Candidate Obama himself stated that gun restriction was part of his agenda long ago. No surprise there. And I agree wholeheartedly about incrementalism; it has been going on systematically through the education system, the media, etc...
1) The state / local fight started in the 1990s, initiated by the NRA after several small towns passed gun bans. I think there was a big 1994 case in IL that kicked it off, but I might be mistaken about that. So, the fight is already at the local.
2) You need a permit to drive a car, practice medicine, etc. - and those all require background checks, training and repeated testing. Following the same logic, there is then little reason why you can't do the same for guns. And note I never once suggested to ban guns - in fact, I said the exact opposite, so I would hope that future comments address what I have said as opposed to spewing boilerplate against some generic 'anti-gunner' pigeonhole character. Claiming that I'm suggesting to ban guns by comparing it to living in Chicago creates multiple straw men, and ignores hard questions. Besides, guns are much deadlier than other implements. During mass knife attacks, most injured people survive. During gun attacks, most people die. So maybe a solution is to keep all types of guns legal, but institute a series of progressively more robust background checks for more lethal weapons.
3) A poll that has moderately flawed methodology isn't 'worthless': 1,000 people is a legit sample size for simple questions, and Quinnipac's cross section was decent enough. Even if you polled only red states and polled 5k people, you'd still be well north of 75%. MSNBC might have commissioned it hoping that the results would be like this (as most media orgs do with polls), but that in no way means that there was a finger on the scale. Besides, as I noted this figure has been backed up by additional polling. If you actually want to change opinion, it's much better to realize why you're in the minority and attempt to educate rather than fearmonger and ignore polls that don't suit your worldview. see: Romney, Mitt.
4) Nobody has yet answered my main question - how many gun deaths is too much before restrictions should be enacted? Like it or not, gun restrictions save lives. This has been proven time and again all over the developed world, and isn't a debate. So, at what point is the trade off for liberty no longer worth it? Currently, 10,000 people a year are intentionally killed with guns in the USA. Is 20,000 too many? 50,000? Where's the line where you personally say 'ok, we need to do something about this. it cannot go on.'? Most on the left think that this is far too high already, hence the anger and effort. I'm just wondering where the balance lies. And before the argument even begins, getting 'tougher on criminals' has already been maxed out - we already have more people in prison for longer sentences than almost anywhere else in the world. The point of diminishing returns on that side has long passed.
5) In terms of 'incremental' and chipping away, that's a tactic that both sides use as a tried and true political tactic. The NRA has been extremely successful at this. In fact, one wouldn't know it from reading the headlines, but the current environment in the USA is more favorable to gun owners than at almost any other time in recent US history, despite the 'threats'. A good example is that no legit nat'l-level politician has ever seriously suggested abolishing the 2nd amendment - to say anything remotely like such is to attempt to instill fear without facts. More fear = more donations = more profit.
6) Calling Newton parents or Gabby Giffords as nothing more than 'props' can be seen as tremendously disrespectful to them. As citizens, they have the right to fight for what they believe in just as you or I, and like it or not they were on the frontlines. It was their decision, and their choice to participate in these events. Military personnel are used in this way all the time by both parties and few complain. But think of it this way - if a President that you agreed with wanted to use your example, your experience to help pass a bill that you felt was very important, would you decline out of 'principle'? Would you think you were a prop? Very, very few people would ever turn that opportunity down.
7) What are the 'big gun grabbing groups'? I don't know what this means.
8) I believe that all prospective US citizens are required to pass extensive background checks, and committing a felony while on a green card is grounds for instant deporation / prison.
9) Last, lumping people into boxes of 'law-abiding' vs. 'criminals' is a false dichotomy, and imho very damaging to this discussion. Both good and evil have been inherently part of all humans for all of history, and circumstances (opportunity, desperation) play tremendously important roles in deciding if and when an individual decides to break the law. Some 'career criminals' reform, some 'law-abiders' turn to crime, some people drift between the two for their whole lives, others find ways to get paid to kill. It's kinda the whole point behind this one guy who once said 'let he who is without sin...'.
Criminals do not abide by the law..........(RE Chicago)........background checks are just the first step to a national gun registration.......do you know what comes next?.......if history has told us anything......it would be confiscation. And yes the Sandy Hook families are being used as props............just like the Martin Family........The Pendalton family............ect ect .......The main stream media and the politicians use what works........That is all!
Thanks for your thoughts, miklia. If you choose to ignore history and the Constitution, that's your right. I disagree with just about all of your "points". We aren't going to solve this issue here.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
as noted earlier, this isn't about changing minds, and I'm fully aware that this is the Lion's Den. I just want to understand the thought process here, as the thinking on guns by US citizens is truly unique in the world. Rarely do others in the world so willingly subject themselves to immediate danger as a society in order to prevent against a hypothetical.
Where does all of this 'history' talk come from, btw? The vast, vast majority of regulations enacted by countries re: guns have in fact not led to gun bans. But fair enough, if that fear exists I can appreciate that. What's harder for me to digest, however, is that to fear that such a thing would come to pass necessarily assumes that a) this is the end goal of those asking for regulations, and b) the gun lobby is powerless to stop it. Those are not rational thoughts, and do not reflect the current situation in the country.
<< <i> 4) Nobody has yet answered my main question - how many ABORTION deaths is too much before restrictions should be enacted? Like it or not, ABORTION restrictions save lives. This has been proven time and again all over the developed world, and isn't a debate. So, at what point is the trade off for liberty no longer worth it? Currently, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF BABIES a year are intentionally killed with ABORTIONS in the USA. Is 20,000 too many? 50,000? Where's the line where you personally say 'ok, we need to do something about this. it cannot go on.'? Most on the left think that this is far too LOW already, hence the anger and effort. I'm just wondering where the balance lies. >>
I substitued the word Abortion above for Guns in your quote. Since you are for saving innocent lives, as I am, it is a legitimate argument.
<< <i>as noted earlier, this isn't about changing minds, and I'm fully aware that this is the Lion's Den. I just want to understand the thought process here, as the thinking on guns by US citizens is truly unique in the world. Rarely do others in the world so willingly subject themselves to immediate danger as a society in order to prevent against a hypothetical.
Where does all of this 'history' talk come from, btw? The vast, vast majority of regulations enacted by countries re: guns have in fact not led to gun bans. But fair enough, if that fear exists I can appreciate that. What's harder for me to digest, however, is that to fear that such a thing would come to pass necessarily assumes that a) this is the end goal of those asking for regulations, and b) the gun lobby is powerless to stop it. Those are not rational thoughts, and do not reflect the current situation in the country. >>
What this ENTIRE argument comes down to is Centralized Power vs. Decentralized Power, nothing more.
It is up to each State in the United States to decide, or NOT. It is NOT to be left to a CONCENTRATED and centralized Federal Govt.
Surely it is as plain as your nose, with any part of the Federal Govt, (EPA, IRS, DHS,) has shown that there is NO accountability to the People on the Federal level, for the abuse of Power!
This **situation** (ABUSE of Power) was contemplated and figured out long ago, by the Founders.
If you just slowly READ The Constitution's Bill of Rights (The 10 Amendments) you will understand these holy RIGHTS are nothing more than a list of things that a centralized FEDERAL GOVT can not do to the People.
It has nothing to do with people conduct, its all to the conduct of a CENTERALIZED Govt. to which the founders wanted to be weak, as they envisioned the States were to have the voice of the people:
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Third Amendment
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
Seventh Amendment
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.
Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
I was ‘COINB0Y' with 4812 posts and ‘Expert Collector’ ranking (Joined in 2006).
miklia, you just like Centralized Federal Level Power to rule the Land.
I like the State I live in to make the Laws.
In fact, in Pennsylvania (where I have a Concealed Carry Permit and always carry my weapon) the state has most of the failed Gun Bill **in place, as a matter of Law**.
