No need for guns when you have religion....

[billvon 2,395]

>Might want to get your news somewhere other than Obama or Bloomberg.

I got that from CBS, Quinnipac, ORC, Gallup, Pew, WSJ, WaPo, FOX, GFK, Marist, and UConn. Unless you think that all of the above (including FOX) are part of a big conspiracy, they are pretty representative of American's views on gun laws.

Nothing wrong with you having a different view from most Americans. Just obey the law (or learn the law and then obey it) and no worries.

[Bolas 5]

We have far too many laws.
We have far too many unenforceable laws.
We have far too many conflicting laws.
We have far too many laws that make no sense.
We have far too many laws with selective enforcement.
We just have far too many laws...

Why do we need any more in any category?

If anything, the existing laws applying to something need to be grouped and changed: expanded, contracted, repealed, clarified.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[jbscout2002 1]

billvon

>Might want to get your news somewhere other than Obama or Bloomberg.

I got that from CBS, Quinnipac, ORC, Gallup, Pew, WSJ, WaPo, FOX, GFK, Marist, and UConn. Unless you think that all of the above (including FOX) are part of a big conspiracy, they are pretty representative of American's views on gun laws.

Nothing wrong with you having a different view from most Americans. Just obey the law (or learn the law and then obey it) and no worries.

Polls can be slanted by carefully worded questions to achieve any desired outcome. It is a fact that most people do not know what laws currently exist; thus, it is meaningless to assert that people favor "stricter" laws when they do not know how "strict" the laws are in the first place. Asking about a waiting period for a police background check presumes, incorrectly, that police can and will actually conduct a check during the wait. Similarly, it is meaningless to infer anything from support of a 7- or 5-day waiting period when respondents live in a state with a 15-day wait or a 1-6 month permit scheme in place. Asked whether they favor making any particular law "stricter," however, most people do not. Unbiased, scientific polls have consistently shown that most people:
-Oppose costly registration of firearms.
-Oppose giving police power to decide who should own guns.
-Do not believe that stricter gun laws would prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns.

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

[billvon 2,395]

>Polls can be slanted by carefully worded questions to achieve any desired outcome.

Like:

>most people - oppose costly registration of firearms.

Of course. If you word it that cleverly, pretty much everyone would oppose COSTLY registration of firearms. Just like most people would oppose handing guns out to dangerous mentally ill people.

Now if you worded it without that bias, you'd get a different result.

Same for the rest of those leading questions.

[jbscout2002 1]

Bottom line, gun laws have not, and will not prevent mass shootings. They will, however, criminalize law abiding citizens. No gun laws in effect prevented Sandy Hook or any of the others, and nothing proposed since would have stopped any of the shootings that happened since.

But they can destroy the lives of people who legally and responsibly own guns. You have shown your stance on this. Not only do you not give a shit, you are genuinely excited about it.

So again, you and yours, care nothing about saving lives. You only use tragedies to pursue your goals of going after the gun crowd that you don't see eye to eye with. No different than the people who stand out in public and wave graphic pictures of aborted fetuses at you where your kids can see it.

[billvon 2,395]

>Bottom line, gun laws have not, and will not prevent mass shootings.

Nor will gun ownership prevent violent crime. There are no perfect answers - but there are some pretty good ones. Fortunately gun laws can _reduce_ the incidence of mass shootings, as they have done in other countries.

>So again, you and yours, care nothing about saving lives.

And yet I have. Odd, that. Almost as if there is a conflict between a carefully-created fantasy in your mind and reality.

>But they can destroy the lives of people who legally and responsibly own guns.

Uh, no, they can't. I fully support the right to legally and responsibly use guns in the US. And if the government destroys someone's life who is legally and responsibly using a gun, then point it out. That's not right.

[jbscout2002 1]

billvon

Uh, no, they can't. I fully support the right to legally and responsibly use guns in the US. And if the government destroys someone's life who is legally and responsibly using a gun, then point it out. That's not right.

Nathan Haddad, a decorated combat veteran, was arrested earlier this month in New York for possessing unloaded 30-round magazines. Mr. Haddad, who has been recognized by the Army for his selfless acts of generosity to fellow soldiers, was charged with five felony counts of possession of “high-capacity” magazines.

Mr. Haddad, who was medically discharged in 2010 after 12 years of service, was arrested when he was stopped by police on Jan. 6 in LeRay, Ny. Through his brother Michael, Mr. Haddad declined to comment on the cause until after his Feb. 20 conference date to meet with the prosecutor and the judge.

“He’s not proclaiming innocence,” Michael Haddad told me in a phone interview. “He thought he had something that was legal and it turned out that they weren’t.” Michael said that his brother told him that, “‘I was arrested. I was charged with a crime. It is what it is.’”

Michael, who is raising money for a legal defense, said that his brother’s goal is only to get the charges reduced so he can go on with his life. “No one wants to spend 35 years in prison, least of all a decorated, combat, disabled veteran who has done nothing but good for veterans his whole life,” Michael said.

For the possession of the magazines, Mr. Haddad was arrested, booked in county jail and charged with five counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, according to the arrest report.

These charges are considered “violent class D violent felony offenses” under New York state law and carry a punishment that ranges widely from conditional discharge to seven years in state prison. (The five charges would be served concurrently.)

