Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
19 Jun 2013, 5:18 am
19 Jun 2013, 5:28 am
19 Jun 2013, 6:09 am
19 Jun 2013, 6:12 am
19 Jun 2013, 7:04 am
19 Jun 2013, 12:29 pm
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
19 Jun 2013, 1:00 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
19 Jun 2013, 1:26 pm
19 Jun 2013, 1:43 pm
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
19 Jun 2013, 2:12 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
19 Jun 2013, 2:32 pm
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,805
Location: the island of defective toy santas
19 Jun 2013, 4:16 pm
19 Jun 2013, 4:19 pm
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,805
Location: the island of defective toy santas
19 Jun 2013, 4:50 pm
19 Jun 2013, 5:47 pm
sonofghandi wrote:
To begin, it seems that there are quite a few people who seem to believe I am anti-gun and want to eliminate guns from this country. I can assure that this is not the case. I do not appreciate being labeled as an over the top liberal anti-gun nut simply because my personal opinion is that there could be ways to improve the overall gun safety in this country. I have guns. I hunt. I enjoy pulling the trigger.
Yes, there is always room for improvement in the area of safety but why guns?
How about the more common causes of injury and death? When you pick out and hold up one comparatively little turd out of a sea of s**t it appears even to the casual observer that you have an agenda driven fixation.
Quote:
Let clarify some additional misperceptions:
As for my “demand for mandatory gun training,” I was merely asking if there would be any support for any type of training requirements. I was not the one who claims there would be no improvement whatsoever if it were the case.
As for my “demand for mandatory gun training,” I was merely asking if there would be any support for any type of training requirements. I was not the one who claims there would be no improvement whatsoever if it were the case.
Getting a law passed is hard, getting rid of it when it’s bogus is harder still. What evidence can you or anyone provide that this law would be of actual value? I’ve already outlined the questions and concerns I have a few post ago and you had nothing to reply with.
Quote:
And for the record, being an RO at gun range does not bring you into contact with a representative sample of gun owners. I have not been to a range since I left the military, and I don’t believe anyone in my family (who almost all own a large quantity of firearms) has ever been to a range.
It brings me into contact with the people that would actually be affected by your proposal. If the only shooting range you’ve ever been to was in the military you have no experience with which to base an opinion on a civilian shooting range and what all we do there. Judging by your less than flattering comments about other gun owners in general and the NRA I assume you don’t want to be associated with shooting ranges for fear of what people might think of you based on stereotypes.
Quote:
I did not say that the average criminal would use a .50cal to commit crimes (but do you really think that an easily obtained 50cal would only be used for good?); I did not say that RPGs were a firearm (I am just looking for an upper limit); I did not say there were no laws regarding these weapons (because I know that there are). I was merely asking if anyone out there believed that there should be regulations or controls of any type for any type of weapon, and if so, where should the line be drawn. And as for the comparison between guns and gasoline, the big difference is that guns are designed with the primary purpose to kill, whereas gasoline is not.
Wouldn’t bother me one bit if they dropped the laws on class 3 and destructive devices. If put to a vote I’d vote to repeal those laws.
Quote:
I at no time implied that guns were the only means to commit suicide; I merely explained that the reason gun ownership is ascertained at the VA Medical Center where I work is to evaluate suicide risk and to plan therapy accordingly. At no time did I say that this was the only means to commit suicide (so no need for you to list them), only that it is asked because it the most common method among veterans. By the way, I am happy for you that you do not require comprehensive medical care. I do not have that luxury. And I am somewhat offended by the implication that I am a hypochondriac. And regardless of your personal opinions and code of ethics, I urge you to not lie to your doctor about anything. People can (and have) died as a direct result of this.
Just because someone is asked if they have a gun at home does not mean they will answer honestly so there is no ascertaining by definition. You know how I’d answer that question for the reasons already given.
Offense is only one of the services I provide.
Quote:
I do not believe that gun control is unconstitutional, because it isn’t. You can argue that all you want, but your arguments have no merit unless you believe that the Supreme Court has no authority.
Supreme Court aside, we like to see justification for laws and are leery of anything having to do with gun rights because those are the ones that have been trampled by federal and state governments the most in the past half century.
Quote:
I do not like the NRA because I have trouble with people who hate me because my views are not 100% identical to their own unwavering beliefs. I do not want to be mistaken for an extremist of any kind, let alone one who sees the world as “if you don’t agree with me exactly on every single aspect of everything then you are wrong no matter what.” Just because someone has a slightly different opinion than you do does not make them wrong about everything. Regardless of the particulars, I think we can all agree that gun safety is important. I think the details are where our differences are most notable.