However, if we in Pennsylvania want the Law changed, it is exponentially much easier to petition our representatives to change it.
By god, when the people speak, these politicians listen, even if they are corrupt because they fear the loss of Office.
A Federal Employee can't get fired ! (Unless he goes Postal).
I was ‘COINB0Y' with 4812 posts and ‘Expert Collector’ ranking (Joined in 2006).
<< <i> P.S. If anyone knows where I can get some IMR 4831 powder, it is non existent online or in stores, send me a PM. >>
Would you like that with or without taggant? >>
Is it possible to defeat the taggant by buying the same powder from several places over a period of time and then blend or mix them together?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Miklia, commendation for bravery for facing this crowd openly. Your thoughts are of course very welcome but don't be disappointed if your message gets some push back. We don't discuss politics here, no Dems and Repubs, but we do discuss topics. Many of us own guns and sufficient ammo. We also own gold, coins and other metal so our collective philosophical approach may not necessarily be sympathetic to blue state urban area talking points.
If you would spend a few days thumbing through the threads (I suggest starting with the mother thread, Gold, silver, economic news, coins) you would probably get a fair idea of the interests here. I don't want to characterize any of our forumites as anything since we are all different with the single exception that many of us own metal; the kind that goes boom and the kind that has reeded edges.
<< <i>as noted earlier, this isn't about changing minds, and I'm fully aware that this is the Lion's Den. I just want to understand the thought process here, as the thinking on guns by US citizens is truly unique in the world. Rarely do others in the world so willingly subject themselves to immediate danger as a society in order to prevent against a hypothetical.
Where does all of this 'history' talk come from, btw? The vast, vast majority of regulations enacted by countries re: guns have in fact not led to gun bans. But fair enough, if that fear exists I can appreciate that. What's harder for me to digest, however, is that to fear that such a thing would come to pass necessarily assumes that a) this is the end goal of those asking for regulations, and b) the gun lobby is powerless to stop it. Those are not rational thoughts, and do not reflect the current situation in the country. >>
You obviously are good at arguing. As anyone who is good at debate knows, you can take either side of an issue and make valid points. You asked for the thought process, here is mine:
I grew up in a family where much of my social experiences revolved around shooting and shooting sports. My family hunts deer, pheasant, ducks, dove, squirrels, bear, elk, grouse, etc.... My family also shoots in competitive shooting sports such as skeet, trap and rifle/pistol matches. All my good friends hunt and shoot the same. Because of this, I have learned to respect firearms and the inherent danger with a weapon. You see, my father taught me how to handle a firearm. We also sat down at the dinner table as a family and said grace every day. I went to church every Sunday. What some people don't understand is that I don't FEAR guns like others who don't know anything about them do. They are a part of my everyday life. Now many will argue that I don't need a clip that holds over 10 rounds because all the bad things happen with large clips. I call BS on that argument. I have seen with my own eyes bad things happen with a knife, single shot gun, or a multiple shot gun. I have also witnessed assault with a baseball bat, tire iron, etc..... If I want to kill a lot of people, I can make a bomb by looking on the internet. Should we ban the internet now? Where does it all end? Why can't I have a magazine that holds 35 rounds? Why can't I have an assault rifle? History tells us that it ends with less rights for the people. If you don't understand this, look at other countries that have done what some politicians are attempting to do. I don't want to live in a country where I don't have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I believe it is my RIGHT and the Federal Government is overstepping its bounds. Now why would a government want to ban guns? Is it really to save all those people? As I said before, if that was the case we should probably ban a lot of other things that the goverment seems to think are o.k. (knives, cars, alcohol, cigs, meat (food poisoning is deadly), prescriptions drugs, surgeries, etc...) I think the founders had it correct. I believe they lived under a government that was too intrusive and too big in Europe. They wanted to found a nation, under God, that gave the rights back to the people. Gun control is not about saving lives in its current format, it is about government control. If you take this a step further, if the public is unarmed, they are also unable to defend themselves. They then must depend on the government. I don't want to live in a country like this. I want the basic right to be able to protect myself and my family as granted in the constitution. If I wanted the government to do everything for me, I would live in a socialist country. I don't want to be dependant on the government, therefore I choose freedom and I choose capitalism. I don't want the government to tell me what health care I have to have. I don't want the government to tell me I have to pay for people who could work but choose not to as a lifestyle. I don't want the government to tell me I have to pay for other people making bad choices. Where does it end? will the government eventually tell my children where they have to live and what jobs they will have to do. I just don't want to live in a country like that.
You made the point that cars and surgeries have licensing. Where I live, we already have laws in place for this with guns. For example, you can't hunt without a license. You can't get a license without taking hunters safety. You can't have a concealed carry permit without taking a class and getting a license. That still doesn't stop crazy people from doing bad things. We had an incident in 2006 where a hunter shot and killed multiple people over an argument. Does that mean we should ban hunting in the state? No, it means the person that did it was crazy even though they were a former member of the armed services and had no criminal record. Does that mean we should ban the type of gun he used? No, he could have used any gun he wanted. To take it one step further, it is against the law for a felon to possess a firearm or hunt in our state. Guess what, I have seen with my very own eyes felons who hunted with an illegal firearm. The laws and licensing didn't stop them. The problem is not the guns, it is the people and circumstances behind the guns. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
My final point is this. I have lived and worked in the dirtiest, darkest, crime infested corners of a big city and I have lived in small town, rural America. I lived in Texas when they passed the concealed carry law. I have seen first hand the decrease in violence that occurs when you allow a free citizen the right to defend themselves. Most "Bullies" will pick an easy target. Someone carrying a gun is not an easy target. Mass shootings usually occur in places where we have gun restrictions in place (Schools, churches, college campus) because they are unarmed easy targets. Mass bombings usually occur in places where there are a lot of people, it doesn't matter if you are armed in many cases. As I said before, I feel it is my right to not be an easy target. If that means carrying a firearm, I will. I don't want to live in a country where the federal government decides who gets protection and who doesn't.
I sure hope I don't get bammed for this rant but I can't stand when people try to criminalize the basic freedoms and rights granted in our constitution. If you feel safer living in a place where guns are outlawed, try moving to some of the big cities with tough gun laws and live in the roughest of neighborhoods as I have and then come back and tell me how specious my argument is.
<< <i> P.S. If anyone knows where I can get some IMR 4831 powder, it is non existent online or in stores, send me a PM. >>
Would you like that with or without taggant? >>
Is it possible to defeat the taggant by buying the same powder from several places over a period of time and then blend or mix them together? >>
Yep or use a bunch of different powders from different lots. Seems like antiquated technology anyways since you will need a unique [no pun intended] taggant for each powder and lot. Perhaps pictures plastered all over the net of the taggant will help.
Where does all of this 'history' talk come from, btw?
Our government is trending toward a more controlled and more intrusive form of government daily. This includes the media, which can't be considered a "free press" by any stretch of the imagination. The "history" part comes in when you consider what usually happens whenever a controlling government disarms the public.
We already have people in this government who follow Mao's philosophies and methods, and even quote him occasionally, but not in a negative way but in admiration. Mao holds the world record of killing the most of his own citizens (50 million to 60 million during the "cultural revolution") after they were disarmed. This doesn't phase Hillary Clinton, Van Jones or Vallerie Jarrett. It's a source of derision for Obama that people in the middle of the country "cling to their guns and religion". A source of ridicule. If you want to "understand" our culture, you might start with that.
The fact that your response to this type of observation will be: that anyone who thinks that way is nuts or paranoid - simply speaks to your own decision to ignore facts and clearly illustrates your bias against the entire history of the US and its freedoms. This bias has been promoted for the past 50 years actively. Every edifice and cultural tradition of the US that was won with blood and devotion has been attacked in both innocuous ways and outright for years. You're obviously a product of that thinking.
We simply won't ever agree in our thinking, miklia. What makes us different, is that I recognize your rights, but you don't recognize mine.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Miklia, I would like to address a couple of your comments above, not to change your mind but to give you another perspective:
2) You need a permit to drive a car, practice medicine, etc. - and those all require background checks, training and repeated testing.
Well, yes and no. There is no background check to drive a car or get a license let alone BUY a car. You don’t even need a driver’s license to buy a car!!! Not in WA State anyways. In fact, we are one of the few States that allow illegals to get driver’s license which is a joke as they don’t buy insurance and they don’t stick around after hitting you unless their car is disabled (personal knowledge). Doctors do have to be license though I don’t know about a background check and I don’t believe they get repeated testing. They do need to have continuing education, just like a CPA and a lot of other professions but this is more to keep them up-to-date with new or changing practices. But the one thing that is tacked on these license/permits is a fee. It is a revenue source which really isn’t required other than for record keeping.
By the way, as far as I know, very little, if any of this continuing education that is required is actual hand-on experience. Most are just lectures and seminars. Should a gun owner be required to attend a class on the newest and greatest guns and ammo, I don't think so but it might be fun. Especially if it has hands-on demonstrations!!!
3) A poll that has moderately flawed methodology isn't 'worthless': 1,000 people are a legit sample size for simple questions, and Quinnipac's cross section was decent enough. Even if you polled only red states and polled 5k people, you'd still be well north of 75.
ROFL – I sorry but I really have to disagree with you here. Take a poll here and asking 1000f people if they think collecting coins it a great hobby and could be profitable. Then do the same in the general public. I bet you two completely difference results!
4) Nobody has yet answered my main question - how many gun deaths is too much before restrictions should be enacted?
Just like the person who loses their driver’s license but still drives and kills a person, they will still drive until you take all the cars away. Should we take all the cars away because a few break the law???.
5) In terms of 'incremental' and chipping away, that's a tactic that both sides use as a tried and true political tactic. The NRA has been extremely successful at this. In fact, one wouldn't know it from reading the headlines, but the current environment in the USA is more favorable to gun owners than at almost any other time in recent US history, despite the 'threats'
You did grow up in the US did you, or at least not before the 70’s. My brother sold Christmas cards and earned a .22 rifle which was mailed to him. The next year he sold more and got a .410 shotgun. Again, it was mailed to him. He was in Jr. High School.
6) Calling Newton parents or Gabby Giffords as nothing more than 'props' can be seen as tremendously disrespectful to them. As citizens, they have the right to fight for what they believe in just as you or I, and like it or not they were on the frontlines. It was their decision, and their choice to participate in these events
Yes, but BO didn’t fly me to DC to give a BALANCED testimony on the subject. It was purely one sided and therefore they were PROPS!
7) What are the 'big gun grabbing groups'? I don't know what this means.
They are call the BO Administration
8) I believe that all prospective US citizens are required to pass extensive background checks, and committing a felony while on a green card is grounds for instant deporation / prison.
GOOD – write the President and Congress before your pass this 800+ page law. Find out how fast your opinion doesn’t matter!!!!
I am really glad I stocked up before the huge price increase and have lots of reloading components to keep going if I have to. But, I have cut back on range time, which is fine as it busier than ever and it seems strange to have to wait to get a spot to shoot!!!
Like one person who posted there said, "Here's a good example as to why the 2nd amendment is so very important and why the government wants to take it away or severly limit it."
<< <i>.I sure hope I don't get bammed for this rant but I can't stand when people try to criminalize the basic freedoms and rights granted in our constitution. If you feel safer living in a place where guns are outlawed, try moving to some of the big cities with tough gun laws and live in the roughest of neighborhoods as I have and then come back and tell me how specious my argument is. >>
what you said is fine but either way I am pretty sure they only closely monitor the US coin forum and the sports cards and mem forum.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
<< <i> Wally World still ain't got no bullets or shells! >>
Someone who works at a WW here says they can't account for all the ammo that comes into the store. Apparently is isn't all being rung up as sales. >>
Actually, my (??) Walmart uses a sign-up sheet and when it comes in, they call you. You have a couple hours to get there if you want it. I haven't used it but a couple friends have. Sometimes it is there when they arrive and sometimes not!
<< <i> Wally World still ain't got no bullets or shells! >>
Someone who works at a WW here says they can't account for all the ammo that comes into the store. Apparently is isn't all being rung up as sales. >>
Actually, my (??) Walmart uses a sign-up sheet and when it comes in, they call you. You have a couple hours to get there if you want it. I haven't used it but a couple friends have. Sometimes it is there when they arrive and sometimes not! >>
My daughter mentioned that she was told that by someone who works there. They get x cases in, but x cases apparently don't get rung up in sales.
Bombs are not legal, nor sold nationwide in retail stores / trade shows / online.
I'd say that's a big flaw in the argument this photo makes.
I'm disappointed the gun legislation didn't pass and praying they try again someday soon. >>
I could make a dirty bomb with legal ingredients found at a hardware store. The argument does stand up. It is not the bomb, it is the people or circumstances behind it that need to be addressed. It's kind of like putting a limit on sudafed because it can be used for meth. I now have to sign in at the pharmacy if I want to buy a decongestant with sudafed in it. Guess what, they are still making meth. Address the real problem not the symptoms and then we can start to agree on how to find a solution.
You cannot legislate away evil. Even the old testament has that lesson, a set of laws was given and the people continued to sin. No matter how much we want the government and laws to make us safe, at some point we have to realize that a time may come when you are faced with crime face to face. The second amendment was put there to allow citizens to defend themselves.
There is really only one person who can truly make you safe and that is the person you see in the mirror every morning! Next is comes down to how capable are you at defending yourself! If you are a 20 something with a 4th degree black belt, that may be all you need. If you are old like me, the .45 may be what I need. A Biden Double-barrel is out of the question!!
As for my semi-auto rifle, I use it to help a buddy control predators on his ranch. It is my choice and should always be my choice!!!
<< <i>There is really only one person who can truly make you safe and that is the person you see in the mirror every morning! Next is comes down to how capable are you at defending yourself! If you are a 20 something with a 4th degree black belt, that may be all you need. If you are old like me, the .45 may be what I need. A Biden Double-barrel is out of the question!!
As for my semi-auto rifle, I use it to help a buddy control predators on his ranch. It is my choice and should always be my choice!!! >>
<< <i>I could make a dirty bomb with legal ingredients found at a hardware store. The argument does stand up. It is not the bomb, it is the people or circumstances behind it that need to be addressed. It's kind of like putting a limit on sudafed because it can be used for meth. I now have to sign in at the pharmacy if I want to buy a decongestant with sudafed in it. Guess what, they are still making meth. Address the real problem not the symptoms and then we can start to agree on how to find a solution. ... >>
Many serious sharp-shooters make their own ammo. Guns can be made, too. Just so happens that bombs are easier to make with cheaper ingredients. The point is that because guns are so readily available, you don't need to DIY. Whereas bombs are illegal, and therefore require homemade assembly and/or black market acquisition. Anyway, the legislation wasn't banning all guns only certain types of guns/mags/ammo and how we access them.
Bombs are not legal, nor sold nationwide in retail stores / trade shows / online.
I'd say that's a big flaw in the argument this photo makes.
I'm disappointed the gun legislation didn't pass and praying they try again someday soon. >>
Wrong. No flaw at all. In fact, it makes the case that more legislation will NOT work to prevent gun violence. Bombs are illegal; law enforcement gets notified when ingredients are purchased.... but that certainly did not stop the bombing in Boston did it?? Like wise, if you put more laws on guns, you will NOT stop the bad guys from perpetrating their crimes on the public. They will still find a way to get their weapons and do their damage. All additional legislation will do is punish the law abiding individuals.
