For a second I thought they were coming after reloads now too. Then I realized this was the media talking. Question: What stops someone from crossing into PA or VT, selling their gun collection to their kids for $1(with a background check), then their children registering the weapon?
My dads friend lives in New York and makes his own ammo. He has the reloading bench and everything needed. The brass casing alone is not covered in the law. The bullet alone is not covered in the law. Separate, they do not qualify as ammunition. The whole thing sounds well thought out.
Re: Re: Friday Sober Thread: Tragedy in Connecticut Just for an idea of how batshit my cousins are with this conspiracy movement, this was one of many emails/posts I have gotten.
You're assuming politicians actually give a shit about what will work and the nature of reality. This is about votes and pretending to do something. Mark my words, Cuomo is looking at the White House in 2016.
Unless the climate before the 1989 shooting was similar to 2013 I don’t this as a valid comparison. If people weren’t worried about someone shooting up the school it’s unlikely that many (if any) guns were present in the first place, so of course the accidental shootings will be low or nonexistent. Fast forward to the present, and if “gun free zones” were eliminated, we could expect to see an influx of guns in these areas. You do propose important questions, but especially with the figures provided on the previous page, I was curious as to whether the no gun free zone solution would open up another can of worms.
This is getting so far gone. Is nothing off limits to you people? I don't see the reason to have guns around a volatile environment where fights erupt more often than anywhere else. Also, why do these people need to bring guns to bars, or go to bars at all, when they aren't even planning on drinking? What is the point of allowing it? Also, you have a lot more faith in humanity than I do if you think these people are going to walk in with guns and never drink. Thanks though for assuming my belief that laws permitting this are idiotic means I think massacres will happen every day, and that I thought it meant it was ok for people to wave shotguns around shit faced. Sure. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole/gun-show-loophole-faq" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaign ... ophole-faq</a> I think Obama is right that this country is just full of paranoid fanatics. They think every measure to control guns will ultimately lead to more severe measures until the population is disarmed. Hell, some of them already believe we are currently living under a tyrannical dictator. In most countries not allowing guns into bars and requiring background checks on all purchases is just common sense. In America it's a horrifying infringement of freedom.
I think rednecks are right that this country is just full of paranoid sheep. They think every gun bought in defiance of control laws will ultimately lead to more gun deaths until the population is all dead from gunshot wounds. Hell, some of them already believe that we should revoke the entire Bill of Rights. In most forums, taking the opinion of one poster and painting an entire demographic with his short-sighted opinion is not common sense. On TiB, it's a horrifying reminder that not having tyrannical mods can sometimes lead to having to read stupid posts.
European society isn't as free as American society. In the US a 15-year-old wouldn't be arrested for saying racist shit on Twitter.
Mmmmm, irony. I'd ask why you guys put such a high importance on things like owning as many firearms as you can fit in your house as a marker of freedom while other things (like, say, marrying who you want or the ease with which one can obtain an abortion, among other things) aren't factored into the calculus of how "free" a society is. But I know what your answer will be. Some of you might have bromides about "whatever someone wants to do with their own life is fine by me as long as it doesn't involve my life", but you won't bring an internet thread to 40-something pages defending the particulars of that statement. But guns? Oh shit. Can't do a second without those.
Yet somehow I think there's more people in this country adamantly opposed to any gun control out of paranoia, and holding firm beliefs of dictatorial conspiracy theories about Obama than there is people who want to revoke freedom of speech and trial by jury, but hey, it's about demographics and not the short sighted opinions of one poster. I wouldn't want you to have to write something stupid.
1. It's relevant because I don't chose the time or place when I'm going to be shot, robbed, or attacked. 2. That's fine if it is a private establishment. I'm also well within my legal right to tell those places to fuck off and not do business with them as I have been doing so. 3. Acceptable restrictions end when I start infringing on the rights and liberties of others. Your third grader comments are exactly why I hate discussing this. People like you can't have a rational and logical discussion without throwing snide comments in. Who exactly is "you guys" and when exactly has this gay debate EVER been brought up in topic like this? Did you even bother to do any independent research on the city I gave you in Georgia? THEY HAVE SOME OF THE LOWEST CRIME RATE IN THE COUNTRY. "Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender. " This is in a span of 25 years.
"You guys" means exactly what you know it means, and don't even pretend to be so stupid as to not know. The other part has to do with freedom. Clearly, we have different priorities on freedom; I really don't give a shit if someone can't fill their house with as many weapons as they might like. I think that it is merely an illusion of actual freedom; a blue pill that someone can take in order to say "well as long as I have these things here, that means I know I'm really free; all those other people in the world who live in civilized countries only exercise freedom at the permission of someone else, and when the moment comes that my actual freedoms are taken away, I will know kung fu and be able to fight back". I frankly don't care about one town in Georgia. A study of n=1 has zero external validity.
