Pages:
Author

Topic: Do you own a firearm? (Read 4435 times)

sr. member
Activity: 994
Merit: 441
July 16, 2014, 11:31:49 AM
Yes, sana, I am amongst the center. I lean left, but I am, overall, a moderate. In fact, Alaska, this issue is one of those that PROVES I'm part of the middle. I don't support bans on civilian ownership of guns. I DO support gun ownership, and even concealed carry. I just support reasonable regulation on both. What regulation of guns do YOU support?
I suggest that maybe you've isolated yourself among like minded people for so long that you may have lost track of what 'normal' is. See, that's where the problem begins because in my experience, people who have to say they support 'reasonable' regulation generally support nothing of the kind.  "Reasonable" becomes indicative of anything but reasonable. Oh, well that's easy.  Have you been convicted of a violent crime of any sort?  No gun for you, for 10 years. (back ground check by state governments).  Have you used a gun to commit a crime?  (aggravating factor at sentencing).  Are you under the care of a psychiatrist/psychologist?  A word from them to the local police... no guns for you.
Are you a convicted felon?   No gun for you.   Sorry, zolace.
A felony isn't necessarily a 'violent crime'.
It still precludes you getting a permit to carry a gun in MOST cases, 'violent' crime or not.

http://www.gunlawsbystate.com/felons-and-firearms/
Which is a good example of why folks like me think of governments as ham fisted and distrust them.
And yet you're a government worker, an enforcer.   This is a problem, sana.  Cognitive disconnect.
Not at all.

I was born into this country, a nation that whose national government has lost its mind and is self destructing.  Pragmatically speaking, there isn't a damn thing I can do about that so... I look out for myself and my own.

While doing that, I try to sound the alarm.  Perhaps its useless but... there it is.

The federal government is going to collapse.  How violent it becomes as it dies, remains to be seen.  The soviet union died without bloodshed.  One hopes unka sam is at least as good as the soviet union in that respect.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.  The state governments will be the only entities capable of resisting the might of the feds if the feds decide to start killing people.

"We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!" J. Picard speaking of the Borg.

The US federal government has become very much like the Borg.

The federal government is going to collapse.  How violent it becomes as it dies, remains to be seen.  The soviet union died without bloodshed.  One hopes unka sam is at least as good as the soviet union in that respect.
Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

Many millions believe this and have planned for it. Peaceful or violent many will die either from the violence or just starve to death. We are never farther in time from total anarchy than the next meal once all systems fail.

Similar to "Lucifer's Hammer"...
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
July 16, 2014, 11:22:29 AM
Yes, sana, I am amongst the center. I lean left, but I am, overall, a moderate. In fact, Alaska, this issue is one of those that PROVES I'm part of the middle. I don't support bans on civilian ownership of guns. I DO support gun ownership, and even concealed carry. I just support reasonable regulation on both. What regulation of guns do YOU support?
I suggest that maybe you've isolated yourself among like minded people for so long that you may have lost track of what 'normal' is. See, that's where the problem begins because in my experience, people who have to say they support 'reasonable' regulation generally support nothing of the kind.  "Reasonable" becomes indicative of anything but reasonable. Oh, well that's easy.  Have you been convicted of a violent crime of any sort?  No gun for you, for 10 years. (back ground check by state governments).  Have you used a gun to commit a crime?  (aggravating factor at sentencing).  Are you under the care of a psychiatrist/psychologist?  A word from them to the local police... no guns for you.
Are you a convicted felon?   No gun for you.   Sorry, zolace.
A felony isn't necessarily a 'violent crime'.
It still precludes you getting a permit to carry a gun in MOST cases, 'violent' crime or not.

http://www.gunlawsbystate.com/felons-and-firearms/
Which is a good example of why folks like me think of governments as ham fisted and distrust them.
And yet you're a government worker, an enforcer.   This is a problem, sana.  Cognitive disconnect.
Not at all.

I was born into this country, a nation that whose national government has lost its mind and is self destructing.  Pragmatically speaking, there isn't a damn thing I can do about that so... I look out for myself and my own.

While doing that, I try to sound the alarm.  Perhaps its useless but... there it is.

The federal government is going to collapse.  How violent it becomes as it dies, remains to be seen.  The soviet union died without bloodshed.  One hopes unka sam is at least as good as the soviet union in that respect.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.  The state governments will be the only entities capable of resisting the might of the feds if the feds decide to start killing people.

"We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!" J. Picard speaking of the Borg.

The US federal government has become very much like the Borg.
legendary
Activity: 944
Merit: 1026
July 16, 2014, 11:18:12 AM
LOL - Abraham Lincoln was ultimately responsible for the deaths of more American citizens than than anyone in history, until FDR.  
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
July 16, 2014, 11:14:13 AM
Yes, sana, I am amongst the center. I lean left, but I am, overall, a moderate. In fact, Alaska, this issue is one of those that PROVES I'm part of the middle. I don't support bans on civilian ownership of guns. I DO support gun ownership, and even concealed carry. I just support reasonable regulation on both. What regulation of guns do YOU support?
I suggest that maybe you've isolated yourself among like minded people for so long that you may have lost track of what 'normal' is. See, that's where the problem begins because in my experience, people who have to say they support 'reasonable' regulation generally support nothing of the kind.  "Reasonable" becomes indicative of anything but reasonable. Oh, well that's easy.  Have you been convicted of a violent crime of any sort?  No gun for you, for 10 years. (back ground check by state governments).  Have you used a gun to commit a crime?  (aggravating factor at sentencing).  Are you under the care of a psychiatrist/psychologist?  A word from them to the local police... no guns for you.
Are you a convicted felon?   No gun for you.   Sorry, zolace.
A felony isn't necessarily a 'violent crime'.
It still precludes you getting a permit to carry a gun in MOST cases, 'violent' crime or not.