Like it or not, gun restrictions save lives. This has been proven time and again all over the developed world, and isn't a debate.
Sorry but it is VERY MUCH a debate. I think the populace of "gun free" Chicago might disagree with your assertion for starters, given the homicide rate there is the highest in the state and among the highest in the country... not to mention the ghosts of a few million Jews who along with the preponderance of the populace of Germany and other nations, voluntarily surrendered their weapons when the new leader came into power. Hitler said that with gun restriction "the streets would be safer, the police more efficient..." Sound familiar with anything currently coming out of DC? The reality is that gun restrictions disarm victims... not criminals.
Like it or not, gun restrictions save lives. This has been proven time and again all over the developed world, and isn't a debate.
Only a gun hating pacifist thinks such rubbish......keeping your eyes closed to the truth is most troubling. Only a liberal can think like this......logic is thrown out the door in their world.
edited to add: Look at Chicago, DC, and New York, extreme gun laws on the books....oh that's right, the liberal news media ignore those cities when it comes to reporting on gun deaths.
Where has that ever been REALLY proven?????..........I can go just about anywhere in Chicago and buy all types of guns for cash.......( I buy legal just so you know).........but if I am a gangbanger or would be mass murderer I can certainly purchase what I need............How about we start prosecuting ILLEGAL gun owners and users........OH I guess that would make sense and go against the libel agenda.........I can only hope that someday a thug sticks a gun in your face and wants what you got.........you'll crap in your pants and cry like a baby...............and then blame the gun and not the person!!!......Idiots!!!
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
New Your State has instituted a new "Pressure Cooker" buy back program. Turn your pressure cooker in for cash. Details and site collection centers to follow.... Only in NYS
The only thing that makes me question the government's real intent with this legislation, is that if the Obama administration's goal is to reduce gun violence, then why have federal prosecutions for gun crimes been on the decline for several years now?
"After 9/11, the Bush administration's firearms prosecutions shot up, peaking at about 11,000 cases in 2004. In 2012, the feds prosecuted fewer than 8,000 gun cases"
Why create new laws when you are enforcing the existing laws more lax than ever? I know this argument has been made by the conservative lamestream media before, but I have yet to hear a good answer about it from our administration. By the way, "The districts of Eastern New York, Central California, and Northern Illinois ranked 88th, 89th and 90th, respectively, out of 90 districts, in prosecutions of federal weapons crimes per capita last year."
I get the romantic notion of not taking guns because freedom, but at what point does the collateral damage of our gun policies become too high? Where's the benchmark for 'acceptable' and 'not acceptable'? 1k gun deaths a year? 10k? 100k? Every society collectively decides this figure differently, but the USA behaves much more like African states than the developed world in this regard, thus making it a fascinating question to ask.
And as I noted to a member previously, if you think that the USG cares in the slightest about 'tracking' the 19th and 20th century weapons collected by its citizens as a threat given its 21st century arsenal and capabilities, you're sorely mistaken. >>
I just read the poll. It appears the about 90% of those interviewed in 3 Eastern states [ New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia] were asked very specific questions about background checks. I would be very interested in the politics of those people. Im willing to bet that most of them vote Democrat. Two more points and Im done with this discussion. First, stop blaming the tool and blame the fool. I own guns and so far not one of them have jumped up and went on a killing spree. Maybe they are defective. But I dont think so. Second point, a true "assault weapon" is a full auto or select fire weapon used in the military. To own one involves a horrendous amount of paperwork and considerable expense. People mistake a certain weapons platform for an"assault weapon" because of cosmetics. The AR platform is one of the best designs to come along in 70 years. {off soap box now.}
Thanks for the comments again all, especially those that resisted the namecalling and devolution into hyperbole (abortion? really?). Just a few more comments, and we can lock this thread or move on to discussion via PM:
1) There seems to be a lot of hate on 'Chicago' here too - a surprise to me. Those who haven't been should check it out - it's a great town, fantastic good, good people. But here it seems to be another outlier that is used as some anti-regulation argument? Or an anti-Obama media talking point or something? Being out of the states for a while, I (thankfully) haven't had the chance to brush up on the lastest rhetoric on either side. That said, NYC's regulations have conclusively lowered gun crime, so they could be used to provide a counter to CHI. And I'm a big fan of federalism - but it's both sides who are fighting to make gun issues a national and not a state-level concern. See the reaction to the DC gun ban, for example. Those in favor of states rights / decentralization should thus have no problem with state-level gun bans. It would certainly be interesting - I think you'd see statistics diverge quite rapidly between blue/red. Regardless, I was talking about international examples, which are more instructive when looking at regulation as I'm interested more in the USA as the cultural exception here.
2) Wanting guns for personal and/or family protection is 100% legit in my eyes, and a fully acceptable (and honest) reason for wanting to own a gun. Coins - I like your idea on continuing education for owners and prospective owners, which is always a good thing.
3) Re: the 2nd Amendment, a clever/devious politico might suggest the following: Give a rifle to every American citizen when they turn 18, and otherwise heavily restrict guns. That suggestion follows the letter and the spirit of the 2nd Amendment in full, creating a difficult legal challenge for those pleading 2nd Amendment protection for limitless individual arms. This is similar to what Switzerland does, which has high gun ownership and low(ish) gun crime. But going further, one could argue that the 4th, 5th and 8th Amendments have been throughly gutted since 2001 to 'save' us from 'terrorists'. Wouldn't it be outstanding if we had a group as powerful as the NRA for every Amendment? If we're going to fight for the bill of rights, we should fight for all of them, for everyone - not just the simple one, for ourselves. In that way, I've always been surprised at the right's vehement dislike of the American Civil Liberties Union, all it does is work to uphold the Constitution! It works much like the crowd here - worrying that if we start to restrict liberty and constitutional rights for some (usually typified as the 'bad guys' in court cases), it's a slippery slope until we all lose our liberties for increasingly meaningless quasi-political Orwellian claims. And Coins, I agree with you wholeheartedly on CISPA, it reminds me of many Middle Eastern and Chinese internet laws already in existence.
4) hchcoin, well-argued and special thanks for your comments. I didn't see it as a rant at all. Although the evidence behind the effectiveness of concealed carry laws are a matter of an ongoing (and interesting) debate, I don't see any harm in them - as long as the owners pass a background check of course.
5) jmski - an interesting take, I'll give you that. Although, you're way off base on the Mao bit - step away from the talk radio. I'm not sure which 'facts' I'm 'ignoring' here, or why an argument for public safety means that I'm somehow 'against' what the USA stands for. I see this thinking as a product of a heavily polarized political climate in the USA today - where each side thinks not only that the other is wrong, but also ethically corrupt and actively trying to destroy society or something. Dems did it with Reagan, Reps did it with Clinton, Dems did it with Bush, and now Reps again with Obama, and it's getting worse each cycle. If you like the current Oval Office resident or not, let's put the canard of 'he's trying to ruin America!' to bed. And I know the knee-jerk response is 'but he IS!!', but he's not. Really. It's easy to denigrate the 'other side' in an echo chamber, but it's damaging to our political culture as a whole.
6)
<< <i>First, stop blaming the tool and blame the fool >>
The counter to this might be: then why are we making it so easy for fools to act foolishly? That was the essence of the mental health-related bills, which also failed. And again, no people in the world are inherently 'good' or 'evil' - it might make for an easier understanding of a complex, confusing and nonsensical world, but it's not true in the slightest.
7) Last, dismissing polls you disagree with is probably the fastest possible way to self-marginalization. I've looked into the methodology of that particular poll a bit more myself, and am now firmly behind it. VA and PA are solid battleground states with big rural, conservative populations. Had, for example, IA or NE been used instead of NJ it might appear a bit more 'balanced' on the surface, but it wouldn't have significantly changed the results. If you don't like a poll, work to change the agenda and educate the other side, not on devising newer and more creative ways to shoot the messenger and yourself in the process.
