?

[Tripleshot]

AndrewR

Well,thank you for not flaming me so harshly for calling the country a Democracy. At least you saw the (?). I have heard that people refer to the country as being a republic and some day I'll check the funk and wagnall defination. but,in your analaysis of a majority (or lack thereof) if they where only 33% apposed and 66% for or ambiveleant,I'ld think the majority won.

Or could it be becuase they had the guns and the nay sayers had to go along with the majority or get blasted?

At any rate,we do not bow down to kings and queens now, do we?:

 

[Russ]

Tripleshot,



<< when you get a hard on for someone posting their feelings about a topic without giving FACTS,Its ok for you not to have to produce them ,but not others? >>



I produced plenty. Please go back and re-read my posts and note each time the word &quot;FACT&quot; appears. I don't need a stupid link to some biased site to present what is commonly known, and universally acknowledged, by all but the most obtuse.

jumpem,



<< Now, when am I ever going to get that pistol permit back, so I can go get a new .45ACP H&amp;K? >>



What do you mean by this statement? In most states, one only loses their permit by violating the law. If that is the case, then I don't want you carrying a gun. If it's not the case, and there is some legitimate reason, than I apologize. But, I'd like to hear an explanation.

Russ, NCNE

 

[ElFenix]

uh, in states where there are concealed carry laws the violent crime rate has dropped significantly faster than in places where there aren't those laws. just something to chew on. (i know, its unbelieveable, but its the actual truth.)

oh yeah, we don't live in a democracy. 60% of the voting eligible people disenfranchise themselves. therefore its a republic, which is a better form of rule according to many classic thinkers (aristotle for one, there was also the roman republic, and a whole bunch of enlightenment thinkers, the founding fathers being some, who saw it as better too.) of course, now i think we're legally a democracy, since pretty much damn near anyone can vote, if they want (in texas its extremely easy, actually, in comparison to a lot of states. of course, in canada its easier. you don't even have to be who you say you are.)

 

[Tripleshot]

AndrewR

<<Please find a reference somewhere to a situation where a legally owned automatic weapon was used in the commission of a crime. We'll wait.

It is not legal to own a fully auotomatic weapon,but I suppose it was just a pea shooter that the crimanals used that robbed that bank in LA and the whole damn nation watched the cops getting there asses shot off.

Rather disingenuous of you, isn't it? Of course thats to be expected.
I hope you do not advocate legal ownership of automatic weapons.

<<Sure, I'll trust my rights to someone with a questionable scientific background making opinions about my mental health given their unknown background and biases. Sounds reasonable.

I suppose a means testing for concealed wepons registration is too far to the left for you. What the hell could you be afraid of? Do you posess a mental deficiency that may pre empt you from obtaining a concealed weapon permit? If you are concerned,I would submit your &quot;right&quot; to conceal may be suspect. BTW,even law enforcement people who wear there side arm in full view submit to mental health evaluation. What are you afraid of?

<<Ok, you call etech's links &quot;right wing rags&quot; while you link to Handgun Control, Inc.????? At least try not to display as much hypocrisy as Gore and Lieberman do even if it does suit a Democrat these days.

I wasn't dipaying any hypocracy Andy. I submitted a link for you people to chew on. It started light hearted with emoticons,but some people want to take it further and insult peoples intelligence.You don't find me out there polling this and polling that like some people. I get crap flying to make people THINK.
In return,you folks get me to re examine my thinking. If it has that effect on me,I presume it may do the same for others.

 

[Tripleshot]

Russ

Yep you use it alot,but you never back it up.Its just your frigging opinion until you back it up with supporting evedence. It appears you really think that if you say it is so,then it must be so. I don't subscribe to your method of defending your postion. I respect your position,but when you tell everyone else to &quot;produce&quot; the facts to back up thier oppisition to your way of thinking and you don't do the same,you are no better than anyone else.

Looks like Etech has done a much better job than you to defend your arguments.Did you hire him as your mouthpiece?

ElFenix

I have seen that statistic before,and I am pleased as punch that the crime rate is down among states that enacted concealed weapons laws,but to totally attribute the decline on that alone is not responsible on my part. I think there is much more to the statistic than that,like more police officers,more prisons, more enforcement of existing laws.

Thanks too, for pointing out the drift to democracy this poor fledgling country has been heading towards. The Hayden Lake right wing had me worried for a moment.

