Contact your Rep about gun control!

Look.. Here's the deal. The inability for those opposed to any sort of gun "restrictions" to be flexible, reasonable or sane irks me to death. Many times, I've been close to joining the NRA, but have pulled back due to their extreme stances that I feel do not reflect me nor help the country as a whole. It is times like these that I would hope that they would come to the table to be part of an evolving country instead of diametrically opposed to anything.

Its funny that never once did I mention anything in any of my posts about banning firearms, but people have been conditioned to react in such a hyper sensitized manner that whenever they read something that espouses anything other than "no restrictions", they instantly think normal folks want to ban everything. Scary huh.. The dynamic has changed to be more religious/dogmatic than anything.

Ignorant wrote: Look.. Here's the deal. The inability for those opposed to any sort of gun "restrictions" to be flexible, reasonable or sane irks me to death. Many times, I've been close to joining the NRA, but have pulled back due to their extreme stances that I feel do not reflect me nor help the country as a whole. It is times like these that I would hope that they would come to the table to be part of an evolving country instead of diametrically opposed to anything. Its funny that never once did I mention anything in any of my posts about banning firearms, but people have been conditioned to react in such a hyper sensitized manner that whenever they read something that espouses anything other than "no restrictions", they instantly think normal folks want to ban everything. Scary huh.. The dynamic has changed to be more religious/dogmatic than anything.

Oh no. You're going away now. No more dancing from point to point, no more hyperbole, you're gone. You said so yourself.

Define "Reasonable Restrictions"?

TRoglodyte wrote: Define "Reasonable Restrictions"?

nothing that would impact the needs for the hunter, shooter for hobby, or self defense.

Strong background checks.. probably need to revise them after this past weeks events.

Strong testing to be able to concealed carry.

Good safety training.

Most "Black" rifles etc.. are just not needed as are stupid things such as 30rd mags for handguns. Seriously people..

We have most of these things already in place, but are generally ineffective, neutered or poorly designed. Poorly designed policy is worse than a lack of policy.

I fully understand that the number of weapons on the street now is so enormous that any criminal who wants one will get one.. But if you look at some of the most tragic shootings recently( school shootings, this one in AZ) all weapons were obtained legally. I think there is a signifcant ability for us to cut down on these most tragic of shootings by just getting a bit tougher. I also agree trying to legislate to people who already disregard the law is silly.

Osterkraut wrote:

Ignorant wrote: Look.. Here's the deal. The inability for those opposed to any sort of gun "restrictions" to be flexible, reasonable or sane irks me to death. Many times, I've been close to joining the NRA, but have pulled back due to their extreme stances that I feel do not reflect me nor help the country as a whole. It is times like these that I would hope that they would come to the table to be part of an evolving country instead of diametrically opposed to anything. Its funny that never once did I mention anything in any of my posts about banning firearms, but people have been conditioned to react in such a hyper sensitized manner that whenever they read something that espouses anything other than "no restrictions", they instantly think normal folks want to ban everything. Scary huh.. The dynamic has changed to be more religious/dogmatic than anything.

Oh no. You're going away now. No more dancing from point to point, no more hyperbole, you're gone. You said so yourself.

ha ha fooled you.

Seriously.. Above.. You are comparing a moisin to a swede? come on.. really.

Ignorant wrote: ha ha fooled you. Seriously.. Above.. You are comparing a moisin to a swede? come on.. really.

Nice to know you're a man of your word.

And no. You said $120 was what you pay now for a "crap ass Mosin". Incorrect. But keep on dancing, eventually you'll run out of subjects to avoid.

Osterkraut wrote:

Ignorant wrote: ha ha fooled you. Seriously.. Above.. You are comparing a moisin to a swede? come on.. really.

Nice to know you're a man of your word. And no. You said $120 was what you pay now for a "crap ass Mosin". Incorrect. But keep on dancing, eventually you'll run out of subjects to avoid.

$120 is about what they go for here retail. You can get cheaper. my only point is that the a good deal of the good quality stuff has been snapped up already and the nature of the CRFFL doesn't allow for much selling.

what am I dancing around or avoiding? I'm not aware of anything....

Ignorant wrote: She's dead dude.. Joke all you want. She's DEAD.. She is the price of your freedoms. E36 M3 changes when you become a dad. She's your opportunity cost..

I understand that. If I was a parent I would ensure that I was doing everything in my power to protect my child. hell, I do that with my wife. THat's why A.) I own, carry and am proficient with my firearms and 2.) keep my head on a swivel when we're out looking for those things that stand out and are not right to keep outselves out of harms way to the best of my ability. I would give my life to protect her, and I am certain that had we decided to have children would have done the same for them.

I grew up around firearms. They were always loaded in the house, ready for use. I was taught by PARENTS (those are people that are supposed to raise children) that they were not toys. They were deadly. And I was tuaght how to properly handle them. IMO, every household should go through a class that teaches them proper treatment and use of firearms so that kids understand and know what it is, that it is not a toy and they are not to be treated lightly. Education over legislation every day in my book.

How the "hero" almost shot the wrong person.

^ I love how he "almost shot the worng person" but never drew his weapon. Gotta love sensationalism.

OMG, I almost had a wreck, but I wasn't driving.

What a crappy piece of agenda-based "reporting."

Otto Maddox wrote: How the "hero" almost shot the wrong person.

wow, no slant to that at all.

HE TOOK THE SAFETY OFF!!

he didn't even draw his weapon, and the guy he "shoved into a wall" HAD A GUN IN HIS HAND. a gun taken from the shooter, but a gun nonetheless. the guy didnt narrowly escape being shot, he narrowly escaped getting tackled and having said gun taken from him.

granted, first thing the unnamed bystander should have done was neutralize the gun. drop the mag, lock slide back. guns look a lot less scary that way too. also not holding it by the grip would be another way to not be mistaken for the shooter.

Ignorant wrote:

Osterkraut wrote:

Ignorant wrote: E36 M3 changes when you become a dad. She's your opportunity cost.. btw.. It really does suck that the CR FFL list got expanded.. I wonder how many people realize that you cannot modify the weapons in any way and still keep them C&R compliant. Ohh well....

WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN! And bust out the bubblewrap. Come on, Iggy. If we banned everything that ever caused a grieving parent there wouldn't be an internet for you to troll!

just admit that you're OK with her death and any other school massacre etc. that will come along because.. Thats the price of freedom. And I'll go away. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

I'll take the bold step. I'm ok with that. If it wasn't a gun it would be a knife. Should knives be outlawed at that point? After all, most all forms of martial arts were developed because weapons were banned totally in the region of origin like Okinawa or China. What's next? Banning martial arts? Then you end up with Capoeira. A martial art disguised as a dance.

Ignorant, this argument is unwinnable. You can post dead people all over this thread and it's only going to make people avoid your posts.

Life in America is not totally safe, it's free. I like it that way. To be completely safe would mean we couldn't even do what we talk about on this board - enjoy cars and their performance.

An attempt to take all risk out of air travel has given us the Keystone Kops of the Air - The TSA.

If freedom means that I might get shot one day, so be it.

Legislating life to the point where the lowest common denominator, aka a crazy phucker, can't do harm just means regular folks can't live regular lives. This was tragic, no doubt. But that doesn't mean the rest of us should pay because some nut bag lost his marbles.

Instead of gun control maybe the discussion should focus on how this guy was obviously crazy and received no help? That or wasn't locked up in the loon bin. Either way he wouldn't have shot any one.

Xceler8x wrote:

Ignorant wrote:

Osterkraut wrote:

Ignorant wrote: E36 M3 changes when you become a dad. She's your opportunity cost.. btw.. It really does suck that the CR FFL list got expanded.. I wonder how many people realize that you cannot modify the weapons in any way and still keep them C&R compliant. Ohh well....

WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN! And bust out the bubblewrap. Come on, Iggy. If we banned everything that ever caused a grieving parent there wouldn't be an internet for you to troll!

just admit that you're OK with her death and any other school massacre etc. that will come along because.. Thats the price of freedom. And I'll go away. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

I'll take the bold step. I'm ok with that. If it wasn't a gun it would be a knife. Should knives be outlawed at that point? After all, most all forms of martial arts were developed because weapons were banned totally in the region of origin like Okinawa or China. What's next? Banning martial arts? Then you end up with Capoeira. A martial art disguised as a dance.

There were two points I was trying to make with this...

1. There is a cost to everything and I think people need to understand that. Years ago on this forum I was attacked for having a US servicemember casulaty ticker in my signature. The point was that everything has a price. We should understand those costs... Rationalize them and accept them. Lots of folks fail to understand these costs. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

2. The firearms debate has reached the point that when any type of control is mentioned, no matter how reasonable or sane, The person mentioning the control is instantly labeled as anti-gun and therefore marginalized by a large group of people. There are sane people on both sides of the debate who need to be heard. Plenty of my friends are hunters, sportsmen, cops, target shooters.. Not one is of the "cold dead" hands type and these folks are being marginalized by groups such as the NRA. I think it's time for some solid dialog.

<Population more than tripled, crime rates did not. That shows data over 18 years. How much longer does one need to check? Or is it because your personal opinions differ than what the results show so you'd rather just dismiss those facts?

remember when Texas loosened it's restrictions on when a gun owner was allowed to use deadly force? Someone stealing their car and they could shoot them? I remember hearing how the sky was going to fall and there were going to be shootouts in the streets and gun crimes would go through the roof...... didn't happen.

It's already illegal to kill someone. It's already illegal to use a gun to kill someone. How about we enforce those laws that are already in place instead of making more laws for the law abiding citizens to deal with. Criminals don't give two E36 M3's about laws... that's why they are CRIMINALS. Why is that such a hard idea to fathom? + a brazillion

Ignorant wrote: There is no such thing as a free lunch.

So... the best way to prevent drunk driving is to make it harder for sober people to buy cars?

Duke wrote:

Ignorant wrote: There is no such thing as a free lunch.

So... the best way to prevent drunk driving is to make it harder for sober people to buy cars?

Now you're getting it!

hmm i've read spelling errors are caused by my pencil... damned pencils... but then why do I spell so poorly on the interwebz?... perhaps if we just stopped teaching people to read and write spelling errors would be gone forever...

In reply to Ignorant:

the reason you are met with a wall when you start discussing "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership is that it is a seriously slippery slope. also, who's version of "reasonable" should we use? mine? yours? nancy pelosi's? this guy committed a crime with a 33 round magazine, so people say "nobody NEEDS a 33 round magazine, lets outlaw them. then someone does the same with a 20 round magazine, what then? ban those? then someone else does it with a 10 rounder, what then?

the point that gun rights advocates are making, and it is a very relevant one, is that there was never a "need" for a gun in the first place, so why should whether someone "needs" a gun have anything to do with whether or not they can have one?

the bottom line is that those people who want to do away with guns completely want to do so by any means necessary, and they will get there one part or piece at a time if they have to. this is why the stance has to be that any restrictions on gun ownership be defeated, otherwise the right will slowly be chipped away at until it is practically or financially impossible to own a gun.

also, "black rifles" not needed? what does a "black rifle" do that a mini14 or a semiauto shotgun, or any other semiauto rifle can't or doesn't do? besides, like i said, its not a matter of whether or not someone "needs" it. those weapons are less than 1% of all gun related crimes anyways.

^ Stop bringing in common sense. You know that cannot fly in a conversation about the evil perils of gun-totin cowboys who are always looking for a fight and an excuse to shoot someone.

Strizzo wrote: In reply to Ignorant: the reason you are met with a wall when you start discussing "reasonable" restrictions on gun ownership is that it is a seriously slippery slope. also, who's version of "reasonable" should we use? mine? yours? nancy pelosi's? this guy committed a crime with a 33 round magazine, so people say "nobody NEEDS a 33 round magazine, lets outlaw them. then someone does the same with a 20 round magazine, what then? ban those? then someone else does it with a 10 rounder, what then? \

I got 3 cousins who are cops. Not one will support the need for a 33 round magazine.

Also, in my years at the range... The only folks with stuff such as 33 round mags were the yahoos who usually got kicked off for being morons.

The other funny thing is.. that most of the pro gun ban.. anti gun ban violence studies are noticably flawed... It's pretty much impossible to prove either side right or wrong.

The ammo tax is coming guys.. Thats the next one. They'll just make it too expensive to own weapons.. I see that coming soon. I also see permits to own one becoming very expensive. That way your right to own one hasn't been changed.. Just gotta pay for it.

Signal to noise ratio is skewing unfavorably. Thread is at risk of lockdown.

need...?... i don't NEED a TV... I don't NEED a computer (well maybe I do)... I don't NEED a car... I don't NEED a car that will do 200mph... or 75mph (FL interstate is limited to 70mph)... I don't NEED a house (could easily live in a dirt mound or a tent)... I don't NEED clothing.

lots of things that nobody NEEDS... but why is it that a few get to choose what I do or don't get based on what I do or don't "NEED"?... we could all live like Indigenous in some 3rd world countries... in a hut and live off the land... but I choose to own cars (that might be able to exceed the 70mph speed limit), computers (that I could use to hack financial institutions or swindle people from money (oh wait I don't live in Nigeria), a TV (reluctantly) and yes even guns.

silly little word NEED...

In reply to Ignorant:

so your cousins get to decide what the rest of the country is allowed? again based on what someone thinks everyone else should be allowed to have, based on "need".

seriously, no disrespect to your cousins on the force, but i don't know any officer who wouldn't prefer that the only people armed when citizens and officers come in contact is the officer. makes things easier for them if things go sideways

Strizzo wrote: In reply to Ignorant: so your cousins get to decide what the rest of the country is allowed? again based on what someone thinks everyone else should be allowed to have, based on "need". seriously, no disrespect to your cousins on the force, but i don't know any officer who wouldn't prefer that the only people armed when citizens and officers come in contact is the officer. makes things easier for them if things go sideways

look I didn't say they were against good citizens with CCW's and nor am I..

33 round mags in a handgun? come on.