No guns in Chicago = War zone

[kallend 1,679]

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3323715#3323715

...

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

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

And recall, there is no instance of any crime ever being committed with a hobby rocket. Gun users, however, commit over ten thousand homicides a year and hundreds of thousands of other crimes.

No sir, it is criminal who use guns. Fixed it for you

Apparently criminal (sic) don't use hobby rockets but they REALLY like using guns. As do nutcases.

There are NO recorded instances EVER of a mentally unstable person going on a rampage with a hobby rocket.

...

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Wrong again

Actually you have said that several times....you used getting a pilots license as an example.

Really, your arguments become more an more emotional, and less and less rational every day.

Quote

Rest of your emotional ranting snipped.

You mean the questions I asked that you can't/will not answer? You know like:

Are model rockets protected in the BoR's?

How many people have been killed by a legal MG since 1934?

Really....Your arguments just keep getting worse. I'm done here till you stop the BS and start answering as many questions as you ask.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rushmc 18]

The thought this was a thread about a constitutional ritht of gun ownership and (then it mophed into) what limitations might be aceptable since no right is completely unlimited????

WTF does it have to do with explosives (ie: rocket propellant)?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

...All for a 2 ounce hobby motor... And recall, there is no instance of any crime ever being committed with a hobby rocket.

Many gun-o-phobes want to ban .50 caliber rifles, even though they've not been used in crimes, because of what they fear they MIGHT do. There are lurid tales of shooting down airliners and destroying police cars, from a mile away.

So why shouldn't this same fear of what MIGHT be done with rocket motors, apply to those who own them? It is postulated that rocket motors in the hands of terrorists could be used to shoot down airliners, and attack other targets.

Why should you be any different than someone who wants to own a .50 caliber rifle? Why are you so darned special that we should automatically trust you not to be just another loony with explosives?

So, are you for or against banning .50 caliber rifles? In order for your position to be consistent, you should be against banning them. Are you? If you want to have your explosives without government interference, then you should also be in favor of people having .50 caliber rifles without government interference. Are you?

[billvon 2,471]

>So why shouldn't this same fear of what MIGHT be done with
>rocket motors, apply to those who own them?

Because while .50cal weapons have been used to kill people, hobby rocket motors have not. (This would be in reality, not one of the many JohnRich imaginary scenarios.)

>So, are you for or against banning .50 caliber rifles?

Personally, I think any sane, law-abiding adult should be able to buy one if he or she wants one. I'd be against any law that prevented sane, law-abiding adults from buying them, and be for any law that kept them out of the hands of criminals or the insane.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Because while .50cal weapons have been used to kill people

Got a list of crimes that have used a 50 cal?

Quote

Personally, I think any sane, law-abiding adult should be able to buy one if he or she wants one. I'd be against any law that prevented sane, law-abiding adults from buying them, and be for any law that kept them out of the hands of criminals or the insane.

While I think we ALL agree with that. How much of an intrusion into a person's private life are you willing to permit?

I think that is the real question.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Apparently criminal (sic) don't use hobby rockets but they REALLY like using guns. As do nutcases.

Oh, so you feel the need to add "(sic)" to people's typos.

Did that add something of value to the discussion, or was it just a petty dig with no other purpose than to make you feel big as you made the poster feel small?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Apparently criminal (sic) don't use hobby rockets but they REALLY like using guns. As do nutcases.

Oh, so you feel the need to add "(sic)" to people's typos.

Did that add something of value to the discussion, or was it just a petty dig with no other purpose than to make you feel big as you made the poster feel small?

Thanks but, I know I cant spell, he knows I have trouble spelling, if it helps him feel better, well then so be it. But is does not bother me anymore as I know how petty is really is[:)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

8. Despite the above, the new rules for owning even one 2 ounce hobby rocket motor are more stringent than the rules for owning a machine gun.

Do you HONESTLY think that makes sense?

Cite.

A BATF LEUP license is needed. Check the requirements for THAT!

Color me unimpressed, in comparison to the hoops that a FFL license holder has to go through.

