Why I don't believe in Gun Control.....

[SkyDekker 1,147]

yup, that is why you need a license and insurance to buy one legally.

Want to do the same for guns?

[namgrunt 0]

the answer to your question is obvious.

elected officials fear 50 cal

it can defeat limo armor,shoot down a helo

if citizens can defent against actions of elected officials then the same officials will have problems controleing these same citizens

you think hillary wants some simple cit. to be able to rebel???

officials should fear the masses
not the masses fear the officials


..

59 YEARS,OVERWEIGHT,BALDIND,X-GRUNT
LAST MIL. JUMP VIET-NAM(QUAN-TRI)
www.dzmemories.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

yup, that is why you need a license and insurance to buy one legally.

Want to do the same for guns?

The problem with your strawman is that you DON'T need a license or insurance to buy a car. Or to drive one on your private property.

So when you figure that one out, come on back.

[SkyDekker 1,147]

fine, so if you remain on private property you can own a gun...as soon as you want to take it off private property...you need to register the gun, get a license and be insured...

how is that?

I wouldn't have any problem with that at all....I think many in the pro-gun crowd would though....

[billvon 2,435]

>The problem with your strawman is that you DON'T need a license or
>insurance to buy a car. Or to drive one on your private property.

Actually, in many places you do. In CA, for example, the car must be either registered or insured, or must be registred as a non-operational vehicle, in which case you can't drive it but you don't have to pay insurance on it.

[NtheSeaOrSky 0]

I can see his point in that, you are SUPPOSED to have insurance and license, but does it really stop the person/teen who has keys in hand?

It surely does not stop the immigrant workers here who have no lic. or ins. from driving and wrecking them.

Life is not fair and there are no guarantees...

[nate_1979 9]

Quote

fine, so if you remain on private property you can own a gun...as soon as you want to take it off private property...you need to register the gun, get a license and be insured...

how is that?

I wouldn't have any problem with that at all....I think many in the pro-gun crowd would though....

I have a problem registering guns, because there is too many anti-gun asshats out there that would love to have that list for when they try to make guns illegal. I dont need anyone in the Gov't knowing that I have one. Our right to own them is at too much risk.

FGF #???
I miss the sky...
There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

fine, so if you remain on private property you can own a gun...as soon as you want to take it off private property...you need to register the gun, get a license and be insured...

how is that?

Sounds like a CCW permit -- which has a training and registration requirement in most states.

Transporting a firearm is the same as transporting a vehicle: secured and in an unusable state.

Have we dragged this poorly constructed analogy far enough yet? Can we go back to the real world, where poorly driven SUVs pose a much greater threat to mankind than someone's Sig 229?

[HydroGuy 0]

Quote

Actually, in many places you do. In CA, for example, the car must be either registered or insured, or must be registred as a non-operational vehicle, in which case you can't drive it but you don't have to pay insurance on it.

That is because in CA we don't pay property taxes on vehicles, we pay Vehicular Registration Fees. The state democrats want cash whether it drives or not...

Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary

[kelpdiver 2]

I think the driving motivation there is to make sure people don't dodge the use tax while still driving the vehicle on public roads. Given how ineffective the state is at preventing people from driving without a license or insurance, and how few people would actually have a vehicle for private use only, it's not so outrageous.

I'm more ticked about how the state gets sales tax every time the vehicle changes hands.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Actually, in many places you do. In CA, for example, the car must be either registered or insured, or must be registred as a non-operational vehicle, in which case you can't drive it but you don't have to pay insurance on it.

That is because in CA we don't pay property taxes on vehicles, we pay Vehicular Registration Fees. The state democrats want cash whether it drives or not...

So the state Republicans are different?

...

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

[Gene03 0]

In 1939 in Germany, Adolph Hitler required the registration of all firearms... And the world lived happily ever after.

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[lucia 0]

MAYBE BECAUSE IF ONE OF THOSE THINGS GETS SHOT YOU ARE DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote

Firearms are a big issue there and when I lived there it just scared me to death.

Because not being scared of firearms is damn stupid. If you have lost all respect to firearms that they dont generate fear then you are in trouble. That is what I am scared about, firearems have become something common, something familiar, something usual, and that I think that makes people loose all respect for them. They are not toys they are something that kills!

[


The problem is that If just one person has a gun then his neighboor also wants one just in case he needs to defend from him, and at the same time the next neighboor also wants one because if his two neighboors have one then it is maybe interesting to be able to defend like them. Result: everybody has a gun at home, but that one neighboor that decided not to buy a gun has to live scared to death knowing that all his sorounding citizens have a gun in the closet. And he eventually ends up buying a gun just in case.

[mr2mk1g 10]

[mnealtx 0]

Do you often have fears of inanimate objects? If you saw someone go in under a parachute, would you then be afraid of parachutes?

There is no reason to be afraid of a *TOOL*.

A person uses a book of matches to light a campfire - good

A person uses a book of matches to light gasoline that they have poured on a house - bad.

It's not the object that is good or bad - it is the use to which a PERSON puts them.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lucia 0]

I fear inanimate objects in the hands of millions of people that maybe dont know what they are doing.
A TOOL????????????????
Holy sh.... You call that a tool? And what is the tool made for, what is the meaning of his existence. To kill. Yes there are other ways you can use them, and they deserve all my respect. But the basic nature of a gun is that they have the ability end with someones life.
Safe and controlled uses of guns, as in sport shooting etc deserve all my respects. Im not talking about that kind of use of firearms.