Honestly? Yes. Nothing is off limits. I touched on this issue several pages ago. Think about the basic principle of a carry permit. It means, in essence, that the government trusts me to possess a firearm in public, safely, securely, and with no intent to harm an innocent person. But think of all the places that the government says that doesn't apply: schools, parks, federal property, government buildings (what a surprise), and in some states, yes, bars. Think about how asinine these rules are. The government says I can carry a gun on a public street, around any arbitrary number of children or government officials who happen by. I can sit on a bench, across the road from any drinking establishment, and any number of people in any state of inebriation can walk right on past me or even sit right next to me. I can go to any public gathering in an open space, with crowds as thick as a mosh pit, carrying a gun. I have a piece of paper that says the government trusts me to do all these things. But the second I step into any of a laundry list of places, I've gone from law-abiding citizen to felon-in-training. What changed? If I'm not trustworthy enough to handle a gun in a school, or government building, or bar or any number of other places, why did the government let me walk or drive around in public with the gun in the first place? Of course, this is as much an argument to abolish carry permits as it is to make them universal. And if you want to protest that there should be more qualifications required to get one, I'll hold the other corner of the banner. But why the arbitrary laws? Why are otherwise lawful people, supposedly trusted by the government to carry in public, treated as criminals by stepping over a threshold between two functionally identical areas? So, yes. If you're a private property owner, obviously, you decide whether or not guns are allowed on your property. And if you want to go to the trouble to maintain a sterile area, such as in an airport or courtroom, I won't complain about that. But one public place is as good as another. They're the designated driver. They love shitty covers of Journey songs. They like to have atmosphere when they drink Shirley Temples. Who gives a shit? Who made you the arbiter of whether or not people have a good reason to do what they do? This is the problem. This is why we have the piecemeal gun legislation, or legislation in general, that we do today. The question for too many is "Why?" when it should be "Why not?" Why does anyone need to carry in a school anyway? Gun-free zone, just like that. Who needs more than ten rounds in one magazine? No one, says a Senator. Bill in the works. Why does this gun need a flash suppressor or barrel shroud? They look scary, why is that necessary? Outlawed for ten years. Here's my "why" question: Why is the default position to disallow? Have you seen or heard of any bar shootouts that started when a carry permit holder simply brought his gun inside? Are there places out there where any poor fool sucked through the entrance becomes blackout drunk one step in the door? Is it unfathomable to you that a person might enter and exit an establishment with a bar without taking a single drink, or God forbid, without the explicit purpose of drinking? Furthermore, if any of the above are, in fact, the case, why do we need the law in the first place? Isn't the law saying a carry permit older can't drink and possess at the same time enough? Wouldn't that make outlawing guns in bars superfluous? This is what I don't understand about the attitude towards carry permit holders. They aren't breaking the law by carrying a gun. They have actually gone out of the way to pay and apply for a permit to do what they are doing legally. Why is it assumed that "these people" are a ticking time bomb for lawlessness? What is it about this action, fully within the scope of the law, that marks one as predisposed to breaking the law? Are there going to be dumbasses who break the law by drinking and carrying? I'm sure there will be, just as there are dumbasses who drink and drive, or drink and engineer things or drink and cut hair or do any number of stupid things that risk the lives of innocent people after they've been issued a license to do something. The difference is that the rabble-rousers don't assume that all drivers, engineers, hairdressers, or ordinary old members of the public are automatically lawbreakers, yet anyone who happens to be legally carrying a gun will inevitably commit felonies in wanton disregard for public safety. Look. I clearly explained the rationale behind the law in my state, and why it caused such a ruckus, namely, because people can't apply critical thinking to a situation and just went after the media catchphrases instead. You saw that post, went to the trouble of typing up your own ridiculous quote to misrepresent it, and went on as if nothing had been said at all. Let me ask you: what, specifically, do you think would happen if carry permit holders were allowed to bring their guns into establishments with bars? Do you think that bar owners are going to roll out the welcome wagon for pistol packers? Do you think that people who are forbidden by law to drink while possessing a firearm, who went to the trouble to stay within the law by applying for a permit in the first place instead of just cramming it in their waistband like the average miscreant, are suddenly going to decide to risk jail time and revocation of said permit for a drink? Do you think that people who don't often make a habit of shooting anyone while carrying a firearm everywhere else in life are suddenly going to let loose in a bar? I'm done on this thread, because it started out downhill and is heading straight off a cliff, but I have to say I would have never expected such a lack of reason on this scale in this forum.
