Originally posted by telerionI take it you're not interested in a sub to Small Arms Review magazine? Lots of class three stuff there.
Being from central and northern Idaho, I grew up around gunnuts who sincerely believed that the government was going to come to their door one day and take all of their precious guns. According to them, one of the most important reasons for owning guns is so that they could fight of the government when it came to expropriate them.
Having escaped that ...[text shortened]... he people living there. I find all the anti-fed, pro-gun BS ignorance at its most outrageous.
Bazookas (man are you old) are classified as Type 2 weapons by the Nat'l Firarms Act Branch and are not available to civilians....only drug cartels may have them.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by telerionI respect your opinion but differ w/it.gun control has been the spring board for enslaving the populace in many other countries in recent history.Im not saying Obama-nites will do this but it puts us one step closer to tyranny possibly in the future.The nazi party used gun laws already in place.then went from there.Stalin,1929 established gun control.from 29' on 20,000,000 dissidents were rounded up(unable to defend themselves)and exterminated.1911 Turkey,gun control.1915-17 1.5million armenians rounded up,exterminated.Idi Amin,Pol Pot,...I think its nutty to think this could not happen in the west.hope it dont,but not impossible."to disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them"-george mason,american patriot."the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is,as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in goverment"-thomas jefferson
Being from central and northern Idaho, I grew up around gunnuts who sincerely believed that the government was going to come to their door one day and take all of their precious guns. According to them, one of the most important reasons for owning guns is so that they could fight of the government when it came to expropriate them.
Having escaped that ...[text shortened]... he people living there. I find all the anti-fed, pro-gun BS ignorance at its most outrageous.
Originally posted by utherpendragonI think any reasonable person must admit that there has to be a compromise on this issue between personal rights and public safety. Is it unreasonable to impose some regulations on firearms? Does limiting access to certain types of weapons constitute an act of tyranny?
I respect your opinion but differ w/it.gun control has been the spring board for enslaving the populace in many other countries in recent history.Im not saying Obama-nites will do this but it puts us one step closer to tyranny possibly in the future.The nazi party used gun laws already in place.then went from there.Stalin,1929 established gun control. ...[text shortened]... ms is,as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in goverment"-thomas jefferson
Thinking of expected costs is the likelihood that a future government will enslave the American people so sensitive to any gun regulation that each and every gun should be legal to each and every person?
I think that it is not. Instead we must a find a workable balance, and this will mean compromise. In a reasonable equilibrium there will still be some unfortunate accidents and even a few rampaging mass murders. Gun control advocates must accept that we cannot prevent every gun accident. On the other hand, the gun owners must accept that we, the public, cannot trust them with each and every sort of firearm. Perhaps that means that killing gophers won't be quite as enjoyable, but as long as they can still hunt, sport shoot, and provide for modest self-protection then I think they can forgo assault rifles and cooperate with waiting periods and background checks. Just as gun control advocates had to do, gun owners must face the reality that in any equilibrium there will still be unfortunate accidents. Innocent -people will still be killed from time to time. Private property will still be stolen or vandalized.
With or without guns, we cannot prevent all accidents. The gunnuts however that cry that the sky is falling anytime there is a move to refine the balance between private gun ownership and pubic safety --and, as you admit, under Obama's tenure there has not been one -- are not only plainly delusional but also an impediment to progress on this issue.
But that's why we have places like northern idaho and montana. The wackos can hide out on their ranches and hole up in their log cabin compounds and dream of a day when people actually give two *(#@'s about them and they can imagine going out in a blaze of glory.
Originally posted by smw6869Been in some shootouts with drug cartels lately?
I take it you're not interested in a sub to Small Arms Review magazine? Lots of class three stuff there.
Bazookas (man are you old) are classified as Type 2 weapons by the Nat'l Firarms Act Branch and are not available to civilians....only drug cartels may have them.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by telerionwell said. I agree w/you on much. however,there has been much compromise thus far.there are so many laws pertaining to guns its nearly impossible to count.Really! cant find a clear figure on it. Many claim 20,000 but that must be an exaggeration.more laws,stricter laws will not stop crimes committed w/guns but in my opinion it will do little more then infringe upon the rights of decent people and the people proposing them should be removed from office for violating their oath to preserve protect and defend the constitution. that said ,i dont think its a good idea for people to have true "assault weapons". which i define as fully auto-matic(ak-47,m16a2,oozie's,etc)or bazookas for that matter🙂.but many would want us to compromise all the way down to muskets. the regeristing of all guns and now all ammo w/micro serial# on them(proposed) makes me wonder how that will stop gun crime?it wont. but it will tell"them"exactly who has what,how much and where it is at.It seems many of these states are fed up w/it and r bucking back.Why do the Feds have to know all that?Let the states do it, i say .the way they want.thats the way it was meant to be in the beginning
I think any reasonable person must admit that there has to be a compromise on this issue between personal rights and public safety. Is it unreasonable to impose some regulations on firearms? Does limiting access to certain types of weapons constitute an act of tyranny?
Thinking of expected costs is the likelihood that a future government will enslave ...[text shortened]... ople actually give two *(#@'s about them and they can imagine going out in a blaze of glory.
Originally posted by utherpendragonI guess they should have made the relationship between the federal government and states more clear 200 years ago.
its no minor point! Its potentially HUGE! the feds have been mis -using the original intent of the inter state commerce law to bully around the states and dictate to them all sorts of non sense. they already said they r going to fight this in the supreme court regarding montana. if the courts go in favor of the states w/their interpretation it will s ...[text shortened]... ower of the big fed gov over the states.the way it started out over 200 yrs ago,as it should be.
Originally posted by telerionObviously you have not been following the news. Ask some people along the boarder with Mexico.....like Arizona. Nuff said from me on this subject. However i do agree with your thoughts on gun control, and i do believe that the 20,000 federal, state and local gun laws currently on the books in the US are Reasonable enough. Bazookas, is that some kind of bubble gum?
Been in some shootouts with drug cartels lately?
GRANNY.
Originally posted by utherpendragonI understand you better now.
well said. I agree w/you on much. however,there has been much compromise thus far.there are so many laws pertaining to guns its nearly impossible to count.Really! cant find a clear figure on it. Many claim 20,000 but that must be an exaggeration.more laws,stricter laws will not stop crimes committed w/guns but in my opinion it will do little more then ...[text shortened]... he states do it, i say .the way they want.thats the way it was meant to be in the beginning
I couldn't tell you whether there are enough federal gun laws or not. It would be interesting to know more about these 20,000 laws. For instance, do they all have different fundamental purposes or are many of them say "double countings" of the same law applied to different gun models? 20,000 just seems a bit exaggerated, but I could certainly be wrong. If it is true that there are 20,000 fundamentally different gun laws on the books, then that does seem excessive (at least at a superficial level, which is all my understanding of law permits).
The best economics studies that I've read that measured the impact of gun control on crimes suggested that there is a statistically significant negative relationship between increased control and homicides with a gun (though interestingly not with other crimes). Let's just for a moment assume that these findings are correct. I wonder how lifting federal regulations on guns and allowing states to decide everything would affect gun crimes in all states. It would seem that even if one state had very stringent gun regulations it could have high gun crime if its neighbors are very lax with their gun control. This would be one argument in favor of at least some federal control. If people in a conservative state are willing to accept an increase in gun crime rates in exchange for more personal freedom with firearms, they may inadvertently be displacing some of that crime on all their neighboring states.