Lucy in the Sky
http:\\www.skydivelillo.com

[waltappel 1]

Quote

I fear inanimate objects in the hands of millions of people that maybe dont know what they are doing.
A TOOL????????????????
Holy sh.... You call that a tool? And what is the tool made for, what is the meaning of his existence. To kill. Yes there are other ways you can use them, and they deserve all my respect. But the basic nature of a gun is that they have the ability end with someones life.
Safe and controlled uses of guns, as in sport shooting etc deserve all my respects. Im not talking about that kind of use of firearms.

Lucia,

Perhaps the word "tool" is not the best choice of words, but the idea is that a gun will do absolutely nothing by itself. It will only function if someone or something makes it shoot.

What I think is more important than whether someone with a gun knows what they are doing is the morality and judgement of the person with a gun. It is the person who is deadly. A person motivated to kill can do so with any number of "tools"--a knife, poison, a gun, a hammer, a car or truck, a brick, an airplance, a screwdriver, a stick, a piece of rope, his hands, his feet, explosives, or a lot of other common objects. It would not be realistic to outlaw everything that can be used to kill.

Eliminating guns will not change the human heart. Your society is fundamentally different from ours--Spaniards think differently than Americans do. It's more complex than that, though. Spain can claim a single, dominant culture. In the US, we cannot. We are a mix of many different cultures. What may work well for your culture may not work at all for ours.

As an example, bullfighting would never be tolerated in the US. Most people in the US would consider bullfighting to be as barbaric as you think the proliferations of guns in the US is.

If you ever visit the US, please let us know. I'm sure someone here would be happy to show you the gun culture in this country. I certainly would.

Walt

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

I can see his point in that, you are SUPPOSED to have insurance and license, but does it really stop the person/teen who has keys in hand?

It surely does not stop the immigrant workers here who have no lic. or ins. from driving and wrecking them.

So, do laws against killing work? There seem to be many people in jail for murder...guess those laws don't stop anybody from killing some one. Guess we better get rid of those laws, since they are not working.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I can see his point in that, you are SUPPOSED to have insurance and license, but does it really stop the person/teen who has keys in hand?

It surely does not stop the immigrant workers here who have no lic. or ins. from driving and wrecking them.

So, do laws against killing work? There seem to be many people in jail for murder...guess those laws don't stop anybody from killing some one. Guess we better get rid of those laws, since they are not working.

Bad analogy.... you can talk about getting rid of as many laws as you like... the problem is that you are only affecting the law abiding. Criminals by definition don't follow the law.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

.... you can talk about getting rid of as many laws as you like... the problem is that you are only affecting the law abiding. Criminals by definition don't follow the law.

If there are no laws, everybody is a law abiding citizen.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

.... you can talk about getting rid of as many laws as you like... the problem is that you are only affecting the law abiding. Criminals by definition don't follow the law.

If there are no laws, everybody is a law abiding citizen.

Tell ya what - you go first and report back to us how that works for ya...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,147]

hey, I am not the one screaming laws only work for law-abiding citizens...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I fear inanimate objects in the hands of millions of people that maybe dont know what they are doing.

Those millions of people are firing billions of bullets every year. Somehow we're not all dead.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I dont know anything about firearms and I just love it!! I have never seen one and never touched one, and I feel I am lucky for that. I wish nobody had to see a gun never in their life.

News story:

Police said Felix Vigil was attacking his ex-wife with a knife near the store's deli counter where she worked when an armed customer intervened and shot him. The woman, Joyce Cordova, was treated for multiple stab wounds and later released from an Albuquerque hospital. The armed customer, 72-year-old Due Moore, was interviewed after the shooting last Thursday and released. Mr. Moore took a class to get his concealed handgun permit just 13 days after the law went into effect...

Full story: http://www.lamonitor.com/articles/2005/08/31/headline_news/news12.txt

Do you wish that this man with a legal concealed handgun had been unarmed, so that this woman could have been successfully stabbed to death by her attacker?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So, do laws against killing work? There seem to be many people in jail for murder...guess those laws don't stop anybody from killing some one. Guess we better get rid of those laws, since they are not working.

Some laws prohibit harmful or dangerous behavior, like running red lights, or armed robbery. Those are good laws that need to be on the books. They may not stop all people from doing those things, however, they are necessary in order to prosecute violators through the judicial system. If the law isn't on the books, we can't punish the behavior.

Then there are other types of laws, which go far beyond prohibiting dangerous and harmful behavior. And that's where many of the gun laws have gone. For example, prohibiting handgun magazines that hold over 10 rounds, or prohibiting guns with pistol grips, flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. These kinds of things do nothing to harm anyone by themselves. These are the type of useless laws which should be revoked.

The only way to hurt someone with a flash suppressor is to unscrew it from the end of your gun barrel and throw it at someone. But I can do that with a rock.

New "crimes" have been invented, based simply upon the ownership of certain firearms, or the possession of certain features on guns. They have nothing to do with actual wrongful behavior against others.

If someone uses a firearm to threaten or harm someone, we already have laws on the books to cover that; murder, aggravated assault, and so on. Those are the crimes they should be charged with, and punished severely.

But to turn law-abiding citizens who haven't hurt anyone, into criminals, just because they have a flash suppressor, a pistol grip stock, or an 11-round magazine is ridiculous.

We should punish people for wrongful behavior, not for the technical features of the guns they own.