|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 17, 2009 18:28:58 GMT -5
Other than a "right", is it possible to see the other side of the coin here? There are bad people out there that will be deterred from getting their hands on guns. Is this incorrect to assume? I'm just trying to understand why gun folk see this as upsetting...just a quick question you should have stopped your response right after "other than a right." you act as though rights aren't important. well, being a liberal you actually believe some rights are more important than others especially if they can push your agenda. you really love that first amendment as long as it is you speaking freely but when the opposition pipes up then suddenly it's all "hate speech." and other than being a right, do you really need free speech? i call bullshit. we law abiding " gun folk" like our RKBA. if you don't want to have a firearm, don't get one. afterall, you libs are all about choice, right? |
|
|
|
Post by crossride on Oct 17, 2009 22:20:29 GMT -5
Big Dog, thank you for the thorough explanation why you think this bill is wrong. At least I understand somewhat why this could be upsetting to gun owners. However, if the bill makes it harder to access ammunition for responsible enthusiasts, don't you think it also applies to the thugs? Mink, just to make it really simple to understand... THUGS don't obey the law now, do you really think more regulation will suddenly make them obey the law? The way criminals work is this: They buy prohibited items anyway. They steal things they can't have. They have others get things for them. Please just stop and think like a crook for one minute and ask yourself: "Will this law keep from from killing someone with a gun if that's what I want to do?" |
|
|
|
Post by crossride on Oct 17, 2009 22:24:07 GMT -5
I, for one, am glad that you can't buy an assault weapon in our state. What would you need one for anyway? I think Saunterelle has proven over and over again, on certain topics, his input is completely useless, even for comic relief. This is one of those topics and I will exercise my right to IGNORE any post he makes from this point forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 18, 2009 14:14:03 GMT -5
Big Dog, thank you for the thorough explanation why you think this bill is wrong. At least I understand somewhat why this could be upsetting to gun owners. However, if the bill makes it harder to access ammunition for responsible enthusiasts, don't you think it also applies to the thugs? Mink, just to make it really simple to understand... THUGS don't obey the law now, do you really think more regulation will suddenly make them obey the law? The way criminals work is this: They buy prohibited items anyway. They steal things they can't have. They have others get things for them. Please just stop and think like a crook for one minute and ask yourself: "Will this law keep from from killing someone with a gun if that's what I want to do?" Crossride, since thugs aren't known for obeying the law or any authority, my point was that if ammo would be difficult to access for responsible gun enthusiasts, it therefore would be harder as well for thugs. |
|
|
|
Post by crossride on Oct 18, 2009 14:58:07 GMT -5
What language did I write my post in?
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 18, 2009 15:06:16 GMT -5
Mink, just to make it really simple to understand... THUGS don't obey the law now, do you really think more regulation will suddenly make them obey the law? The way criminals work is this: They buy prohibited items anyway. They steal things they can't have. They have others get things for them. Please just stop and think like a crook for one minute and ask yourself: "Will this law keep from from killing someone with a gun if that's what I want to do?" Crossride, since thugs aren't known for obeying the law or any authority, my point was that if ammo would be difficult to access for responsible gun enthusiasts, it therefore would be harder as well for thugs. Wow! Great idea, MINK. Now we also need to make it more difficult for honest citizens to get cars - lots of cares used in drive bys and other crimes are stolen. So we gotta get rid of cars (hey, dod you know that just about every drive by shooting involves a car?). Mink, have you had a stroke? Or maybe are on some meds? |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 18, 2009 15:22:11 GMT -5
As I have said in another post, I am not on meds and am in pretty decent health. I may not be in 100% agreement or not on the same page as gun enthusiasts, doesn't mean I am on meds or had a stroke or speak a different language as crossride implied.
I know cars are used in drive-bys, but they don't don't just drive by......they use guns. I can understand the governor's concern here and am trying to understand why most of you can't see the perspective of non gun enthusiasts or law makers in this case.
Mind you, I know both dems and conservs. (gun owners), who take this in stride as a safety precaution.
So far, Big Dog has provided the best answer amongst all of you.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 18, 2009 15:36:58 GMT -5
I know cars are used in drive-bys, but they don't don't just drive by......they use guns. But also CARS Mink. Take away the cars and you take away the drive bys. Not many are done from bikes or horse back. I can understand the governor's concern here and am trying to understand why most of you can't see the perspective of non gun enthusiasts or law makers in this case. How about because it is a blatant end run around the RKBA? Don't you give a damn about civil rights, Mink? Why do you insist on giving the government MORE power over honest citizens?Mind you, I know both dems and conservs. (gun owners), who take this in stride as a safety precaution. How exactly will this make anyone safer? In fact, by making it more difficult to get ammo, and to transfer it even among family members it makes for a less safe society. Fewer places will sell ammo (I can see Wal-Mart in CA dropping it because of the paperwork requirements). So people will buy less. The way the law reads, even a parent can't supply a child with ammo for practice at the range (handing a kid a loaded magazine is a 'transfer'), so people will practice less. Kids won't get as much range time. So they will be less familiar with firearms. So more prone to be involved in a shooting accident. And that is exactly what this is aimed at - making guns more dangerous, so the capons can point to a few more accidents and say "See! Gunz-r-bad!" and try to pass even more restrictions. So, you are supporting making guns more dangeous, Mink. ADDED - And, care to address all the lives SAVED because an honest citizen had a gun, Mink? Or is that truth too inconvienient for you to deal with? |
|
|
|
Post by crossride on Oct 18, 2009 18:31:55 GMT -5
As I have said in another post, I am not on meds and am in pretty decent health. I may not be in 100% agreement or not on the same page as gun enthusiasts, doesn't mean I am on meds or had a stroke or speak a different language as crossride implied. I know cars are used in drive-bys, but they don't don't just drive by......they use guns. I can understand the governor's concern here and am trying to understand why most of you can't see the perspective of non gun enthusiasts or law makers in this case. Mind you, I know both dems and conservs. (gun owners), who take this in stride as a safety precaution. So far, Big Dog has provided the best answer amongst all of you. I'm guessing you actually read big dog's answer but you STILL question the opposition to the legislation? I just don't understand your frame of mind on this, that's all. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Oct 18, 2009 19:45:42 GMT -5
As I have said in another post, I am not on meds and am in pretty decent health. I may not be in 100% agreement or not on the same page as gun enthusiasts, doesn't mean I am on meds or had a stroke or speak a different language as crossride implied. I know cars are used in drive-bys, but they don't don't just drive by......they use guns. I can understand the governor's concern here and am trying to understand why most of you can't see the perspective of non gun enthusiasts or law makers in this case. Mind you, I know both dems and conservs. (gun owners), who take this in stride as a safety precaution. So far, Big Dog has provided the best answer amongst all of you. I'm guessing you actually read big dog's answer but you STILL question the opposition to the legislation? I just don't understand your frame of mind on this, that's all. Her frame of mind is simple - gunz-r-bad, State control goooood. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 18, 2009 22:50:22 GMT -5
It's occurred to me more than once to invite the left leaning on the board out to Circle S for an afternoon of instruction and making a few holes in paper so that they could see that there is more to the legitimate ownership and use of firearms than the crap that passes in the average movie or TV show.
Then I wake up, pinch myself, and realize it was all probably just an idealistic dream on my part. All too often the gun prohibitionists out the world simply refuse to see or understand.
C'est la vie!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 18, 2009 23:29:13 GMT -5
Spoke too soon....oh well, I'm out of this thread. Have fun guys!!
|
|