Whew. Thanks again for the observations and comments guys. Much appreciated. Now let's return to our regularly scheduled metals takedown.
Thank you for your comments Miklia. You presented your discussion evenly and responded well in the give and take. I believe that without the discussion we would just have the sound of one hand clapping. Thanks for taking the time and putting up a pretty good effort. We all have a better understanding of the topic.
Comments
And I agree wholeheartedly about incrementalism; it has been going on systematically through the education system, the media, etc...
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
1) The state / local fight started in the 1990s, initiated by the NRA after several small towns passed gun bans. I think there was a big 1994 case in IL that kicked it off, but I might be mistaken about that. So, the fight is already at the local.
2) You need a permit to drive a car, practice medicine, etc. - and those all require background checks, training and repeated testing. Following the same logic, there is then little reason why you can't do the same for guns. And note I never once suggested to ban guns - in fact, I said the exact opposite, so I would hope that future comments address what I have said as opposed to spewing boilerplate against some generic 'anti-gunner' pigeonhole character. Claiming that I'm suggesting to ban guns by comparing it to living in Chicago creates multiple straw men, and ignores hard questions. Besides, guns are much deadlier than other implements. During mass knife attacks, most injured people survive. During gun attacks, most people die. So maybe a solution is to keep all types of guns legal, but institute a series of progressively more robust background checks for more lethal weapons.
3) A poll that has moderately flawed methodology isn't 'worthless': 1,000 people is a legit sample size for simple questions, and Quinnipac's cross section was decent enough. Even if you polled only red states and polled 5k people, you'd still be well north of 75%. MSNBC might have commissioned it hoping that the results would be like this (as most media orgs do with polls), but that in no way means that there was a finger on the scale. Besides, as I noted this figure has been backed up by additional polling. If you actually want to change opinion, it's much better to realize why you're in the minority and attempt to educate rather than fearmonger and ignore polls that don't suit your worldview. see: Romney, Mitt.
4) Nobody has yet answered my main question - how many gun deaths is too much before restrictions should be enacted? Like it or not, gun restrictions save lives. This has been proven time and again all over the developed world, and isn't a debate. So, at what point is the trade off for liberty no longer worth it? Currently, 10,000 people a year are intentionally killed with guns in the USA. Is 20,000 too many? 50,000? Where's the line where you personally say 'ok, we need to do something about this. it cannot go on.'? Most on the left think that this is far too high already, hence the anger and effort. I'm just wondering where the balance lies. And before the argument even begins, getting 'tougher on criminals' has already been maxed out - we already have more people in prison for longer sentences than almost anywhere else in the world. The point of diminishing returns on that side has long passed.
5) In terms of 'incremental' and chipping away, that's a tactic that both sides use as a tried and true political tactic. The NRA has been extremely successful at this. In fact, one wouldn't know it from reading the headlines, but the current environment in the USA is more favorable to gun owners than at almost any other time in recent US history, despite the 'threats'. A good example is that no legit nat'l-level politician has ever seriously suggested abolishing the 2nd amendment - to say anything remotely like such is to attempt to instill fear without facts. More fear = more donations = more profit.
6) Calling Newton parents or Gabby Giffords as nothing more than 'props' can be seen as tremendously disrespectful to them. As citizens, they have the right to fight for what they believe in just as you or I, and like it or not they were on the frontlines. It was their decision, and their choice to participate in these events. Military personnel are used in this way all the time by both parties and few complain. But think of it this way - if a President that you agreed with wanted to use your example, your experience to help pass a bill that you felt was very important, would you decline out of 'principle'? Would you think you were a prop? Very, very few people would ever turn that opportunity down.
7) What are the 'big gun grabbing groups'? I don't know what this means.
8) I believe that all prospective US citizens are required to pass extensive background checks, and committing a felony while on a green card is grounds for instant deporation / prison.
9) Last, lumping people into boxes of 'law-abiding' vs. 'criminals' is a false dichotomy, and imho very damaging to this discussion. Both good and evil have been inherently part of all humans for all of history, and circumstances (opportunity, desperation) play tremendously important roles in deciding if and when an individual decides to break the law. Some 'career criminals' reform, some 'law-abiders' turn to crime, some people drift between the two for their whole lives, others find ways to get paid to kill. It's kinda the whole point behind this one guy who once said 'let he who is without sin...'.
Thanks for the discussion guys.
I knew it would happen.
Where does all of this 'history' talk come from, btw? The vast, vast majority of regulations enacted by countries re: guns have in fact not led to gun bans. But fair enough, if that fear exists I can appreciate that. What's harder for me to digest, however, is that to fear that such a thing would come to pass necessarily assumes that a) this is the end goal of those asking for regulations, and b) the gun lobby is powerless to stop it. Those are not rational thoughts, and do not reflect the current situation in the country.
<< <i> 4) Nobody has yet answered my main question - how many ABORTION deaths is too much before restrictions should be enacted? Like it or not, ABORTION restrictions save lives. This has been proven time and again all over the developed world, and isn't a debate. So, at what point is the trade off for liberty no longer worth it? Currently, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF BABIES a year are intentionally killed with ABORTIONS in the USA. Is 20,000 too many? 50,000? Where's the line where you personally say 'ok, we need to do something about this. it cannot go on.'? Most on the left think that this is far too LOW already, hence the anger and effort. I'm just wondering where the balance lies. >>
I substitued the word Abortion above for Guns in your quote. Since you are for saving innocent lives, as I am, it is a legitimate argument.
<< <i>as noted earlier, this isn't about changing minds, and I'm fully aware that this is the Lion's Den. I just want to understand the thought process here, as the thinking on guns by US citizens is truly unique in the world. Rarely do others in the world so willingly subject themselves to immediate danger as a society in order to prevent against a hypothetical.
Where does all of this 'history' talk come from, btw? The vast, vast majority of regulations enacted by countries re: guns have in fact not led to gun bans. But fair enough, if that fear exists I can appreciate that. What's harder for me to digest, however, is that to fear that such a thing would come to pass necessarily assumes that a) this is the end goal of those asking for regulations, and b) the gun lobby is powerless to stop it. Those are not rational thoughts, and do not reflect the current situation in the country. >>
What this ENTIRE argument comes down to is Centralized Power vs. Decentralized Power, nothing more.
It is up to each State in the United States to decide, or NOT. It is NOT to be left to a CONCENTRATED and centralized Federal Govt.
Surely it is as plain as your nose, with any part of the Federal Govt, (EPA, IRS, DHS,) has shown that there is NO accountability to the People on the Federal level, for the abuse of Power!
This **situation** (ABUSE of Power) was contemplated and figured out long ago, by the Founders.
If you just slowly READ The Constitution's Bill of Rights (The 10 Amendments) you will understand these holy RIGHTS are nothing more than a list of things that a centralized FEDERAL GOVT can not do to the People.
It has nothing to do with people conduct, its all to the conduct of a CENTERALIZED Govt. to which the founders wanted to be weak, as they envisioned the States were to have the voice of the people:
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Third Amendment
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
Seventh Amendment
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.
Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
I like the State I live in to make the Laws.
In fact, in Pennsylvania (where I have a Concealed Carry Permit and always carry my weapon) the state has most of the failed Gun Bill **in place, as a matter of Law**.
However, if we in Pennsylvania want the Law changed, it is exponentially much easier to petition our representatives to change it.
By god, when the people speak, these politicians listen, even if they are corrupt because they fear the loss of Office.
A Federal Employee can't get fired ! (Unless he goes Postal).
<< <i>
P.S. If anyone knows where I can get some IMR 4831 powder, it is non existent online or in stores, send me a PM. >>
Would you like that with or without taggant?