To some of us NRA stands for Negotiate Rights Away and we know of what we speak.
I don’t know how you came up with the notion of the NRA being fanatical.
Quote:
I did not bring Chicago into this. But I will point out that their gun laws were enacted because of the violent crime involving firearms and not the other way around. As far as their effectiveness, I have no comment because one city cannot be used as an example for an entire country any more than one incident is representative of an entire city.
Chicago is a very good example of the failure of gun control.
Quote:
My personal opinion is that background checks are not such a bad idea. I don’t think it should be so easy for someone convicted of committing a crime with a firearm to get out on parole and head to a pawn shop to pick up a handgun. I don’t think a radical militant terrorist who is on the FBI terror watch-list should be able to go to a gun show and easily pick up an arsenal. You may say that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and I concede that this is usually the case. That being said, maybe we should make it a little more difficult for a bad guy to get a gun in the first place.
Like it is in Chicago? Please!
Quote:
I am also not against a gun registry on the grounds that I personally believe there should be some sort of accountability for a weapon once it leaves a gun shop/show. I don’t believe the government would (or even could) pull it off very well, I just believe that it is not a bad concept to consider. It is my opinion, and I am entitled to have it, just as you are entitled to believe the opposite.
There you say it’ll be a failure but you want it anyway. I’ve at least provided rationale against it other than “just because” in this thread alone whereas you have not. The cheapest parrot could be taught to repeat something over and over.
Quote:
I am posting in this thread because I am curious to see if there is any sort of (even if extremely minor) exception to the “all laws and regulations involving guns are bad” attitude. And as for calling you a troll, I won’t because it is a case of fanaticism rather than trolling.
Again, you talk as if there are no gun laws on the books.
You can’t tell us what value added they are but you want more. When those provide no value you’ll want more.
Quote:
And as for the original topic of this thread, I will state once more: it would be realistically impossible for the government to seize everyone’s firearms. Regardless of your opinion or viewpoint on the subject of a gun registry, the idea that the government plans on seizing your weapons is laughable at best; I would consider it outright paranoia. This is the only point I originally wanted to make here before all the hate spewing started. If the government really did want to seize firearms, do you think they couldn’t start with members of the NRA even without a gun registry? The gun registry was not something that was even voted on in the most recent gun control bill in congress. It was in an initial draft, but was quickly dropped. The most recent vote was on universal background checks.
Repeat yourself a lot don’t you? Oh well, I’ve come to expect it
Quote:
One other thing that I am curious about:
You worry about privacy, so I ask you if you also have problems with social security, disability, health care, health insurance, home insurance, email, phone books, citizenship, the US census, voting, driver’s licenses, credit cards, banks, social media, smart phones, home addresses, taxation, counter-terrorism, the military, sex offender registry, DNA collection, fingerprinting, photo ID, professional certifications, prescription medication, etc. All of these things involve personal information, and all could be misused and abused. Is that justification for elimination?
You worry about privacy, so I ask you if you also have problems with social security, disability, health care, health insurance, home insurance, email, phone books, citizenship, the US census, voting, driver’s licenses, credit cards, banks, social media, smart phones, home addresses, taxation, counter-terrorism, the military, sex offender registry, DNA collection, fingerprinting, photo ID, professional certifications, prescription medication, etc. All of these things involve personal information, and all could be misused and abused. Is that justification for elimination?
It’s not information itself but the contents of it and none of the above should have any reason to know I’m a gun owner.
You claim not to be anti-gun but all of what you’ve said is typical anti-gun rhetoric:
• Want more gun control but cannot provide rationale
• Do not care that it your gun control will unnecessarily burden the justice system
• NRA is radical
• Most gun owners are dangerous
• Don’t want to be associated with shooting ranges or gun clubs
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....................
Last edited by Raptor on 19 Jun 2013, 6:14 pm, edited 4 times in total.
19 Jun 2013, 6:12 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| A 5th Force of Nature May Have Been Discovered Inside Atoms |
17 Jun 2025, 6:33 pm |
| Turning Qatari 747 into Air Force One could cost $1 billion |
13 May 2025, 9:34 pm |
| Trump-military parade protesters will face very heavy force |
15 Jun 2025, 12:18 am |