 

[lektrogirl]

Tripleshot,

The one thing many anti-gun activists fail to acknowledge is that Mr Criminal doesn't go to K-Mart to go buy a gun or register an AK47 for that matter, he (or she for that matter) goes on the black market and finds them rather easily, a black market, i'm affraid to say, that would continue to sell guns to criminals, whether or not they were &quot;ok&quot; in society's eyes. When you take the guns away from the law-abiding citizens, you let the criminals feel pretty damn safe.



Tripleshot, you had also made mention of some McDonald's shooting or something?


What about when those crazies that go on shooting rampages are stopped in their tracks because someone in the crowd just happened to have a concealed weapons permit?



Lektro

 

[JellyBaby]

Tripleshot, you amaze me. It's clear you've lost the argument in this thread. In fact I've yet to see you come out on top in any thread, really. Yet you persist onward in your stubborness. This is foolish and you look ridiculous. I suppose it's amusing to watch but you do a disservice to people like Russ, AndrewR and others by wasting their time continually putting you in your place. Heh, actually I'm glad they do take time to spank you silly. God knows what the young viewers in this board might pickup from you if there were no contrary (and more often correct) viewpoints.

Sorry if I seem harsh but you ignore arguments and repeat yourself. To me, that's lame and I felt like letting you know. Rock on.

 

[Russ]

Tripleshot,

You're unbelievable. You attack Andrew with this:



<< Rather disingenuous of you, isn't it? Of course thats to be expected.
I hope you do not advocate legal ownership of automatic weapons. >>



When he was simply responding to YOUR ignorant statement:



<< I do not support the need for automatic weapons for any person not in uniform to protect my country or my community >>



For someone who claims to be a member of the NRA, you sure come up woefully inadequate in the facts department.



<< Sounds like a pageout of the NRA handbook. >>



Here's another little clue for you. I've never read the NRA &quot;handbook&quot;. You know why? Because I'm not now, nor have I ever been a member of the NRA. I arrived at my conclusions by thinking for myself. Try it sometime.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Jumpem]

Hey Russ:

I'm sending in the application but my cousin's and another friend's took a few months to finally receive here in NY. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Tripleshot]

JellyBaby

So you think I should give Russ and Andrew a pass because I am alone in my defense of my ideals? Do think that is a better message, to have only one viewpoint prevail?

I'm sorry to disapoint you and others,but I started this thread and felt compelled to at least defend myself from this right wing attack. I stated my position and I think it is reasonable. If I didn't think it was defendable,I would not have started it.

I will find somewhere else to spend my computer time. I'm so sorry to have offended so many.

 

[etech]

Tripleshot,&quot;I can honestly say I do not have a clue about Gores stance on this issue,but this link should give you some insight as to G.W. Shrubs position.&quot;

I'm sorry, what was your position in this thread again I think the only thing that everyone can agree on is your first sentence. &quot;I can honestly say I do not have a clue&quot;

&quot;Did you hire him as your mouthpiece? &quot; Nope, and since you have sunk to the level of insults, it has proven that you arguments lack merit and you are getting desperate, not suprising for a Democrat.

 

[AndrewR]

<< in your analaysis of a majority (or lack thereof) if they where only 33% apposed and 66% for or ambiveleant,I'ld think the majority won. >>


Whoa, you need a math course. It looks like a minority (33%) dictated to a majority (66%), and you agree with the outcome. Your alleged comparison to Texas is no different.


<< It is not legal to own a fully auotomatic weapon,but I suppose it was just a pea shooter that the crimanals used that robbed that bank in LA and the whole damn nation watched the cops getting there asses shot off. >>


It IS legal to own an automatic weapon in the U.S., but there is a rather rigorous process to undergo when doing so, much more than a regular gun. The weapons that were used in the LA bank robbery where illegal -- how does the passage of new laws make them more illegal??? Further, they weren't exactly concealing AK-47s on their body, and they did not have concealed carry permits. California also requires gun registration, if I'm not mistaken, and that didn't appear to hinder those criminals. How would more laws have affected that? Trigger locks???


