mnealtx 0 #326 September 15, 2008 QuoteProperly implementing an existing law that currently is poorly implemented is NOT a new restriction. No problem - show me where a doctor signs off on the ATF form, then.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #327 September 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteProperly implementing an existing law that currently is poorly implemented is NOT a new restriction. No problem - show me where a doctor signs off on the ATF form, then. Stop being obtuse. You do know the meaning of RESTRICTION.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #328 September 15, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Properly implementing an existing law that currently is poorly implemented is NOT a new restriction. No problem - show me where a doctor signs off on the ATF form, then. Stop being obtuse. You do know the meaning of RESTRICTION. Let see, the poll (of this thread) at the time of this post is 14 to 48............. How many times did you vote?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #329 September 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteProperly implementing an existing law that currently is poorly implemented is NOT a new restriction. No problem - show me where a doctor signs off on the ATF form, then. Stop being obtuse. You do know the meaning of RESTRICTION. Certainly - when you admit that a doctor's signature is NOT required for purchase and is NOT stipulated in existing law.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #330 September 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteProperly implementing an existing law that currently is poorly implemented is NOT a new restriction. No problem - show me where a doctor signs off on the ATF form, then. Stop being obtuse. You do know the meaning of RESTRICTION. Certainly - when you admit that a doctor's signature is NOT required for purchase and is NOT stipulated in existing law. That's implementing an existing restriction, not imposing a new one. No one would be prohibited who isn't currently prohibited. Sane, law abiding people would still be approved.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #331 September 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 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. Maybe I misunderstand your position, but are you advocating refraining from restriction on anything until it is used in a crime? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #332 September 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteProperly implementing an existing law that currently is poorly implemented is NOT a new restriction. No problem - show me where a doctor signs off on the ATF form, then. Stop being obtuse. You do know the meaning of RESTRICTION. Certainly - when you admit that a doctor's signature is NOT required for purchase and is NOT stipulated in existing law. That's implementing an existing restriction, not imposing a new one. No one would be prohibited who isn't currently prohibited. Sane, law abiding people would still be approved. No, it's not. Current law does NOT support it. QED, additional law would be an ADDED requirement.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #333 September 15, 2008 Quote Maybe I misunderstand your position, but are you advocating refraining from restriction on anything until it is used in a crime? If you want to restrict things that haven't been used in a crime EVER, then where do you start? Barbie Dolls, Legos and chocolate chip cookies?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #334 September 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteProperly implementing an existing law that currently is poorly implemented is NOT a new restriction. No problem - show me where a doctor signs off on the ATF form, then. Stop being obtuse. You do know the meaning of RESTRICTION. Certainly - when you admit that a doctor's signature is NOT required for purchase and is NOT stipulated in existing law. That's implementing an existing restriction, not imposing a new one. No one would be prohibited who isn't currently prohibited. Sane, law abiding people would still be approved. No, it's not. Current law does NOT support it. QED, additional law would be an ADDED requirement. WRONG. Current law prohibits the sale of guns to loonies. It's simply not well enforced (as Ron keeps telling us).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #335 September 15, 2008 Quote Quote Maybe I misunderstand your position, but are you advocating refraining from restriction on anything until it is used in a crime? If you want to restrict things that haven't been used in a crime EVER, then where do you start? Barbie Dolls, Legos and chocolate chip cookies? Well, that was my point in asking. Though I'd be willing to bet that Legos and Barbie dolls have been involved in thousands, if not millions of undocumented battery cases between siblings..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #336 September 15, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteProperly implementing an existing law that currently is poorly implemented is NOT a new restriction. No problem - show me where a doctor signs off on the ATF form, then. Stop being obtuse. You do know the meaning of RESTRICTION. Certainly - when you admit that a doctor's signature is NOT required for purchase and is NOT stipulated in existing law. That's implementing an existing restriction, not imposing a new one. No one would be prohibited who isn't currently prohibited. Sane, law abiding people would still be approved. No, it's not. Current law does NOT support it. QED, additional law would be an ADDED requirement. WRONG. Current law prohibits the sale of guns to loonies. It's simply not well enforced (as Ron keeps telling us). Correct - current law does prohibit sales to 'loonies'. NOW, tell us how you think it should be enforced WITHOUT adding new laws and restrictions.