GooberMcNutly wrote:

I was thinking about this today. You know how the latest Boston shit hitting the media fan made a whole new generation of rednecks hate on the vast majority of law-abiding Muslims because some unhappy, socially maladjusted Muslim did something bad?

Now you know how gun owners feel.

That's how they feel about what?  They feel that way because they can freely own a pistol, a shotgun and a breech-fed .30-06?

Or they feel that way because most of us don't think they should be able to own a SAW with a 100 round drum?  My fucking heart bleeds for you, I'm fine with my shotgun and rifle, what I have fits my need although I probably need to pick up a .22LR to train the boys with.  I don't understand what people are trying to accomplish here; please fill me in...

Tall Paul wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Baywolfe wrote:

And stupid people probably shouldn't own guns.  They're legally allowed to but, they just shouldn't.

Although this sounds reasonable on its surface, you may discover that clever people are more dangerous.  Crazy people, yes, take their guns.  Stupid people? not so sure.

Sure about that?

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcsi.d … logoypos=0

                                                                                                                                                             +click+

Bad linkage

Bolt Action.  Only a poor shot needs a semi auto. I've an indigenous friend down in R.I. who hunted with flintlocks for many years.  He has abandoned hunting do to the nutjobs who pass for hunters now days.

Oh, and sights.  If you can't get up on your deer from down wind close enough to use a hard sight, why are you even hunting?

I do 95% of my big game hunting with black powder (well, Triple-7 substitute...) but that doesn't make me not want to own an AR. And anyone who would pay $2.5k for an AR-15, no matter what the vintage, is being silly. I'm sure it's worth something to collectors, but so are pepper box pistols, but I wouldn't try to actually shoot one.

But while Dusty may consider it a form of manliness to self-restrict access to technology, if I'm going to kill something, I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure it's done in a quick and decisive manner with a minimum of suffering or chance to cause suffering.

You guys just keep telling yourself two things: You have no personal right to defend your own life or safety and that the Bill of Rights is 9 amendments taking power away from the Federal government and one amendment giving it all back. Then you can sleep soundly at night.

Ah, I prefer hunting more than pretending that I am soldier, or some fabled militia. This militia stuff is shite.  First ya got to be organized by the state, which none of these numb-fucks are.  If you want it to really, really, really real, you need training, not fucking fantasy cowboy shite. Look at the Swiss for god sakes.

It seems that your misinterpretations of what constitutes the constitution is a bit more widespread: 
http://www.upworthy.com/its-official-fo … y-3?c=upw1

Last edited by Dmtdust (2013-04-30 02:30:22)

GooberMcNutly wrote:

But while Dusty may consider it a form of manliness to self-restrict access to technology, if I'm going to kill something, I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure it's done in a quick and decisive manner with a minimum of suffering or chance to cause suffering.

However you have to admit you don't need a 30 round removable clip to do so, an 8 round breech load will do the same job.  We already draw lines, the question of where the lines are drawn is what is under discussion.  I'm in favor of a 8 or 10 round limit to all magazine's for all civilian owned weapons, if you can't do the job with that then you should be required to surrender your weapon on grounds of incompetency.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Baywolfe wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

https://cruelery.com/uploads/11_fat_guy … is_gun.gif

Good Grief!  I'm fat and I could fit inside him twice!

What do you think?  Five bills?

I'd like to see him try the Standing to Prone Rapid Fire course, hell - Standing to Sitting would be fun also....


And I can see why he'd want a large clip, he can't possibly aim that thing without external support.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Last edited by Emmeran (2013-04-30 17:15:23)

My wife told me to do something with my daughter after gymnastics today, she recommended going for hot chocolate or a donut. I thought, that's not special, plus once you've consumed the item where does that leave you. Instead we bought a pink Crickett for my six year old daughter...

http://www.crickett.com/

icangetyouatoe wrote:

Nothing says love like your own handgun or assault rifle, especially for children.

Toe!!!!

I'm saddened that I didn't get to see you before I left for the other shining sea...

Dmtdust wrote:

icangetyouatoe wrote:

Nothing says love like your own handgun or assault rifle, especially for children.

That is kind of wasted here sadly Mon Cher.  From what I see from Phredd, and a couple of others their supposed right to own a gun run a militia (state sponsored if I am correct)  trumps children's rights to pursue happiness, and oh, life.  Nothing does say love like an instrument of death kept around because you are scared shitless of other people.

What does this have to do with responsible gun ownership?  Responsible people do not buy guns for their children and worse, leave them unattended.  If I gave a car to a 10 year old and sent him out on the highway where he killed someone in a wreck, you wouldn't be bitching about car ownership.  You would be demanding that I be thrown in jail for negligence.

Ahh Congress - so many ways to get paid.

In 2004, the gun lobby backed an amendment to prohibit the ATF from requiring dealers to conduct annual inventories. In 2011, the bureau found that almost 18,500 guns were unaccounted for during the course of 13,100 compliance inspections, according to the ATF.

“Everyone from Wal-Mart (WMT) down to the corner grocery store understands how important it is to know where your stuff is. The firearms industry is the one industry in our country that doesn’t seem to think it’s a good idea.”

I was going to let this rest, but since you brought it up again, let me show you some of the language directly from the bill.  This language quoted below is only the part on transfers. 

If you loan your friend your shotgun before he buys his hunting license or before the season opens, or if he travels through a county where the hunting season is not open, both of you have committed a federal crime.

Only you can move your weapon.  If you place your weapon in your friends truck during a move, both of you have committed a federal crime.

If any of the above involves two or more guns, both of you are guilty of trafficking.