<< <i>
<< <i>
P.S. If anyone knows where I can get some IMR 4831 powder, it is non existent online or in stores, send me a PM. >>
Would you like that with or without taggant?
Is it possible to defeat the taggant by buying the same powder from several places over a period of time and then blend or mix them together?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
If you would spend a few days thumbing through the threads (I suggest starting with the mother thread, Gold, silver, economic news, coins) you would probably get a fair idea of the interests here. I don't want to characterize any of our forumites as anything since we are all different with the single exception that many of us own metal; the kind that goes boom and the kind that has reeded edges.
<< <i>as noted earlier, this isn't about changing minds, and I'm fully aware that this is the Lion's Den. I just want to understand the thought process here, as the thinking on guns by US citizens is truly unique in the world. Rarely do others in the world so willingly subject themselves to immediate danger as a society in order to prevent against a hypothetical.
Where does all of this 'history' talk come from, btw? The vast, vast majority of regulations enacted by countries re: guns have in fact not led to gun bans. But fair enough, if that fear exists I can appreciate that. What's harder for me to digest, however, is that to fear that such a thing would come to pass necessarily assumes that a) this is the end goal of those asking for regulations, and b) the gun lobby is powerless to stop it. Those are not rational thoughts, and do not reflect the current situation in the country. >>
You obviously are good at arguing. As anyone who is good at debate knows, you can take either side of an issue and make valid points. You asked for the thought process, here is mine:
I grew up in a family where much of my social experiences revolved around shooting and shooting sports. My family hunts deer, pheasant, ducks, dove, squirrels, bear, elk, grouse, etc.... My family also shoots in competitive shooting sports such as skeet, trap and rifle/pistol matches. All my good friends hunt and shoot the same. Because of this, I have learned to respect firearms and the inherent danger with a weapon. You see, my father taught me how to handle a firearm. We also sat down at the dinner table as a family and said grace every day. I went to church every Sunday. What some people don't understand is that I don't FEAR guns like others who don't know anything about them do. They are a part of my everyday life. Now many will argue that I don't need a clip that holds over 10 rounds because all the bad things happen with large clips. I call BS on that argument. I have seen with my own eyes bad things happen with a knife, single shot gun, or a multiple shot gun. I have also witnessed assault with a baseball bat, tire iron, etc..... If I want to kill a lot of people, I can make a bomb by looking on the internet. Should we ban the internet now? Where does it all end? Why can't I have a magazine that holds 35 rounds? Why can't I have an assault rifle? History tells us that it ends with less rights for the people. If you don't understand this, look at other countries that have done what some politicians are attempting to do. I don't want to live in a country where I don't have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I believe it is my RIGHT and the Federal Government is overstepping its bounds. Now why would a government want to ban guns? Is it really to save all those people? As I said before, if that was the case we should probably ban a lot of other things that the goverment seems to think are o.k. (knives, cars, alcohol, cigs, meat (food poisoning is deadly), prescriptions drugs, surgeries, etc...) I think the founders had it correct. I believe they lived under a government that was too intrusive and too big in Europe. They wanted to found a nation, under God, that gave the rights back to the people. Gun control is not about saving lives in its current format, it is about government control. If you take this a step further, if the public is unarmed, they are also unable to defend themselves. They then must depend on the government. I don't want to live in a country like this. I want the basic right to be able to protect myself and my family as granted in the constitution. If I wanted the government to do everything for me, I would live in a socialist country. I don't want to be dependant on the government, therefore I choose freedom and I choose capitalism. I don't want the government to tell me what health care I have to have. I don't want the government to tell me I have to pay for people who could work but choose not to as a lifestyle. I don't want the government to tell me I have to pay for other people making bad choices. Where does it end? will the government eventually tell my children where they have to live and what jobs they will have to do. I just don't want to live in a country like that.
You made the point that cars and surgeries have licensing. Where I live, we already have laws in place for this with guns. For example, you can't hunt without a license. You can't get a license without taking hunters safety. You can't have a concealed carry permit without taking a class and getting a license. That still doesn't stop crazy people from doing bad things. We had an incident in 2006 where a hunter shot and killed multiple people over an argument. Does that mean we should ban hunting in the state? No, it means the person that did it was crazy even though they were a former member of the armed services and had no criminal record. Does that mean we should ban the type of gun he used? No, he could have used any gun he wanted. To take it one step further, it is against the law for a felon to possess a firearm or hunt in our state. Guess what, I have seen with my very own eyes felons who hunted with an illegal firearm. The laws and licensing didn't stop them. The problem is not the guns, it is the people and circumstances behind the guns. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
My final point is this. I have lived and worked in the dirtiest, darkest, crime infested corners of a big city and I have lived in small town, rural America. I lived in Texas when they passed the concealed carry law. I have seen first hand the decrease in violence that occurs when you allow a free citizen the right to defend themselves. Most "Bullies" will pick an easy target. Someone carrying a gun is not an easy target. Mass shootings usually occur in places where we have gun restrictions in place (Schools, churches, college campus) because they are unarmed easy targets. Mass bombings usually occur in places where there are a lot of people, it doesn't matter if you are armed in many cases. As I said before, I feel it is my right to not be an easy target. If that means carrying a firearm, I will. I don't want to live in a country where the federal government decides who gets protection and who doesn't.
I sure hope I don't get bammed for this rant but I can't stand when people try to criminalize the basic freedoms and rights granted in our constitution. If you feel safer living in a place where guns are outlawed, try moving to some of the big cities with tough gun laws and live in the roughest of neighborhoods as I have and then come back and tell me how specious my argument is.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
P.S. If anyone knows where I can get some IMR 4831 powder, it is non existent online or in stores, send me a PM. >>
Would you like that with or without taggant?
Is it possible to defeat the taggant by buying the same powder from several places over a period of time and then blend or mix them together? >>
Yep or use a bunch of different powders from different lots. Seems like antiquated technology anyways since you will need a unique [no pun intended] taggant for each powder and lot. Perhaps pictures plastered all over the net of the taggant will help.
Our government is trending toward a more controlled and more intrusive form of government daily. This includes the media, which can't be considered a "free press" by any stretch of the imagination. The "history" part comes in when you consider what usually happens whenever a controlling government disarms the public.
We already have people in this government who follow Mao's philosophies and methods, and even quote him occasionally, but not in a negative way but in admiration. Mao holds the world record of killing the most of his own citizens (50 million to 60 million during the "cultural revolution") after they were disarmed. This doesn't phase Hillary Clinton, Van Jones or Vallerie Jarrett. It's a source of derision for Obama that people in the middle of the country "cling to their guns and religion". A source of ridicule. If you want to "understand" our culture, you might start with that.
The fact that your response to this type of observation will be: that anyone who thinks that way is nuts or paranoid - simply speaks to your own decision to ignore facts and clearly illustrates your bias against the entire history of the US and its freedoms. This bias has been promoted for the past 50 years actively. Every edifice and cultural tradition of the US that was won with blood and devotion has been attacked in both innocuous ways and outright for years. You're obviously a product of that thinking.
We simply won't ever agree in our thinking, miklia. What makes us different, is that I recognize your rights, but you don't recognize mine.
I knew it would happen.
2) You need a permit to drive a car, practice medicine, etc. - and those all require background checks, training and repeated testing.
Well, yes and no. There is no background check to drive a car or get a license let alone BUY a car. You don’t even need a driver’s license to buy a car!!! Not in WA State anyways. In fact, we are one of the few States that allow illegals to get driver’s license which is a joke as they don’t buy insurance and they don’t stick around after hitting you unless their car is disabled (personal knowledge). Doctors do have to be license though I don’t know about a background check and I don’t believe they get repeated testing. They do need to have continuing education, just like a CPA and a lot of other professions but this is more to keep them up-to-date with new or changing practices. But the one thing that is tacked on these license/permits is a fee. It is a revenue source which really isn’t required other than for record keeping.
By the way, as far as I know, very little, if any of this continuing education that is required is actual hand-on experience. Most are just lectures and seminars. Should a gun owner be required to attend a class on the newest and greatest guns and ammo, I don't think so but it might be fun. Especially if it has hands-on demonstrations!!!
3) A poll that has moderately flawed methodology isn't 'worthless': 1,000 people are a legit sample size for simple questions, and Quinnipac's cross section was decent enough. Even if you polled only red states and polled 5k people, you'd still be well north of 75.
ROFL – I sorry but I really have to disagree with you here. Take a poll here and asking 1000f people if they think collecting coins it a great hobby and could be profitable. Then do the same in the general public. I bet you two completely difference results!
4) Nobody has yet answered my main question - how many gun deaths is too much before restrictions should be enacted?
Just like the person who loses their driver’s license but still drives and kills a person, they will still drive until you take all the cars away. Should we take all the cars away because a few break the law???.
5) In terms of 'incremental' and chipping away, that's a tactic that both sides use as a tried and true political tactic. The NRA has been extremely successful at this. In fact, one wouldn't know it from reading the headlines, but the current environment in the USA is more favorable to gun owners than at almost any other time in recent US history, despite the 'threats'
You did grow up in the US did you, or at least not before the 70’s. My brother sold Christmas cards and earned a .22 rifle which was mailed to him. The next year he sold more and got a .410 shotgun. Again, it was mailed to him. He was in Jr. High School.
6) Calling Newton parents or Gabby Giffords as nothing more than 'props' can be seen as tremendously disrespectful to them. As citizens, they have the right to fight for what they believe in just as you or I, and like it or not they were on the frontlines. It was their decision, and their choice to participate in these events
Yes, but BO didn’t fly me to DC to give a BALANCED testimony on the subject. It was purely one sided and therefore they were PROPS!
7) What are the 'big gun grabbing groups'? I don't know what this means.
They are call the BO Administration
8) I believe that all prospective US citizens are required to pass extensive background checks, and committing a felony while on a green card is grounds for instant deporation / prison.
GOOD – write the President and Congress before your pass this 800+ page law. Find out how fast your opinion doesn’t matter!!!!
Thanks for the discussion miklia.
"Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA) is making its way through Congress, and it’s passed a House vote on Thursday."
Link
Like one person who posted there said, "Here's a good example as to why the 2nd amendment is so very important and why the government wants to take it away or severly limit it."
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
<< <i>.I sure hope I don't get bammed for this rant but I can't stand when people try to criminalize the basic freedoms and rights granted in our constitution. If you feel safer living in a place where guns are outlawed, try moving to some of the big cities with tough gun laws and live in the roughest of neighborhoods as I have and then come back and tell me how specious my argument is. >>
what you said is fine but either way I am pretty sure they only closely monitor the US coin forum and the sports cards and mem forum.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
<< <i>
Someone who works at a WW here says they can't account for all the ammo that comes into the store. Apparently is isn't all being rung up as sales.
<< <i>3) A poll that has moderately flawed methodology isn't 'worthless': 1,000 people is a legit sample size for simple questions >>
1000 is far too few in my opinion.
<< <i>4) So, at what point is the trade off for liberty no longer worth it? >>
Never
BST Transactions (as the seller): Collectall, GRANDAM, epcjimi1, wondercoin, jmski52, wheathoarder, jay1187, jdsueu, grote15, airplanenut, bigole
<< <i>
No shibby, I am really sick of trying to chase down some ammo, even online when a deal is posted the ammo stock goes dry in less then an hour.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
<< <i>Miklia, I will compromise with you..... just ban Democrat voters from having guns..... that will cut the murder rate in the U.S. by 85%.
Zing!
BST Transactions (as the seller): Collectall, GRANDAM, epcjimi1, wondercoin, jmski52, wheathoarder, jay1187, jdsueu, grote15, airplanenut, bigole
<< <i>
<< <i>
Someone who works at a WW here says they can't account for all the ammo that comes into the store. Apparently is isn't all being rung up as sales. >>
Actually, my (??) Walmart uses a sign-up sheet and when it comes in, they call you. You have a couple hours to get there if you want it. I haven't used it but a couple friends have. Sometimes it is there when they arrive and sometimes not!
<< <i>
<< <i>I hope bullets & rifles get cheaper~QUICK! >>
I hope ammo starts showing back up at Walmart. Maybe then Walmart will drop the 3 box ammo limit. >>
if you got a cabella's they got a 5 box limit. hope it works for ya
<< <i>
Bombs are not legal, nor sold nationwide in retail stores / trade shows / online.
I'd say that's a big flaw in the argument this photo makes.
I'm disappointed the gun legislation didn't pass and praying they try again someday soon.
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Someone who works at a WW here says they can't account for all the ammo that comes into the store. Apparently is isn't all being rung up as sales. >>
Actually, my (??) Walmart uses a sign-up sheet and when it comes in, they call you. You have a couple hours to get there if you want it. I haven't used it but a couple friends have. Sometimes it is there when they arrive and sometimes not! >>
My daughter mentioned that she was told that by someone who works there. They get x cases in, but x cases apparently don't get rung up in sales.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Bombs are not legal, nor sold nationwide in retail stores / trade shows / online.
I'd say that's a big flaw in the argument this photo makes.
I'm disappointed the gun legislation didn't pass and praying they try again someday soon. >>
I could make a dirty bomb with legal ingredients found at a hardware store. The argument does stand up. It is not the bomb, it is the people or circumstances behind it that need to be addressed. It's kind of like putting a limit on sudafed because it can be used for meth. I now have to sign in at the pharmacy if I want to buy a decongestant with sudafed in it. Guess what, they are still making meth. Address the real problem not the symptoms and then we can start to agree on how to find a solution.
You cannot legislate away evil. Even the old testament has that lesson, a set of laws was given and the people continued to sin. No matter how much we want the government and laws to make us safe, at some point we have to realize that a time may come when you are faced with crime face to face. The second amendment was put there to allow citizens to defend themselves.
Ammo Search Bot
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
As for my semi-auto rifle, I use it to help a buddy control predators on his ranch. It is my choice and should always be my choice!!!
<< <i>There is really only one person who can truly make you safe and that is the person you see in the mirror every morning! Next is comes down to how capable are you at defending yourself! If you are a 20 something with a 4th degree black belt, that may be all you need. If you are old like me, the .45 may be what I need. A Biden Double-barrel is out of the question!!
As for my semi-auto rifle, I use it to help a buddy control predators on his ranch. It is my choice and should always be my choice!!! >>
Well said
<< <i>I could make a dirty bomb with legal ingredients found at a hardware store. The argument does stand up. It is not the bomb, it is the people or circumstances behind it that need to be addressed. It's kind of like putting a limit on sudafed because it can be used for meth. I now have to sign in at the pharmacy if I want to buy a decongestant with sudafed in it. Guess what, they are still making meth. Address the real problem not the symptoms and then we can start to agree on how to find a solution. ... >>
Many serious sharp-shooters make their own ammo. Guns can be made, too. Just so happens that bombs are easier to make with cheaper ingredients.
The point is that because guns are so readily available, you don't need to DIY. Whereas bombs are illegal, and therefore require homemade assembly and/or black market acquisition.
Anyway, the legislation wasn't banning all guns only certain types of guns/mags/ammo and how we access them.
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
<< <i>
<< <i>
Bombs are not legal, nor sold nationwide in retail stores / trade shows / online.
I'd say that's a big flaw in the argument this photo makes.
