# So it starts........AR-15s



## MadHunter

AR-15 rifles and other "assault" rifles and their high capacity magazines have been voluntarily excluded.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/04/gun-shows-scrutiny-school-shooting/1810435/

I am not an insensitive person. I am a pragmatist and a realist. I see this as a bad move. Compromise is not the solution. Look at where compromise has gotten our country. The best example of how bad compromise is, is the one my History professor gave us.

Jim: I am need to cut off your arm bob.
Bob: Hell no! You're crazy
Jim: Sorry Bob. You are the strongest man in town and its not fair. The arm has to go.
Bob: Sucks for you all. My arm stays.
Jim: The town talked it over. We have to level the playing field. Something has to give.
Bob: It's still NO
Jim: Lets compromise! You can keep the arm but how about we cut the hand?
Bob: Excuse me?
Jim: You heard me. You at least get to keep your arm. This makes it fair for everyone else.

Compromise is nice way of telling someone or some group that they have to conform to someone else's ideals.

I'd like to hear other opinions.


----------



## Frisco Pete

Silly me, I can't for the life of me see how possession of an AR15 or hi-cap mags would make me want to rush out and kill random strangers - especially kids. Even the reappearance of " evil feature/hi-cap" ARs in 2004 after the sunset of the last AWB - that was supposed to cure all social ills - and vastly increased possession, never seemed to turn regular people into stone killers the moment they got possession of the half-century-old design that is the most popular rifle in America.

I _have_ seen where asocial mentally ill people have stolen a legally owned rifle of this type and was very aware of the intense and lasting fame (or infamy) that the media would heap on him (profiting said media) if he chose to commit suicide after killing as many innocents as possible to insure the most intense media coverage possible. "I'll show them!"

Maybe we should see if the media wants to COMPROMISE their 1st Amendment rights. Get rid of the Assault media news coverage that ensures fame for psychos and plants the mass murder idea in their minds. 
Of course this isn't an attack on all programming - "sporting purpose" sports and entertainment shows can continue as long as entertainment doesn't deal with murder or show those "bad" kind of guns.

It's the turn of those 1st Amendment moralists to compromise if they like the idea so much. 
Us 2nd Amendment people don't need to apologize for criminals and crazies. 
It's not the gun.


----------



## Squigie

Give a foot.
They'll take a mile.


Idiots...


----------



## MadHunter

Frisco Pete nailed it on the compromise. What if the media did *compromise* their first ammendment rights? What if they stopped sensationalizing these psycopath's actions and stopped paving the way to fame or infamy for other psycopaths.

I am sure they would cling to their right to free speach like flies on 10 day old wet $h!7 and claim that it's not the coverage. I would then base my argument on existing restrictions to the 1st ammendment. If I can't yell fire in a crowded theater because it causes panic and puts the safety of others in danger, I would argue then that sensationalistic coverage of these massacers; and I say massacers because that is what they are (shootings are what happens daily at a gun range), only paves the road for others to psycopaths to claim their infamy. In essence it puts the lives of others in danger. But I am sure they will claim that it's not the coverage!


----------



## Dunkem

MadHunter said:


> Frisco Pete nailed it on the compromise. What if the media did *compromised* their first ammendment rights? What if they stopped sensationalizing these psycopath's actions and stopped paving the fame or infamy for other psycopaths.
> 
> I am sure they would cling to their right to free speach like flies on 10 day old wet $h!7 and claim that it's not the coverage. I would then base my argument on existing restrictions to the 1st ammendment. If I can't yell fire in a crowded theater because it causes panic and puts the safety of others in danger, I would argue then that sensationalistic coverage of these massacers; and I say massacers because that is what they are (shootings are what happens daily at a gun range), only paves the road for others to psycopaths to claim their infamy. In essence it puts the lives of others in danger. But I am sure they will claim that it's not the coverage!


+100


----------



## wyogoob

Morons

Idiots

%%#^$_(*

Numbskulls

They're all commies and prolly poachers too. Some of them could be Liberals I'm guessin'.

I bet they all drive electric cars.

How can we keep these, these, these...uh...mis-informed people out of the gene pool? Keep them from voting? Out of office?

Off with their heads!!! Worse yet, put em out on Utah highways and make them pick up litter. Or lock em all in a room together and force them to read every post on the UWN.


----------



## Squigie

MadHunter said:


> Frisco Pete nailed it on the compromise. What if the media did compromise their first ammendment rights? What if they stopped sensationalizing these psycopath's actions and stopped paving the way to fame or infamy for other psycopaths.
> 
> I am sure they would cling to their right to free speach like flies on 10 day old wet $h!7 and claim that it's not the coverage. I would then base my argument on existing restrictions to the 1st ammendment. *If I can't yell fire in a crowded theater because it causes panic and puts the safety of others in danger, I would argue then that sensationalistic coverage of these massacers*; and I say massacers because that is what they are (shootings are what happens daily at a gun range), *only paves the road for others to psycopaths to claim their infamy.* In essence it puts the lives of others in danger. But I am sure they will claim that it's not the coverage!


That is one of the best counter-points I've seen for media coverage of this crap.
There ARE limits on our 1st Amendment rights, and most people have no problem with them.

But, take the sensationalized reports of massacres out of the spotlight? Hell no! :roll:


----------



## craigire

I agree with the above mentioneds 100 fold.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

wyogoob said:


> Morons
> 
> Idiots
> 
> %%#^$_(*
> 
> Numbskulls
> 
> They're all commies and prolly poachers too. Some of them could be Liberals I'm guessin'.
> 
> I bet they all drive electric cars.
> 
> How can we keep these, these, these...uh...mis-informed people out of the gene pool? Keep them from voting? Out of office?
> 
> Off with their heads!!! Worse yet, put em out on Utah highways and make them pick up litter. Or lock em all in a room together and force them to read every post on the UWN.


Yeps thems dang democrazt gonnas git mi gunz.

What are you people so afraid of that you need military style weapons?

It is reasonable for the greater good to outlaw these guns. Reagan defeated the commies so you won't have to live Red Dawn. Zombies don't exist. That just leaves the anti government fear and you crazy f$%^s bombed Oklahoma City. Remember that? I haven't.


----------



## Huge29

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Yeps thems dang democrazt gonnas git mi gunz.
> 
> What are you people so afraid of that you need military style weapons?
> 
> It is reasonable for the *greater good* to outlaw these guns. Reagan defeated the commies so you won't have to live Red Dawn. Zombies don't exist. That just leaves the anti government fear and you crazy f$%^s bombed Oklahoma City. Remember that? I haven't.


Isn't that the key principle of communism? No individual rights, only greater good?


----------



## Squigie

Huge29 said:


> Isn't that the key principle of communism? No individual rights, only greater good?


Yep. The greater good of killing your country, dragging all of your neighbors down with you, having to execute the work force for dissension, constantly looking over your shoulder to see if there's a coup coming, and having 90% of the world ask you, "What the #$%# are you doing to yourselves?"

I can't think of a single communist country that has been able to recover from their impending deaths, without adopting some semi-capitalistic, or at least socialist, practices.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Huge29 said:


> Dukes_Daddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeps thems dang democrazt gonnas git mi gunz.
> 
> What are you people so afraid of that you need military style weapons?
> 
> It is reasonable for the *greater good* to outlaw these guns. Reagan defeated the commies so you won't have to live Red Dawn. Zombies don't exist. That just leaves the anti government fear and you crazy f$%^s bombed Oklahoma City. Remember that? I haven't.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that the key principle of communism? No individual rights, only greater good?
Click to expand...

Not Communism. The other C word. Christian.


----------



## elkfromabove

Dukes_Daddy said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morons
> 
> Idiots
> 
> %%#^$_(*
> 
> Numbskulls
> 
> They're all commies and prolly poachers too. Some of them could be Liberals I'm guessin'.
> 
> I bet they all drive electric cars.
> 
> How can we keep these, these, these...uh...mis-informed people out of the gene pool? Keep them from voting? Out of office?
> 
> Off with their heads!!! Worse yet, put em out on Utah highways and make them pick up litter. Or lock em all in a room together and force them to read every post on the UWN.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeps thems dang democrazt gonnas git mi gunz.
> 
> What are you people so afraid of that you need military style weapons?
> 
> It is reasonable for the greater good to outlaw these guns. Reagan defeated the commies so you won't have to live Red Dawn. Zombies don't exist. That just leaves the anti government fear and you crazy f$%^s bombed Oklahoma City. Remember that? I haven't.
Click to expand...

What are we afraid of?

The same things the drafters of the Bill of Rights were afraid of per the Preamble to the Bill of Rights: (Yes, there is one!)

"_Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine

The Convention of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse ot its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.*

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Atricles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes to be part of the said Constitution; viz.

Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Further information: List of amendments to the United States Constitution_"

(The amendments followed.)


----------



## jahan

Dukes_Daddy said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morons
> 
> Idiots
> 
> %%#^$_(*
> 
> Numbskulls
> 
> They're all commies and prolly poachers too. Some of them could be Liberals I'm guessin'.
> 
> I bet they all drive electric cars.
> 
> How can we keep these, these, these...uh...mis-informed people out of the gene pool? Keep them from voting? Out of office?
> 
> Off with their heads!!! Worse yet, put em out on Utah highways and make them pick up litter. Or lock em all in a room together and force them to read every post on the UWN.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeps thems dang democrazt gonnas git mi gunz.
> 
> What are you people so afraid of that you need military style weapons?
> 
> It is reasonable for the greater good to outlaw these guns. Reagan defeated the commies so you won't have to live Red Dawn. Zombies don't exist. That just leaves the anti government fear and you crazy f$%^s bombed Oklahoma City. Remember that? I haven't.
Click to expand...

First of all AR's are not the same as military weapons, you know there are many differences. Just because they look like a military weapons doesn't make them one. Second, why shouldn't law abiding citizens be allowed to carry weapons to protect themselves? The second amendment was not created so we can hunt, like many are eluding too, it is to allow us to protect ourselves from a tryanny. I have tons of great links showing what has happened in the past when the people allowed the government to disarm them. I don't own an AR-15, but that doesn't mean I don't think you or my neighbor should be stopped from owning one.


----------



## martymcfly73

I think dukes daddy is a Communist in disguise.


----------



## martymcfly73

I need an ar15 to protect me from the government thugs who want to take my ar15.


----------



## wyogoob

wyogoob said:


> Morons
> 
> Idiots
> 
> %%#^$_(*
> 
> Numbskulls
> 
> They're all commies and prolly poachers too. Some of them could be Liberals I'm guessin'.
> 
> I bet they all drive electric cars.
> 
> How can we keep these, these, these...uh...mis-informed people out of the gene pool? Keep them from voting? Out of office?
> 
> Off with their heads!!! Worse yet, put em out on Utah highways and make them pick up litter. Or lock em all in a room together and force them to read every post on the UWN.


I forgot Fascists, Nazis, and Pinheads.

Hey, did you know that "AR" stands for ArmaLite?

Here's the old goob at Armalite in Geneseo Illinois, my hometown:


----------



## martymcfly73

Does armalite mean compound?


----------



## wyogoob

martymcfly73 said:


> Does armalite mean compound?


Got me.

Geeze, it's "ArmaLite" not "Armalite"; I spelled it wrong.


----------



## wyogoob

ArmaLite makes AR10, AR13, AR24, AR30 and AR50. Henry County Illinois has huge deer, hence the AR50.


I have a Rem R-15; that's half of an AR30.


----------



## bullsnot

The problem with compromise is generally neither side gets what they want and everybody leaves dissatisfied.

Marriage is the exception. Compromise means you don't wake up with only half of your stuff one day.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

martymcfly73 said:


> I think dukes daddy is a Communist in disguise.


Shhh!! Don't tell anyone.

Actually I'm just not afraid of boogie man arguments.

Can't buy a A-bomb, RPG, or SAW because the evil government has regulated those harmless (in my trusty hands) weapons. So where exactly did the founding fathers say "second amendment protects assault weapons and high capacity clips"? Oh yeah it doesn't so the government can and should ban them.

Great letter to editor in todays Tribune (Pinko Commie News). Basically it points out "government requires plugs while hunting ducks which limit a gun to 2 in the magazine. So why can't the government limit other weapons? Oh yeah. Again they can and should


----------



## martymcfly73

Yep the govt knows all and knows what's best. Right DD? Like Rahm Emanuel said, never was a good tragedy. Looks like drunk uncle Joe and Barry are taking full advantage of one or three.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel

Dukes Daddy- Your thoughts are astounding, even for a liberal wacko.....


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> Dukes Daddy- Your thoughts are astounding, even for a liberal wacko.....


Is that really your response to label someone a wacko?

What I am sick of is the "gonna take our guns rant and fear that people spread about this issue".

Grow up and offer a argument as to why banning of certain weapons or clips would harm your right to "keep and bear arms" It doesn't say "keep and bear any type of arms".

p.s Love Johny


----------



## elkfromabove

Dukes_Daddy said:


> martymcfly73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think dukes daddy is a Communist in disguise.
> 
> 
> 
> Shhh!! Don't tell anyone.
> 
> Actually I'm just not afraid of boogie man arguments.
> 
> Can't buy a A-bomb, RPG, or SAW because the evil government has regulated those harmless (in my trusty hands) weapons. So where exactly did the founding fathers say "second amendment protects assault weapons and high capacity clips"? Oh yeah it doesn't so the government can and should ban them.
> 
> Oh yeah, they did protect them! In 1791, "arms" = "weapons of war" = any and all weapons of war. It was later that others decided to re-define the word "arms" and un-protect some of them. And now we're trying to decide what others we think should be un-protected via further definitions of "arms", ie; "assault weapons", "high capacity" and via some attempts to read the minds of men living 200+ years ago. It's simply a matter re-defining the word "arms" by referring to them as weapons used for hunting, recreation and sport until they no longer apply to the 2nd Amendment. And then we can ban whichever ones we want as you've indicated below!
> 
> Great letter to editor in todays Tribune (Pinko Commie News). Basically it points out "government requires plugs while hunting ducks which limit a gun to 2 in the magazine. So why can't the government limit other weapons? Oh yeah. Again they can and should
Click to expand...


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel

Dukes_Daddy said:


> [quote="ntrl_brn_rebel":1wp944qc]Dukes Daddy- Your thoughts are astounding, even for a liberal wacko.....


Is that really your response to label someone a wacko?

What I am sick of is the "gonna take our guns rant and fear that people spread about this issue".

Grow up and offer a argument as to why banning of certain weapons or clips would harm your right to "keep and bear arms" It doesn't say "keep and bear any type of arms".

p.s Love Johny[/quote:1wp944qc]

Im sick of liberal wackos like you and spreading lies and bs about guns and attacking the constitution 

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!" What part of that do you not understand???????


----------



## Stickboy

This guy can't be for real. 

You know what I dislike. People with strong opinions about the constitution that haven't actually studied it. You are a christian not a communist so you thing the government has the right to Ale-cart the constitution? I am a little slow, having a hard time following your logic. "Tell me where banning a gun infringes on the 2nd"??? Is this an attempt at an oxymoron?

While Barry has his pen out maybe it would be a good time to do a little touch up to the 4th & 10th? Wait....Patriot Act..check, nevermind.

Gotta be a troll.....gotta be.


----------



## jahan

Dukes_Daddy said:


> martymcfly73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think dukes daddy is a Communist in disguise.
> 
> 
> 
> Shhh!! Don't tell anyone.
> 
> Actually I'm just not afraid of boogie man arguments.
> 
> Can't buy a A-bomb, RPG, or SAW because the evil government has regulated those harmless (in my trusty hands) weapons. So where exactly did the founding fathers say "second amendment protects assault weapons and high capacity clips"? Oh yeah it doesn't so the government can and should ban them.
> 
> Great letter to editor in todays Tribune (Pinko Commie News). Basically it points out "government requires plugs while hunting ducks which limit a gun to 2 in the magazine. So why can't the government limit other weapons? Oh yeah. Again they can and should
Click to expand...

Why should they ban them? Give me your reason because I will guarantee facts will contradict you, but I will wait for your response before giving them.


----------



## martymcfly73

Because we use plugs in shotguns, that'swhy:-?


----------



## Squigie

Dukes_Daddy,
Duck hunters are limited to 3 rounds total, not just 2 in the magazine.

Even if that's your reasoning, you're still ignoring all of the non-migratory birds and non-water fowl. Chukars, partridge, grouse, turkeys, pigeons (quite popular in other areas), and the list goes on.... Magazine limit? Whatever you can get.

Small game hunting.... What's my magazine limit? Oh, yea, whatever I can carry - be it in a shotgun, rimfire, centerfire, or muzzle loader.

Big game hunting.... Whatever I can carry.


Picking and choosing your facts has a tendency to backfire. 
You're asking everyone else to prove our rights cannot be infringed. Yet, your only arguments have been empty, and based on cherry-picked, out-of-context "facts" that are completely useless when put back into context.
That's what we call a "Burden of Proof" Fallacy. You make the claim, then state that it must be dis-proven by some one else. 


If YOU don't want to own an "assault weapon" or "high capacity magazines", you don't have to. It's your right to prefer playing with Hello Kitty toys and harbor an irrational fear of firearms.

But, unless you can support your own arguments, your statements are no more valuable than the sludge that spews from my cat's anus.


----------



## Squigie

Hmm... double post.

Feel free to delete, mods.


----------



## bowgy

Restricting the second amendment on the basis that the founding fathers didn't know what type of weapons would be available is as dumb as restricting the first amendment to only verbal or handwritten information because they didn't know that tv, computers, internet, telephone etc would be available. :roll:


----------



## .45

bowgy said:


> Restricting the second amendment on the basis that the founding fathers didn't know what type of weapons would be available is as dumb as restricting the first amendment to only verbal or handwritten information because they didn't know that tv, computers, internet, telephone etc would be available. :roll:


Man, I like that statement! Good job bowgy, I'm gonna borrow it!


----------



## NHS

.45 said:


> bowgy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Restricting the second amendment on the basis that the founding fathers didn't know what type of weapons would be available is as dumb as restricting the first amendment to only verbal or handwritten information because they didn't know that tv, computers, internet, telephone etc would be available. :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, I like that statement! Good job bowgy, I'm gonna borrow it!
Click to expand...

+1.398672

I am going to borrow it as well.


----------



## 90redryder

Making something illegal isnt going to keep it out of the hands of criminals, it might make it harder for criminals to get weapons but they will still find a way. I get really sick of all this nonsense.


----------



## jahan

[attachment=0:1zfguuc6]Crime Facts.jpg[/attachment:1zfguuc6]


----------



## bowgy

I said this in another post but seems to fit here also.


> He killed less than 30 with what I am assuming was a 30 round magazine in a Bushmaster AR-15, He had with him two 9 mm pistols, now my 9mm holds 18 rounds, that is 36 rounds, yes the AR is more efficient but at close range with non combative soft targets he could have done just as much damage with the pistols in just about the same amount of time. And magazines are easy to change.


Therefore, if the "assualt rifles" were band before and the Ct shooter couldn't get one it would have made no difference.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Answer me this libbies. Why do you respond to criminal activity by wanting to hurt law abiding people. I don't think that I need my AR-15's to protect me from the government, I JUST LIKE THEM. They are fun.....using them is part of my freedom. I am an American. My ancestors have died in several wars over the last 200+ years so I can be free.....and so libs can also be free to run their yaps. It's all about freedom my brothers. Without freedom, what is any of this worth? The fact that you promote the killing of thousands of our children while in the womb, then suddenly about face to care about them later when a criminal kills 20 of them shows your true position. You don't care about children or safety, this is all about HATE. You hate people for what they love and legally participate in. I'll call it how I see it. People who are against gun ownership are no different than any other racist, bigot, hypocrite, intolerant, hate group. Yes, for no reason other than your own selfishness, you hate me and want to punish me for being free.--------SS


----------



## .45

Springville Shooter said:


> It's all about freedom my brothers. Without freedom, what is any of this worth? ......SS


 :O||:

Excellent....well put.


----------



## sawsman

Well said SS !


----------



## martymcfly73

Springville Shooter said:


> Answer me this libbies. Why do you respond to criminal activity by wanting to hurt law abiding people. I don't think that I need my AR-15's to protect me from the government, I JUST LIKE THEM. They are fun.....using them is part of my freedom. I am an American. My ancestors have died in several wars over the last 200+ years so I can be free.....and so libs can also be free to run their yaps. It's all about freedom my brothers. Without freedom, what is any of this worth? The fact that you promote the killing of thousands of our children while in the womb, then suddenly about face to care about them later when a criminal kills 20 of them shows your true position. You don't care about children or safety, this is all about HATE. You hate people for what they love and legally participate in. I'll call it how I see it. People who are against gun ownership are no different than any other racist, bigot, hypocrite, intolerant, hate group. Yes, for no reason other than your own selfishness, you hate me and want to punish me for being free.--------SS


POST OF THE YEAR!!!!!!


----------



## Huge29

bowgy said:


> I said this in another post but seems to fit here also.
> 
> 
> 
> He killed less than 30 with what I am assuming was a 30 round magazine in a Bushmaster AR-15, He had with him two 9 mm pistols, now my 9mm holds 18 rounds, that is 36 rounds, yes the AR is more efficient but at close range with non combative soft targets he could have done just as much damage with the pistols in just about the same amount of time. And magazines are easy to change.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, if the "assualt rifles" were band before and the Ct shooter couldn't get one it would have made no difference.
Click to expand...

Correct if I am wrong, but I believe this point to be important; wasn't the AR later found in the trunk of the car and never fired? I had heard that, but I have not verified.


----------



## Bax*

Huge29 said:


> bowgy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said this in another post but seems to fit here also.
> 
> 
> 
> He killed less than 30 with what I am assuming was a 30 round magazine in a Bushmaster AR-15, He had with him two 9 mm pistols, now my 9mm holds 18 rounds, that is 36 rounds, yes the AR is more efficient but at close range with non combative soft targets he could have done just as much damage with the pistols in just about the same amount of time. And magazines are easy to change.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, if the "assualt rifles" were band before and the Ct shooter couldn't get one it would have made no difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct if I am wrong, but I believe this point to be important; wasn't the AR later found in the trunk of the car and never fired? I had heard that, but I have not verified.
Click to expand...

I have heard both sides of the argument saying it was used in the school, and other reports claim it was in the trunk of the car. I recently went through a CCP class and the instructor stated that it was left in the car...


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Dear Jimbo and Ned.

Let's make a comparison to the 1st amendment. Oh yeah being first the founding fathers obviously felt it more important than the 2nd.

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/fi ... Speech.htm

Several logical limitations to the 1st amendment. Slander and obscenity.

Now follow logic and reason if you can. The same principal applies to the 2nd and every other amendment.

The saddest part of this entire issue is the lack of empathy for dead kids and other innocents. A gun is nothing more than a machine. In 99.999% of people hands its not dangerous to anyone. It's the .0001% that is unacceptable for society. Now one of you wizards will make the case "lock up the bad people" but the reality is we are seeing people who don't appear to be a threat flip out and next thing you know we have another mass killing.

Society has already deemed hundreds of things as unacceptable risks for citizens to have access to and assault weapons and clips will join that list.

My hope is the prez shows leadership on this and uses executive order to ban them.


----------



## martymcfly73

You liberal whackos are the ones trying to ram legislation through on the backs of those dead kids. Never pass up a good crisis. But they are just kids right? No feelings, or anything like the thousands of fetuses aborted every year right? It's people like you that make me want to go out and buy an arsenal. Just because I can. You libs so more for gun sales than anyone or anything.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Look into the eyes of these children and then you tell me why you need a f#$%&* weapon that in the wrong hands snuffed out their little lives and all the good things the kids would have done in the rest of their lives if they lived.

http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/pictu ... ol-victims

You people make me sick with your stupid arguments based on your religious worship of 27 words. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

If your kids were in that classroom how would you feel. I challenge one of you to honestly say you would still have the same blind belief. Hopefully you will never have to find out.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

martymcfly73 said:


> You liberal whackos are the ones trying to ram legislation through on the backs of those dead kids. Never pass up a good crisis. But they are just kids right? No feelings, or anything like the thousands of fetuses aborted every year right? It's people like you that make me want to go out and buy an arsenal. Just because I can. You libs so more for gun sales than anyone or anything.


Catholic so I have absolute respect for all human life from conception to natural death. Yes that include opposition to death penalty. God creates life and god not man should decide when it ends. Never challenge me on that absolute respect again!!

Buying guns because you can. Thank you for the honest response finally and how pathetic your need to go shopping is more important than dead kids. Nice and I hope you feel proud of your screwed up priorities and genuine lack of appreciation for your fellow man. Very Christian.

Troy Rushton

p.s If you respond put your name on it and not your screen name!! Friend


----------



## DallanC

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Look into the eyes of these children and then you tell me why you need a f#$%&* weapon that in the wrong hands snuffed out their little lives and all the good things the kids would have done in the rest of their lives if they lived.


I look forward to your campaign against swimming pools. 16 times as many kids die every year in swimming pools as weapon related deaths. There is no real need for swimming pools so we should just ban them all together, the loss of childs lives just isnt worth it.

-DallanC


----------



## Squigie

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Look into the eyes of these children and then you tell me why you need a f#$%&* weapon that in the wrong hands snuffed out their little lives and all the good things the kids would have done in the rest of their lives if they lived.


In 2012, there were 13 police officers charged with various crimes, for sexually abusing children.

Should we ban law enforcement, or just penises?
:roll:

211 children were killed by drunk drivers in 2011.

Do we ban cars or booze; or lock the parents up for endangering their kids by letting them get in the car?


----------



## timberbuck

To the liberals/gun haters;

The fact is without gun ownership our country and the rights we have would simply not exhist. How this escapes you people is beyond me . Yes we will pay the price for freedom in our society on occasion and sometimes it is sad and horrible but any loss of freedoms will cause a loss of more freedoms.

If you want to know what it is like to live in a society where citizens have no gun rights and no ability to protect themselves from criminals, the police and tyranny from thier government then take a look at our neighbors to the south (Mexico) .


----------



## Huge29

Duke,
Rather than go round and round with people throwing out names and labels, I will just request some more info from you and that way I think we will both understand each other better. I appreciate you being courageous enough to stand up in a forum that clearly leaves you in the minority and in how you keep it civil, for the most part. 
I appreciate your sentiment, as a father myself, I would certainly want something done if my child were a victim. To put ourselves in those shoes, we could listen to the thoughts of people who have shared them such as the lady who had both of her parents killed in Texas (lookup Suzanna Gratia Hupp's testimony before Congress, I think??) or the dad of the Columbine victim (Darrell Scott's congressional testimony also on YouTube) and I recall seeing one on FB who was a classmate of those killed at Columbine (during the firearms ban), but I forget the details of her opinion. The first two both specifically say that they are not NRA affiliated and even disagree with hunting...,but ...well, why don't you let us know what they think? To throw out there that you care more than another anonymous person who disagrees with you....really? I am going to keep this civil, so I won't mention some of your points that I believe to be out there. Since these people disagree with you and they actually are victims of these tragedies while you only think you know what should happen and how they feel, 
1-how do you rebut their statements? Do you have other people's opinions to whom I should listen? Please spare me the Brady name who was shot with a 22lr pistol.
For now, let's assume that the AR was not used in CT and only the handguns were, 
2-why would you include a semi auto rifle in your proposal? 
3a-Was the original ban successful and why?
3b-Is there any facts or experiences anywhere worldwide in the history of man that show that a ban reduces crime of any kind?
4-Did you once say to not reply with the slippery slope or give an inch idea? If so, why is this proposal to go further than the last? Isn't that idea already proven to be accurate by the mere fact that the proposals are to go further?
5-How do you propose determining which arms/traits should be banned? Anything with a heat shield (that was one of the original criteria even though the sponsors did not know what it was). 
6-What will a ban achieve specifically? I thought i would number the questions to make it easier to discuss in an organized manner. 
7-Should anything change regarding mental health or video games, movies??

These are all my thoughts and my thoughts only, I respectfully ask to please not insult anyone's intelligence by trying to credit them to anyone else or any other group. 
Thanks Troy, my new friend. I don't have a real name, j/k, feel free to PM and I will gladly disclose.


----------



## Riverrat77

I think all the fear mongering is a little ******* sometimes... but that said, if somebody wants to own a bunch of AR's... I certainly don't. I have more immediate and to me, important **** to worry about. Its not about guns being more important than a bunch of kids robbed of youth and innocence by some wacko. Its about the government putting its focus on personal ownership of high capacity weapons when there are much bigger fish to fry. Jesus, messed up priorities much? National debt? Poverty stricken portions of the country? ***** economy? Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens should be WAAAYYYYY down the list of priorities for our HNIC. The government should be happy there are so many armed citizens so another country doesn't show up and run our a ss into the ground. Shooter dude could have just as easily loaded his car up with fertilizer bombs and parked in front of the school till it was let out and there were kids everywhere. What would the government be bitching about then? 8) I'm sure they'd still find some way to blame it on guns so they could shove some ridiculous personal agenda down everyone's throats.


----------



## martymcfly73

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Look into the eyes of these children and then you tell me why you need a f#$%&* weapon that in the wrong hands snuffed out their little lives and all the good things the kids would have done in the rest of their lives if they lived.
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/pictu ... ol-victims
> 
> You people make me sick with your stupid arguments based on your religious worship of 27 words. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> If your kids were in that classroom how would you feel. I challenge one of you to honestly say you would still have the same blind belief. Hopefully you will never have to find out.


If my kids were in that classroom I would feel no different. I would be devastated. But feel no different towards guns. If my wife or child were to be killed in a car wreck would I would still drive to work everyday. Not ban all cars. That murderer lanza was denied a gun die to a failed background check. He STOLE guns from his murdered mother. How will banning them stop this? I'll wait for your answer. You make me sick by trying to pass your agenda on the backs of dead kids. You don't talk gun control until this happens. Why?


----------



## Dunkem

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Look into the eyes of these children and then you tell me why you need a f#$%&* weapon that in the wrong hands snuffed out their little lives and all the good things the kids would have done in the rest of their lives if they lived.
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/pictu ... ol-victims
> 
> You people make me sick with your stupid arguments based on your religious worship of 27 words. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> If your kids were in that classroom how would you feel. I challenge one of you to honestly say you would still have the same blind belief. Hopefully you will never have to find out.


I have to agree with Marty,I also would be devistated,but I would be looking at other things,mental health issues,media coverage is a issue.I think armed officers or other security issues need to be looked at. If they cant get a gun,(the perpetrators) then they will use something else :!:


----------



## Loke

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Look into the eyes of these children and then you tell me why you need a f#$%&* weapon that in the wrong hands snuffed out their little lives and all the good things the kids would have done in the rest of their lives if they lived.
> 
> If your kids were in that classroom how would you feel. I challenge one of you to honestly say you would still have the same blind belief. Hopefully you will never have to find out.


I look into the eyes of 1197 of your children every day, and am comforted to know that I have the means to protect them from the criminal that would do them harm. That is why I need a f#$%&* weapon.


----------



## martymcfly73

Thank you Kent! We need more educators like you!


----------



## NHS

martymcfly73 said:


> Thank you Kent! We need more educators like you!


+1. Thanks Kent!


----------



## paddler

I talked to the Trib yesterday. Maybe they'll publish my idea about making all centerfire semiautos that use detachable magazines Class 3 weapons. It seems like a good idea, as those who feel they really must own an AR can, if they pass Class 3 muster. Those weapons with fixed magazines could be limited to 5 rounds. Background checks should be mandatory for all gun purchases. Booths could be set up at gunshows to do this, so it shouldn't be a big deal.

We should do what we can to limit access to these weapons by wackos. Doing nothing, as proposed by the NRA, won't fly.


----------



## Loke

Passing more laws will do nothing to stop those who ignore laws. Disarming law abiding citizens will only give more power and influence to the criminals who, by their nature, do not follow laws. Prohibition was such a success that by the time it was repealed, alcohol was less expensive than when it was enacted. Sounds like a rousing success to me. 
The answer that everyone is missing is that we need to eliminate the wackos that would do harm to our society.
Everyone that holds a valid Utah CFP passes "class III muster" each and every week. It just doesn't take 6 months for some under worked federal employee to get around to looking at the paperwork. Limiting magazine capacity is another feel good idea without merit. It is simply stupid to think that it will do anything to limit a criminal's ability to carry out his evil designs. It will limit the law abiding citizen's ability to protect his family and friends from an attacking mob. One needs only to look to the events in south central LA in the early '90s during those riots. Or New Orleans during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. 
Take a little trip down to one of our southern border towns. Try to tell those folks that they don't need a full capacity magazine or two to protect their families from the drug cartel violence that is spilling over from Mexico. I'm sure that they will more than willing to share their opinion with you.


----------



## bowgy

Our precious government can't protect us from everything. Living in a free society has great benefits and some consequences. I am willing to live with those consequences to live free.


----------



## .45

paddler213 said:


> I talked to the Trib yesterday. Maybe they'll publish my idea about making all centerfire semiautos that use detachable magazines Class 3 weapons. It seems like a good idea, as those who feel they really must own an AR can, if they pass Class 3 muster. Those weapons with fixed magazines could be limited to 5 rounds. Background checks should be mandatory for all gun purchases. Booths could be set up at gunshows to do this, so it shouldn't be a big deal.
> 
> We should do what we can to limit access to these weapons by wackos. Doing nothing, as proposed by the NRA, won't fly.


So....lets just limit fire power to only the guns you like to shoot? Come on paddler213, you can't be that much of a hypocrite....can you?


----------



## Airborne

paddler213 said:


> I talked to the Trib yesterday. Maybe they'll publish my idea about making all centerfire semiautos that use detachable magazines Class 3 weapons. It seems like a good idea, as those who feel they really must own an AR can, if they pass Class 3 muster. Those weapons with fixed magazines could be limited to 5 rounds. Background checks should be mandatory for all gun purchases. Booths could be set up at gunshows to do this, so it shouldn't be a big deal.
> 
> We should do what we can to limit access to these weapons by wackos. Doing nothing, as proposed by the NRA, won't fly.


A pump action shotgun could have been used with just as much lethality-maybe more-in any of these high profile killings so you better require that those be registered as class three or confiscated. The Virginia tech murderer used a couple of semi auto handguns so we need to have those restricted. Double action handguns go bang every time the trigger is pulled so restrict those nasty things as well. Lever action cowboy guns are quick firing and hold over ten rounds so restrict those. So that basically leaves us with single shots and .22s, but wait, the mass murderer in cumbria, UK (gun control wet dream) was armed with a double barrel shotgun and a .22 rifle and he killed a dozen people and wounded almost as many. So we should probably just ban everything--but then only criminals would have guns, so we are back at square one.

It amazes me that even on a hunting website where you think folks would have a decent understanding of firearms would be able to see some logic through this emotional BS. Focus on the people not on the gun--universal background checks--doubt it will change anything but it makes some sense. Magazine limits-- no sense. Advocate for all gun owners to have a gun safe or trigger locking mechanism and use it-- if this crazy kid killers mother would have done this we would not be having this discussion --makes sense. Scary looking Semi auto gun ban--no logic, no sense. Please use yours brains folks


----------



## sawsman

Well said guys. It's amazing how complicated some try to make this..

Guns are NOT the problem, nor will making any additional laws help in any way. People are the problem. Period. Just like everything else in this society.

Pry 'em from my cold dead fingers….


----------



## Airborne

.45 said:


> paddler213 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I talked to the Trib yesterday. Maybe they'll publish my idea about making all centerfire semiautos that use detachable magazines Class 3 weapons. It seems like a good idea, as those who feel they really must own an AR can, if they pass Class 3 muster. Those weapons with fixed magazines could be limited to 5 rounds. Background checks should be mandatory for all gun purchases. Booths could be set up at gunshows to do this, so it shouldn't be a big deal.
> 
> We should do what we can to limit access to these weapons by wackos. Doing nothing, as proposed by the NRA, won't fly.
> 
> 
> 
> So....lets just limit fire power to only the guns you like to shoot? Come on paddler213, you can't be that much of a hypocrite....can you?
Click to expand...

Apparently he is--don't forget that class three guns require a two hundred dollar tax on each one--that's not prohibitive at all :O•-:

After the next mass killer uses your favorite gun to commit murders and the politicians come for that we will see where you stand.

Join the NRA folks--they are your only real defense against this type of ridiculousness. I don't agree with all of their stances but more so than brain dead paddlers


----------



## Bax*

The other day, I loaded up my AR-15 and THREE 30 round magazines. Put it in the corner of the room, and the damnedest thing happened. NOTHING! The stupid thing sat there and sat there. So I then told it that it's mom was fat... Still nothing! So I am just wondering how these inanimate objects tend to be so terrible? I am thinking that the most logical answer is that these firearms are somehow possessing the souls of their users and forcing them to perform their will?


----------



## martymcfly73

Bax* said:


> The other day, I loaded up my AR-15 and THREE 30 round magazines. Put it in the corner of the room, and the damnedest thing happened. NOTHING! The stupid thing sat there and sat there. So I then told it that it's mom was fat... Still nothing! So I am just wondering how these inanimate objects tend to be so terrible? I am thinking that the most logical answer is that these firearms are somehow possessing the souls of their users and forcing them to perform their will?


You say funny things.


----------



## .45

Airborne said:


> Join the NRA folks--they are your only real defense against this type of ridiculousness. I don't agree with all of their stances but more so than brain dead paddlers


My thoughts exactly!

Here are a few of the 'nothings' the NRA is involved in.

http://training.nra.org

God bless America, let freedom ring!


----------



## Squigie

Trolling, trolling, trolling....


----------



## bowgy

Banning guns or limiting their capacity won't help.



> Matsumoto, Japan, in Nagano prefecture, on the evening of June 27 and the morning of June 28, 1994. Eight people were killed[1] [2] and over 200 were harmed by sarin gas that was released from several sites in the Kaichi Heights area. This incident was perpetrated about nine months before the better known sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway.





> The Osaka School Massacre took place on June 8, 2001, at Ikeda Elementary School, an elite primary school affiliated with Osaka Kyoiku University in Osaka Prefecture, Japan. At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers.[2]


And a few in China;


> In Leizhou, Guangdong another knife-wielding man named Chen Kangbing, 33 at Hongfu Primary School wounded 16 students and a teacher. Chen Kangbing had been a teacher at a different primary school in Leizhou; he was sentenced to death by a court in Zhanjiang in June.
> 
> On April 29 in Taixing, Jiangsu, 47-year-old Xu Yuyuan went to Zhongxin Kindergarten and stabbed 28 students, two teachers and one security guard; most of the Taixing students were 4 years old.
> 
> On April 30, Wang Yonglai used a hammer to cause head injury to preschool children in Weifang, Shandong, then used gasoline to commit suicide by self-immolation.


----------



## kochanut

I have, and still do defend your constitutional rights, I will practice them as we'll. I have an AR, it is my right. I am trained on how to use it. I will stand by any law abiding citizen that feels the same. I will stand by any law abiding citizen that decides they do not need or want one. Who are you to decide what is best for me? What have you done for your country to make you think your opinion is better then anyone else's?


----------



## paddler

All semi autos that use detachable magazines, be they ARs, handguns or shotguns, should be made Class 3, subject to all the restrictions and user fees. There is no practical difference between a fully automatic weapon in Select Fire mode and any semiautomatic that uses detachable mags.

There is a huge difference in firepower between guns that have fixed magazines and those that accept detachable ones. I think that's where the line should be drawn, not between semi autos that fire one round per trigger pull vs three rounds. If you really must own one of these guns, you'll still be able to do so. It'll cost money, you can decide if it's worth the cash and trouble.


----------



## martymcfly73

I think paddler should win the Denver bronco award for his posts.


----------



## NHS

martymcfly73 said:


> I think paddler should win the Denver bronco award for his posts.


+1.379857


----------



## .45

paddler213 said:


> All semi autos that use detachable magazines, be they ARs, handguns or shotguns, should be made Class 3, subject to all the restrictions and user fees. There is no practical difference between a fully automatic weapon in Select Fire mode and any semiautomatic that uses detachable mags.
> 
> There is a huge difference in firepower between guns that have fixed magazines and those that accept detachable ones. I think that's where the line should be drawn, not between semi autos that fire one round per trigger pull vs three rounds. If you really must own one of these guns, you'll still be able to do so. It'll cost money, you can decide if it's worth the cash and trouble.


Funny how talk about gun control brings the fruitcake's out.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB ... R00-SB.htm

I'm sorry paddler (not)........did I call you a fruitcake? :|


----------



## Airborne

paddler213 said:


> All semi autos that use detachable magazines, be they ARs, handguns or shotguns, should be made Class 3, subject to all the restrictions and user fees. There is no practical difference between a fully automatic weapon in Select Fire mode and any semiautomatic that uses detachable mags.
> 
> There is a huge difference in firepower between guns that have fixed magazines and those that accept detachable ones. I think that's where the line should be drawn, not between semi autos that fire one round per trigger pull vs three rounds. If you really must own one of these guns, you'll still be able to do so. It'll cost money, you can decide if it's worth the cash and trouble.


Why will making semi autos w/detachables mags class three make them more safe? Will the class three designation magically make them less likely to be used by mad men?Flawed logic pal.

Let's say that you outright ban them- all the bad guy has to do is buy two lever action guns and he has over twenty rounds ready to go. Your proposed law would do nothing to limit mad men from causing harm. Prove me wrong


----------



## Springville Shooter

I have read Paddler's proposal several times on different posts and, while I completely disagree with him, I appreciate that he hasn't taken the argument to the toilet like some others from the "wrong" side of this argument. Instead of continuing to try to convince him, I will spend my time talking to those who believe in freedom and getting them involved in the fight including joining the NRA. We don't have to convince those who oppose our freedom.....we just have to beat them in the political arena. They hate the NRA because the NRA has teeth. 

-Join the NRA.
-Speak your mind in an intelligent way whenever you have a chance.
-Fight for freedom.
-Never lose sight of reality.
-Defeat the liberal bigots in this country.

Springville Shooter


----------



## Airborne

Dang rights Springville shooter. I have told a bunch of the guys at work and several family members that they lose all credibility with me if they support gun rights, complain about the libs but refuse to spend the 25 bucks a year to fight to keep their gun rights alive. If they can't find 25 measly bucks to put towards supporting their beliefs I have little use of their opinion-- it's almost as bad as not voting!

Hey paddler, you better turn in your double barrel duck gun for the greater good, That thing is an amazingly deadly weapon that sprays hundreds of deadly projectiles with each pull of the trigger, and you have TWO barrels, double the killing power, this kind of high powered deadly weapon in the wrong hands could kill ten or more innocents. Just remember buckwheat--Your favorite gun is next, all it takes is one mad man


----------



## paddler

If the NRA was the organization it was in my youth, I'd be a member. It's not, so I'm not. I can't believe anybody can listen to La Pierre and donate any money to support him. Same for Norquist, who's on the Board. Romney is a Lifetime Member, and lied about being a being a "hunter almost all my life". No thanks. They're playing you guys and getting rich off your hard-earned wages.

My proposal is the most rational approach to gun control and gun violence. Bans will not work, nor are they necessary. Simply reclassifying the weapons typically used in mass shootings so that they're less likely to end up in the hands of mentally ill individuals is a clean, surgical approach to the problem. While it's true that any weapon can be lethal in mass shootings, semiautos with clips just make it too easy to inflict carnage like the Newtown murders.


----------



## plottrunner

paddler213 said:


> My proposal is the most rational approach to gun control and gun violence. Bans will not work, nor are they necessary. Simply reclassifying the weapons typically used in mass shootings so that they're less likely to end up in the hands of mentally ill individuals is a clean, surgical approach to the problem. While it's true that any weapon can be lethal in mass shootings, semiautos with clips just make it too easy to inflict carnage like the Newtown murders.


Your proposal is the most irrational thing I have ever heard in this debate...which part of the gun is not the problem is not sinking into your brain...So under your proposal I would have to have a class 3 permit for my browning a-bolt? Technically it has a a detachable magazine. Have you ever bought a class 3? All it causes is a wait and an unholy amount of money to be paid to the federal government in the form of an illegal tax... There is no middle ground on gun control...get on the right side of the fence or turn all your guns in and hunt ducks with rocks....Any control strips your right to bear arms it starts with an ar-15 then moves on to your glock 17 and pretty soon your 20 gauge is facing being classified as something that needs to be restricted...


----------



## gdog

paddler213 said:


> If the NRA was the organization it was in my youth.....


Right...nor were people taking guns (which were readily available or even more so) into schools and movie theaters and slaughtering people. Semi auto's were available to civilians long before these shootings started happening on a frequent bases. Have the guns changed? Not really. The focus needs to be on human behavior and influences in society that make people act in this manner. Blaming the weapon is an excuse for a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed in many aspects of our society.


----------



## Loke

Your proposal is neither rational nor will it be effective. Evil people will do evil things by whatever means are available to them. Good people should have more effective means available to stop them. Guns (of all types) were and are banned on all school campuses in Connecticut. Guns (of all types) were and are banned on the school campus at Virginia Tech. Must I go on? You continue to vilify the object, and not place the blame where it truly lies, and that is with the evil person that killed those children. What would have saved the kids in Sandy Hook would have been an good person that had the means to defend those students. They would have been extremely effective if they had firepower equal to or greater than what the murderer had available to perpetrate his misdeeds.


----------



## Airborne

paddler213 said:


> If the NRA was the organization it was in my youth, I'd be a member. It's not, so I'm not. I can't believe anybody can listen to La Pierre and donate any money to support him. Same for Norquist, who's on the Board. Romney is a Lifetime Member, and lied about being a being a "hunter almost all my life". No thanks. They're playing you guys and getting rich off your hard-earned wages.
> 
> My proposal is the most rational approach to gun control and gun violence. Bans will not work, nor are they necessary. Simply reclassifying the weapons typically used in mass shootings so that they're less likely to end up in the hands of mentally ill individuals is a clean, surgical approach to the problem. While it's true that any weapon can be lethal in mass shootings, semiautos with clips just make it too easy to inflict carnage like the Newtown murders.


Paddler, your logic leaves you up the creek-awesome pun! How "surgical" is it for MILLIONS of gun owners to have to register their semi autos and pay a tax? Having millions of people do something that drastic and calling it surgical is laughable.

What this sounds like to me is that you have convinced yourself that you came up with a "good idea" after being emotionally shaken by this latest tragedy and trying to find an answer for it. Your misplaced emotional outrage found a home in your illogical reasoning and now you are married to it. I am not going to convince you to use your brain in any further pursuit so I will leave it at that. I too was shaken by this newton rampage but it did not change my belief system or what I think is right.

I think that if you were a man of conviction that truly believed in your reasoning you would turn in your duck gun and take up bird watching- you are armed with far too deadly of a weapon for the average citizen to possess, plus everyone knows that you waterfowl guys just throw those nasty tasting ducks in the dumpster anyway


----------



## paddler

Bolt action rifles with removable magazines, semiauto shotguns with fixed tube magazines, etc, would not be reclassified. There are a few semiauto hunting rifles with removable magazines, like the BAR, which would require a design change to avoid being Class 3.

The Class 3 requirements could be made more stringent if needed, also. Class 3 firearms should be taxed in an amount to make the program pay for itself. As they say, "Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?"


----------



## plottrunner

paddler213 said:



> Bolt action rifles with removable magazines, semiauto shotguns with fixed tube magazines, etc, would not be reclassified. There are a few semiauto hunting rifles with removable magazines, like the BAR, which would require a design change to avoid being Class 3.
> 
> The Class 3 requirements could be made more stringent if needed, also. Class 3 firearms should be taxed in an amount to make the program pay for itself. As they say, "Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?"


Debating with you is pointless now that I have noticed your signature


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

The ATF doesn't have the resources to handle current regulations, it's a complete mess. There is no way in hell they could handle new, large scale implementations. Not to mention they make 0 sense and simply pander to emotional reaction. If they made the arms you speak of illegal, it would take years for form 4 approval and even then, as is now, it would stand to be a complete cluster **** with mistakes all over the place, defeating the intent of such asinine suggestions. 

Nonsensical contrarian pipe dream, Mr. Paddler. 

Anyone know where I can pick up a pet unicorn that shhits jelly beans?


----------



## Mojo1

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Anyone know where I can pick up a pet unicorn that shhits jelly beans?


We could paddler and the other libs, they seem to live in fairy land!


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Huge29 said:


> 1-how do you rebut their statements? Do you have other people's opinions to whom I should listen? Please spare me the Brady name who was shot with a 22lr pistol. Reagan http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ronald ... apons-ban/
> For now, let's assume that the AR was not used in CT and only the handguns were,
> 2-why would you include a semi auto rifle in your proposal? High rate of fire compared to any other action. I can rack off 30 in about 15 seconds. The semi auto combined with large clips are the deadly combo in the hands of a murderer.
> 3a-Was the original ban successful and why? Was not in effect long enough and lacked a method to remove weapons already in circulation.
> 3b-Is there any facts or experiences anywhere worldwide in the history of man that show that a ban reduces crime of any kind? Australia http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-co ... australia/
> 4-Did you once say to not reply with the slippery slope or give an inch idea? If so, why is this proposal to go further than the last? Isn't that idea already proven to be accurate by the mere fact that the proposals are to go further? National Firearms Act 1934 banned automatic weapons, silencers, and shortened barrels. Government banned weapons that were a threat to law enforcement when used by gangsters of the era. No slippery slope to ban hunting weapons or handguns.
> 5-How do you propose determining which arms/traits should be banned? Anything with a heat shield (that was one of the original criteria even though the sponsors did not know what it was). Military style and large clips. I'm sure we could figure it out. How do you define pornography "I know it when I see it" Same standard.
> 6-What will a ban achieve specifically? I thought i would number the questions to make it easier to discuss in an organized manner. If these weapons did not exist a lunatic may still act but they would not have the killing power they do today. If someone has to change a clip after 5 shots it does present opportunity for people to either escape or act sooner than if the lunatics have a 30 + round clip.
> 7-Should anything change regarding mental health or video games, movies?? Thank you Obama Care to the rescue. It's a national disgrace that we have allowed access to mental health to deteriorate in this country. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/07/affordable-care-act-mental-health/1566106/
> 
> These are all my thoughts and my thoughts only, I respectfully ask to please not insult anyone's intelligence by trying to credit them to anyone else or any other group.
> Thanks Troy, my new friend. I don't have a real name, j/k, feel free to PM and I will gladly disclose.


 Use your name. One of societies problems is everyone hides behind a screen name. If you have an opinion put your name on it.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

martymcfly73 said:


> Dukes_Daddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look into the eyes of these children and then you tell me why you need a f#$%&* weapon that in the wrong hands snuffed out their little lives and all the good things the kids would have done in the rest of their lives if they lived.
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/pictu ... ol-victims
> 
> You people make me sick with your stupid arguments based on your religious worship of 27 words. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> If your kids were in that classroom how would you feel. I challenge one of you to honestly say you would still have the same blind belief. Hopefully you will never have to find out.
> 
> 
> 
> If my kids were in that classroom I would feel no different. I would be devastated. But feel no different towards guns. If my wife or child were to be killed in a car wreck would I would still drive to work everyday. Not ban all cars. That murderer lanza was denied a gun die to a failed background check. He STOLE guns from his murdered mother. How will banning them stop this? I'll wait for your answer. If they did not exist he could not have stole them.  You make me sick by trying to pass your agenda on the backs of dead kids. You don't talk gun control until this happens. Why?
Click to expand...

No name yet? Step up


----------



## martymcfly73

Dukes_Daddy said:


> martymcfly73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dukes_Daddy":2d5xyt5h]Look into the eyes of these children and then you tell me why you need a f#$%&* weapon that in the wrong hands snuffed out their little lives and all the good things the kids would have done in the rest of their lives if they lived.
> [URL="http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/pictures-of-sandy-hook-school-victims said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/pictu ... ol-victims[/URL]
> 
> You people make me sick with your stupid arguments based on your religious worship of 27 words. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> If your kids were in that classroom how would you feel. I challenge one of you to honestly say you would still have the same blind belief. Hopefully you will never have to find out.
> 
> 
> 
> If my kids were in that classroom I would feel no different. I would be devastated. But feel no different towards guns. If my wife or child were to be killed in a car wreck would I would still drive to work everyday. Not ban all cars. That murderer lanza was denied a gun die to a failed background check. He STOLE guns from his murdered mother. How will banning them stop this? I'll wait for your answer. If they did not exist he could not have stole them.  You make me sick by trying to pass your agenda on the backs of dead kids. You don't talk gun control until this happens. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No name yet? Step up[/quote:2d5xyt5h]
> No thanks. You could be a mass murder wanting to steal my guns for all I know. I know you're more than a little off so I don't give my name to nut jobs.
Click to expand...


----------



## Springville Shooter

Calling you out DD. Your "post your name" campaign is just as off-base as your ideas on gun control. We don't need a list of names, we need ideas. The only reason to list your name would be so you can get some kind of credit for your thoughts. Personally, I don't care about credit. I care about working to solve serious problems within our society. I have read and considered all of your ideas and personally found them lacking. Therefore I will look to other places and my own devices until I hear something that makes sense. Throwing your identity out on an internet forum is not brave, it is stupid. Why don't you put your address, social security number, and credit card number on here while your at it? What do you stand to gain. Let your ideas hold their own merit. Why don't you review Paddlers posts, he will show you that it is possible for libs to express their crazy ideas thoughtfully and appropriately. Even though he's still wrong, at least he maintains a higher level of correspondence than you do. ---SS


----------



## elkfromabove

Dukes_Daddy said:


> martymcfly73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dukes_Daddy":v0ktp5im]Look into the eyes of these children and then you tell me why you need a f#$%&* weapon that in the wrong hands snuffed out their little lives and all the good things the kids would have done in the rest of their lives if they lived.
> [URL="http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/pictures-of-sandy-hook-school-victims said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/pictu ... ol-victims[/URL]
> 
> You people make me sick with your stupid arguments based on your religious worship of 27 words. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> If your kids were in that classroom how would you feel. I challenge one of you to honestly say you would still have the same blind belief. Hopefully you will never have to find out.
> 
> 
> 
> If my kids were in that classroom I would feel no different. I would be devastated. But feel no different towards guns. If my wife or child were to be killed in a car wreck would I would still drive to work everyday. Not ban all cars. That murderer lanza was denied a gun die to a failed background check. He STOLE guns from his murdered mother. How will banning them stop this? I'll wait for your answer. If they did not exist he could not have stole them.  You make me sick by trying to pass your agenda on the backs of dead kids. You don't talk gun control until this happens. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No name yet? Step up[/quote:v0ktp5im]
> 
> So, making laws banning them means they won't exist? Just like alcoholic beverages during prohabition? Just like child porn and meth now?
Click to expand...


----------



## Springville Shooter

Not sure how it correlates, but isn't it interesting that all of the recent shootings involving guns the left wants to ban have taken place in blue states that they control. Colorado, Connecticut, New York, Oregon, and California are all blue as can be. Why aren't these things happening in the red states? Maybe just coincidence? Maybe the libs need to clean their own houses before getting involved in ours. How about this. You libs go find a solution that really works in a place like Chicago, then come back and talk about it. Until then, how about a little state soverignty where you leave the rest of us alone when there are no problems in our area. First step in gun control should be keeping the liberal federal government from knowingly giving assault weapons to criminal drug cartels. Why don't we take that baby step first? Because this is not about safety, it's about hate and discrimination. Liberal freedom tramplers are no better than the KKK.------SS


----------



## .45

paddler213 said:


> Bolt action rifles with removable magazines, semiauto shotguns with fixed tube magazines, etc, would not be reclassified. There are a few semiauto hunting rifles with removable magazines, like the BAR, which would require a design change to avoid being Class 3.
> 
> *The Class 3 requirements could be made more stringent if needed, also. Class 3 firearms should be taxed in an amount to make the program pay for itself. As they say, "Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go*?"


This is absurd....Here again, this, along with the idiot notion to heavily tax ammo, would make it tougher for the average citizen to afford to defend themselves. Why would any person in their right mind even consider something this ridiculous ?
paddler....what would happen with the rest of the firearms that cannot be licensed due to finances? What of the citizens that refuse this proposal? Do we all become criminals because of some narrow minded law dictated by a select few? 
Fruitcakes, commies, idiots, I'll call it how I see it. Any person who believes restricting our rights under the 2nd does not believe in true freedom.

Plottrunner is correct!


----------



## .45

kochanut said:


> I have, and still do defend your constitutional rights, I will practice them as we'll. I have an AR, it is my right. I am trained on how to use it. I will stand by any law abiding citizen that feels the same. I will stand by any law abiding citizen that decides they do not need or want one. Who are you to decide what is best for me? What have you done for your country to make you think your opinion is better then anyone else's?


Thank you, we do appreciate the service!


----------



## DallanC

On Fox news today they mentioned that its illegal for a Felon to own a gun BUT ALSO AMMUNITION AS WELL. They said that background checks need to be implemented at stores for all ammo purchases to keep felons from getting ammunitionl. W T F...

$30 background check to buy a $15 box of .22 rimfire bullets... lol.


-DallanC


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

Technically, it's illegal for a felon to posses a fish hook. Enforcement and administration is where all of these silly ideas will fail. We can make it illegal to wear black socks with blue jeans, but enforcing it with consistency would be next to impossible. Same idea when it comes to firearms.

Again, the ATF is currently a complete mess. Overwhelmed by their current workload. There is no way they would be able to enforce any of this with any kind of regularity, especially with the bureaucratic nature of it all. Paraphrased straight from the mouth of an BATF official. Not my words. :|


----------



## martymcfly73

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Technically, it's illegal for a felon to posses a fish hook. Enforcement and administration is where all of these silly ideas will fail. We can make it illegal to wear black socks with blue jeans, but enforcing it with consistency would be next to impossible. Same idea when it comes to firearms.
> 
> Again, the ATF is currently a complete mess. Overwhelmed by their current workload. There is no way they would be able to enforce any of this with any kind of regularity, especially with the bureaucratic nature of it all. Paraphrased straight from the mouth of an BATF official. Not my words. :|


Easy fix. We'll just create a gun control czar with a budget of a few trillion dollars to enforce all these new regs. They can also be in charge of the unicorns. Maybe make it a cabinet level position.


----------



## Springville Shooter

:|[/quote]
Easy fix. We'll just create a gun control czar with a budget of a few trillion dollars to enforce all these new regs. They can also be in charge of the unicorns. Maybe make it a cabinet level position.[/quote]

What??? A gun control czar? Is Dukes Daddy headed to Washington? -----SS


----------



## wyogoob

DallanC said:


> On Fox news today they mentioned that its illegal for a Felon to own a gun BUT ALSO AMMUNITION AS WELL. They said that background checks need to be implemented at stores for all ammo purchases to keep felons from getting ammunitionl. W T F...
> 
> $30 background check to buy a $15 box of .22 rimfire bullets... lol.
> 
> -DallanC


A similar program has been used in Illinois since 1968, called Firearms Owners Identification (FOID). An Illinois resident has to have a FOID for the possession or purchase of a firearm or ammunition. So when you buy ammo at WalMart you have to show them the card and they enter your info along with the purchase. They use to put the info in a 3-ring binder but now I think it's all done by a computer generated cash register program. There's a background check, similar to getting a CC, to get a FOID. The FOID card has to be renewed every 5 years, with a new background check. There's always a backlog getting FOID renewals.

Has FOID worked? Got me, its like stop signs; no one knows how many lives stop signs have saved, if any.

Who's in Washington DC working on gun control laws? Some Illinois guys


----------



## Critter

wyogoob said:


> DallanC said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fox news today they mentioned that its illegal for a Felon to own a gun BUT ALSO AMMUNITION AS WELL. They said that background checks need to be implemented at stores for all ammo purchases to keep felons from getting ammunitionl. W T F...
> 
> $30 background check to buy a $15 box of .22 rimfire bullets... lol.
> 
> -DallanC
> 
> 
> 
> Who's in Washington DC working on gun control laws? Some Illinois guys
Click to expand...

It was actually Sen. Richard Blumenthal a Democrat from Connecticut that made that suggestion.

I wonder what their plans are for those of us that reload?


----------



## wyogoob

Yeah, I understand that a Connecticut guy made the suggestion but the "team" at the White House has a bunch of Illinois guys. If the thing goes to an Exective Order they will have a lot influence. 


Yeah, I know who made the suggestion I was just talking who's ultimately going to make the decision(s).

Reloading? good question. It would only make sense that reloading ammo parts be included in whatever rules they come up with for ammo sales, if any. FOID was required for powder and primers, and then some cities had their own rules requiring FOID for brass and bullets. So FOID has set a precedence for reloading control. 

FOID wasn't the end of the world, although when it first became law we all thought it was. It doesn't add much, if any, to the price of guns or ammo in Illinois and as a rule, ammunition is cheaper in Illinois vs Wyoming. Some guns like assault rifles are cheaper in Illinois because they are manufactured there i.e Eagle, ArmaLite, Rock River, and Springfield Armory (I dont think SA does assault rifles, but make lots of other semi-autos.) Anyway they sell a ton of ammo and guns in Illinois in spite of tight regulations (FOID). Hunting is huge there and FOID is just another tax to them. In 2011 Illinois sold 185,000 deer tags, Wyoming did 84,000 in 2011.


----------



## paddler

wyogoob said:


> FOID wasn't the end of the world, although when it first became law we all thought it was.


Yep, Goob, some guys always say the sky is falling, "slippery slope", etc. But systems like the one in Illinois can work well. Under my proposal, if one wishes to buy Class 3, you could apply for a permit that would allow one to do so. The only change necessary is to reclassify those weapons I mentioned above. They would be subject to a transfer fee, amount to be determined. The only goal is to try to prevent crazies from getting semiautos with detachable magazines. Such a program wouldn't stop law-abiding folks from buying and using these weapons. And, there are plenty of weapon options for hunting, target shooting and home defense that wouldn't be reclassified. My proposal doesn't threaten gun rights, it's just an attempt to prevent mass murders.


----------



## Critter

paddler213 said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> 
> FOID wasn't the end of the world, although when it first became law we all thought it was.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Goob, some guys always say the sky is falling, "slippery slope", etc. But systems like the one in Illinois can work well. Under my proposal, if one wishes to buy Class 3, you could apply for a permit that would allow one to do so. The only change necessary is to reclassify those weapons I mentioned above. They would be subject to a transfer fee, amount to be determined. The only goal is to try to prevent crazies from getting semi autos with detachable magazines. Such a program wouldn't stop law-abiding folks from buying and using these weapons. And, there are plenty of weapon options for hunting, target shooting and home defense that wouldn't be reclassified. My proposal doesn't threaten gun rights, it's just an attempt to prevent mass murders.
Click to expand...

So, what are you going to suggest next time when someone commits a mass murder with a pump shotgun that only holds 5 shells at a time? With a little practice a pump can be shot just a quickly as a semi automatic and with practice you can reload it quickly also, and if they do their dastardly deed in a school such as was done last month the shooter would have as much time to reload as he wanted. Also how about a revolver? Yes, it only holds 6 shots but with practice you can reload it fast also.

So should we ban every thing that you don't have a interest in owning? Or should we go back to a single shot rifles, shotguns, and pistols until they are baned also?


----------



## NHS

paddler213 said:


> My proposal doesn't threaten gun rights, *it's just an attempt *to prevent mass murders.


Just like most legislation that comes out of Washington...always good intentions, but a pile of unintended consequences that worsen existing problems and create a whole bunch of new ones. While at the same time, eroding personal freedom, responsibility and individual accountability.


----------



## Dunkem

paddler213 said:


> My proposal doesn't threaten gun rights, *it's just an attempt *to prevent mass murders.


Its a direct threat to gun rights, and say your proprosal was passed, whats to stop these idiots from getting them illegally(there are hundreds of thousands of these guns already out there).If they want a gun,they will get one.Your proposal wont make the illegally owned gun just go away. IMHO :!: Again it is not the gun that kills, its the person that is pulling the trigger.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

paddler213 said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> 
> FOID wasn't the end of the world, although when it first became law we all thought it was.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Goob, some guys always say the sky is falling, "slippery slope", etc. But systems like the one in Illinois can work well. Under my proposal, if one wishes to buy Class 3, you could apply for a permit that would allow one to do so. The only change necessary is to reclassify those weapons I mentioned above. They would be subject to a transfer fee, amount to be determined. The only goal is to try to prevent crazies from getting semiautos with detachable magazines. Such a program wouldn't stop law-abiding folks from buying and using these weapons. And, there are plenty of weapon options for hunting, target shooting and home defense that wouldn't be reclassified. My proposal doesn't threaten gun rights, it's just an attempt to prevent mass murders.
Click to expand...

I personally think that waiting years to receive the OK to purchase a firearm is a serious infringement on my liberties, with little upside and that's exactly what would happen if hundreds of thousands of firearms were to enter the system all at the same time. They haven't had personally registrable manufacture of class 3 firearms since 1986 and are drowning in paperwork.

Under this premise, should we require background checks, extra taxes and waiting periods for diesel fuel and fertilizer? How about foods that kill thousands of people a year? Genetically modified vegetables and grains? High fructose corn syrup? cigarettes? Alcohol? Hang-gliders?

Better start finger printing and taxing folks to get a food handlers permit. People die from food poisoning every day.

Don't even get me started on kayaks, those things are dangerous.........


----------



## Springville Shooter

I have a great idea. Why don't all of the folks who want certain weapons banned or the mandated equivelent banned go to the places where these bans already exist and be happy. California has always had a ban on AR-15 rifles with detatchable mags. I hear there are lots of places there for happy kyak trips and, if you are cronies with Feinstein, you can still shoot a side-by-side. They fully embrace those who want to constantly get into other people's business and would love another bleeding heart to go after evil things like mud motors and ATV's. If all that some of you profess would really make things better, California would be like paradise. Why is it one of the most violent, depressed, defunct states in the union? At least big brother makes pot legal to help ease the pain of reality. Freedom equals happiness and prosperity, big government equals oppression and misery. I hear that the San Francisco bay kyak club is taking applications.------SS


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Springville Shooter said:


> Throwing your identity out on an internet forum is not brave, it is stupid.


Once upon a time people actually stood up and expressed their opinions in public. That is the challenge I put forward.

I find it interested that when information is presented (see response to Huge) suddenly that post ends. The arguments against banning assault weapons all revolve around some personal liberty issue and paranoia the government is after all guns.

It's telling when people will not put their name on their thoughts. This isn't 1984.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel

Dukes daddy- get over it...no one is telling your weird liberal *** anything you creep!


----------



## wyogoob

A friendly reminder. Please no name calling or character attacks. The same forum rules apply in Firearms and reloading as with the rest of the UWN.

Thanks


----------



## Huge29

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1-how do you rebut their statements? Do you have other people's opinions to whom I should listen? Please spare me the Brady name who was shot with a 22lr pistol. Reagan http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ronald ... apons-ban/
> Interesting, but I find the victim's family's opinions to be much more relevant over any politician regardless of party as I could find myself in a similar situation, as could anyone.
> 
> For now, let's assume that the AR was not used in CT and only the handguns were,
> 2-why would you include a semi auto rifle in your proposal? High rate of fire compared to any other action. I can rack off 30 in about 15 seconds. The semi auto combined with large clips are the deadly combo in the hands of a murderer.
> The one gal's testimony from TX clearly addressed this issue, it also only takes a matter of a second or two to pop a new mag in, not nearly enough time to rush the shooter, but enough time to shoot back
> 3a-Was the original ban successful and why? Was not in effect long enough and lacked a method to remove weapons already in circulation.  So, you are saying that it was not effective? The statistics indicated that it was not successful also. What time period do you think would be needed?
> 3b-Is there any facts or experiences anywhere worldwide in the history of man that show that a ban reduces crime of any kind? Australia http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-co ... australia/ That is a reasonable piece of data, but Mexico has a similar gun ownership rate and it goes w/o saying what a zoo that is. Is it just one example, then? I honestly don't know.
> 4-Did you once say to not reply with the slippery slope or give an inch idea? If so, why is this proposal to go further than the last? Isn't that idea already proven to be accurate by the mere fact that the proposals are to go further? National Firearms Act 1934 banned automatic weapons, silencers, and shortened barrels. Government banned weapons that were a threat to law enforcement when used by gangsters of the era. No slippery slope to ban hunting weapons or handguns.  So, it is a slipper slope, then, correct? Auto, then semi auto (including my #1 yote rifle R15 and my deer rifle BAR, those are for hunting and the one is nearly 50 years old), now further to whatever you know it when you see it...including who knows, but clearly further down the line we slide
> 5-How do you propose determining which arms/traits should be banned? Anything with a heat shield (that was one of the original criteria even though the sponsors did not know what it was). Military style and large clips. I'm sure we could figure it out. How do you define pornography "I know it when I see it" Same standard.
> 6-What will a ban achieve specifically? I thought i would number the questions to make it easier to discuss in an organized manner. If these weapons did not exist a lunatic may still act but they would not have the killing power they do today. If someone has to change a clip after 5 shots it does present opportunity for people to either escape or act sooner than if the lunatics have a 30 + round clip.  Time yourself to see how quickly you can change a mag; I think that you will find this to not be accurate.
> 7-Should anything change regarding mental health or video games, movies?? Thank you Obama Care to the rescue. It's a national disgrace that we have allowed access to mental health to deteriorate in this country. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/07/affordable-care-act-mental-health/1566106/
> These are all my thoughts and my thoughts only, I respectfully ask to please not insult anyone's intelligence by trying to credit them to anyone else or any other group.
> Thanks Troy, my new friend. I don't have a real name, j/k, feel free to PM and I will gladly disclose.
> 
> 
> 
> Use your name. One of societies problems is everyone hides behind a screen name. If you have an opinion put your name on it.
Click to expand...

 You got me on that one, my name is Hoozelfritz McGillicutty, it is not anonymity that I was after, just embarrassed for my real name. :mrgreen: Many on here know my real name and same offer stands.
One item that I have not seen you address, which seems to be more obvious addressing the mental health would be the background checks being more consistent to include the mentally adjudicated in a more consistent and uniform system. I am not decided either way, but certainly merits a discussion, what are your thoughts?
Why are Chicago and DC with crazy strict gun control (both deemed to be illegal) some of the most dangerous places in the nation before and after enacting? 
Which other freedoms do you believe to be unnecessary or willing to give up?


----------



## Springville Shooter

Dukes_Daddy said:


> [quote="Springville Shooter":1pu2i3c4]Throwing your identity out on an internet forum is not brave, it is stupid.


Once upon a time people actually stood up and expressed their opinions in public. That is the challenge I put forward.

I find it interested that when information is presented (see response to Huge) suddenly that post ends. The arguments against banning assault weapons all revolve around some personal liberty issue and paranoia the government is after all guns.

It's telling when people will not put their name on their thoughts. This isn't 1984.[/quote:1pu2i3c4]

First of all, "some personal liberty issues" were the whole reason this nation was founded in the first place. In my opinion, personal liberty is the end all of political importance and should be considered greatly when creating legislation. Like I have said before, if any of the laws, regulations, bans, etc mentioned on here would really make anyone safer, I would be on board with them. Fact is, I have lived in areas that have been over-regulated before and they are jsut as dangerous, just as scary, just not as free. I want to be as free as possible, everyone does. The difference is that the shallow few want to enjoy their pet freedoms while oppressing those who differ from them. Freedom is a two way street and freedom given up hurts the nation as a whole.

As far as the names with thoughts issue, I maintain my position that good ideas stand on their own and don't require a citation of author to be valid and useful. Being responsible with one's identity is wise and even recommended on the world-wide-web. If I run into you at the store, we'll meet and shake hands. If I IM you, I might introduce myself. On the open forum, I will remain Springville Shooter. What do you think you gain from pasting your name all over an open forum?-------SS


----------



## Loke

Let's do some math. At Sandy Hook there were 26 people killed, including the shooter. From the time he entered the building until he shot himself, the incident lasted almost ten minutes. According to my calculator, that is 23 seconds per killing. How does a weapon with a high rate of fire and a large magazine capacity make any difference here at all? I can load and fire a flintlock musket that fast.


----------



## bowgy

Loke, it appears that they don't care about facts, many of the posts have shown that the type of weapon didn't matter, he had with him several types of weapons that could do the same amount of damage in the same amount of time, their knee jerk emotional thoughts are not representing the facts of the shooting.


----------



## jahan

Dukes_Daddy said:


> [quote="Springville Shooter":v68ydo8v]Throwing your identity out on an internet forum is not brave, it is stupid.


Once upon a time people actually stood up and expressed their opinions in public. That is the challenge I put forward.

I find it interested that when information is presented (see response to Huge) suddenly that post ends. The arguments against banning assault weapons all revolve around some personal liberty issue and paranoia the government is after all guns.

It's telling when people will not put their name on their thoughts. This isn't 1984.[/quote:v68ydo8v]

Assault Weapons account for approximately 3% of the overall gun deaths. Most of the gun violence occurs within major cities. How many mass shootings have occurred in Utah? How many of them occurred in gun-free zones? How many of the mass shootings in the US have occurred in gun-free zones? All but one. Also Connecticut had an assault weapons ban. Chi town has some of the most restrictive gun control out there, how is that working out for them? Facts don't lie and the facts show that gun restriction may slow down gun violence, but it will not slow down violent crimes. Decisions based off of fear are ill advised decisions and that is all this is.

People are scared and upset, rightfully so, what happened in that school was awful, NO ONE WILL DENY THAT AND THE FACT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE KIDS IS BS, YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOUR SELF!!! I generally try to stay away from name calling, but that statement you made was very cowardly, that is the exact same crap Piers Morgan is doing. Just because you don't believe in gun control does not mean you don't care about the children, PERIOD!

Now I would love for you to show me FACTS that show restricting weapons will stop or help with violent crimes, besides Austria.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Useful Solutions:

1. Aggressively prosecute violent criminals, crimes involving guns, gang activity, and address crimes committed by the mentally ill. These elements need to be removed from general society period.

2. Eliminate all transfers conducted without a background check. This would mean that a person would have to provide a CCW permit, or get a background check from an FFL for EVERY gun purchase including private transfers.

3. Facilitate enhanced training programs and applicable legislation regarding safe gun storage and gun owner responsibility to control access and use of their firearms. 

4. Get officials involved at the city/county level to create plans that are prudent for their area and represent their constituencies. It should be obvious that the same safety plan will not work for both the city of Los Angeles, CA and the city of Helper, UT. This would be where enhanced school security and public CCW plans would be taylor made for the individual area. 


While these are not all comprehensive and still would not prevent all tragedies, I think that they would be alot more effective than a politically driven gun ban at the federal level that would do little more than further divide and agitate a society already at odds. What do you think?------SS


----------



## Springville Shooter

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/ ... 5#50208495

This is very interesting. It is an older report, but I wonder why this information is not more widespread? Does this change the tune of those wanting to concentrate on an assault weapons ban? Does this prove that the government, who had this information the whole time, misled the American people regarding the events that transpired? I'm not sure that this info is solid, but it is interesting and I haven't found any rebuttal to this story or the facts portreyed. NO AR-15 USED AT SANDY HOOK would seem to weaken some of the arguments expressed on this forum. I think that it is very telling that we don't even have solid facts about this shooting. For a government that ran on transparency, why are we left wondering so often.------SS


----------



## DallanC

Loke said:


> Let's do some math. At Sandy Hook there were 26 people killed, including the shooter. From the time he entered the building until he shot himself, the incident lasted almost ten minutes. According to my calculator, that is 23 seconds per killing. How does a weapon with a high rate of fire and a large magazine capacity make any difference here at all? I can load and fire a flintlock musket that fast.


Are you sure about that? Everything i read has said it was TWENTY MINUTES from the time 911 was called until the FIRST POLICE OFFICER arrived on scene. It was 10 minutes later when they entered the building and he kill himself.

If true, that means the shooter had THIRTY MINUTES to kill twenty kids barracaded in a room. Anyone with golf club could have killed 20 kids in that situation.

-DallanC


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Huge29 said:


> Dukes_Daddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1-how do you rebut their statements? Do you have other people's opinions to whom I should listen? Please spare me the Brady name who was shot with a 22lr pistol. Reagan http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ronald ... apons-ban/
> Interesting, but I find the victim's family's opinions to be much more relevant over any politician regardless of party as I could find myself in a similar situation, as could anyone.  Disagree. Reagan was an exceptional leader who looked at "what we could be".
> 
> For now, let's assume that the AR was not used in CT and only the handguns were,
> 2-why would you include a semi auto rifle in your proposal? High rate of fire compared to any other action. I can rack off 30 in about 15 seconds. The semi auto combined with large clips are the deadly combo in the hands of a murderer.
> The one gal's testimony from TX clearly addressed this issue, it also only takes a matter of a second or two to pop a new mag in, not nearly enough time to rush the shooter, but enough time to shoot back Or run away. Fight or flight I would prefer my odds against someone with a 5 round clip.
> 3a-Was the original ban successful and why? Was not in effect long enough and lacked a method to remove weapons already in circulation.  So, you are saying that it was not effective? The statistics indicated that it was not successful also. What time period do you think would be needed?  Again need to ban and then "remove". Buyback, voluntary surrender, amnesty, and then criminalize.
> 3b-Is there any facts or experiences anywhere worldwide in the history of man that show that a ban reduces crime of any kind? Australia http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-co ... australia/ That is a reasonable piece of data, but Mexico has a similar gun ownership rate and it goes w/o saying what a zoo that is. Is it just one example, then? I honestly don't know. Mexico is ruled by drug gangs. Hell the Congo probably has more law and order. US his ruled by law. Apples and oranges.
> 4-Did you once say to not reply with the slippery slope or give an inch idea? If so, why is this proposal to go further than the last? Isn't that idea already proven to be accurate by the mere fact that the proposals are to go further? National Firearms Act 1934 banned automatic weapons, silencers, and shortened barrels. Government banned weapons that were a threat to law enforcement when used by gangsters of the era. No slippery slope to ban hunting weapons or handguns.  So, it is a slipper slope, then, correct? Auto, then semi auto (including my #1 yote rifle R15 and my deer rifle BAR, those are for hunting and the one is nearly 50 years old), now further to whatever you know it when you see it...including who knows, but clearly further down the line we slide You can use a bolt action or semi auto with small clip. You decided what gun to buy. Society can outlaw your choice.
> 5-How do you propose determining which arms/traits should be banned? Anything with a heat shield (that was one of the original criteria even though the sponsors did not know what it was). Military style and large clips. I'm sure we could figure it out. How do you define pornography "I know it when I see it" Same standard.
> 6-What will a ban achieve specifically? I thought i would number the questions to make it easier to discuss in an organized manner. If these weapons did not exist a lunatic may still act but they would not have the killing power they do today. If someone has to change a clip after 5 shots it does present opportunity for people to either escape or act sooner than if the lunatics have a 30 + round clip.  Time yourself to see how quickly you can change a mag; I think that you will find this to not be accurate.
> 7-Should anything change regarding mental health or video games, movies?? Thank you Obama Care to the rescue. It's a national disgrace that we have allowed access to mental health to deteriorate in this country. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/07/affordable-care-act-mental-health/1566106/
> These are all my thoughts and my thoughts only, I respectfully ask to please not insult anyone's intelligence by trying to credit them to anyone else or any other group.
> Thanks Troy, my new friend. I don't have a real name, j/k, feel free to PM and I will gladly disclose.
> 
> 
> 
> Use your name. One of societies problems is everyone hides behind a screen name. If you have an opinion put your name on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You got me on that one, my name is Hoozelfritz McGillicutty, it is not anonymity that I was after, just embarrassed for my real name. :mrgreen: Many on here know my real name and same offer stands.
> One item that I have not seen you address, which seems to be more obvious addressing the mental health would be the background checks being more consistent to include the mentally adjudicated in a more consistent and uniform system. I am not decided either way, but certainly merits a discussion, what are your thoughts?
> Why are Chicago and DC with crazy strict gun control (both deemed to be illegal) some of the most dangerous places in the nation before and after enacting?
> Which other freedoms do you believe to be unnecessary or willing to give up?
Click to expand...