S.649 wrote:

(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee's inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

    `(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

        `(A) bona fide gifts between spouses, between parents and their children, between siblings, or between grandparents and their grandchildren;

        `(B) a transfer made from a decedent's estate, pursuant to a legal will or the operation of law;

        `(C) a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if--

            `(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed transferor;

            `(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and

            `(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days; and

        `(D) a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title made in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes if the transfer occurs--

            `(i) at a shooting range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in firearms and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting range;

            `(ii) at a target firearm shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by a State agency or nonprofit organization and the firearm is, at all times, kept within the premises of the shooting competition; or

            `(iii) while hunting or trapping, if--

                `(I) the activity is legal in all places where the unlicensed transferee possesses the firearm;

                `(II) the temporary transfer of possession occurs during the designated hunting season; and

                `(III) the unlicensed transferee holds any required license or permit.

    `(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `transfer'--

        `(A) shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or consignment, or other disposition; and

        `(B) shall not include temporary possession of the firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee while in the presence of the prospective transferee.

    `(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.

    `(B) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph--

        `(i) shall include a provision setting a maximum fee that may be charged by licensees for services provided in accordance with paragraph (1); and

        `(ii) shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee accordance with paragraph (1).'.

Well, Phreddy, it seems like any senator who had a better way to deal with the problem of hand gun lending among criminals, which is commonplace in many cities, could easily have voted to allow the bill to come before the full senate where amendments could be offered and considered.  Instead, the filibuster succeeded and the compromise bill (drafted by Mr Club-for-Growth himself) died without debate.

phreddy wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Furthermore tell your lazy-ass fucking friend to go get a shotgun license if he wants to borrow your shotgun.

The Constitution wrote:

.....SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

WELL REGULATED MILITIA...

I'm also glad to see that you support the individual citizens right to own Stinger missles...

Last edited by Emmeran (2013-05-10 14:53:06)

Htom Sirveaux wrote:

Under the theory that the Founders (PBUH) designed the second amendment as a recourse against tyranny, then it's perfectly legitimate to mail ricin to your senator when you personally feel your rights are being infringed.

True - Ricin technically is a munition when used in that manner; the right to bear arms shall not be infringed after all.

phreddy wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Htom Sirveaux wrote:

Under the theory that the Founders (PBUH) designed the second amendment as a recourse against tyranny, then it's perfectly legitimate to mail ricin to your senator when you personally feel your rights are being infringed.

True - Ricin technically is a munition when used in that manner; the right to bear arms shall not be infringed after all.

Personally, I believe we should have the right to manufacture ricin if we wish.  Sending it in the mail or otherwise using it to poison someone has always been a crime.  We should also have the right to distill liquor and grow marijuana and opium poppies, so long as we don't give them to a minor.  We should be allowed to appear drunk or stoned in public so long as we leave others alone.  There are any number of restrictions on our rights which we have given up because it is convenient for law enforcement.  Some of these rights are specifically mentioned in the Constitution and fortunately, people like you two have been unable to extinguish them, yet.

So then you agree with my right to own and use guided missiles?

phreddy wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

So then you agree with my right to own and use guided missiles?

Why not?  So long as you observe the same handling and storage protocol as the military does.  However, if your use, storage, or handling hurts innocent people, you should suffer the consequences.  And, my why not question was not rhetorical.  Tell me why not.

Wait, now you are tacking on regulations and infringing my right to bear that arm.  I know for a fact those missiles are safely stored in such locations as grain bins, under beds and caves throughout the world.

Last edited by Emmeran (2013-05-10 17:22:54)

Phreddy's looking for the libertarian bailout.  Oops.  I probably offended somebody again.  There are no judicial scholars I know of that think the second amendment, or any other amendment, is intended to be absolute.  One thing you can be very confident of is that the drafters would have been a lot more circumspect with their wording if they had foreseen the kinds of arms that now exist.

Dmtdust wrote:

https://cruelery.com/uploads/thumbs/5_gun.jpg

A)Has ANYONE argued that a 5 year old should have a gun?

B)Explain to me how a service provided by other human beings is a right?

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Dmtdust wrote:

Oh Ranger, please display your self centered Knuckle dragging.  I love it when you go all "I am a Libertarian and don't interact or care about others".  It is so macho, it sends the ladies quivering.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/0 … ual-right/

For the record, I am OK with the idea of socialized medicine, as long as it is implemented wisely.  So far here in the US, IMLTHO, it has not.  I like how things are done in the UK, where you still have to option to choose private health insurance, with which comes an almost concierge level of service.  At least over there I can have the callouses removed from my knuckles in a timely fashion, without having to pay exorbitant premiums or wait for a  Purgatorian endothermic event.

Also for the record, I am a Frisbeetarian, having abandoned Libertarianism as being as idealistically implementable as Socialism.  We need government (to an extent) to provide services (within reason), which must be paid for by taxes (also withing reason).  It's all part of growing up and being civilized.

XregnaR wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

https://cruelery.com/uploads/thumbs/5_gun.jpg

A)Has ANYONE argued that a 5 year old should have a gun?

Besides you, you mean? Or am I wrong and you're not a dot dot dot head? You know what I mean, the kind of guy who loves the Constitution so much that he just can't bring himself to admit that parts of it exist? The "... the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" crowd. Maybe I'm confusing you with Phreddy, sorry.

There are people who think nothing of marketing killing machines to 5 year-olds so long as the money rolls in. How do you feel about that?

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

annnnd marketing (on que)

Last edited by choad (2013-06-12 14:17:04)

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Emmeran wrote:

https://cruelery.com/uploads/11_fear_of_strangers.jpg

A wee bit of perfection and truth.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs