US Government wants to take firearms away by force!

Post Reply New Topic

"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."
raptor, you claim that the NRA isn't full of judgmental extremists and fanatics, yet you continually prove that you are one. I still cannot understand your attitude that if I am not 100% for you, then I am 100% against you. Yes I am afraid of being judged by a stereotype. The stereotype that you reinforce.
And if you are going to quote me, I'd prefer you wouldn't take pieces of a point out of their context and assume that I mean something other than what I say. You accuse all of my opinions and words as "just because" and claim your opinions (which are no more concrete) amount to fact at the same time. You use insults as responses questions about your views and most of your proof is no more than opinion and rationalization. You quote me and your evidence that it is not a valid opinion basically amounts to "you're dumb."
You accuse me of being repetitive; well why don't you tell us about your dog again? Or maybe you should talk about how you are an RO at a range who knows the majority of gun owners in this country. Or maybe talk about how certain you are that if any gun control is passed that the big bad government is going to steal your guns. Why don't you bring up Chicago again?
I will repeat this again as well: at no time have I said that there were no laws on the books. Not once. Yet you continually assume that I have. Another example of your egotistical "I'm 100% right and anyone who disagrees even slightly must disagree with everything I say." BS. And as for there being no evidence that it would add value, the converse is true as well.
On the subject of veteran care, just because you have no problem lying to your doctor doesn't mean that everyone does.
Yes I am concerned with gun safety. No it is not the only kind of safety I am concerned with. It is just the only type of safety being discussed in this post.
No I do not assume most gun owners are dangerous. But I do feel that a large number of them are.

You would seriously support dropping regulation explosives? Seriously? Is it because there is no evidence that deregulating explosives would be dangerous? I still want to know where you draw the line with weapons. Is it biochemical weapons, or would that be an infringement of your privacy as well?

If it looks like BS and it sounds like BS and it smells like BS . . .

And by the way, using wikipedia as reference is not the greatest move to maintain your "credibility." There are much more reputable sources that you could have used.

People arent paranoid they just see history and know what to expect but liberals seem to not know or want to see history as a way to predict the future. They seem to only look towards a futrue that is full of people that are all fed clothed housed and protected by goverment they want a futrue where every body is equal. They want quality in the most backasswards way possible instead of helping the less fortunate through education and jobs they want to make laws that hurt the most intelligent and productive people in society. Then give people that dont want to work learn fix or help society every advantage imaginable to prove that they are the most ignorant and destructive ideology in modern times that is what they stand for. These people are religious nuts that cant think for themselves and people who follow blindly towards somthing that makes no logical sense have no place in the modern world. Iam thankful people are finaly seeing BS for what it is though futrue generations may have it harder but they will see things much more clearly thanks to the mistakes our parents and grandparents made.

O.K. If it is not the constitution, what is the rationale behind your line? I think we have to agree to disagree here.


Neither are an average classroom or mall an 'enclosed space' where a small fire is likely to kill a large number of people inside.


You are the one using the sensational term 'firebomb' for a simple glass bottle of gasoline. While nobody advocates banning 'firebombs', nobody is championing the right to carry them in the public, either. Moreover, I don't think it is legal to carry inflammable liquid (never mind a 'firebomb') in public places without sufficient reason anyways.

More partisan vilification of the NRA. The safety training you’re screeching for, over and over, is one of the most noteworthy things the NRA provides. I guess it’s not good enough unless codified into law and turned into a legal train wreck.


I’ve copied and pasted what you’ve said and replied to it using the quotation tool that you seem to not know how to use.


1. I used the scenario with my dog as an analogy for potential abuse of information since certain breeds of dogs as well as guns fall under more scrutiny than my vehicle or TV and subject to knee-jerk reaction. Really, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to be able to see that but you have to be willing to see the connection.
2. My experience as an RSO (Range SAFETY Officer) gives me considerably more of a valid subject matter opinion than you. There’s actually an NRA certification we have to hold in order to do that. With that I think it’s safe to say that I know more gun owners and more about guns and safety than you ever will.
3. Chicago? Yes, it must really suck that draconian gun control has failed so miserably there.


