Constitutional carry now in effect in Oklahoma.

[TurtleDude]

Like I said, the worst enemy of gun hobbyists is unchecked nutters.

nope, its liberal democrats who have had a hard on for the NRA and gun owners ever since Dems tried to pretend they were anti criminal by pushing gun control

 

[Helix]

nope, its liberal democrats who have had a hard on for the NRA and gun owners ever since Dems tried to pretend they were anti criminal by pushing gun control

Nope, it's nutters. They'll ruin it for the class.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nope, it's nutters. They'll ruin it for the class.

it has been proven that democrats don't even care about crime control anymore

up until 1986, states like NJ or NY had a nasty habit of arresting interstate motorists who were traveling with firearms in their cars. Firearms that were unloaded and locked in the trunk. So a bipartisan bill was created called the McClure Volker Firearms Owners Protection act that stated that states could not arrest those who owned a gun legally in their home state if they locked the gun in their trunk, unloaded, and traveled through bannerrhoid states-as long as their final destination allowed the gun too. Also travelers whose planes were landing in NY or NJ and had a layover would not be arrested for having firearms properly checked in their baggage. William Hughes, a malignant gun hater, was petulant over this bill's pending approval-Reagan had noted he would sign it, conspired with Rangel, late one night to attach a poison pill to this bill, purely out of spite. The bill was worded rather enigmatically about preventing future registrations of automatic weapons, but Hughes already had consulted with the ATF head and got this poison pill attached even though the voice vote suggests it failed. Rangel ruled it passed and refused a role call. There are reasons why the slight GOP majority in the senate passed the bill -mainly because Hatch knew the GOP was going to lose its majority in the fall and they worried this mostly pro gun bill might not pass next time around. Also, white house counsel told Reagan that the poison pill would be stricken by the courts. The ATF interpreted the PP as preventing private citizens from being able to "REGISTER" automatic weapons and thus any automatic weapon made after May 19, 1986 was banned from private possession.

Since there was almost zero crime with legally owned machine guns, it is clear that the democrats don't care about "nutters" since there were no incidents of "nutters"misusing legally owned machine guns. It was all about a venal POS Democrat wanting to vent his spite

 

[Helix]

it has been proven that democrats don't even care about crime control anymore

up until 1986, states like NJ or NY had a nasty habit of arresting interstate motorists who were traveling with firearms in their cars. Firearms that were unloaded and locked in the trunk. So a bipartisan bill was created called the McClure Volker Firearms Owners Protection act that stated that states could not arrest those who owned a gun legally in their home state if they locked the gun in their trunk, unloaded, and traveled through bannerrhoid states-as long as their final destination allowed the gun too. Also travelers whose planes were landing in NY or NJ and had a layover would not be arrested for having firearms properly checked in their baggage. William Hughes, a malignant gun hater, was petulant over this bill's pending approval-Reagan had noted he would sign it, conspired with Rangel, late one night to attach a poison pill to this bill, purely out of spite. The bill was worded rather enigmatically about preventing future registrations of automatic weapons, but Hughes already had consulted with the ATF head and got this poison pill attached even though the voice vote suggests it failed. Rangel ruled it passed and refused a role call. There are reasons why the slight GOP majority in the senate passed the bill -mainly because Hatch knew the GOP was going to lose its majority in the fall and they worried this mostly pro gun bill might not pass next time around. Also, white house counsel told Reagan that the poison pill would be stricken by the courts. The ATF interpreted the PP as preventing private citizens from being able to "REGISTER" automatic weapons and thus any automatic weapon made after May 19, 1986 was banned from private possession.

Since there was almost zero crime with legally owned machine guns, it is clear that the democrats don't care about "nutters" since there were no incidents of "nutters"misusing legally owned machine guns. It was all about a venal POS Democrat wanting to vent his spite

The biggest threat to your hobby is violent nutcases. When you lose the neutral middle, that's when gun control becomes more likely.

 

[TurtleDude]

The biggest threat to your hobby is violent nutcases. When you lose the neutral middle, that's when gun control becomes more likely.

That is why I push so hard for good judges to set some good precedents.

 

[Helix]

That is why I push so hard for good judges to set some good precedents.

"Good judges" won't save your hobby from a tidal wave of public opinion. However, you're unreachable on this topic, and I've already made my point. Have a good Saturday night.

 

[TurtleDude]

"Good judges" won't save your hobby from a tidal wave of public opinion. However, you're unreachable on this topic, and I've already made my point. Have a good Saturday night.

unreachable means someone who is an expert in this area doesn't buy the argument you make that is really unfounded and attempts to blame gun owners rather than the party your support.

 

[Wayne Jr]

you don't? you're a supporter of this guy :



****, my proposal isn't anywhere near that extreme.

To be fair, there are no pro-gun presidential options right now. Trump is just the least anti-gun among them.