Red herring alert, we're not discussing becoming a DEALER here. Try to stay on track.

Quote

Looks much like the registration and safe storage that you so advocate for gun owners, however - what's your gripe?

Guess you just skipped the part about fingerprinting, mug shots, REAL background check for all the same things as a MG permit, requiring an approved magazine with an approved lock (and inspection of same on demand by an ATF agent). Everyone I know who got a LEUP was interviewed, and some had their neighbors interviewed too. All for a 2 ounce hobby motor.

And recall, there is no instance of any crime ever being committed with a hobby rocket. Gun users, however, commit over ten thousand homicides a year and hundreds of thousands of other crimes.

Try again, professor - evidently you don't know the rules as well as you claim to.

There is no such thing as a 'machine gun license'. To own a NFA weapon, you have to have a Class 3 Federal Firearms license (aka "dealer" license). The license fees for a LEUP appear to be much less onerous than that for a FFL, as well. The magazine is the same thing as any serious black powder shooter or reloader has to do. Seeing as how several of the pages talking about getting a LEUP also speak about making their own magazines or converting from ammo cans, I'm not too heartbroken over their inconvenience over a toy.

"If if saves just one life..." - isn't that the gun-grabber's mantra? Well, I don't know if your toy rockets save any lives yearly, but it's a fact that several HUNDRED THOUSAND crimes are prevented each year by legally owned handguns.

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

[kallend 1,679]

Why do you consistently ignore this fact:

There is no instance of any crime ever being committed with a hobby rocket. Gun users, however, commit over ten thousand homicides a year and hundreds of thousands of other crimes.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Why do you consistently ignore this fact:

There is no instance of any crime ever being committed with a hobby rocket. Gun users, however, commit over ten thousand homicides a year and hundreds of thousands of other crimes.

Because I ignore your hypocrisy, that's why. You lump the legal gun owners in with the criminals in your petty diatribes.

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

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Why do you consistently ignore this fact:

There is no instance of any crime ever being committed with a hobby rocket. Gun users, however, commit over ten thousand homicides a year and hundreds of thousands of other crimes.

Because I ignore your hypocrisy, that's why. You lump the legal gun owners in with the criminals in your petty diatribes.

Translation, mnealtx can't answer the question without revealing his own inconsistency.

Since hobby rockets are no more popular with criminals and loonies than Lego bricks and Barbie Dolls, and a lot less popular than cell phones, maybe we should require fingerprinting and a full background check before we can buy cell phones, Barbie Dolls and Legos.

...

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

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

There is no such thing as a 'machine gun license'. To own a NFA weapon, you have to have a Class 3 Federal Firearms license (aka "dealer" license).

Not if it was made before May, 1986 and not registered as a dealer sample.

In that case the transfer gets approved by a chief law enforcement officer, the gun gets registered, and transfer tax paid.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

There is no such thing as a 'machine gun license'. To own a NFA weapon, you have to have a Class 3 Federal Firearms license (aka "dealer" license).

Not if it was made before May, 1986 and not registered as a dealer sample.

In that case the transfer gets approved by a chief law enforcement officer, the gun gets registered, and transfer tax paid.

A quick search reveals plenty of nice, fully functional C&R MGs available to those with enough cash. No FFL needed.

...

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

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you consistently ignore this fact:

There is no instance of any crime ever being committed with a hobby rocket. Gun users, however, commit over ten thousand homicides a year and hundreds of thousands of other crimes.

Because I ignore your hypocrisy, that's why. You lump the legal gun owners in with the criminals in your petty diatribes.

Translation, mnealtx can't answer the question without revealing his own inconsistency.

You haven't responded to the question of how you reconcile your objection to government intrusion with your zeal for having our medical privacy rights subject to mandatory surrender in order to get to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is no such thing as a 'machine gun license'. To own a NFA weapon, you have to have a Class 3 Federal Firearms license (aka "dealer" license).

Not if it was made before May, 1986 and not registered as a dealer sample.

