Gun Owners and Non-Gun Owners should come to a Meeting of the Minds

[WalkingWolf]

Quote:
Actually you can, but you are just held accountable in civil or criminal court.

Right. Just as you can still own a restricted gun. You will just pay a fine or do a little jail time for the violation.

[And here I thought we were done, you and I.]

What I was done with is you and another slamming conservatives for fun, instead of discussing the thread topic.

WRONG it is not the same, in first amendment violations the action is held accountable not the means, otherwise the government could cut your tongue out. Also when a violation is encountered there is a victim or plaintiff, there is no such thing with gun laws as the law abiding citizen has not harmed anyone. A restriction would be how you use a firearm, a ban prohibits you from owning it. Koolaid may taste good but it is very bad for you, full of sugar and additives, it should be restricted(banned).

 

[texasgal]

Quote:

Love it .. one more for the good guys!

I'm afraid someone comes in my house uninvited, they will also leave with extra lead .. if they leave at all.

 

[WalkingWolf]

The recent rash of cigarette legislation is a perfect example. Except for minors the ownership and possession of tobacco products is not limited from anywhere in the country, except for schools. There are restrictions on when you can smoke and not smoke, this is reasonable restrictions. Confiscation of cigarettes from law abiding citizens, and jailing honest people who choose to smoke would be wrong. Incidentally cigarettes kill more people than handguns, and probably so does sugar laced drinks like koolaid.

 

[Buster52]

Quote:
Right. Just as you can still own a restricted gun. You will just pay a fine or do a little jail time for the violation.

[And here I thought we were done, you and I.]

What I was done with is you and another slamming conservatives for fun, instead of discussing the thread topic.

WRONG it is not the same, in first amendment violations the action is held accountable not the means, otherwise the government could cut your tongue out.

Well, when they start cutting off people's trigger fingers for violating gun laws, you can count on me to be at the front lines of the protest. Till then, your example is a poor one.

And I don't slam people. It was in jest, just as I'm sure your kool-aide allusions are in jest. I don't take offense. I have a thicker skin than that.

Otherwise I would have retreated from this thread a long long time ago.

 

[deerman]

Just this past Month in Dayton, A guy came home,to find a guy breaking into his neighbors truck. When he ask this guy what are you doing. This guy charge him, bad mistake He had right to carry, yep he shot the guy, didnt kill him.

 

[NYREDS]

A favorite argument of the ban all guns crowd is the proposition that there's nothing to fear from "reasonable restrictions". In Washington DC, for example, those reasonable restrictions require a gun owner to store his/her weapon unloaded, disassembled & trigger locked. How in the world could such a weapon be used for self or home defense? That's what lefties call a reasonable restriction.
Remember, you eat a sandwich one bite at a time. You do away with the 2nd amendment one "reasonable restriction at a time".

 

[horsejody]

Quote:
Truer words have never been spoken. Now all you squeaky wheels stop it. The majority is ruling.

Yes, and the majority thinks that there should be a right to bear arms. I think my next purchase will be a .22 pistol.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Quote:

Yes and it is not by accident. It is the intent to remove firearm ownership from the subjects.

What is troubling is the discrimination that is evident with these laws, they disproportionately affect the poor and limit the ones who live in crime ridden neighborhoods from defending themselves. One has to wonder what the actual thought process behind this is.

 

[kagedgoddess]

when dh was in the navy he was a gunners mate. let me tell you people seem to pick that job becuase they are compensating for something...(even the girls) dh picked it cuz he wants to be dea and figured armory exp would be good... anyways. there were about 30 ppl in his division on his boat. these folks bought guns all the time, big guns, expensive guns, they carried them everywhere, Not concealed (in va thats legal, ppl goto wally world with a holster on their hip) not everyone did this but a majority. a few of the guys even had M4's and AK's, why?????? cuz they are FUN TO SHOOT! so i pitched the idea to dh that we save our money, buy some property in NC and start a fully auto gun range, it could be AWESOME, and we could make Tons of money Just from his shipmates! well... it turns out 1 we cant save money, 2 he changed his mind when he rememebered we have kids (LOL) and 3. the insurance for that is prohibitively expensive, which is why you dont see those around.
so that is my arguement for allowing fully automatic weapons to be legal. they're fun to shoot and i want to open a gun range eventually... one day but by making the insurance so expensive they have effectively closed me out of doing that... for Now....

 

[WalkingWolf]

Quote:
While in essence I understand where your coming from, a fully auto weapon hurts no one. The restrictions if you want to call them that were a knee jerk reaction to mobsters using the tommy gun many years back. It was useless as they still acquired them as the gangs do today.

But it is just as legal to own a fully auto weapon today as any other gun. All that is required is a background check for a special license, and paying a fee for each fully auto weapon. And this is the big one, being able to afford the highly expensive gun.

This is sorta what is happening now, a new approach, raise taxes on firearms to the point the cost is driven up most people cannot afford them. Who gets hurt well the lower income minorities, AND THESE ARE THE PEOPLE VOTING THESE BUFFOONS IN OFFICE. Talk about some good koolaid.