Here we go again - Gun Bans are on the way

reply to post by captaintyinknots

I see the slippery slope in conceding to bans. That is not what I asked. I asked about HAVING THE CONVERSATION.

We are having a conversation…what is your point?

You said:

We need to take a look at WHAT KIND of guns are out there for the public. We need to take a look at capacity. We need to take a look at more rigorous qualifications for who can purchase guns.

That sounds like you’re willing to concede certain types of weapons and accessories. I certainly am not. The more control we give these bastards the closer to a totalitarian police state we become. What more is there to discuss?

BTW - where in the constitution or bill of rights does it say the 2nd amendment only pertains to individuals who pass a government mandated qualification process?

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I see the slippery slope in conceding to bans. That is not what I asked. I asked about HAVING THE CONVERSATION.

We are having a conversation…what is your point?

You said:

We need to take a look at WHAT KIND of guns are out there for the public. We need to take a look at capacity. We need to take a look at more rigorous qualifications for who can purchase guns.

That sounds like you’re willing to concede certain types of weapons and accessories. I certainly am not. The more control we give these bastards the closer to a totalitarian police state we become. What more is there to discuss?

No, we are not discussing it. You all continue to keep that discussion from happening, just as the "ban all guns" crowd doesnt allow the conversation to take place. I dont know, maybe its over your head.


I said we need to look at it. I never said we need to ban them. YOU jumped to that. You are afraid. Your fear wont even allow you to discuss the idea that some things may not be suitable for the public.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


No of course not, but Like guns, there are places for that.

Just because some nut jobs want to shoot up public places does not mean we should ban the guns we love.

If there were as many cases of people driving on the highway extremely fast and killing people, we would be possibly be talking about putting a Cap to the speed of cars.

I've learned in life that Mass punishment does not work. People don't like being punished for someone elses wrong doings.

Originally posted by Diggz
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

No of course not, but Like guns, there are places for that.

Just because some nut jobs want to shoot up public places does not mean we should ban the guns we love.

If there were as many cases of people driving on the highway extremely fast and killing people, we would be possibly be talking about putting a Cap to the speed of cars.

I've learned in life that Mass punishment does not work. People don't like being punished for someone elses wrong doings.

And that is a fair argument. I, however, do not look at the discussion as punishment. I think we need to find out what the american people-not the vocal fringes- the american people, want. If the american people voted and said they want a limit on high-cap magazines, what would you say to that?

reply to post by captaintyinknots

No, i said we need to look at it. I never said we need to ban them. YOU jumped to that. You are afraid.

I agree!! I AM afraid….I’m afraid of losing the second amendment. I’m afraid that the police state is going to make it illegal for me to possess the firearms I already own. I’m afraid that I won’t be able to add to my collection. I’m afraid that America is headed toward an oppressive regime much like Russia in 1929 or Germany in 1942. I'm afraid America is being disarmed for nefarious purposes.

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
- Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942

Adolf Hitler

reply to post by seabag

What a coincidence (Feinstein to reintroduce an AWB after the school shootings)....however; attempting to ban and collect guns will likely lead to more not less violence.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by seabag

 

What a coincidence (Feinstein to reintroduce an AWB after the school shootings)....however; attempting to ban and collect guns will likely lead to more not less violence.

That cannot, and will not, happen. As I have said, that ship has sailed. Guns are not going anywhere, nor should they.

reply to post by seabag


Fair enough. At least you admit you are driven by fear. I demand more of myself, personally. I wont live in fear. I will own multiple guns, and feel perfectly safe with the ones I have, none of which are military style weapons, and none of which will ever be taken away from me.

Until we, as a country, can come out from the shroud of fear, this country will continue to deteriorate.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Fair enough. At least you admit you are driven by fear. I demand more of myself, personally. I wont live in fear.

Tough guy, huh?
I’m taking that stand for my weapons now while you concede.

I will own multiple guns, and feel perfectly safe with the ones I have, none of which are military style weapons, and none of which will ever be taken away from me.

Until we, as a country, can come out from the shroud of fear, this country will continue to deteriorate.

Oh, but you see, if you’re willing to let them take my assault weapons now then your p-shooters will be next shortly afterwards. You give up an inch and they’ll take a mile.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Fair enough. At least you admit you are driven by fear. I demand more of myself, personally. I wont live in fear.

Tough guy, huh?

I’m taking that stand for my weapons now while you concede.

I will own multiple guns, and feel perfectly safe with the ones I have, none of which are military style weapons, and none of which will ever be taken away from me.

Until we, as a country, can come out from the shroud of fear, this country will continue to deteriorate.

Oh, but you see, if you’re willing to let them take my assault weapons now then your p-shooters will be next shortly afterwards. You give up an inch and they’ll take a mile.

Not sure where you came to the conclusion that I was making myself out to be a tough guy...but whatever floats your boat. Where have I conceded anything, btw? Being OPEN MINDED means I have conceded? What a strange place your world must be.

Way to continue to jump to "theyre going to take em all away", proving, once again, that you cannot even have the conversation. That ANY talk about gun laws means they are taking your guns. You have proven to be exactly who I am speaking of, so I thank you for that.

I forget, were handguns, shotguns and rifles all outlawed during the last assault weapons ban? Did they come door to door taking guns? WHAT? THEY DIDN'T? HOLY CRAP!

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Being OPEN MINDED means I have conceded?

YES! We already have enough guns laws. Being “open minded” as defined by you means considering which weapons the average citizens should not be allowed to own. I’m calling BS!

That ANY talk about gun laws means they are taking your guns. You have proven to be exactly who I am speaking of, so I thank you for that.