So what good have the existing laws done?
What would further laws gain for us?


I bet a lot of them do, especially when it’s totally irrelevant as it most often will be.
Doctor: “What seems to be the problem, sir?”
Patient: “I think I might have hemorrhoids, doc”
Doctor: “First thing’s first; do you own a gun????”
Patient: “What’s that got to do with anything?”
Doctor: “Well, if you accidentally shoot yourself in the ass it could aggravate your hemorrhoid problem.”

I rest my case.


And other common causes of injury and death are okey-dokey?
Automotive, occupational, poisoning, electrocution, exposure, drowning, illness, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, alcoholism, child abuse, animal attack, falls, etc….But hey, as long as guns aren’t involved.


Based on what?


Dynamite was fairly easy to get at one time and has practical uses. I sleep no better at night because farmer Brown can no longer buy dynamite to use to remove tree stumps.


A biochemical weapon by its very composition is a biohazard even if not weaponized.
Do I need to post the regulations governing biohazards for you?


Maybe you need a shower if it’s that bad.


Wikipedia is generally good enough for message boards and it’s well enough recognized. I didn’t reply to your last with a reference to Wikipedia but I assume you’re talking about the New Orleans gun confiscation fiasco I posted about. Regardless of the source, that is a historical fact and one supportive of my argument. Your grief over my using Chicago and New Orleans as examples is understandable, especially since you don’t have anything to support your arguments.

That was easy enough.
Next!

And yet again raptor you have misinterpreted my words repeatedly. Yet again you demonstrate a perfect example of what you call a partisan vilification of the NRA. There are a lot of great NRA members out there. Unfortunately the loudest ones are like you.

As for Chicago, the biggest reason that gun control failed is because it was a single city. If a criminal couldn't pass a background check in Chicago, why wouldn't he just drive a mile or two to get outside city limits. That is why you cannot use one city as a representation of a nation.
As for Katrina, you seem to assume that I supported the seizure of guns. I can assure you that I will never support the seizure of everyone's firearms. My views are about who legally gets guns (someone who has never been convicted of using a firearm to commit a crime) and how to get guns, not whether you should be allowed to own and keep them. And trying to use New Orleans in a time of panic with a heavy National Guard presence as an example of how the government is coming to steal your guns is faulty logic. Yet another case of trying to use a single city as a representation of an entire nation. The seizure didn't go so well there, even with a huge National Guard presence. Just how many people do you think are in the National Guard? If you really think that is something that would (or could) be rolled out on a national level you are severely paranoid.
And just to clarify (once again) I am fully in favor of gun ownership. I just feel there should be decent controls on how they are obtained. I do not support government seizure of weapons, but I am not afraid that it will happen (because it won't).
I do agree that the NRA provides excellent gun safety training. It is not the quality of their training I am calling into question. And yet again, I will say that that I have made no demand for mandatory training; I asked a theoretical question to see if you would support any type of required safety course and later whether you thought it would improve gun safety overall at all if it were theoretically put into place.
I don't see how your experience makes your opinion any more valid than mine. It just means you spend more time around a certain type of gun owner. I base my opinion of gun owners ability to safety own and operate a firearm on my own experience with the military, my time in the NRA, the hunting / trapping / shooting up the sky on the 4th of July family and neighborhood I grew up in, living in some of the lowest socioeconomic areas in urban areas, and people I have worked with since. And again I will say that I don't think the majority of gun owners are safe, just a large number of them.
And I did not say that wikipedia was not acceptable for forums, just that there are much better references that you could have used instead of the first thing that popped up on Google. The New Orleans/Katrina fiasco also lead to regulation preventing the seizure of private firearms, further weakening your case that the government is after your guns.
You still seem to be mistaken that the first thing a doctor asks a vet is if he owns a firearm, which is an incorrect assumption. It is asked of veterans who meet certain criteria which flag them for possible suicide risk. When these flags pop up, there are dozens of questions that are asked, not just gun ownership. They are asked about relationships with spouses/significant others/family friends, their financial situation, debt, retirement, living situation and living conditions, and their employment status to name a few. These are all used to determine the best method to help keep that particular vet alive. I'm sure you think this is an invasion of privacy, but it is in the interest of the patient's well-being. Since you have only been to a doctor a few times and lie to them anyway, I don't think you should really get to weigh in on the subject of healthcare. You keep complaining that I single out guns, while you continue to do the same.
And again you force me to say: yes I am concerned with gun safety. No it is not the only kind of safety I am concerned with. It is just the only type of safety being discussed in this post. I am concerned about Automotive, occupational, poisoning, electrocution, exposure, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, alcoholism, child abuse, animal attack, falls, etc. But these are not the topics being discussed. Am I to assume you unconcerned about these issues just because you haven't stated a concrete opinion on them in this thread? And there are extensive regulations in place for most of these, so using them for your argument does nothing.
Yes biochemical weapons are heavily regulated. That is why I put them in next. I am not claiming they are not regulated, just asked if you thought they should be. I am still trying to figure out what (if any) weapons you are in favor of regulating. How about nuclear weapons? Should they be regulated?
And yes you quote parts of my posts, but leave out anything that catches your BS in your own logical fallacy net. And do you seriously feel that a valid argument in support of your position is that I don't bother with the quotation tool most of the time. You seem to use it as a way to make other posters seem less credible by pulling out tiny bits rather than using it to actually address an entire point being made. I don't bother with the quotation tool because it is necessary and takes up space.
And as for having to be "willing to see the connection," that is the kind of language used by some of the most paranoia driven conspiracy theorists so you might want to avoid that phrasing in future posts.
You continue to claim you have evidence based opinions, which you very well could have. There is plenty of credible information out there that could be used by either side on any gun related issue. Yet you continually fail to even bother tracking it down. At least when I offer an opinion based on my personal reasoning I don't try to pass it off as some sort of holy gospel.
Do you even realize how your words and actions drive people with a moderate stance to the left and liberals even further to the left? You are a much greater threat to gun ownership rights than I. To be honest you are much more vehement and aggressive in your extremism than any of the co-workers who accuse me of being an ultra-conservative simply because I own guns.

Shame on me.

The point is that it’s ILLEGAL to possess several types of guns in Chicago and definitely illegal to carry a firearm on one’s person. That is gun control and it has obviously failed.


To support registration is to support confiscation. I've already explained how that works.


How effective are the current laws?
How effective will future laws be?
What if they are not effective?


No, I won’t support a law that requires mandatory safety training for reasons already stated repeatedly.


We have just about the entire spectrum of gun owners come to our ranges on the weekends and I deal with them, observe them, and talk with them. How would you know what I deal with at any shooting range if you have an aversion to shooting at one?
You’re especially grasping at straws on this one.


We’re not deciding the fate of nations in this forum. Wiki is not the only thing I use as a reference and sometimes I don’t bother to reference anything. When they confiscated guns from people in New Orleans they were already operating outside the law which doesn’t exactly make any newer feel-good law ironclad.


Yes, well you and LKL claim that all GP provided healthcare is comprehensive and that personal information is directly related to total health. Those were you two’s words, not mine.


And since you don’t have my credentials in relation to firearms safety I don’t think you should get to weigh in on that subject.


You’re obsessed with gun safety laws, not safety itself.


Nuclear weapons by virtue of being nuclear are covered under other regulations governing nuclear/atomic energy. Do I need to march out the regulations for that for you?
Using nukes and bio weapons as examples is typical of the hysterical anti-gun crowd and we've been down this path many times in the gunz-r-bad threads in this forum.


I’ve been quoting paragraph by paragraph. I’m not going to address every word.


Yes, right; there can never be a valid connection of two things. Only a paranoid conservative NRA member would do such a desperate thing.
What was I thinking.


You’re the one that wants to pass laws here, not me.


I’ve brought more valid arguments to these kinds of threads than your side of it has. I don’t placate your fears or use your logic so therefor I’m the boogeyman.
You've brought nothing to the table that supports the value of gun control.

