mnealtx 0 #101 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote (oh, and as a civilian you are not allowed anywhere near calibers beyond .357 magnum) Aside from the 44 mag, and the 50 for the Desert Eagles, which calibers are you talking about? Not much is bigger than the 357mags. The .40 S&W, the .41 Magnum, the .44 Special, the .45 Colt, Auto and GAP, the .454 Casull, the .500 S&W.... I think the magnum trumps the wider diameter on most of these. He said caliber, not power factor. And he used the word "beyond," not bigger then. Since that is open to interpretation, I asked him to clarify. Why are you wasting my time? YOUR OWN RESPONSE to him talked about calibers - why are you wasting MY time?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #102 February 25, 2009 QuotePretty sure some people are going to read the first three graphs of that and think, "Wow, this is exactly right! I agree!" and will fail to see the satire of the last two. Satire or not, he's right.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #103 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteHow about answer my question. I think you owe it to me since you eluded to me being confused when I don't think I'm as much confused as you're being dishonest about your position on the subject. Ok, let me make my position clear, which I believe I've done multiple times in the past. I am not opposed at all to a national licensing system for gun use. I see it being absolutely no different than licensing for use of any one of a number of other dangerous items. Ok - so you're also in favor of licensing before using a computer to post on the internet, to be able to write a book, to be able to send a letter to the editor of your local paper. QuoteThat said, I'm not 100% sure this is the right bill, but it's certainly not anywhere as odious as the original post in this thread makes it out to be. Agreed - as I said in my response to the OP, this isn't a 'gun grab' bill. QuoteDoes it have the "potential" for gun confiscation? Sure. Who cares? If the government was actually intent on confiscating your guns they'd do it whether or not you had a license anyway. It doesn't make it any "easier" because if the government did start going around confiscating guns they still wouldn't have any idea how many you had stashed away in your doomsday cache and , frankly, there would be a revolt anyway. Who cares? YOU should, if you were as supportive of the BOR as you say you are. Registration ABSOLUTELY makes it easier for the government to confiscate - I refer you back to NYC after the Sullivan laws, Cali after Roberti-Roos, etc etc.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #104 February 25, 2009 QuotePlus, if any of those forty were armed with a gun, none of this would have happened. Perhaps - it's an almost 100% probably the death toll would have been much lower. QuoteWho cares that a deranged guy could get guns? Well, why don't you fire up your "Minority Report" future scanner and let us know just WHO is going to twist off and shoot something up, so we can jail them now? For that matter, fire that sucker up and let us know who's going to be getting into accidents this year, so that we can revoke their licenses and forcibly sell their cars and save 40 thousand lives this year. QuoteBad guys will always have guns, so the point is that we need bigger guns to defend ourselves. Wrong - you need the most effective means to defend yourself from violence - that doesn't always equate to "bigger guns" QuoteSecondly, market forces will obviously make sure that the store that sold those guns will go bankrupt. If the gunshop knowingly sold the gun to someone that they knew was not qualified to buy or was making a straw purchase (Sen. Feinstein...paging Sen. Feinstein). Any other fatuous bullcrap you want to spew, or do you have it all out of your system now?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #105 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteI am not opposed at all to a national licensing system for gun use. I see it being absolutely no different than licensing for use of any one of a number of other dangerous items. Ok - so you're also in favor of licensing before using a computer to post on the internet, to be able to write a book, to be able to send a letter to the editor of your local paper. I think if you look at the quote, you'll see I'm talking about inherently dangerous items. Last time I checked, the internet, a book and an editorial in a newspaper could not accidentally fall into criminal hands and be used to kill the owners or owner's children or be used in any one of a number of other crimes afterward. MY concept of licensing has more to do with making sure the individual knows basic safety issues involved. While the NRA has education programs they certainly aren't required before using a gun.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #106 February 25, 2009 QuoteLook up "the herd effect" in some psychological studies for reference. Look up "firearms training" (and then take some) for some reference. Here's a hint for you - when those OTHER five people are all pointing their gun at the person who broke through the door of the classroom, it's going to be pretty obvious to the 6th person who they need to be aiming at.