<< What the hell could you be afraid of? >>


Dishonest use of the system to prevent gun ownership/concealed carry in specific segments of the population (minorities, women, men -- whatever the &quot;specialist&quot; deems as inappropriate), or just someone in that job who disagrees with gun ownership in general making it more difficult for people to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment. Why give the government that ability when there are already enough laws on the books making it difficult for people to acquire, own, and carry weapons? More effort should be made to punish those with guns who use them improperly instead of throwing those charges out for judicial expedience.


<< I wasn't dipaying any hypocracy Andy. I submitted a link for you people to chew on. >>


I understand that, but if you are going to &quot;submit a link&quot; then you had better qualify it when it's something like Handgun Control, Inc., which is so rabidly liberal anti-gun that it's ridiculous. I am sorry that James Brady is brain damaged from the Hinckley's [sp?] bullet, but the man was mentally deranged! The government is incapable of protecting every single citizen from nutcases who are intent on doing harm, and my rights should not be taken away simply because something bad happened to someone else.

On that basis, we should ground all air traffic because we've had accidents that have killed people. No cars either. Oh, yeah, sailors on the U.S.S. Stark had their shoes melted onto their feet so no patent leather either. Ixnay on meat because of e coli. NO eggs -- no way. Should I continue?

 

[JellyBaby]

Tripleshot,

<< So you think I should give Russ and Andrew a pass >>

A pass?! In my view they've &quot;won&quot;. It's almost as if you don't really read what they're posting. Do you have your retort ready before you even finish reading another's post? Seems to be a communications problem on your part. I've had that failing myself in a couple of threads. The fix is easy: just listen and reread posts if you must.

For example, try responding to AndrewR's latest question, << weapons that were used in the LA bank robbery where illegal -- how does the passage of new laws make them more illegal??? ... >>

You've danced around it several times. If you think he's right, just say so.

 

[Moonbeam]

Crime is down. It would be down whether we eliminate or impliment conceal and carry laws. When the economy turns south crime will be up again, regardless. Where does Jesus stand on guns?

 

[thebestMAX]

What I want to know is why, since I have a legal carry permit, must I carry my weapon fully concealed?

I would think open view would be more of a deterrent to crime that the criminal thinking there is a POSSIBILITY that someone might be armed in the place he is going to rob. I know it would make me first target but any police officer knows that.

Comments?

 

[JellyBaby]

<< What I want to know is why, since I have a legal carry permit, must I carry my weapon fully concealed >>

You'd prefer a raw-hide cowboy hat, a leather vest and a belt w/holster? Saddle up. Lock and load, partner.

Ever walk into a federal building (or any other locale where there's cops 'o plenty)? Half the people you see are packing openly. It's a bit disconerting at first glance but you do feel quite safe after a while.

 

[thebestMAX]

JELLY,

Ill take that comment as agreeing with me, I think. Did live in Montana for quite a few years so maybe you are right. There and then it was legal to carry but ONLY out in the open.

BTW, even with a carry permit, you cant carry in many places such as airports, schools, federal bldgs, post office and so on. Not the above but a lot of places where you are likely to need a weapon are banned.
Hee Hee

 

[Ferocious]

NRA is becoming more and more an ANTI-American organization.

The majority of the people want some form of gun control.

Let the people have their way!

I am personally against the death penalty at this time because certain classes of people are exempt from it. But the majority of PEOPLE are for it.....and I have no problem with that in it's continued use.

Republicans need to learn (and I used to be one) that what the people desire is what's best for the country. They seem to have trouble understanding this concept time and time again.

 

[KingHam]

<< Republicans need to learn (and I used to be one) that what the people desire is what's best for the country. They seem to have trouble understanding this concept time and time again. >>



Where do people come up with this stuff?

KingHam

 

[thebestMAX]

Never underestimate/overestimate the stupidity/intellegence of the American people.

There, I think I said it all.

 

[JellyBaby]

thebestMAX,

yes I was agreeing with you. Criminals would love it if they knew their prey was completely declawed.

Ferocious,

The NRA is a powerful organization that lobbies for the rights of gunowners. Even though they're quite stubborn on some issues (requiring gunlocks, background checks at gun shows, etc.), without them the socialists would have taken our right to bear guns away years ago. The federal government has no right to dictate on this issue.

I'm not sure how many times this needs repeating but I will one more time for you: gun control does not take guns away from the criminals. Shall I repeat that? Gun control does not take guns away from the criminals. I know it's a great sound bite for the attention deficit but it's a dangerous thing to say. Unless you put up concrete walls at our borders, destory all gun manufacturers and somehow magically prevent home-brew guns, you will have to deal with guns in our society. Good guys and bad will have them.