 

[TurtleDude]

To be fair, there are no pro-gun presidential options right now. Trump is just the least anti-gun among them.

an undeniable and accurate statement. He isn't actively campaigning to ban "assault weapons"

among the clown show running for the Dem nomination you have

1) those who want to confiscate guns that are rarely used in crime

2) those who currently want to ban them from being sold

There is not a single democrat who doesn't support some sort of gun ban on a federal level

 

[lwf]

Me too.

But the RW gun owners think that people wanting to enact gun control have an agenda to turn the USA into a tyranny.

Some of the extremists do, certainly. Some of these individuals post on these boards. Most, however, don't think that people campaigning for stricter gun control want the U.S. to become a tyranny, but rather believe that future tyranny could be a danger that these people aren't taking seriously enough. I, for one, am not afraid of tyranny in America. Rather, I believe that guns, while dangerous, are not dangerous enough to justify their outlawing. I do not have the right to tell another law-abiding adult of sound mind that they cannot be trusted with a firearm. I approve of permit carry, I approve of background checks, and I approve of closing gun show loopholes that allow felons to evade background checks. I am against the automatic weapons ban and any magazine capacity bans.

 

[Rich2018]

...most, however, don't think that people campaigning for stricter gun control want the U.S. to become a tyranny, but rather believe that future tyranny could be a danger that these people aren't taking seriously enough...

I've yet to hear a rational argument yet that the USA is in any danger of becoming a tyranny. Nor that it is a wise option to have citizens deciding, unilaterally, when/if it is.

...I believe that guns, while dangerous, are not dangerous enough to justify their outlawing....

How many deaths, injuries and mass shootings per year would it take for you to change your mind ?

...I do not have the right to tell another law-abiding adult of sound mind that they cannot be trusted with a firearm....

Yes you do (first amendment) but to actually require gun owners to take action would require a law or laws.

...I am against the automatic weapons ban and any magazine capacity bans.

Does that include sem-automatic weapons?
Again see above and advise how many casualties are required to change your mind.

 

[Rich2018]

well you are wrong. Schumer bragged that the clinton gun ban was the first of many laws designed to harass the NRA. The crushing defeat dems took a few months later, stopped his wet dreams

And those laws would turn the USA into a tyranny like North Korea ?

 

[Glitch]

I've yet to hear a rational argument yet that the USA is in any danger of becoming a tyranny. Nor that it is a wise option to have citizens deciding, unilaterally, when/if it is.

How many deaths, injuries and mass shootings per year would it take for you to change your mind ?

Yes you do (first amendment) but to actually require gun owners to take action would require a law or laws.

Does that include sem-automatic weapons?
Again see above and advise how many casualties are required to change your mind.

You continually whine about casualties but completely ignore the fourth leading cause of death in the US - Automobile accidents.

Why is death by automobile any more acceptable than death by firearm? Why aren't you foaming at the mouth about the 36,560 killed in automobile accidents last year? By the way, those automobile accident fatalities included children as well.

It is very apparent the anti-American left care nothing about death, injuries, or mass shootings or they would not have created the massacre magnets with the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. The anti-American left practically begged mass murders to slaughter children with that law, and they know it. So you can cut the pretense because we know it to be a deliberate lie.

 

[lwf]

How many deaths, injuries and mass shootings per year would it take for you to change your mind ?

Does that include sem-automatic weapons? Again see above and advise how many casualties are required to change your mind.

Yes, I am against both automatic and semi-automatic weapon bans.

The exact number of deaths that would be required for me to even consider a firearms ban I'm not sure of. All I can do is give you a ball park figure:

It must be more than 88,000 deaths per year. I choose that number because that is the number of alcohol-related deaths per year in the United States, and I am not in favor of an alcohol ban. It would therefore be hypocritical of me to be in favor of a firearm ban that results in one third this number of deaths per year, wouldn't it?

 

[Rich2018]

You continually whine about casualties but completely ignore the fourth leading cause of death in the US - Automobile accidents....

No I don't and have publicly applauded laws to make vehicles and driving safer.

...why is death by automobile any more acceptable than death by firearm?

It's not, except that for all practical purposes vehicles are a daily necessity whereas firearms are a luxury recreation

...why aren't you foaming at the mouth about the 36,560 killed in automobile accidents last year?

Because I see a plethora of laws and forthcoming laws aimed at making vehicle and driving safer
I would support a federal driving license that's much harder to pass though

...those automobile accident fatalities included children as well....

Hence the bi-partisan nature of most traffic/automobile laws like mandatory child seats.

...it is very apparent the anti-American left care nothing about death, injuries, or mass shootings....

How is that obvious ?

What about the pro-American left (sounds like you have an agenda about LW politics - do you fear the ultimate objective is an Atheist tyranny ?)
What about the anti-American right - why do you not reserve some scorn for them and their agenda ?

...or they would not have created the massacre magnets with the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990....