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #107 February 25, 2009 QuoteThen again.. when you have a bunch of people who are so afraid of guns that they rely on the police to be their only form of protection from the nuts... is... well just nuts. I have a gun because Ossifer Dave is too damn big to carry around in it's place!!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #108 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI am not opposed at all to a national licensing system for gun use. I see it being absolutely no different than licensing for use of any one of a number of other dangerous items. Ok - so you're also in favor of licensing before using a computer to post on the internet, to be able to write a book, to be able to send a letter to the editor of your local paper. I think if you look at the quote, you'll see I'm talking about inherently dangerous items. Last time I checked, the internet, a book and an editorial in a newspaper could not accidentally fall into criminal hands and be used to kill the owners or owner's children. MY concept of licensing has more to do with making sure the individual knows basic safety issues involved. While the NRA has education programs they certainly aren't required before using a gun. No - you're talking about licensing a RIGHT. If you think that the government will stop there, you're living in a fantasy world.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #109 February 25, 2009 Quote Quote Then again.. when you have a bunch of people who are so afraid of guns that they rely on the police to be their only form of protection from the nuts... is... well just nuts. I have a gun because Ossifer Dave is too damn big to carry around in it's place!!! Did you just call Aggie Dave fat? quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #110 February 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Then again.. when you have a bunch of people who are so afraid of guns that they rely on the police to be their only form of protection from the nuts... is... well just nuts. I have a gun because Ossifer Dave is too damn big to carry around in it's place!!! Did you just call Aggie Dave fat? Nope - I said he's too damn big for me to carry around!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #111 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote (oh, and as a civilian you are not allowed anywhere near calibers beyond .357 magnum) Aside from the 44 mag, and the 50 for the Desert Eagles, which calibers are you talking about? Not much is bigger than the 357mags. The .40 S&W, the .41 Magnum, the .44 Special, the .45 Colt, Auto and GAP, the .454 Casull, the .500 S&W.... I think the magnum trumps the wider diameter on most of these. He said caliber, not power factor. And he used the word "beyond," not bigger then. Since that is open to interpretation, I asked him to clarify. Why are you wasting my time? YOUR OWN RESPONSE to him talked about calibers - why are you wasting MY time? Ehm.. wow. Didn't realize what I was starting here. Never bothered to read up on anything bigger than .38 and .357 magnum as .40, .44 and so on are not allowed here.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #112 February 25, 2009 No worries, bro. Now you know!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #113 February 25, 2009 Next time I'm in the states I'll just go through this thread and look up a couple of you guys for hands-on education. HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #114 February 25, 2009 Quote Next time I'm in the states I'll just go through this thread and look up a couple of you guys for hands-on education. Going to the range and burning some powder is almost as good as skydiving as a stress-buster - I'm sure you won't have any problems finding someone to take you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #115 February 25, 2009 Quote Last time I checked, the internet, a book and an editorial in a newspaper could not accidentally fall into criminal hands and be used to kill the owners or owner's children or be used in any one of a number of other crimes afterward. The Anarchist's Cookbook comes to mind - available on the internet and in book form. A web site listing abortion doctors' home addresses and pictures is another. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #116 February 25, 2009 Quote Did you just call Aggie Dave fat? Its not a personal attack because its true.