----------



## Huge29

Troy,
So, to reiterate, rather than quote a quote of a quote that is really long:
1-You now agree that it is a slippery slope and this argument does have merit contrary to previous discussion. To continue the previous thought, the argument by many in the anti gun camp that we are not after your hunting rifles is not true, correct? You are after my hunting rifles after all. Even my dad's 7 mag he bought in 1967 and passed on to me.
2-We can't compare to Mexico as it is apples and oranges, on the same note, we can't compare to Australia as you previously did, correct? Even the most ignorant of all gun haters know very well that guns cannot and will not be completely removed regardless of how anti Constitution any administration may be so the Aussie comparison is not a valid comparison, maybe I took this out of context as I asked for an example....? 
3-I just changed a 15 round clip on my XD in less than two seconds. I don't have a second clip on my defense rifle. I will be sure to correct that to do the test and get back to you.
4-The consistent theme among all of your assumptions are based is a large gaping hole IMHO (since a picture is worth a thousand words, I will keep this brief):


----------



## MadHunter

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Look into the eyes of these children and then you tell me why you need a f#$%&* weapon that in the wrong hands snuffed out their little lives and all the good things the kids would have done in the rest of their lives if they lived.
> Have you ever looked into the eyes of a dying child in your arms after a drunk driver hit him while he was riding his bike on a side walk mind you? I watched it all happen and could do nothing to stop it. Have DUIs become felonies with real consequences? Don't play the emotion card it's sickening. Especially to those of us that have had to look into the eyes of a dying child and felt the helplessnes. I don't blame the alcohol, or the car. I blame the a-hole that drove drunk. Did he need that fast car? Did he need all that horse power? Why not limit cars to 30hp? That's all they had back in the early 1900s
> 
> You people make me sick with your stupid arguments based on your religious worship of 27 words. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" The reason they chose it second was to make sure it was perfectly clear it was there to protect the first. History is full events where government turns on its people. It's happened for thousands of years over and over. It will not stop and for the first time in human history there is a document that protects the god given rights we have. *We do not worship those words nor should we. what we should do is live by them.*
> .......
> If your kids were in that classroom how would you feel. I challenge one of you to honestly say you would still have the same blind belief. Hopefully you will never have to find out.
> I really hope no one ever does. Although that little boy was not my kid or related to me he was a very close friends son. My friend doesn't blame the car or the alcohol either. You argument once again is flawed.


----------



## MadHunter

Treehugnhuntr said:


> Anyone know where I can pick up a pet unicorn that shhits jelly beans?


Our unimare just had one. Problem is he only shhhits green apple jelly beans. You interested?


----------



## huntingbuddy

The idea that magazines, pistol grips, and other such items does not make sense. The reason being is, none of the items change how the bullet itself functions. It will still leave the gun at a high velocity ripping apart whatever it comes in contact. Be it from my AR-15 or my bolt action hunting rifle, that bullet is still going to do the same amount of damage. 

There seems to be a common idea that we need to ban military rifles/assault weapons, civilians have no need for such weapons, all they need are hunting weapons. If we look back on history, many of the rifles that we use today were at one point military/assault weapons (I am using the term assault weapon very loosely). The mauser action was primarily designed for the German military and was used in a number of their military weapons. The mauser action is now a very popular action to put in a bolt rifle. 1906 Springfield was a military bolt action rifle chambered in 30.06, which now is considered by many to be the premier deer hunting caliber, however back in 1906 it was considered the premier human killer. 

You say that high capacity magazine and semi auto make a gun more lethal. I would have to say you are wrong. A gun's effectiveness comes down to how many hits on target it gets and what damage it does. I work in a gun range that rents full automatic weapons to customers that come in and shoot. After watching dozens and dozens of regular joes come in off the street and try and shoot an automatic weapon accurately. I can honestly say that if I knew the bad guy had a automatic weapon I would feel much safer going against him than if he had a handgun or a bolt gun.


----------



## huntingbuddy

For your viewing enjoyment, I put a smiley face on my target with a Thompson Sub Machine gun.


----------



## Stickboy

So as mentioned before. What is the problem with registration of firearms, especially these weapons of excessive lethality? No one is going to take it, they just want you to register it so as to track it better if it is stolen and it also helps with stop the illegal transfers. Sorry the Cali elected officals have spilled the beans. As currently proposed the "loop hole" in the modern sporting firearms ban of 2000 will be closed. All grand fathered 166,000 legally compliant owners will be required to surrender there arms to the proper channels. super majority in both portions of state government, Dem govenor. As Cali goes.........so goes the rest.


----------



## DallanC

Stickboy said:


> So as mentioned before. What is the problem with registration of firearms, especially these weapons of excessive lethality?* No one is going to take it*, they just want you to register it so as to track it better if it is stolen and it also helps with stop the illegal transfers. Sorry the Cali elected officals have spilled the beans. As currently proposed the "loop hole" in the modern sporting firearms ban of 2000 will be closed. All grand fathered 166,000 legally compliant *owners will be required to surrender there arms *to the proper channels. super majority in both portions of state government, Dem govenor. As Cali goes.........so goes the rest.


In your quote you mentioned both "no-one is going to take it" followed up by "owners will be required to surrender their arms"

Do you even realize how you sound to others?

-DallanC


----------



## MadHunter

DallanC said:


> Stickboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So as mentioned before. What is the problem with registration of firearms, especially these weapons of excessive lethality?* No one is going to take it*, they just want you to register it so as to track it better if it is stolen and it also helps with stop the illegal transfers. Sorry the Cali elected officals have spilled the beans. As currently proposed the "loop hole" in the modern sporting firearms ban of 2000 will be closed. All grand fathered 166,000 legally compliant *owners will be required to surrender there arms *to the proper channels. super majority in both portions of state government, Dem govenor. As Cali goes.........so goes the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> In your quote you mentioned both "no-one is going to take it" followed up by "owners will be required to surrender their arms"
> 
> Do you even realize how you sound to others?
> 
> -DallanC
Click to expand...

Hey Dallan....I think he was being sarcastic. It caught me off guard as well but I read it a couple of times and I got it. Not the best as a grammatical example I know.


----------



## DallanC

MadHunter said:


> Hey Dallan....I think he was being sarcastic. It caught me off guard as well but I read it a couple of times and I got it. Not the best as a grammatical example I know.


If that is the case, I apologize. Someone really needs to invent a "sarcasm" font 

-DallanC


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel

Stickboy said:


> So as mentioned before. What is the problem with registration of firearms, especially these weapons of excessive lethality? No one is going to take it, they just want you to register it so as to track it better if it is stolen and it also helps with stop the illegal transfers. Sorry the Cali elected officals have spilled the beans. As currently proposed the "loop hole" in the modern sporting firearms ban of 2000 will be closed. All grand fathered 166,000 legally compliant owners will be required to surrender there arms to the proper channels. super majority in both portions of state government, Dem govenor. As Cali goes.........so goes the rest.


Are you on drugs you crazy a hole???


----------



## MadHunter

Rebel... I know he reads a little odd but it made sense to me after a bit. I do however think he is on drugs if he thinks that Utah will go the way of cali. That statement of *AS CALI GOES....... SO DOES THE REST* is **** nuts.

Utahns will never allow something like that to happen. I can almost guarantee there will be massive marches, protests, people being forced to resign their government positions and even speak of secession before we do anything as nuts as what cali is doing.

Sorry STICKBOY we don't do cali crazy here. We have our own version of crazy and it involves keeping our guns! Why do you think I left that godless state 23 years ago?


----------



## Stickboy

Sorry fellas, I should have been more implicit. I am not on drugs or crazy. gramatically challenged...yea. I am still stuck on a comment way back in thread that "you can still own it.....just have to register it". That is the same shizzz they handed out here 13 years ago. Now guess what, they are going to close a "loopehole" for everyone that complied. That was my main point that wasn't delivered well. 

Do I think Utah or any other free state will introduce legislation in their local govn similar to what we deal with here? No. But it is obvious they are trying on a federal level. "As cali goes.....so does the rest". Where do you think the idea of a modern sporting fireamrs ban came from? Where did the term Assault weapon come from? you guessed it. Did you read fi-sti's characteristics that qualifies a firearm as banned? The "list" of guns is for the sheepal. They have been in one court case after another out here since 2000. They have had 13 yrs to tighten it up and roll it out on a federal level. 

22% of residents own firearms in this state. If you do the math we come in second to texas in just pure number of firearm owners. Yet we don't have a representation in local govn. We are organized and have had victories, but they are relentless. We would prefer they go away...they will not. 

I wished it were as easy as moving back to Utah, but I really feel that the real battle for preserving our rights takes place in states like Cali and NY. As proven, if they can make it stick there....when the opportunity arrives....they will roll it out on a federal level.

from behind enemy lines.


----------



## Loke

Stickboy said:


> 22% of residents own firearms in this state.


I'm going to dispute that figure. There may be 22% that legally own firearms, but I'll bet there are another 30% that own them contrary to the local or federal edicts.


----------



## Mavis13

Perhaps 22% own firearms; but I'd like to see what % of households have them.
If you look at my house my wife and kids don't technically own a firearm as I'm the acquirer of such things. Which puts us at about 20% but we do in fact have them.
Remember there are three kinds of lies:
Big ones,
Little ones,
and statistics.


----------



## ntrl_brn_rebel

It must suck living in California.....You should trade that liberal waste of space dukes daddy places stick boy :lol: He is fond of all the fun things the dems are doing :mrgreen:


----------



## Fishrmn

Loke said:


> I'm going to dispute that figure. There may be 22% that legally own firearms, but I'll bet there are another 30% that own them contrary to the local or federal edicts.


30%? I would guess a little bit higher than that.


----------



## Stickboy

ntrl_brn_rebel said:


> It must suck living in California.....You should trade that liberal waste of space dukes daddy places stick boy :lol: He is fond of all the fun things the dems are doing :mrgreen:


I hear ya Reb. The time I spent in Utah is full of awesome memories. Work has me here right now so while I am here I will try and inform my neighbors, if they are willing to listen. This duck season I shared a blind with two fellas that felt they didn't have a dog in the fight as far as gun control goes. After several weeks of suggesting they should do some research, they joined the crowd at the capital in protest.

The quote of 22% came from calguns forums and I am sure it didn't not include the gang-bangers :mrgreen: .

Rather the 22% is of households or residents as a whole, that is a ton of firearm owners without representation in local government.


----------

