raking a field with machine-gun fire.

I said, "Thank you, you just proved my point." Mr. R. probably had written his congressman urging support of the assault weapons ban because he THOUGHT, MISTAKENLY, that he was going to be "getting machine guns off the streets." He knew about guns, essentially, ONLY what he had been told by anti-gun propagandists. This is, unfortunately, typical. Unless someone has an interest in guns, he is not likely to know all that much about them. Same goes for flying, skydiving, scuba diving, or anything that has its own jargon and esoteric information. The sad result is that many people can be swayed by propaganda. When my brother was in the Army and brought home a Glock he had bought, I was shocked! I was about 16 and didn't know jack about firearms -- just bb guns. I said, "Isn't that the one that's plastic and can go through metal detectors?!"

I knew only the bullshit propaganda LIES that I'd seen on the nightly news and in articles in dumbass magazines like Rolling Stone.

My brother then handed me the cleared, unloaded, open-chambered gun, and I got to feel that it contained about a pound or so of metal. Hardened steel. This was what they had tried to terrify us about, with claims (*LIES*) that it could go through airport metal detectors covertly?! WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS LIE? IT HAD BEEN ALL OVER THE COUNTRY by the time my brother brought home one of the guns that the lie was about! HOW COULD ANYONE WITH EVEN A PASSING FAMILIARITY WITH THIS GUN MISTAKE THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT MADE WITHOUT THE USE OF METAL?! There was no possible explanation for the misinformation except that it was deliberate: that it was intentionally spread by someone who knew that it would take years to reign in the lie and set the record straight, and that we might never even fully accomplish that.

I have yet to see a deliberate lie or misrepresentation by the pro-gun side.

So now to finally answer your two questions directly:
If a person claims to be pro-gun but is anti-"assault weapon," I not only call that person anti-gun but I question that person's understanding of gun functions and the very utility of the right to keep and bear arms.
And if a person holds this "opinion," since it is based on misinformation and lies, generally -- I do not hold that PERSON beneath contempt, for he or she might be a very good person, but I do question his or her rationality and reasoning skills, ability to spot an obvious lie, credulity, etc. I have contempt for the ignorance that can lead a person to think there's something wrong with so-called "assault weapons" that is somehow not wrong with "sporting arms" and "hunting rifles." Did you know that there is NOW a push to ban various HUNTING rifles, because suddenly since they are accurate and powerful at distances in the hundreds of yards, they've morphed into ... wait for it ...

SNIPER RIFLES!!!

And you thought it couldn't get any more inane.

---Jeffrey
---Jeffrey

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Well, let's say a politician made it known that she was gathering as much support as possible to continue, and in fact close some loopholes in, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

Would a politician like that not get your support for re-election based solely on that? Regardless of Party affiliation? I mean, what if she was a Republican with those views? Would you try to boot her out of office?

Fuck YES I would oppose that lying c**t's reelection. There is nothing wrong with the "loopholes" in the 1994 ban that letting it expire will not solve.

Nothing was accomplished by that travesty. Same guns made and sold, just without some flashy doodads on them. Are you any less able to be shot by an attacker with an AR-15 that has an uncollapsible stock? Of course not. Good thing they're used in less than a single percent of gun crimes (according to our own FBI).

Why do you persist in appearing to think that the 1994 ban did anything at all? We've made it abundantly clear that no good and functional purpose was served.

---Jeffrey

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

[PhillyKev 0]

It's about time someone stood up and stopped the poor people from protecting themselves!! Now if we can just start charging a licensing fee to vote we can really make some progress in removing any power from the peasants!!!

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

If a person is pro personal ownership but anti assault weapon would you say the person is pro or anti gun?

If a person had those opinions, would that automatically make him, as Winsor might say, a person beneith contempt?

I don't see how anyone who supports the notion that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for citizens to protect themselves from the government can at the same time hold the notion that banning certain types of firearms from private ownership is appropriate.

If you really think you need protection from a future rogue government why would you not need fully automatic weapons, mortars, RPGs, etc.?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

Quote

Fuck YES I would oppose that lying c**t's reelection. There is nothing wrong with the "loopholes" in the 1994 ban that letting it expire will not solve.

So, when GWB says he supports the reauthorization of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban . . . would you also "oppose that lying c**t's reelection"?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver