Well played, HG28!

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1004790]


It's a pity these kind of example never make as much press as the other stories. Giantone, unlike your example, all these are as recent as last month. So while you post quotes asking gun owners to justify gun rights, to the victims of [U]outlaws with guns[/U], I'll ask you to explain why we should have gun control, so [U]law abiding people[/U] can be robbed, beaten, and murdered. I think you have a lot harder explaining to do, than me.

Giantone, if you meant that your posted quote was "999%" wrong, I'll agree with you.[/quote]


I agree every gun owner is a "law abiding citizen" , until he kills someone , then he becomes a nut job and doesn't represent "true" gun owners. Thing is you just made my case for me so thank you ,you with out knowing it (ironic isn't it) just proved why gun control laws are needed.
What you by passed in the article and all NRA gun commandos do is that no one is taking any guns, none, nada but they are trying to do is make gun ownership more responsible and safer and the fact that the NRA is against that ,well no wonder they are called "gun nuts".

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1004837]I agree [COLOR="Red"]every gun owner is a "law abiding citizen" , until he kills someone , then he becomes a nut job[/COLOR] and doesn't represent "true" gun owners. Thing is you just made my case for me so thank you ,you with out knowing it (ironic isn't it) just proved why gun control laws are needed.
What you by passed in the article and all NRA gun commandos do is that no one is taking any guns, none, nada but they are trying to do is make gun ownership more responsible and safer and the fact that the NRA is against that ,well no wonder they are called "gun nuts".[/quote]

Hard to take anything you say seriously when you post garbage like that.....
Your debating skills suck red baboon ass.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

I liked Jon Stewarts solution. The founding fathers never anticipated automatic weapons when they included the right to bear arms. Stop making handguns and let everyone have as many muskets as they want.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;1004865]I liked Jon Stewarts solution. The founding fathers never anticipated automatic weapons when they included the right to bear arms. Stop making handguns and let everyone have as many muskets as they want.[/quote]

Jon Stewart is an amusing comic, his political bias makes him a predictable and dull commentator on certain topics, gun control being one. He should just stick to comedy.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1004900]Jon Stewart is an amusing comic, his political bias makes him a predictable and dull commentator on certain topics, gun control being one. He should just stick to comedy.[/quote]

The gun debate IS comedy. People on both sides use outrageous arguments to support their position and criticize their opponents'.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

I find the arguments pathetic. When Law Enforcement can get to my point of need at or before the person threatening my life, or the life of someone I care about, then I'll happily lock up or give up my firearms.

It won't happen in my lifetime.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1004838]Hard to take anything you say seriously when you post garbage like that.....
Your debating skills suck red baboon ass.[/quote]


Class ,all the way.:rolleyes:

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;1004865]I liked Jon Stewarts solution. The founding fathers never anticipated automatic weapons when they included the right to bear arms. Stop making handguns and let everyone have as many muskets as they want.[/quote]


I agree, Jon nails it!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K13HdTsW_E0]jon stewart on gun control - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1004929]I agree, Jon nails it![/quote]

You probably agree with his stance on Unicorn Leash Laws, don't you?

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;1004865]I liked Jon Stewarts solution. The founding fathers never anticipated automatic weapons when they included the right to bear arms. Stop making handguns and let everyone have as many muskets as they want.[/quote]By that logic, no speech on the telephone, cell, fax, radio, tv, and internet is safe from censorship and prosecution either, since the founding fathers never anticipated those mediums of speech when they wrote the first amendment.

I don't agree with that "solution" either.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1004931]You probably agree with his stance on Unicorn Leash Laws, don't you?[/quote]


Nope,see this is a trick question ,everyone knows all the hunters shot and killed all the Unicorns .:doh:

Re: Pro-gun article
 

About the millionth time I heard the "founding fathers didnt predict this, didnt predict that" argument.
lame lame lame
The 2nd amendment is there to prevent a dictatorship or monarchy from popping back up.
Working as intended!

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1004943]About the millionth time I heard the "founding fathers didnt predict this, didnt predict that" argument.
lame lame lame
The 2nd amendment is there to prevent a dictatorship or monarchy from popping back up.
Working as intended![/quote]

In fact the 2nd Amendment, for the purpose it was written(prevention of tyrannical governments), would say that the militia (and hence general population) ought to have the ability to gather and maintain weapons equal to what the government might be able to bring against you. Obviously we no longer see that as a real possibility. (Unless Bill Gates is squirreling away a few F22's somewhere)

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1004837]I agree every gun owner is a "law abiding citizen" , until he kills someone , then he becomes a nut job and doesn't represent "true" gun owners. Thing is you just made my case for me so thank you ,you with out knowing it (ironic isn't it) just proved why gun control laws are needed.
What you by passed in the article and all NRA gun commandos do is that no one is taking any guns, none, nada but they are trying to do is make gun ownership more responsible and safer and the fact that the NRA is against that ,well no wonder they are called "gun nuts".[/quote]Giantone, that "babbling incoherently" thing you were doing earlier, you're doing it again.

Show me where I made any distinction of "true" gunowners.

[quote=Giantone;1004837]What you by passed in the article and all NRA gun commandos do is that no one is taking any guns, none, nada but they are trying to do is make gun ownership more responsible and safer and the fact that the NRA is against that ,well no wonder they are called "gun nuts".[/quote]Another lie on your part, giantone.

First off, the "assault weapons ban" Obama promoted that just failed in the Senate would have taken some guns. [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/politics/feinstein-bill-details/index.html"]What's in Feinstein's gun bill[/URL]

Second, the NRA and other organizations actually do work to make gun ownership more responsible and safer. So I don't think you really know what "safer" and "more responsible" are unless those words = "ban" to you.

[URL="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nra+gun+safety+classes"]Here, let me Google that for you.[/URL]

[URL="http://politix.topix.com/homepage/4376-mo-bill-would-require-first-graders-to-take-nra-gun-safety-class"]Mo. Bill Would Require First Graders to Take NRA Gun Safety Class
The program tells kids what to do if they find a gun[/URL]
[IMG]http://politix.topix.com/img/VT1RPJLVJQD4OGD6-rszw514[/IMG]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

:spank:

GiantOne, quit while you're behind.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1004946]Giantone,[COLOR="Red"] [SIZE="5"]that "babbling incoherently" thing you were doing earlier, you're doing it again.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Show me where I made any distinction of "true" gunowners.

Another lie on your part, giantone.

First off, the "assault weapons ban" Obama promoted that just failed in the Senate would have taken some guns. [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/politics/feinstein-bill-details/index.html"]What's in Feinstein's gun bill[/URL]

Second, the NRA and other organizations actually do work to make gun ownership more responsible and safer. So I don't think you really know what "safer" and "more responsible" are unless those words = "ban" to you.


[img]http://www.collegeotr.com/images/blogs/90b34c1a0cb063b956a5351b838a5bfc.jpg[/img]

Re: Pro-gun article
 

From Feistein's bill:

[I]All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least
one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to
accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or
semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.[/I]

Any gun owners find this as worrying as I do?

I have at least two of those features on every semi-auto pistol I've owned.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;1004865]I liked Jon Stewarts solution. The founding fathers never anticipated automatic weapons when they included the right to bear arms. Stop making handguns and let everyone have as many muskets as they want.[/quote]

Well if we took that reasoning a musket was the best weapon at the time and transfer that to todays time. The left seems to think that the consitution needs to change with the times until it does not fit their agenda.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

Personally I think both side have gone too far in trying to defend their rights and to restrict arms. Some common sense would be nice starting with back ground checks for any and all firearm sales.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=firstdown;1004954]Well if we took that reasoning a musket was the best weapon at the time and transfer that to todays time. The left seems to think that the consitution needs to change with the times until it does not fit their agenda.[/quote]

Bingo!

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1004952]From Feistein's bill:

[I]All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least
one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to
accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or
semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.[/I]

Any gun owners find this as worrying as I do?

I have at least two of those features on every semi-auto pistol I've owned.[/quote]

Shes a blatant gungrabber.
I hope she gets a bad yeast infection.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[url=http://www.freep.com/article/20130411/NEWS07/130411049/Adam-Lanza-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Riverview-Gun-Sales]ATF: Store that sold guns to Adam Lanza's mom had hundreds of violations | Detroit Free Press | freep.com[/url]


ATF: Store that sold guns to Adam Lanza's mom had hundreds of violations

"Although the licensee committed over 500 violations, and thus clearly did many things incorrectly, the licensee also successfully completed hundreds of transactions where all the requirements were completed correctly,” the letter says. "This conclusively demonstrates that the licensee knew how to do things the right way, and was capable of getting things right when appropriate attention and effort were devoted to the job, but simply did not focus sufficient attention to ensure that he complied with the GCA (Gun Control Act) each time he sold a firearm.”


"did not focus sufficient attention".........Great just what you need from a gun dealer.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1004961][URL="http://www.freep.com/article/20130411/NEWS07/130411049/Adam-Lanza-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Riverview-Gun-Sales"]ATF: Store that sold guns to Adam Lanza's mom had hundreds of violations | Detroit Free Press | freep.com[/URL]


ATF: Store that sold guns to Adam Lanza's mom had hundreds of violations
[/quote]

More '[I]Closing the door after the horse has bolted[/I]' nonsense. How were they permitted to run up that many violations?

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[B]There also is no indication in records obtained from the ATF that any of the violations at Riverview involved gun sales tied to the Dec. 14 Newtown shootings.[/B]

That article does not reference anything bought illegally or incorrectly by the Lanza's.
Its just a bunch of hype.

Giantone = fail

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=firstdown;1004954]Well if we took that reasoning a musket was the best weapon at the time and transfer that to todays time. The left seems to think that the consitution needs to change with the times until it does not fit their agenda.[/quote]

So if weapons become more destructive, people should be allowed more destructive weapons? How much firepower is really needed to protect ones self and ones family?

200 years ago your average nuttjub couldn't kill more than one or two people with a gun before being taken down. Now one can go into a cool and massacre dozens of children. I do think the James Bond fingerprint gun would be a good solution. It would allow the gun owner - and only the gun owner - to fire a weapon.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;1004981] I do think the James Bond fingerprint gun would be a good solution. It would allow the gun owner - and only the gun owner - to fire a weapon.[/quote]



Oh NO! That would be against the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment .lol

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=firstdown;1004955]. Some common sense would be nice starting with back ground checks for any and all firearm sales.[/quote]


Gun nuts and the NRA say no.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1004961][URL="http://www.freep.com/article/20130411/NEWS07/130411049/Adam-Lanza-Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Riverview-Gun-Sales"]ATF: Store that sold guns to Adam Lanza's mom had hundreds of violations | Detroit Free Press | freep.com[/URL]


ATF: Store that sold guns to Adam Lanza's mom had hundreds of violations

"Although the licensee committed over 500 violations, and thus clearly did many things incorrectly, the licensee also successfully completed hundreds of transactions where all the requirements were completed correctly,” the letter says. "This conclusively demonstrates that the licensee knew how to do things the right way, and was capable of getting things right when appropriate attention and effort were devoted to the job, but simply did not focus sufficient attention to ensure that he complied with the GCA (Gun Control Act) each time he sold a firearm.”


"did not focus sufficient attention".........Great just what you need from a gun dealer.[/quote]

The fault is with the goverment agency that did not shut them down after so many violations. The laws were in place and the goverment failed to enforce them and allowed the business to rack up violation after violation.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;1004981]So if weapons become more destructive, people should be allowed more destructive weapons? How much firepower is really needed to protect ones self and ones family?

200 years ago your average nuttjub couldn't kill more than one or two people with a gun before being taken down. Now one can go into a cool and massacre dozens of children. I do think the James Bond fingerprint [B]gun would be a good solution. It would allow the gun owner - and only the gun owner - to fire a weapon.[/quote][/B]

Would that not encourage people to buy more then one gun for protection. What are you going to do with the millions of guns on the streets or how will you stop the underground sales of guns?

Re: Pro-gun article
 

So say I currently have one hand gun in the house that my wife and my 18 year old daughter and I use for household protection.

The law changes and I have to turn in my gun.

Since only finger print guns exist I have to buy three of them, one for each of us.

Gongratulations, I now have two additional guns in my house.


How would the manufacturer be able to properly test your gun?

How would a gunsmith be able to service your gun?

It will never happen......

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-dismay-america-not-outraged-gun-control-fail-200050065.html"]To Obama's dismay, America not outraged by gun control fail, poll suggests[/URL]


[I]On the surface, the poll released by The Washington Post and Pew Research Center made no sense. Only 47 percent of respondents said they were "disappointed" or "angry" that the Senate last week failed to advance a bill to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales.

Yet in February, a Pew poll found that 83 percent of respondents supported an expansion of background checks to cover gun shows and all private sales – measures that would actually be stricter than what the Senate rejected.

Assault weapons, for example, are used in only a small number of murders every year. And while Obama said up to 40 percent of guns are purchased without background checks, the actual number is closer to 20 percent, according to Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler.
[/I]

POTUS got upset that the NRA supposedly misrepresented the facts of the debate, yet he used the same ploy to try to get his way.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1005090]So say I currently have one hand gun in the house that my wife and my 18 year old daughter and I use for household protection.

The law changes and I have to turn in my gun.

Since only finger print guns exist I have to buy three of them, one for each of us.

Gongratulations, I now have two additional guns in my house.


How would the manufacturer be able to properly test your gun?

How would a gunsmith be able to service your gun?

It will never happen......[/quote]
Because it's not that simplistic.

A computer has a passkey, but you can authorize multiple users. You lock your bags at the airport but TSA has an override key.

They can grandfather existing guns, so no one loses the guns they have, but new guns must have a safety lock that uses biometrics. The biometrics can have up to 3 authorized users plus an override for testing/police usage. The override is a lengthy procedure, say as an example, engage the manual safety, pull the trigger twice, release the safety, expel a round, then the gun the gun is enabled for one live shot.

Point is not to say that would be it but that there are possible solutions, that we use in other parts of life and could be adapted to a gun safety process so that, without infringing on the right to bear arms, which is one of the most vital ones imo, you can prevent accidental harm. That would be a good thing.

Cars right now, use that type of override procedure for things like resetting electronic tire pressure gauges and check engine lights. Cell phones and baggage locks have override systems in place so that the government can use them with proper warrants.

Instead of saying no it won't happen, why not look for a way that your rights and enjoyment can continue, while addressing safety and danger concerns.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1005161]Because it's not that simplistic.

A computer has a passkey, but you can authorize multiple users. You lock your bags at the airport but TSA has an override key.

They can grandfather existing guns, so no one loses the guns they have, but new guns must have a safety lock that uses biometrics. The biometrics can have up to 3 authorized users plus an override for testing/police usage. The override is a lengthy procedure, say as an example, engage the manual safety, pull the trigger twice, release the safety, expel a round, then the gun the gun is enabled for one live shot.

Point is not to say that would be it but that there are possible solutions, that we use in other parts of life and could be adapted to a gun safety process so that, without infringing on the right to bear arms, which is one of the most vital ones imo, you can prevent accidental harm. That would be a good thing.

Cars right now, use that type of override procedure for things like resetting electronic tire pressure gauges and check engine lights. Cell phones and baggage locks have override systems in place so that the government can use them with proper warrants.

Instead of saying no it won't happen, why not look for a way that your rights and enjoyment can continue, while addressing safety and danger concerns.[/quote]

Tire pressures??????
Seriously????
I'm talking about protecting my family from an intruder and you compare it to tire pressures?
WTF?