Do you even read what I write? Apparently not.
Once again, I am forced to repeat myself because you seem to have a bit of trouble with your reading comprehension skills. Have you noticed yet that the majority of my responses are to correct your faulty assumptions of my personal views?

I have at no time in any post stated that there were no laws or regulations regarding weapons. I did bring up nukes and biochem weapons, but only to try to ask about your upper limit for what weapons should be regulated (which you still haven't answered).

The only reason you assume I have brought nothing of value to the table is because I don't agree with you 100% I have agreed with you on a number of points, but you ignore or distort what I say as you continue to try to paint me as a liberal nutjob (even when I am agreeing with you or conceding a point). This fanatical attitude of yours is more damaging to your cause than anything else, Michael Moore style BS included.

As for your experience on the range, I did not claim that it didn't bring you into contact with different types of gun owner, only that you don't meet all types of gun owner. And for the record I don't go to the range because I don't like people who spew as much hateful BS as you, not because of the range itself. That is the same reason I don't go to any type demonstration or rally for anything, as it just boils down to mass hate speech, which I find uncomfortable in any setting.
I have extensive experience involving guns and gun owners of many types, so your claim that I have no business speaking on the subject is more BS.

I have already stated the main reason that gun control in Chicago failed: because it is city law and not national law. One instance of gun control failure is not proof that any and all gun regulation will fail any more than someone claiming that since an "assault rifle" was used in a school shooting anyone who owns an "assault rifle" is going to be a mass shooter.

I am obsessed with all types of safety, not just safety laws. This is not limited to guns.

In New Orleans they were operating outside of the law. I have never stated otherwise. I did state that seizing the weapons was wrong, if you would take the time to read carefully. The massive wave of violent crime (including rape and looting) in a time of panic is the best argument for why citizens should be allowed to possess guns. You seem to believe that I have implied otherwise. I am merely stating that there were much better sources in this instance (including some liberal leaning media outlets) that you could have used with even a basic Google search.

I have never claimed that all GP healthcare was comprehensive. I did say that asking about gun ownership is part of comprehensive healthcare, particularly in the area of mental health.

To support gun registration is NOT to support gun confiscation by any means. Stop assuming that I am anti-gun because I don't agree with all of your over the top extremist BS. And as for registration leading to gun confiscation, that is a bunch of fear based conspiracy theory BS. You continue to believe that the government would be unable to effectively create or maintain gun laws or a gun registry, yet you still believe they could effectively run a gun confiscation program? But go ahead and spell out your logic on that one; I enjoy seeing you post nonsense as fact.

I did not at any time say there could never be a connection between two things. I was merely suggesting you make that particular point with different wording that would make it seem a little less paranoid.

As for current laws, they are very ineffective. Why else would I want to see something different? As for how effective future laws would be, we won't know unless we have them. And as for your "what if they are ineffective?," argument, I would say that you'd be no worse off than you are now (unless you don't think that you would pass a background check), although you will disagree based the fact that you think big brother is coming for you.
And as for not deciding the fate of nations, that is not something that I said. I am posting on here mostly because I am curious to see the extent of your extremism.


Just out of curiosity, is there anyone else out there that would support a measure to eliminate the regulation of explosives?

Do you read mine? Apparently not…..

And you continue to ask for the same thing, mandatory safety training and registration, without justification. Just because it feels good to you isn’t justification by rational standards.


The broken record syndrome taken to the extreme.


Show me where I called you a liberal nutjob. If anything your responses have been more uncivil but it only amuses me since I am not thin skinned or easily butthurt.


How would you know what kind of people go to shooting ranges if you don’t go to them? Do you get this info from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence website?
And you’re right, I have not met every gun owner from Alaska to Florida and Maine to Hawaii. Without that I guess have nothing to base an opinion on based on your lofty standards.


Your experience seems to have grown in the past few days. You must have been busy.


Sure, well institute Chicago style gun laws nationally. Yeah, that’ll really fix the problem and undertakers will be even richer.


Uh huh…..


Yes, well I’m not going to take a road trip to New Orleans to find and interview the victims of that gun grab just for you so I guess Google will have to suffice.


Same thing but whatever…..