In that case the transfer gets approved by a chief law enforcement officer, the gun gets registered, and transfer tax paid.

A quick search reveals plenty of nice, fully functional C&R MGs available to those with enough cash. No FFL needed.

So "plenty" that because of the race between supply and demand, you really can't get one for under about ten or fifteen thousand dollars.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

This is a really interesting passage from the website for the North Carolina Rifle and Pistol Association

Quote

Q: What is the deal with this Pistol Purchase Permit law? I moved from one NC county to another and found that the Sheriffs of each county have vastly different requirements for getting Permits. Isn't this covered by State law?

A: The Pistol Purchase Permit law was passed in 1919, and is a classic piece of Jim Crow-era legislation (Jim Crow History). The recognition of civil rights for blacks and other minorities meant that the Constitution applied to minorities. This meant that blacks and other minorities could exercise their natural right to self-defense, with the full support of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and Article I, Sec. 30 of the North Carolina Constitution. This did not sit well with the Ku Klux Klan (which for many years was headquartered in Raleigh, just down the street from the Legislature) and other racist groups and influential individuals. The racist members of the State Legislature knew they could not overtly prevent minorities from purchasing handguns for protection, so the seemingly innocent Pistol Purchase Permit law was passed. This law allowed local Sheriffs and government officials to discriminate with impunity at the local level.

Even today, the Pistol Purchase Permit law is implemented in an arbitrary and capricious fashion by 100 individual County Sheriffs. Some Sheriffs do little more than collect the fees and hand out permits to the law-abiding, because more than that is not necessary. Others implement ridiculous, intrusive requirements that either discriminate on a wholesale basis or are selectively applied so that discrimination can be more personalized.

With the advent of the National Instant Check System (NICS) there is no public safety reason why the Pistol Purchase Permit system needs to continue. The Jim Crow era is over, and the laws of that era need to be eliminated. Most people agree with that in principle, but for some reason when it comes to guns a significant number of people seem to think that discrimination and arbitrary requirements are a good thing. This is something NCRPA totally disagrees with.

I guess that if we (the right and the left) really want to leave behind the era of institutionalized racism, the left is going to have to relinquish its affinity for gun control laws. They are a vestige, indisputably, of racial discrimination.

Leftists who remain in favor of gun control remain in favor of a policy whose roots are the furthest possible thing from "progressive."

I have to admit that I am amused by the fact that in order for leftists to support gun control, they have to be what they hate.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[kallend 1,679]

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3330677#3330677

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you consistently ignore this fact:

There is no instance of any crime ever being committed with a hobby rocket. Gun users, however, commit over ten thousand homicides a year and hundreds of thousands of other crimes.

Because I ignore your hypocrisy, that's why. You lump the legal gun owners in with the criminals in your petty diatribes.

Translation, mnealtx can't answer the question without revealing his own inconsistency.

Since hobby rockets are no more popular with criminals and loonies than Lego bricks and Barbie Dolls, and a lot less popular than cell phones, maybe we should require fingerprinting and a full background check before we can buy cell phones, Barbie Dolls and Legos.

Bullcrap - YOU advocate intrusion into private medical records because of what someone MIGHT do with a gun. The BAT-boys are requiring licenses for low-order explosives because of what someone might do with them.

Quit whining because you get the same "it MIGHT happen" treatment as you advocate for others.

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

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you consistently ignore this fact:

There is no instance of any crime ever being committed with a hobby rocket. Gun users, however, commit over ten thousand homicides a year and hundreds of thousands of other crimes.

Because I ignore your hypocrisy, that's why. You lump the legal gun owners in with the criminals in your petty diatribes.

Translation, mnealtx can't answer the question without revealing his own inconsistency.

Since hobby rockets are no more popular with criminals and loonies than Lego bricks and Barbie Dolls, and a lot less popular than cell phones, maybe we should require fingerprinting and a full background check before we can buy cell phones, Barbie Dolls and Legos.

Bullcrap - YOU advocate intrusion into private medical records because of what someone MIGHT do with a gun.