Kristyna S. Mills, the chief assistant district attorney for Jefferson County, is prosecuting the case. “It’s against the law to possess these types of devices,” she told me in an interview Friday. “He was arrested in accordance with possession of these devices, and it’s our job to prosecute those cases that run amok of the law.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/feb/1/miller-ny-vet-arrested-30-round-magazines-part-1/

Facing a possible 35 year stint in prison. If only he knew the law, he could have beaten the officers to death and got away. Even if they did find out it was him, it would only be 25 years.

And before everyone pounces saying it's his fault because he broke the law, these magazines were legal on December 31, the new law went into effect on January 1st. On January 6th, he still hadn't heard about it.

35 years in prison for some empty magazines that became illegal a week prior when a law changed. Common fucking sense.

[normiss 622]

Blame Bush.

[jakee 1,254]

jbscout2002

Never said a class B felony was no big deal

That's exactly what you said. Post #18, in response to BV: "So you adamantly defend that if you BEAT SOMEONE TO DEATH it is no big deal".

So either you gotta stop bitching about the potential punishments for transporting your guns, or you admit that you were talking shit earlier in the thread.

Quote

My issue is that the nonviolent arbitrary firearms violation is a more severe crime than BEATING PEOPLE TO DEATH which you either agree with or just can't seem to grasp.

Right, that's a valid viewpoint. I just can't for the life of me understand why you have to bury it beneath such ridiculous hyperbolic bullshit as calling 25 years in prison "no big deal" or claiming that anyone who isn't 100% on your side doesn't care about beating kids to death.

That's your problem right now. You're turning everything up to 11 and hiding your real position under layers and layers of hysteria.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Show me where the constitution grants the right to bear drugs, and I would agree with you.

The problem with that sort of statement is that it carries the implication that only rights enumerated in the Constitution should be protected and if the government is unjustly ruining people's lives for any other reason it doesn't matter.

Which I think is kind of backwards.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[piisfish 135]

Bolas

We have far too many laws.
We have far too many unenforceable laws.
We have far too many conflicting laws.
We have far too many laws that make no sense.
We have far too many laws with selective enforcement.
We just have far too many laws...

Why do we need any more in any category?

If anything, the existing laws applying to something need to be grouped and changed: expanded, contracted, repealed, clarified.

exactly my foreigner opinion. You guys don't need more laws. You need better laws.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[winsor 186]

turtlespeed

Show me where the constitution grants the right to bear drugs, and I would agree with you.
.

"...rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness..."

Happiness requires drugs. Ask any pharmaceutical rep.

QED

[jakee 1,254]

Ah yes, The good old Constitution of Independence...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

A couple of things:

Mr. Haddad (if this story is even true given the source) would be facing a maximum of seven years. If you disagree, please get a dictionary and look up the word concurrently.

Second, do you really need a CCW in NY State to transport a gun? I find that hard to believe.

Thindly, your tone and rhetoric continue to provide an excellent example of what anti-gun people refer to as a "gun nut". Take a step back, it's just the internet. You're going over the deep end.

- Dan G

[Coreeece 2]

winsor

***

Show me where the constitution grants the right to bear drugs, and I would agree with you.
.

"...rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness..."


rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the:

-Preservation of life:
"No abortions, guns and drugs."

-Liberty:
"Ok, you can have your abortions, guns and drugs."

-The pursuit of happiness:
"Ah, fuck it...do what you want, you figure it out."

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Coreeece 2]

jakee

hyperbolic bullshit

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=%20hyperbolic%20bullshit&sb=score&mh=25

Royalties please...

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Coreeece 2]

DanG

A couple of things:

Mr. Haddad (if this story is even true given the source) would be facing a maximum of seven years.

Ah, damn - you beat me to it. But still, even 7 years is a bit ridiculous.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[turtlespeed 212]

jakee

Quote

Show me where the constitution grants the right to bear drugs, and I would agree with you.

The problem with that sort of statement is that it carries the implication that only rights enumerated in the Constitution should be protected and if the government is unjustly ruining people's lives for any other reason it doesn't matter.

Which I think is kind of backwards.

Backwards in the way that just having an empty 30 round clip is more of s potential penalty than beating a child to death? I think you might need to rethink your priorities.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Backwards in the way that just having an empty 30 round clip is more of s potential penalty than beating a child to death? I think you might need to rethink your priorities.

You need to rethink your facts.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[normiss 622]

I find it interesting that some want the gun laws enfroced, yet suddenly someone facing a potential charge for illegal gun running/smuggling should not face such a penalty.
When transporting a cache of weapons, it would serve one well to fully understand the laws across their journey.

[rushmc 18]

normiss

I find it interesting that som want the gun laws enfroced, yet suddenly someone facing a potential charge for illegal gun running/smuggling should face such a penalty.
When transporting a cache of weapons, it would serve one well to full understand the laws across their journey.

States should be required to other states CCW permits and laws then we would not have this problem

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

[normiss 622]

[rushmc 18]

normiss

SO then, your drivers license should not be good across states lines either?

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

[normiss 622]

rushmc

***I find it interesting that som want the gun laws enfroced, yet suddenly someone facing a potential charge for illegal gun running/smuggling should face such a penalty.
When transporting a cache of weapons, it would serve one well to full understand the laws across their journey.

States should be required to other states CCW permits and laws then we would not have this problem

??

[rushmc 18]

normiss

******I find it interesting that som want the gun laws enfroced, yet suddenly someone facing a potential charge for illegal gun running/smuggling should face such a penalty.
When transporting a cache of weapons, it would serve one well to full understand the laws across their journey.

States should be required to honor/recognize other states CCW permits and laws then we would not have this problem

??

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