Gun registration is a tool that CAN be used (abused) for individual and/or local confiscation. I think I’ve covered that well enough. If there is no registration then it denies government at ANY level that information.
You still have not told me the value of registration aside from what makes you feel good.


Comparing registration of personally owned firearms and a dog of a controversial breed is quite connected.


Sort of like bloodletting back in the old days to rid someone of an illness. If draining a little blood doesn’t do it let’s keep doing it until the patient bleeds to death and by George he won’t be sick any more. Same thing applies in this case.


I don’t think my extremism can match your extremism as the one calling for national registration and mandatory safety training.



Several others of your stripe have come and gone and a few remain. Everything you’ve brought forth has already been discussed in this forum as being baseless. Baseless, that is, unless you count feelings and rhetoric.

And yet you continue to misinterpret what I write. Just look at your last post. Most of your responses have little (if anything) to do with the words quoted above it.

I have still not issued a demand for mandatory safety training, but have brought up in a theoretical sense. I have stated that it would likely improve gun safety if it were to theoretically come to pass, not that must be mandatory training. But while we are the subject, I am not 100% opposed to the idea (I am not 100% in favor of it either).

I have not changed what I've said about my experience with gun owners, though I have clarified it after you accused me of not knowing anyone with guns.

You may not have used the word "nutjob" but have implied it and accused me of being liberal to the extreme multiple times.

I have never stated that there should be a ban on firearms like there is in Chicago, but have informed you that Chicago is not a representative sample, a fact that you seem unable to grasp.

I never said that your claim was that you haven't met every gun owner or that you could not use your experience as a talking point but rather pointed out that your claim to have met every type of gun owner seems highly suspect. I have also said that your experience is no more valid than mine. And I do have a problem with your insistence that if I don't go to a gun range then I don't know about guns or their owners, as that kind of thinking is flawed in so many ways.

Your words are also nothing more than feelings and rhetoric. I will throw your own words back into your court: "Just because it feels good to you isn’t justification by rational standards."

I will stop being a broken record about what weapons should be regulated when you actually address the question of an upper limit to what type of weapons should be regulated and when you stop repeatedly trying to accuse me of saying things that I have not.

Yet again I must state that we are in agreement about the gun seizures during Katrina with the exception that I don't believe it is somehow proof that gun seizure is a definite. You still seem to think otherwise.

I have spelled out the reasons I am not totally against a gun registry (accountability), and also maintained that you are perfectly entitled to feel otherwise, a courtesy that you seem unwilling to extend to others. I have also stated my position on background checks and the reasons that I have those opinions (making it more difficult for violent criminals to obtain firearms).

I am a little unclear as to how you are equating bloodletting to gun legislation. You might have to clarify that one for me.

And as for gun registration having a possibility of abuse, that argument holds no water as an argument. Any information (including the names and addresses of NRA members which you personally have voluntarily given out) has the potential for abuse. This is not limited to a theoretical gun registry.

You call my responses more uncivil? You continually imply that I am anti-gun in an insulting manner. You maintain a condescending response format for every single one of your responses. You imply that I am a liar repeatedly. You have even accused me of being a hypochondriac (for some reason).

If you really want to know why others have come and gone, I can assure you it has nothing to do with the persuasiveness or logic of your arguments. It is because of your disproportionally agressive tone, your insulting manner, your refusal to admit that others are entitled to their own opinions, your misrepresentation of what others say, your 100% for me or you are an anti-gun liberal attitude, and the fact that a large number of your posts are responding to something that was not even said.

The fact that you drive other people off is only proof that you drive other people off.



And I will put this here again. (No need for you to respond to this, Raptor; I already know your opinion on the subject):

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone else out there that would support a measure to eliminate the regulation of explosives?

You keep repeating yourself using different words to convey the same message.


My idea would be to teach gun safety in public schools. Not a daily class but periodically throughout K-12 education. It would not be mandatory for each state or school district to do this but encouraged.


I did? I said your experience was obviously limited.


I’m not going to humor you by going back over all these posts to find where I’ve called you a liberal. I have no recollection of it but if I did, so what?