Repeating that over and over doesn't make it true. You keep ignoring billvon's suggestion because it destroys your argument.

Quote

The BAT-boys are requiring licenses for low-order explosives because of what someone might do with them.

Quit whining because you get the same "it MIGHT happen" treatment as you advocate for others.

So you continue to advocate serious restrictions on a product that has never been used in a crime, while arguing for less rigorous controls over a product used in hundreds of thousands of crimes and thousands of homicides each year.

Your position makes perfect sense - NOT.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So you continue to advocate serious restrictions on a product that has never been used in a crime, while arguing for less rigorous controls over a product used in hundreds of thousands of crimes and thousands of homicides each year.

Your position makes perfect sense - NOT.

I advocate not tying the hands of the law abiding to purchase a product that has been proven to PREVENT hundreds of thousands of crimes per year.

The cold hard fact is THIS: You don't give a DAMN about the crime itself, only what tool the crime is committed with. You advocate more and more restrictions against the law abiding who have NEVER committed a crime. You have no problems with prior restraint against gun owners but howl when the same scrutiny is brought onto your toys.

You never know when one is going to snap and use a rocket motor to set off a truckload of ANFO.

As for bill's suggestion of a medical review? Let me know when you're willing to undergo psychiatric evaluation to post on the internet or speak in public or vote and we'll discuss it.

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

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

So you continue to advocate serious restrictions on a product that has never been used in a crime, while arguing for less rigorous controls over a product used in hundreds of thousands of crimes and thousands of homicides each year.

Your position makes perfect sense - NOT.

I advocate not tying the hands of the law abiding to purchase a product that has been proven to PREVENT hundreds of thousands of crimes per year.

How is preventing criminal and loonies from getting guns "tying the hands of the law abiding"? Your arguments are getting shriller and sillier with every post.

Quote

The cold hard fact is THIS: You don't give a DAMN about the crime itself, only what tool the crime is committed with. You advocate more and more restrictions against the law abiding who have NEVER committed a crime. You have no problems with prior restraint against gun owners but howl when the same scrutiny is brought onto your toys.

.

STRAWMAN!

Where have I advocated for more restrictions? I'm asking that existing laws prohibiting criminals and loonies be effectively implemented, which right now they are NOT, as Ron has pointed out repeatedly.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I advocate not tying the hands of the law abiding to purchase a product that has been proven to PREVENT hundreds of thousands of crimes per year.

How is preventing criminal and loonies from getting guns "tying the hands of the law abiding"? Your arguments are getting shriller and sillier with every post.

Existing law ALREADY denies them - YOU are advocating MORE law, ergo more restrictions.

Quote

The cold hard fact is THIS: You don't give a DAMN about the crime itself, only what tool the crime is committed with. You advocate more and more restrictions against the law abiding who have NEVER committed a crime. You have no problems with prior restraint against gun owners but howl when the same scrutiny is brought onto your toys.

.

STRAWMAN!

Where have I advocated for more restrictions? I'm asking that existing laws prohibiting criminals and loonies be effectively implemented, which right now they are NOT, as Ron has pointed out repeatedly.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I advocate not tying the hands of the law abiding to purchase a product that has been proven to PREVENT hundreds of thousands of crimes per year.

How is preventing criminal and loonies from getting guns "tying the hands of the law abiding"? Your arguments are getting shriller and sillier with every post.

Existing law ALREADY denies them - YOU are advocating MORE law, ergo more restrictions.

Quote

The cold hard fact is THIS: You don't give a DAMN about the crime itself, only what tool the crime is committed with. You advocate more and more restrictions against the law abiding who have NEVER committed a crime. You have no problems with prior restraint against gun owners but howl when the same scrutiny is brought onto your toys.

.

STRAWMAN!

Where have I advocated for more restrictions? I'm asking that existing laws prohibiting criminals and loonies be effectively implemented, which right now they are NOT, as Ron has pointed out repeatedly.

Bullcrap - show me where a doctor signs off on the ATF form for purchase. Put up or shut up, professor.