It will be far too cumbersome and far too unreliable and far too expensive and
it will be a huge pain in the ass for the govt and everyone else.
The NRA will never let it happen.
Do you realize the impact it would have on the huge firearm industry the USA has?
Its ridiculous to try it across the board.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=firstdown;1005078]The fault is with the goverment agency that did not shut them down after so many violations. The laws were in place and the goverment failed to enforce them and allowed the business to rack up violation after violation.[/quote]


LOL, right, not the fault of the store owner to run his store in the right and responsible way, it's the government's fault but we will still complain government interferes ,you can't have it both ways.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1005156][URL="http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-dismay-america-not-outraged-gun-control-fail-200050065.html"]To Obama's dismay, America not outraged by gun control fail, poll suggests[/URL]


[I]On the surface, the poll released by The Washington Post and Pew Research Center made no sense. Only 47 percent of respondents said they were "disappointed" or "angry" that the Senate last week failed to advance a bill to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales. [/I]

[I]Yet in February, a Pew poll found that 83 percent of respondents supported an expansion of background checks to cover gun shows and all private sales – measures that would actually be stricter than what the Senate rejected.[/I]

[I]Assault weapons, for example, are used in only a small number of murders every year. And while Obama said up to 40 percent of guns are purchased without background checks, the actual number is closer to 20 percent, according to Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler.[/I]


POTUS got upset that the NRA supposedly misrepresented the facts of the debate, yet he used the same ploy to try to get his way.[/quote]



Really, a Yahoo poll???ok.

[QUOTE=Giantone;1005192]Really, a Yahoo poll???ok.[/QUOTE]

Reading comprehension FAIL. It says right there 'Pew' and 'Washington Post'.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;1005164]Tire pressures??????
Seriously????
I'm talking about protecting my family from an intruder and you compare it to tire pressures?
WTF?

It will be far too cumbersome and far too unreliable and far too expensive and
it will be a huge pain in the ass for the govt and everyone else.
The NRA will never let it happen.
Do you realize the impact it would have on the huge firearm industry the USA has?
Its ridiculous to try it across the board.[/quote]

First, examples of available tech are meant to demonstrate that it can be done. Certainly there are other examples in far more secure and realtime critical systems, but tire pressure gauges show to me show that it can be done at minimum impact and on a widespread distributable platform. A physical safety switch already on the gun is no more complex then an on off switch of a child's toy, yet it's purpose is defined by it's presence on the weapon.

As for reliability, clearly the technology would have to be trialed and tested first and proven with demonstrable reliability. Some forms have already tested to 99.9%, which is far better then the M-16 I had in the Army which jammed far more often than 1 time in a 1000. (My friend's Desert Eagle was obviously also more reliable than an M-16 ;) )

Cost and trouble for the government are both hyperbole. The government will simply write the law, then enforce it as it sees fit, like with most things. The cost to a gun owner would only be incurred when you want to buy a new gun or retrofit an old one. Might it be high at first, maybe, so were airbags and antilock brakes, now they are an accepted cost for the value they add. At least it's not a tax where the government takes the money, and wastes it. Instead it would go to job creation and competition as manufacturers strive to find better ways.

The NRA may never let it happen. I think that's a shame because it diverts NRA resources they could use to fight for less government intrusion by making guns safer and less of a threat except by their true owners. By fighting this the NRA gives those in the government who want to truly limit our rights an avenue under the guise of public safety to continue making attacks against our 2nd Amendment rights.

The gun industry, if it embraced it wholesale, would simply turn the marketing around, showing how one system is better than the other. Gun enthusiasts are dedicated buyers, and if they feel the gun they are buying is safe and reliable then they won't be deterred from an added safety feature. And if it means that there is less government interference in the individual owner's right to own a gun, the market would probably increase.

Bottomline - a technologically updated safety switch (which is all this is) would make guns safer, remove objections to gun ownership such as harm to small children, and likely lead to reduced public demand for government interference in our 2nd Amendment rights, since there would be less crime from stolen or unauthorized gun usage.

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1005193]Reading comprehension FAIL. It says right there 'Pew' and 'Washington Post'.[/quote]


So if I hit your link does it ,or does it not take me to Yahoo news, you can't even spin your lies right?

Re: Pro-gun article
 

[quote=Giantone;1005349]So if I hit your link does it ,or does it not take me to Yahoo news, you can't even spin your lies right?[/quote]

A Yahoo news writer wrote an article about a Washington Post Poll. He says that in the second paragraph:

[quote]On the surface, [B][U][I]the poll released by The Washington Post and Pew Research Center made no sense[/I][/U][/B]. Only 47 percent of respondents said they were "disappointed" or "angry" that the Senate last week failed to advance a bill to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales. [/quote]