When WHO was president ?
George H Bush by any chance - the Republican president ?

...the anti-American left practically begged mass murders to slaughter children with that law, and they know it....

What did that famous anti-American president say ?

Did his son "practically beg" terrorists to kill people (including children) on gun free airplanes ?


How is making schools a gun free zone "practically begging" mass shooters...is making schools drug free zones "practically begging" drug dealers to sell drugs to kids ?

 

[Rich2018]

Yes, I am against both automatic and semi-automatic weapon bans.

The exact number of deaths that would be required for me to even consider a firearms ban I'm not sure of. All I can do is give you a ball park figure:

It must be more than 88,000 deaths per year. I choose that number because that is the number of alcohol-related deaths per year in the United States, and I am not in favor of an alcohol ban. It would therefore be hypocritical of me to be in favor of a firearm ban that results in one third this number of deaths per year, wouldn't it?

"CNN replicated that analysis and found that 39,773 people died by guns in 2017, which is an increase of more than 10,000 deaths from the 28,874 in 1999. The age-adjusted rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 people rose from 10.3 per 100,000 in 1999 to 12 per 100,000 in 2017..."

Gun deaths in America reach highest level in nearly 40 years, CDC data shows - CNN


"...between 2015 and 2016, the number of Americans non-fatally injured by a firearm jumped by 37 percent, rising from about 85,000 to more than 116,000. It was the largest single-year increase recorded in more than 15 years...."


The CDC Says Gun Injuries Are on the Rise. But There Are Big Problems With Its Data.


40,000 +116,000 = 156,000

 

[lwf]

"CNN replicated that analysis and found that 39,773 people died by guns in 2017, which is an increase of more than 10,000 deaths from the 28,874 in 1999. The age-adjusted rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 people rose from 10.3 per 100,000 in 1999 to 12 per 100,000 in 2017..."

Gun deaths in America reach highest level in nearly 40 years, CDC data shows - CNN


"...between 2015 and 2016, the number of Americans non-fatally injured by a firearm jumped by 37 percent, rising from about 85,000 to more than 116,000. It was the largest single-year increase recorded in more than 15 years...."


The CDC Says Gun Injuries Are on the Rise. But There Are Big Problems With Its Data.


40,000 +116,000 = 156,000

If we include non-fatal injuries, then my number jumps to at least one tenth the total number of non-fatal injuries each year in the United States (which it is estimated that alcohol accounts for.) So that's probably somewhere in the 300,000 range.

 

[Rich2018]

If we include non-fatal injuries, then my number jumps to at least one tenth the total number of non-fatal injuries each year in the United States (which it is estimated that alcohol accounts for.) So that's probably somewhere in the 300,000 range.

So not enough death and injury to warrant attention yet ?


The ambivalence is startling.

 

[lwf]

So not enough death and injury to warrant attention yet ?

The ambivalence is startling.

Yes that's correct. And if you are not in favor of an alcohol ban, then how do you account for your own ambivalence?

 

[Rich2018]

Yes that's correct. And if you are not in favor of an alcohol ban, then how do you account for your own ambivalence?

Because it's been tried once and failed.

And no, banning guns is not the same. There would be no flood of illegal guns into the USA, nor would there be a back yard cottage industry making guns and ammo.

 

[lwf]

Because it's been tried once and failed.

And no, banning guns is not the same. There would be no flood of illegal guns into the USA, nor would there be a back yard cottage industry making guns and ammo.

How do you know this?

 

[Rich2018]

How do you know this?

Because of the limited sources of gun supply outside the USA


Because guns are harder - a lot harder - to make in your back yard than a bottle of moonshine.

 

[TurtleDude]

Because it's been tried once and failed.

And no, banning guns is not the same. There would be no flood of illegal guns into the USA, nor would there be a back yard cottage industry making guns and ammo.

where do you come up with such nonsense?

 

[TurtleDude]

Because of the limited sources of gun supply outside the USA


Because guns are harder - a lot harder - to make in your back yard than a bottle of moonshine.

Do you have even the slightest clue of how many military weapons are floating around this earth? When I was at my 5th Reunion, one of my friends, a wealthy Raj whose family moved to Dubai, told me he could get me M16 rifles-NIB for 90 or so a piece but import might be tough. I asked where he got them. And he said-Hanoi City-his business had bought 10K from the Communist Government which had seized them when South Vietnam fell. In the last 40 years, the Eastern Bloc has re-armed and the AK 47 was abandoned in favor of either STANAG compliant rifles or the AK 74. where do you think all those rifles are?

 

[lwf]

Because of the limited sources of gun supply outside the USA

Because guns are harder - a lot harder - to make in your back yard than a bottle of moonshine.

Creating a demand will create supply. It always does. There were no drug cartels in Mexico before the U.S. outlawed drugs.

The bottom line, though, is why you care less about those 88,000 victims of alcohol than you do about those 30,000 victims of firearms?