You’re welcome!
…and I’m right!

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Being OPEN MINDED means I have conceded?

YES! We already have enough guns laws. Being “open minded” as defined by you means considering which weapons the average citizens should not be allowed to own. I’m calling BS!

That ANY talk about gun laws means they are taking your guns. You have proven to be exactly who I am speaking of, so I thank you for that.

You’re welcome!

…and I’m right!

So if the american people voted, and voted to keep certain guns, and outlaw others, what would you say to that? "No, sorry, I believe what I believe, and only I am right?"

Closed-mindedness at its best.

As I asked before, how many handguns were banned last time we had assault rifle bans? How many door to door seizures took place? How many shotguns were outlawed?

Wheres that mile you claim they took?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Diggz
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

No of course not, but Like guns, there are places for that.

Just because some nut jobs want to shoot up public places does not mean we should ban the guns we love.

If there were as many cases of people driving on the highway extremely fast and killing people, we would be possibly be talking about putting a Cap to the speed of cars.

I've learned in life that Mass punishment does not work. People don't like being punished for someone elses wrong doings.

And that is a fair argument. I, however, do not look at the discussion as punishment. I think we need to find out what the american people-not the vocal fringes- the american people, want. If the american people voted and said they want a limit on high-cap magazines, what would you say to that?

Yea, Your right, it shouldnt be seen as punishment.
I wouldnt mind a Limit. Like I said, I love to shoot guns, but nobody needs a crap ton of mags...

Originally posted by Diggz

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Diggz
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

No of course not, but Like guns, there are places for that.

Just because some nut jobs want to shoot up public places does not mean we should ban the guns we love.

If there were as many cases of people driving on the highway extremely fast and killing people, we would be possibly be talking about putting a Cap to the speed of cars.

I've learned in life that Mass punishment does not work. People don't like being punished for someone elses wrong doings.

And that is a fair argument. I, however, do not look at the discussion as punishment. I think we need to find out what the american people-not the vocal fringes- the american people, want. If the american people voted and said they want a limit on high-cap magazines, what would you say to that?

Yea, Your right, it shouldnt be seen as punishment.
I wouldnt mind a Limit. Like I said, I love to shoot guns, but nobody needs a crap ton of mags...

Amen! Someone who understands the idea of having THE CONVERSATION. Thank you.

Originally posted by johncarter
reply to post by facelift

 

Just give it time and you ll see these things happen next year. US have had enough of the gun crazy NRA supporters slaughtering people every month at their leisure.

Riiiight, these young white male mentally disturbed individuals that keep conducting these mass-shootings are soooo supportive of the NRA...

These young white male mentally disturbed individuals probably don't even know what NRA stands for, let alone support or are members.

A little thought for all the gun lovers the same reason is given all the time with regards to allowing people to keep guns because real criminals would still have/ get access to guns.

Funny most of the mass killings in the States and the VERY FEW that have happened in the UK tend to be done by people who lose the plot take a mad turn and decide to kill people THEY WERE NOT CAREER CRIMINALS.

Now do you gun lovers understand why lots of NORMAL people don't give a F$%£ about your guns or your love for them

reply to post by captaintyinknots

So if the american people voted, and voted to keep certain guns, and outlaw others, what would you say to that? "No, sorry, I believe what I believe, and only I am right?"

Closed-mindedness at its best.

I would be butt-hurt for sure. It’s not close minded its standing up for your rights.

As I asked before, how many handguns were banned last time we had assault rifle bans? How many door to door seizures took place? How many shotguns were outlawed?

Wheres that mile you claim they took?

From September 13, 1994 through September 13, 2004 we had a federal assault weapons ban. That ban included many variations of shotguns and pistols many Americans own and enjoy today!

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
• Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
• Detachable magazine.

Wiki


Guess what? Crime was not significantly better during those years!

Do you realize that until The National Firearms Act of 1934 civilians could own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. government?? You see, people justified that concession way back then and we've all forgotten that we had that right. Then in 1994 they took it a step further and moved to ban what they classify as "assault weapons". Its a slippery slope.

reply to post by seabag


All of that, and you didnt answer my question. Did they come door to door and take your guns? Did they disarm the citizens, as you claim they would? Did they go door to door to collect the assault weapons that were already out there? OR DID THEY BAN PRODUCTION AND SALE OF THEM?

Originally posted by seabag
Oh, but you see, if you’re willing to let them take my assault weapons now then your p-shooters will be next shortly afterwards. You give up an inch and they’ll take a mile.

You invoke Hitler as if you had a clue how the Nazis gained their power. Tell me, what will your assault weapons do against a tank? Hell an RPG won't even take out a modern tank. Should civilians hold large stocks of high explosives just in case?

Your position is based on irrational paranoia, not reality. Look at Syria, extremely heavily armed and with an archaic and rusting military, still capable of unimaginable brutality against an armed uprising.

How exactly do you think a couple of million guns are going to stop radar guided missiles? You all going to get together and form a canopy of bullets?

reply to post by wmd_2008

Now do you gun lovers understand why lots of NORMAL people don't give a F$%£ about your guns or your love for them.

Anyone who wants a gun can get one….in America or UK or anywhere else. If somebody goes nuts and wants a gun they can buy a used one with no record whatsoever.

You people like to point out the random crazies who go on a killing spree but overlook the shooting deaths that occur several times per day across the country by criminals who illegally possess firearms. There are 1,000 times more murders using illegally possessed firearms than legally possessed firearms. More laws will NEVER prevent those deaths! There are also FAR more crimes prevented than committed by law abiding citizens using firearms.