And I’m not going to idly stand by while the whole USA becomes a testbed for gun control on the level you want.


My experience it most likely much broader than yours. You know it and I know it.
How can you know about shooting ranges and what kind of horrible people hang out there without the experience of going to them?


And I’m not advocating the passing of invasive law, you are.


No, I don’t think anything will stop you from being a broken record. You’re implying that I want to legalize NBC weapons implies that you are too unhinged to accept my “upper limit”.


Once again, having a database of gun owners and their inventory is subject to abuse. Will it be for certain? I don’t know but why risk it, especially when you can provide no value added to having registration.


I could voice some mere personal opinions on politics that would drive people, probably including you, up the walls but I won’t because they are sensitive subjects.


Google it.


I’ve personally given out names and addresses? Yeah, whatever……:roll:


Any pro-gun rights person worthy of being considered pro- gun rights is dead against registration for the reasons I’ve given over and over.
I don’t care if you’re uncivil or not. You’re accusing me of it only humors me.


So show me one good argument in support of gun laws, especially additional ones? Your side can never come up with one and this has been a hot topic for years on this forum. And, yes, by advocating national registration you are on their side.


You’re giving me too much credit and making me blush. Besides, you keep coming back.


No one answered the last time. Maybe you’re the lone voice in the wilderness…..

And you as well keep repeating yourself using different words to convey the same message.

Quote:
“My idea would be to teach gun safety in public schools. Not a daily class but periodically throughout K-12 education. It would not be mandatory for each state or school district to do this but encouraged.”
-I think this is an excellent idea.

You continue saying my experience is limited, despite the fact that I have been around guns and gun owners my entire life. Just because I don’t go to a civilian range, does not mean I have no experience, just that I don't have the experience at a civilian range. Nor is it enough to prove anything except that you know the different types of gun owners who go to the range. I wasn't saying that my experience was broader or better, just that I had plenty of experience.

You have accused me of being a liberal multiple times. I have trouble following your logic. Do you actually believe that if a person disagrees with some aspects of a single issue, then they must be a liberal?

I do think that you would stand idly by. What are you going to do, start shooting at a very well-funded, highly-trained, well-equipped military force? And then what? Shoot down the drones they send? Post some angry discussion posts? Let’s see where this theoretical illusion of a government gun grab takes us.

I am advocating some regulations that you deem invasive. Why do you keep mentioning it like it is some big revelation?

And you still haven't answered my “upper limit” question. I’ll make it simpler for you:
Yes/No: Are there any weapons at all that have been devised by mankind as of today on which you would support any type of federal regulation?

I apologize for my wording. I did not intend for it to sound like you have given out information about people, just that you (and your fellow NRA members) have given your personal information to an organization that keeps all of your information on file in an electronic database format.

I still don't understand how you think I am anti-gun? At best you can accuse me of being pro-regulation. Not anti-gun.

The same goes to you: show me one good argument against gun laws, especially additional ones. This “their side” thing is garbage. You are over-simplifying things. I am fully in favor of the right for every law abiding citizen to own a firearm. I personally believe that any and all gun legislation is not as sinister as you make it out to be.

I do keep coming back. I find you somewhat fascinating. I've not got much else to do. My wife is gone, classes don't start until the fall, and work is pretty slow. I'm patient and I have the time.

I found your “No one answered the last time. Maybe you're the lone voice in the wilderness…..” response quite humorous. You do realize that I asked if anyone would be in favor of eliminating regulations on explosives and no one answered, don't you?

Would it suffice for pre-ownership training?


Because according to you, shooting ranges are full of naughty people like me. Not all of us have a place to go shooting other than a shooting range. I volunteered to be an RO so I can use the entire facility, all 10 individual ranges, any time I want without supervision. I’ve had to aggressively intervene in my share of irresponsible gun handling by others when I’ve been on duty but those were the exception, not the norm; like 1 out of every 75-100. For that I can’t see passing yet more laws who's cost and hassles won't justify what little they produce. Do you know anything about how government and law actually work?


You’ll live.