Who says they aren't? I surely don't. My feelings on abortion are far from black and white, but outside of what is deplorable to any sane person with a conscience (bestiality, incest, underage) I am all for freedom of marriage, specifically gay marriage rights. Where you're getting the idea that anyone in this topic (which by the way has fuck-all to do with marriage or abortion) is trivializing the importance of those issues is beyond me, unless I've missed it somewhere amongst the circular arguments. Perhaps that's because any argument that boils down to such a simple and selfish sentiment wouldn't be defensible or worth beating into the ground for five pages, let alone 40. I'm not going to read 40 pages in order to say with absolute certainty that no single poster appears to posit an argument that boils down to such a bromide (really, could you be any more of an insufferably pretentious ass?), but I would, good sir, dare say that such an attitude has not widely been expressed by either side of this debate. What some of the pro-gun arguments may skirt on is the idea that whatever someone wants to do with their own life is fine unless it negatively impacts the lives of others, and putting restrictions on law-abiding citizens because someone chose to abuse a weapon that they did not is perhaps a bit pointless. Maybe a bit less "We can't do a second without guns", but "Why should x number of people have to do so because of the depraved actions of a fraction of their number". I'm sure you'll post a thoroughly ruthless counter, and that's fine because I'm well aware I'm not quite as well-spoken (typed?) as many of those whose sentiments I share, whether roughly or closely so. That doesn't change the fact that your posited argument is nothing more than a strawman and you might have done better to follow my lead in sufficing with a clearly parodying post. I was parodying your post. I am far from worried about the masses of freedom-destroying menaces who wish to enslave our entire population. Yeah, there are a lot of nutty gun owners/lovers, but I seriously doubt the average gun owner would consider carrying in a bar a good idea or necessary. Much like nightclubs, I personally think the kinds of bars where you feel the need to carry are the kind you're an idiot for being at in the first place. There is also a massive difference between thinking of Obama as a tyrannical dictator and feeling unease over the possible Congress-bypassing executive order that would further restrict the Second Amendment, and by the way the bullshit argument about it not applying due to advances in arms technology is akin to saying that because the Internet spreads information at a speed that the Founding Fathers indeed could have never imagined, the First Amendment doesn't apply to things posted on it. Furthermore, if legislation IS going to be passed, it needs to be useful and thought-out, not a seized opportunity by someone with an agenda, not a cosmetic-targeting knee-jerk reaction, but a intelligently researched and implemented idea, that unlike current laws, actually does more to prevent madmen from committing mass murder than it does piss off law-abiding gun owners. Further, and by the way I will apologize for the pointlessly sharp post I made to you above. What sparked such an angry and sharp response was the fact that, while I am far from agreeing with Sully, it is dishonest and inaccurate to suggest that his opinion represents the average gun owner. I would be no more accurate if I suggested with a serious mien that every supporter of gun control legislation in the US wants to burn the Bill of Rights (though that would be much more outrageous), or that they must all be obnoxious pharmacists with a superiority complex that makes Kanye West look like your average self-loathing-issues-having person (Hi!).
No, it isn't clear we have different priorities because you never even asked me what my stance on the fucking issue was, you assumed. Feel free to bask in your sanctuary of ignorance then. Feel free to ignore entire countries like Norway, Switzerland and the Czech Republic.
Someone else may have mentioned it, but the new Gallup poll released says only 4% of people even give a shit about curbing gun violence. The new anti-gun movement? Doesn't exist. So it further extends the point that all you have is is an overreaching, over zealous executive branch that's going to enact stupid laws without Congress. Which in turn will probably get haulted by a federal judge and tied up in the Supreme Court for years. Yay.
Most of the people that I know that are opposed to gun control legislation have no interested in filling their house with weapons. But, they don't want to be told that: a) they can't have a particular weapon, or b) they can't have any weapons. a) is relevant when the fallacy of bans on weapons that look scary or have high capacity leads to b). The US Government legislators have a history of continuing to expand legislation to be more and more restrictive, which is one reason opponents get so fired up. They know that today it's a ban on a group of "assault" weapons and tomorrow it's a ban on all of them. (See the tax code, healthcare mandates, every government program ever, etc.) Freedom, not the illusion of it, dies one little bite at a time. “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”
That's inaccurate and you know it. The Gallup poll you are referring to asked people what the SINGLE most important problem facing the country is. It did not ask people "which issues do you give a shit about?" Here is the survey. Guns/gun control came in ahead of health care, immigration, education, and crime/violence generally (make of that what you will). When actually asked how they feel about the issue,I see 38% in favor of stricter gun laws,with only 5% saying they believe gun laws are overly restrictive. I'm curious, how would you all vote on the New York law in question? It contains "cosmetic" assault weapon bans, but also changes to background checks and treatment of the mentally ill that, based on people's responses in this thread, seem broadly popular. Given that every bill ends up having desirable and undesirable elements of it, does your opposition to the assault weapon ban extend so far that it's an absolute bill-killer regardless what it is surrounded with?
Yes, especially when they lump additional bullshit into the bill like background checks and registries on ammunition sales, and a maximum seven round magazine restriction. Unacceptable.