The majority of people where I live do not want gun control. What planet are you inhabiting? If anything, individual states should decide this issue. Give those who favor gun control the chance to move to a state with support for their views. Good luck to you btw, you'll need it.

 

[Russ]

<< When the economy turns south crime will be up again, regardless. >>



Moonbeam,

Ding, ding. Wrong. This is another fallacy not supported by historical fact. In the 1960's when the economy was booming, crime increased. In the 1930's, in the depths of the Great Depression, crime dropped dramatically from the previous &quot;roaring twenties&quot; decade.

There are many factors involved in the ebb and flow of crime, but the liberal economic &quot;excuse&quot; is not one of them.

Russ, NCNE

 

[desy]

OK I'll jump into this one.
If gun control is bad why do we here in Canada have 10X less gun crime than the US per capita. Our law allows rifles but no HGs or ARs and no carry permits. No-one here feels they need &quot;home protection&quot; against armed intruders or worry about walking 'most' streets.
Is this a cultural difference? We watch the same TV, see the same ads
have essentially the same amount of property crimes etc just not ones that involve guns? This isn't a dig I'm just looking for some theories to explain the difference.

Our current gov't legislated a law where EVERY gun must be registered with the gov't, our NFA has proposed that you create a registry of liscenced owners without worrying about the actual #,type, ownership of the guns. I'd be in favor of this type of registration cause people trade guns like they trade baseball cards and to have gov't involved in every single change of ownership 'as is being proved out as we speak' is a expensive nightmare. Not to mention those who will refuse to register their guns anyways.
Our gun problems are way less than the US but there are still people pushing even more bizarre laws. In Ontario the opposition wants to make it illegal for anybody under 18 to buy even a toy cap gun?

Which to me represents WHY there is sooo much resistance to registration in the US, once one domino tumbles they all fall I'm afraid, but still isn't there some compromise that would lead to people being more responsible owners of firearms?

 

[robisc]

I have to get in on this one and first of all Ferocious you say:

1. &quot;NRA is becoming more and more an ANTI-American organization&quot;

I disagree when this is an organization that is actually lobbying for and defending our rights most importantly our constitutionally granted second amendment rights to keep and bear arms, this amendment is no less important than the first or the others. The NRA is probably being more &quot;American&quot; than some of our liberal government that is trying to take these rights away from us.

2. &quot;The majority of the people want some form of gun control&quot;

Where did this come from, some liberal poll taken by the Washington Post? Take a real life non biased poll across a comprehensive view of Americans not just Hollywood and I'll guarantee you they will not favor gun control.

3. &quot;Let the people have their way!&quot;

Yes I agree with this idea, unlike the 96 election when Clinton was nominated with less than the majority.

And JellyBaby you couldn't have said it better:

&quot;Gun control does not take guns away from the criminals&quot;

I totally agree, I don't seem to notice that illegal drug control has stopped drug pushers in this country so why would gun control, it is that simple.

If you want to read a FACT-filled true book check out, More Guns, Less Crime : By Professor John Lott.

 

[DaBoneHead]

My $.02.

If you carry a gun, and you get pissed off at someone, you may in a fit of rage use that gun. Think about road rage... Judgement can and does slip, I just hope that when it does you dont' have easy access to a weapon, because it could get ugly.

I asked my father about this (he is a pro-gun retired 26yr cop) and he is actually against it, and I will tell you why.

In Pennsylvania (where he was state cop), they have laws against carrying concealed weapons. However, there are no real laws about carrying one in the open. If you want to be a 'John Wayne' and swagger down the street with your six-shooter on, you can. You can even go into stores and any public building. One thing you can't do is get in a car. The moment you do the weapon becomes &quot;concealed&quot;. Now others can't see that you have a weapon, and you are in violation. Bush's thing would make it easier to carry guns in cars. And I don't know about you, but unless you are living in a fairey-tale land, the idea of people with guns in cars, and the incidents of road-rage that occur daily, should make you lose sleep. It does me.

Guns have a role in defending ones home and loved ones, but they don't belong on the highways, in schools, or anywhere that they can become a destabalizing influence.

There, I gave you both barrels of my $.02.