I'm disappointed the gun legislation didn't pass and praying they try again someday soon. >>
Wrong. No flaw at all. In fact, it makes the case that more legislation will NOT work to prevent gun violence. Bombs are illegal; law enforcement gets notified when ingredients are purchased.... but that certainly did not stop the bombing in Boston did it?? Like wise, if you put more laws on guns, you will NOT stop the bad guys from perpetrating their crimes on the public. They will still find a way to get their weapons and do their damage. All additional legislation will do is punish the law abiding individuals.
Leave the 2nd amendment alone.
Sorry but it is VERY MUCH a debate. I think the populace of "gun free" Chicago might disagree with your assertion for starters, given the homicide rate there is the highest in the state and among the highest in the country... not to mention the ghosts of a few million Jews who along with the preponderance of the populace of Germany and other nations, voluntarily surrendered their weapons when the new leader came into power. Hitler said that with gun restriction "the streets would be safer, the police more efficient..." Sound familiar with anything currently coming out of DC?
The reality is that gun restrictions disarm victims... not criminals.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>Many serious sharp-shooters make their own ammo. Guns can be made, too >>
I make my own ammo at time but I am not a serious sharp-shooter. It is just a hobby like collecting coins!
As for making gun, yes you can but I dare you to sell one (there is a law against that you know though some could care less!!!!)
Only a gun hating pacifist thinks such rubbish......keeping your eyes closed to the truth is most troubling.
Only a liberal can think like this......logic is thrown out the door in their world.
edited to add: Look at Chicago, DC, and New York, extreme gun laws on the books....oh that's right, the liberal news media ignore those cities when it comes to reporting on gun deaths.
MY GOLD TYPE SET https://pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/complete-type-sets/gold-type-set-12-piece-circulation-strikes-1839-1933/publishedset/321940
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Bombs are not legal, nor sold nationwide in retail stores / trade shows / online. I'd say that's a big flaw in the argument this photo makes. >>
That is certainly in the running for the most ignorant post I have seen here.
<< <i>I can go just about anywhere in Chicago and buy all types of guns for cash.......( I buy legal just so you know). >>
And this is a close runner up.....
Cheers, RickO
Thursday is the Antique Guns & Gold Showcase...... sad that I'm going to miss it. I will only be at the Show Friday and Saturday.
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
"After 9/11, the Bush administration's firearms prosecutions shot up, peaking at about 11,000 cases in 2004. In 2012, the feds prosecuted fewer than 8,000 gun cases"
Why create new laws when you are enforcing the existing laws more lax than ever? I know this argument has been made by the conservative lamestream media before, but I have yet to hear a good answer about it from our administration. By the way, "The districts of Eastern New York, Central California, and Northern Illinois ranked 88th, 89th and 90th, respectively, out of 90 districts, in prosecutions of federal weapons crimes per capita last year."
<< <i>using anecdotes as facts is specious. Here's an actual one, and you're right - it's actually 273 million:
91% of americans support universal background checks
I get the romantic notion of not taking guns because freedom, but at what point does the collateral damage of our gun policies become too high? Where's the benchmark for 'acceptable' and 'not acceptable'? 1k gun deaths a year? 10k? 100k? Every society collectively decides this figure differently, but the USA behaves much more like African states than the developed world in this regard, thus making it a fascinating question to ask.
And as I noted to a member previously, if you think that the USG cares in the slightest about 'tracking' the 19th and 20th century weapons collected by its citizens as a threat given its 21st century arsenal and capabilities, you're sorely mistaken. >>
I just read the poll. It appears the about 90% of those interviewed in 3 Eastern states [ New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia] were asked very specific questions about background checks. I would be very interested in the politics of those people. Im willing to bet that most of them vote Democrat.
Two more points and Im done with this discussion. First, stop blaming the tool and blame the fool. I own guns and so far not one of them have jumped up and went on a killing spree. Maybe they are defective. But I dont think so.
Second point, a true "assault weapon" is a full auto or select fire weapon used in the military. To own one involves a horrendous amount of paperwork and considerable expense. People mistake a certain weapons platform for an"assault weapon" because of cosmetics. The AR platform is one of the best designs to come along in 70 years.
{off soap box now.}
<< <i>The AR platform is one of the best designs to come along in 70 years. >>
Do you know how many non-gun and anti-gun people believe "AR" stands for "Assault Rifle"?????
1) There seems to be a lot of hate on 'Chicago' here too - a surprise to me. Those who haven't been should check it out - it's a great town, fantastic good, good people. But here it seems to be another outlier that is used as some anti-regulation argument? Or an anti-Obama media talking point or something? Being out of the states for a while, I (thankfully) haven't had the chance to brush up on the lastest rhetoric on either side. That said, NYC's regulations have conclusively lowered gun crime, so they could be used to provide a counter to CHI. And I'm a big fan of federalism - but it's both sides who are fighting to make gun issues a national and not a state-level concern. See the reaction to the DC gun ban, for example. Those in favor of states rights / decentralization should thus have no problem with state-level gun bans. It would certainly be interesting - I think you'd see statistics diverge quite rapidly between blue/red. Regardless, I was talking about international examples, which are more instructive when looking at regulation as I'm interested more in the USA as the cultural exception here.
2) Wanting guns for personal and/or family protection is 100% legit in my eyes, and a fully acceptable (and honest) reason for wanting to own a gun. Coins - I like your idea on continuing education for owners and prospective owners, which is always a good thing.
3) Re: the 2nd Amendment, a clever/devious politico might suggest the following: Give a rifle to every American citizen when they turn 18, and otherwise heavily restrict guns. That suggestion follows the letter and the spirit of the 2nd Amendment in full, creating a difficult legal challenge for those pleading 2nd Amendment protection for limitless individual arms. This is similar to what Switzerland does, which has high gun ownership and low(ish) gun crime. But going further, one could argue that the 4th, 5th and 8th Amendments have been throughly gutted since 2001 to 'save' us from 'terrorists'. Wouldn't it be outstanding if we had a group as powerful as the NRA for every Amendment? If we're going to fight for the bill of rights, we should fight for all of them, for everyone - not just the simple one, for ourselves. In that way, I've always been surprised at the right's vehement dislike of the American Civil Liberties Union, all it does is work to uphold the Constitution! It works much like the crowd here - worrying that if we start to restrict liberty and constitutional rights for some (usually typified as the 'bad guys' in court cases), it's a slippery slope until we all lose our liberties for increasingly meaningless quasi-political Orwellian claims. And Coins, I agree with you wholeheartedly on CISPA, it reminds me of many Middle Eastern and Chinese internet laws already in existence.
4) hchcoin, well-argued and special thanks for your comments. I didn't see it as a rant at all. Although the evidence behind the effectiveness of concealed carry laws are a matter of an ongoing (and interesting) debate, I don't see any harm in them - as long as the owners pass a background check of course.
5) jmski - an interesting take, I'll give you that. Although, you're way off base on the Mao bit - step away from the talk radio.
6)
<< <i>First, stop blaming the tool and blame the fool >>
The counter to this might be: then why are we making it so easy for fools to act foolishly? That was the essence of the mental health-related bills, which also failed. And again, no people in the world are inherently 'good' or 'evil' - it might make for an easier understanding of a complex, confusing and nonsensical world, but it's not true in the slightest.
7) Last, dismissing polls you disagree with is probably the fastest possible way to self-marginalization. I've looked into the methodology of that particular poll a bit more myself, and am now firmly behind it. VA and PA are solid battleground states with big rural, conservative populations. Had, for example, IA or NE been used instead of NJ it might appear a bit more 'balanced' on the surface, but it wouldn't have significantly changed the results. If you don't like a poll, work to change the agenda and educate the other side, not on devising newer and more creative ways to shoot the messenger and yourself in the process.
Whew. Thanks again for the observations and comments guys. Much appreciated. Now let's return to our regularly scheduled metals takedown.