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #337 September 15, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Properly implementing an existing law that currently is poorly implemented is NOT a new restriction. No problem - show me where a doctor signs off on the ATF form, then. Stop being obtuse. You do know the meaning of RESTRICTION. Certainly - when you admit that a doctor's signature is NOT required for purchase and is NOT stipulated in existing law. That's implementing an existing restriction, not imposing a new one. No one would be prohibited who isn't currently prohibited. Sane, law abiding people would still be approved. No, it's not. Current law does NOT support it. QED, additional law would be an ADDED requirement. WRONG. Current law prohibits the sale of guns to loonies. It's simply not well enforced (as Ron keeps telling us). Correct - current law does prohibit sales to 'loonies'. NOW, tell us how you think it should be enforced WITHOUT adding new laws and restrictions. WOW, this thread is making me dizzy. Round and round and round "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #338 September 15, 2008 Is putting cop with a radar gun on a street with a 30mph speed limit "adding a new restriction" to the speed at which you may drive? Or is it just enforcing the existing speed limit? Does a cop with a radar gun negatively affect those who already obey the speed limit? Or just those who disregard the limit?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #339 September 15, 2008 QuoteDoes a cop with a radar gun negatively affect those who already obey the speed limit? Or just those who disregard the limit? Radar guns give false readings all the time, or are interpreted incorrectly by the police, resulting in many innocent citizens being given tickets which they do not deserve. And you want to use that as a model for how to dole out a Constitutional right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #340 September 16, 2008 QuoteCurrent law prohibits the sale of guns to loonies. Please provide a citation for your claim. You get one try - make it good. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #341 September 16, 2008 QuoteThere is no instance of any crime ever being committed with a hobby rocket. But there are plenty with explosives."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #342 September 16, 2008 QuoteA quick search reveals plenty of nice, fully functional C&R MGs available to those with enough cash. No FFL needed. "Plenty" if you have 3k to 20k laying around for something that should cost under 1500.00 QuoteSo 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. The same way you ask for control of full auto weapons. Again I'll ask...How many legal MG have been used in a crime since 1934? QuoteProperly implementing an existing law that currently is poorly implemented is NOT a new restriction. It is when it creates more restrictions. QuoteWRONG. Current law prohibits the sale of guns to loonies. It's simply not well enforced (as Ron keeps telling us). WRONG...I said it WAS NOT well enforced. Please quote correctly or not at all. I also gave the bill that fixed many of those issues....You seem to ignore that."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #343 September 16, 2008 Criminals whacking criminals? WoooHooo! Let 'em at it! We get a 2-for-1 special...one dead, one in prison! In my simplistic view, the problem with gun control is that you can never tell who it is that might do a dirty deed. And if you restrict on the basis of who [might], then you have to restrict totally which is to say that nasty word BAN because even YOU might go postal on us at any time. So, you're left with, who probably would do the deed. Again, no way to tell for sure so you have to find a way to determine probability and set limits. What limit? 10% probable? 20%? I hated statistics class in school. For the record: -I support gun ownership as a constitutional right. -I support keeping guns away from those who abuse that right by using them for criminal activity. -I support more drastic punishment for those who use guns in criminal activity. Mandatory prison terms are apparently not having much effect. -I support the idea that using guns in criminal activity patently revokes any constitutional right to gun ownership.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #344 September 16, 2008 Quote It's all okay though, because a certain Chicago resident in these forums has lived there for years and doesn't feel the least bit threatened. Even though the University where he works is smack-dab in the middle of all those shooting location pins on the attached map. No, it's not OK. I hope and pray for his continued safety. I am not about to suggest to him to purchase a gun to protect himself even though, given the area and its history, it would might be a good idea IMHO. I do hope and pray that he never has to face a "situation".My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #345 September 16, 2008 Quote The same way you ask for control of full auto weapons. Again I'll ask...How many legal MG have been used in a crime since 1934? One. In the 80's a corrupt police officer in Ohio used his personally owned MAC to murder an informant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #346 September 16, 2008 QuoteOne. In the 80's a corrupt police officer in Ohio used his personally owned MAC to murder an informant. Sorry, close. Two. One was the cop you mentioned above. QuoteOn September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. Some claim the cop was dirty and killed the informant in a drug deal gone bad. The other was a Dr by the name of Shou Chao Ho. He killed another Dr. in 1992 in Ohio. Also an M11 in .380. 2 cases in almost 75 years."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FreeflyChile 0 #347 September 16, 2008 Does machine gun = automatic weapon? Or are assault rifles also in the "machine gun" category? I am asking because I honestly don't know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #348 September 16, 2008 QuoteDoes machine gun = automatic weapon? Or are assault rifles also in the "machine gun" category? I am asking because I honestly don't know. Machine gun - automatic weapon Assault weapon - select fire (semi-auto or auto, some have a 'burst' mode). What the press and the liberals CALL an assault weapon - isn't.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 643 #349 September 16, 2008 So we're not including the two LA bank robbers with AK-47's? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #350 September 16, 2008 QuoteSo we're not including the two LA bank robbers with AK-47's? Semi-auto, as I recall.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