You automatically assume violence first instead of legislative opposition.
It goes like this; the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box and then the bullet box.
I guess I can assume from that over the top rant that you’d advocate using troops to enforce gun laws. You just keep driving nails in the coffin for your own credibility here, don’t you?


And no justification for it other than “I want” or “I think”.


Why should I give you an answer? You’ve already made your mind up that I’m an aggressive right wing gun nut that wants to hand out WMD’s to everyone.


Apologizing to me is a waste of time.


Already repeatedly explained. It would be a fools errand to continue to explain to someone who's already decided that 2+2=3


Again, I've already have explained repeatedly. This is proof that you do not read anything I post except what feeds your delusions.


You've indicated that I irritate the sh!t out of you and offend you. You have to come back to justify yourself.


More like they have lost interest in this thread and no longer read it.

I think any education or training promoting gun safety is an excellent idea. I have not said it must be mandatory, so yes I do feel it would suffice.

I have never said that ranges were full of people like you, just that people like you are at gun ranges. I am fully aware that the range is the only place for many gun owners to go. I do not have to, so I won't. It is personal preference. I still have not said the majority of gun owners are dangerous and irresponsible, just that a large number of them are. You say 1 out of 75-100. We'll go with your conservative estimate of 1%. There are 70-80 million gun owners in the US. That translates to 700,000 - 800,000 irresponsible gun owners. That is a significant number to me, even though I personally believe that the percentage of unsafe gun owners would probably be higher than you do.

I do not assume violence would be first. I was starting from the standpoint of this government full firearm seizure that you fear so much. Once your full scale fantasy gun grab is underway, I don't see how the ballot box or court system would be of value. And yes, if this gun grab went down, the military would be involved. I absolutely know how the government works. I was in the military for some time, and I am a government employee as we speak. That does not mean I support it all, just that in your dystopian future, that is how it would go down.

Your justification for not having any regulations at all is supported only by "I don't want" or I think" type statements as well. I am not saying that you can't have opinions, just that your opinions are not fact. And I am not trying to say that my opinions are fact either.

The reason I want an answer to whether you would support any regulation of any weapon is because you seem so loathe to answer it. I did not assume you supported WMDs, I asked about regulating them. I am curious to if what (if any) type of regulations you would find acceptable.

Your 2+2=3 argument is ridiculous. Mathematics follow mathematical law. What we are discussing is opinion, reasoning based on personal experience, beliefs; not proven facts.

I have never said that you irritate the sh!t out of me. There you go with assuming you know what I feel and think again. Though I do tell you things in your posts that bother me and I need some clarification as to your exact meaning.

And my response to you saying that no one responded to my question because they have lost interest in the thread:
You are the one who brought it up as support for your opinions.

Progress


You implied that shooting ranges were frequented by a bad element.
No matter what, you will STILL have a high number of irresponsible gun owners. Look at driving; there is training as a requirement for licensing and periodic testing to renew the license but the roads are full of idiots. Before we go there, driving is a licensed privilege while the right to bear arms is a constitutional right.


I said from the start that I’m not concerned about a total national gun roundup but I do have concern for a more regional or individual confiscation drive and that
would be greatly aided by national registration. However, in a worse case scenario I’d rather die fighting than succumb to a total gun ban or anything else like that.


What I said is that we grudgingly accept certain infringements although they may be meaningless and non-beneficial laws. We do fight the introduction of further laws and will continue to as long as dimwits in DC continue to try and push them throught.
Registration is one thing we’ll really fight tooth and nail over for reasins already given, over and over.


I oppose any gun law, period. If someone wants to own a 105mm howitzer I don’t care. If they have someplace to safely shoot it and can actually afford to shoot the f*cker I don’t care and never will. It’s the user that does the bad deeds, not the hardware. This is my stand on this and you can’t change it.


I’m sure you’ve seen that comparison made before by other people. I’m not the first.


You’ve said that I bother you and that’s synonymous with irritation.
You came back after saying you were completely done with this thread and have posted several pages since and will no doubt continue on.