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laszloimage 0 #117 February 25, 2009 We also train people how to fly parachutes or what to do in a plane emergency. Most of people can put down the right answer on the test form. (like USPA license test) Now go see what happens at the DZ on the busy day, or (I don't wish to anyone) be towards the "end of the line" whith a tandem passenger in the OTTER when verybody is orderd to bail out. People land all kind of directions, wipe out with no reason, those trained people were totally clueless in a plane emergency too. But they all went through TRANING. I'm sure when a 20yrs old "mommy's girl" kid in the class even with "training" would be pretty much cluless in a gun battle... If simply training really would work on people we would never see slow drivers in the left lane, making a turn to the left while pulling to the right (talking about passenger cars), or not using turn signal before changing the lane or making a turn to any direction.... So, I wouldn't trust in that training. Here in FL it only takes a few hours of class (yes. only 2-3 hours!!!) to have a concealed weapon permit. That makes you prepared for a gun battle in the class room... If that trainng would work, then anyone could be in a SWAT too, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #118 February 25, 2009 QuoteI'm sure when a 20yrs old "mommy's girl" kid in the class even with "training" would be pretty much cluless in a gun battle... Actually, concealed carry holders tend to spend more time on the range practicing than the police. Any more hyperbole you want to throw out there, or are you done now?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #119 February 25, 2009 QuoteWell, why don't you fire up your "Minority Report" future scanner and let us know just WHO is going to twist off and shoot something up, so we can jail them now? That's exactly why I have been saying that there should be no restriction on the purchase of firearms. The constition does not say that convicted felons or mental patients should be restricted from owning firearms. if the founding fathers would have wanted that, they would have put it in. I'll say it again, there shouldn't be any restrictions on the sale and purchase of firearms of any kind. If a person has the money, give them the weapon. QuoteWrong - you need the most effective means to defend yourself from violence - Any nothing is more effective than a claymore mine in my front yard to make sure that trespessers stay off my property. Specially after one tries and gets blown up. I mean, what a great deterrent. If I want those, I should be able to get them. Like I said above, there shouldn't be any restrictions. I would have figured that between you and JR, I would have had your full support. QuoteIf the gunshop knowingly sold the gun to someone that they knew was not qualified to buy or was making a straw purchase (Sen. Feinstein...paging Sen. Feinstein). Exactly, if that happened than obviously market forces will ensure that they would go bankrupt. I mean, who would go to that store and buy guns after knowing they don't do any checking and will sell to anybody? Finally, to the guy who talked about herd mentality. Obviously everybody that carries around a gun, specially when there are absolutely no restriction, is trained. I mean nobody would be silly enough to carry with them a deadly tool and not have training on how to use it in stressful situations. Just look on these forums. Most gun owners on here will tell you they are trained to the max and are amazing shots. They always know exactly what to do and would never miss in stressfull situations. If a bunch of gun carrying skydivers say that, then obviously all people that carry guns are well trained. I am for no restrictions whatsoever on any weapon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #120 February 25, 2009 It's probably a bad idea for you to play with satire. You don't do it well, and it will only make your future postings ambiguous. Unless you're going for Kallend's angle, where you keep debating with people about what you didn't say, in an effort to avoid the actual subject. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #121 February 25, 2009 There shouldn't be a comma before and. You don't write very well, so you should probably refrain from it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #122 February 25, 2009 I personally find your sarcasm insulting. But... if you feel that you must be a snot and intentionally say things that are against your actual beliefs (I think some people call that lying)... go for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #123 February 25, 2009 QuoteI personally find your sarcasm insulting. Why, at least one pro-gun poster has stated I am right. I am surprised not more people are agreeing with me that there shoudn't be any restricitons. Why should there be restrictions on the sale of a tool, any tool? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #124 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteI personally find your sarcasm insulting. Why? Because I am disgusted by the pandering and condescending "tone." Because if you want to discuss and debate like adults then "yes, dear" shouldn't be in the conversation. Because if you don't believe it.... don't lie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #125 February 25, 2009 Greta thanks, now how about answering the second question? This is my new belief. I believe there shouldn't be any restrictions on gun purchases in the USA. The constitution is quite clear. Personally, I believe that the arguments brought forward by the pro-gun crowd are bordering on utter stupidity, but the constitution is clear. There is no restriciton on firearms in the constitution, so why are you okay with constricitons and restrictions of any kind? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