I didn’t bring up explosives first, you did. By explosives I meant dynamite and C4 and I really don’t care if they lift the ban on those. I won’t start a campaign to de-regulate it but on the other hand I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep over it if the became deregulated. Don’t look for that to change with me.

So now you know that I;
• have no “upper limit” where firearms up to and including artillery are concerned
• would at least be okay with de-regulation of explosives
• don’t believe in registration for reasons given
• don’t believe in mandatory pre-ownership safety training

I maintain the opinion that gun ranges are frequented by unsafe gun owners, but not that the majority of people at the range are. I am certain that the percentage of unsafe gun owners frequenting the range is significantly lower than those who do not. I will agree that no matter what there will always be a large number of irresponsible gun owners, but that does not mean that I would not like to see some efforts to reduce that number.
If you want to use a driving analogy: yes there are very many unsafe drivers out there. Reducing or eliminating driver's education regulations would definitely increase that number. And before you say anything more about your right to own a gun, I have never disputed that it was your right. I fully support the fact that owning a gun is an irrefutable constitutional right.

Your stance that it is the owner and not the weapon that is unsafe is one that I agree with wholeheartedly as well. That does not mean I am opposed to every past, present, or future discussion of legislation, regulation, or law that could ever possibly be conceived of involving firearms.

I did say that I would no longer post about the realistic possibility of the government seizing your weapons. I changed my mind when I began reading some of your poor metaphors and my curiosity was peaked. I just wanted to see how far down the rabbit hole all this takes us. I will continue to post here as long as you do. As I've said before, I have both the time and the patience for it.

Being bothered is not the same thing as being irritated. Irritation indicates a higher magnitude.

I have seen the comparison that 2+2=3 made many times in many different arguments, and see no validity to the comparison when used on any side on any topic. It is absurdist logic at best.

I was not trying to get you to change your stance on what weapons you wouldn't mind being deregulated, I just wanted you to define your stance, which you have now done. Thank you.

Now hopefully you know:
-I am not in favor of a gun ban, especially an arbitrary magazine size restriction. I do, however, believe that you should have some justification for semi-automatics and above other than "none of your nusiness." (Merely a personal opinion, like most of these are).
-I am very much in favor of the constitutional right of citizens to bear arms.
-I am a gun owner. I have experience with guns, gun safety, and gun owners. I am not anti-gun, nor do I want anyone to take your (or my) guns away.
-I have never demanded a mandatory training program, but I am also not entirely against it on the grounds that I personally believe it would improve the overall gun safety in this country. I am more than happy with expanding the availability and number of current gun safety programs in lieu of this, but have seen only limited efforts to this effect. Perhaps if a little less money was spent on promoting fear of regulation and a little more on educating people that guns aren't the enemy . . .
-I am not opposed to a national gun registry. My opinion is based on the fact that I personally believe there should be some sort of accountability for firearms after they have exchanged hands. Legislation would not be my ideal way of addressing this issue, but it the only realistic way that I have seen anyone propose to date. If you have a better idea of how to address these concerns of mine, I am more than happy to hear it. An additional viewpoint of mine on this matter is that the concern for personal information is somewhat pointless, as your personal information is already on file with government agencies, your internet provider, your internet browser's company, your social media websites, phone companies, any organizations that you are a member of, healthcare providers, pharmacies, insurance companies, data mining companies, and a whole host of other big businesses; all of which could abuse/misuse the information.
-I am 100 % in favor of mandatory universal background checks. I really don't think there should be a legal loophole for gun shows. I purchased my first post-military gun at a "gun show" held by the owner of a Virginia store, in the back of his store. There were four people there, including him. I just have the personal opinion that it should be as difficult as possible for convicted violent criminals and persons on a terror watchlist to obtain weapons.
-I am not okay with the deregulation of explosives.
-I support programs and regulations that promote safety in this country. This is by no means exclusive to firearms.

*edit for minor correction

Last edited by sonofghandi on 21 Jun 2013, 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Probably because they come out with crazy ideas like this:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... staff?lite

Rather than dealing with the problem (people with guns who want to shoot children), they decide to give teachers guns.

This article satires that bizarre viewpoint rather nicely: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 88137.html