http://www.gunlawsbystate.com/felons-and-firearms/
Which is a good example of why folks like me think of governments as ham fisted and distrust them.
And yet you're a government worker, an enforcer.   This is a problem, sana.  Cognitive disconnect.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
July 16, 2014, 11:07:41 AM
Yes, sana, I am amongst the center. I lean left, but I am, overall, a moderate. In fact, Alaska, this issue is one of those that PROVES I'm part of the middle. I don't support bans on civilian ownership of guns. I DO support gun ownership, and even concealed carry. I just support reasonable regulation on both. What regulation of guns do YOU support?
I suggest that maybe you've isolated yourself among like minded people for so long that you may have lost track of what 'normal' is. See, that's where the problem begins because in my experience, people who have to say they support 'reasonable' regulation generally support nothing of the kind.  "Reasonable" becomes indicative of anything but reasonable. Oh, well that's easy.  Have you been convicted of a violent crime of any sort?  No gun for you, for 10 years. (back ground check by state governments).  Have you used a gun to commit a crime?  (aggravating factor at sentencing).  Are you under the care of a psychiatrist/psychologist?  A word from them to the local police... no guns for you.
Are you a convicted felon?   No gun for you.   Sorry, zolace.
A felony isn't necessarily a 'violent crime'.
It still precludes you getting a permit to carry a gun in MOST cases, 'violent' crime or not.

http://www.gunlawsbystate.com/felons-and-firearms/
Which is a good example of why folks like me think of governments as ham fisted and distrust them.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
July 16, 2014, 11:05:02 AM
Yes, sana, I am amongst the center. I lean left, but I am, overall, a moderate. In fact, Alaska, this issue is one of those that PROVES I'm part of the middle. I don't support bans on civilian ownership of guns. I DO support gun ownership, and even concealed carry. I just support reasonable regulation on both. What regulation of guns do YOU support?
I suggest that maybe you've isolated yourself among like minded people for so long that you may have lost track of what 'normal' is. See, that's where the problem begins because in my experience, people who have to say they support 'reasonable' regulation generally support nothing of the kind.  "Reasonable" becomes indicative of anything but reasonable. Oh, well that's easy.  Have you been convicted of a violent crime of any sort?  No gun for you, for 10 years. (back ground check by state governments).  Have you used a gun to commit a crime?  (aggravating factor at sentencing).  Are you under the care of a psychiatrist/psychologist?  A word from them to the local police... no guns for you.
Are you a convicted felon?   No gun for you.   Sorry, zolace.
A felony isn't necessarily a 'violent crime'.
It still precludes you getting a permit to carry a gun in MOST cases, 'violent' crime or not.

http://www.gunlawsbystate.com/felons-and-firearms/
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
July 16, 2014, 11:01:50 AM
Yes, sana, I am amongst the center. I lean left, but I am, overall, a moderate. In fact, Alaska, this issue is one of those that PROVES I'm part of the middle. I don't support bans on civilian ownership of guns. I DO support gun ownership, and even concealed carry. I just support reasonable regulation on both. What regulation of guns do YOU support?
I suggest that maybe you've isolated yourself among like minded people for so long that you may have lost track of what 'normal' is. See, that's where the problem begins because in my experience, people who have to say they support 'reasonable' regulation generally support nothing of the kind.  "Reasonable" becomes indicative of anything but reasonable. Oh, well that's easy.  Have you been convicted of a violent crime of any sort?  No gun for you, for 10 years. (back ground check by state governments).  Have you used a gun to commit a crime?  (aggravating factor at sentencing).  Are you under the care of a psychiatrist/psychologist?  A word from them to the local police... no guns for you.
Are you a convicted felon?   No gun for you.   Sorry, zolace.
A felony isn't necessarily a 'violent crime'.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
July 16, 2014, 10:59:05 AM
Yes, sana, I am amongst the center. I lean left, but I am, overall, a moderate. In fact, Alaska, this issue is one of those that PROVES I'm part of the middle. I don't support bans on civilian ownership of guns. I DO support gun ownership, and even concealed carry. I just support reasonable regulation on both. What regulation of guns do YOU support?
I suggest that maybe you've isolated yourself among like minded people for so long that you may have lost track of what 'normal' is. See, that's where the problem begins because in my experience, people who have to say they support 'reasonable' regulation generally support nothing of the kind.  "Reasonable" becomes indicative of anything but reasonable. Oh, well that's easy.  Have you been convicted of a violent crime of any sort?  No gun for you, for 10 years. (back ground check by state governments).  Have you used a gun to commit a crime?  (aggravating factor at sentencing).  Are you under the care of a psychiatrist/psychologist?  A word from them to the local police... no guns for you.
Are you a convicted felon?   No gun for you.   Sorry, zolace.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
July 16, 2014, 10:58:29 AM
I'll give up my guns when the government and bad guys give up theirs.

I've got a .22, .40, 7.62x39, 7.62x54r, and a 12 gauge.
lol ,never
hero member
Activity: 778
Merit: 1002
July 16, 2014, 10:50:43 AM
I'll give up my guns when the government and bad guys give up theirs.

I've got a .22, .40, 7.62x39, 7.62x54r, and a 12 gauge.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
July 16, 2014, 10:33:27 AM
Yes, sana, I am amongst the center. I lean left, but I am, overall, a moderate. In fact, Alaska, this issue is one of those that PROVES I'm part of the middle. I don't support bans on civilian ownership of guns. I DO support gun ownership, and even concealed carry. I just support reasonable regulation on both. What regulation of guns do YOU support?
I suggest that maybe you've isolated yourself among like minded people for so long that you may have lost track of what 'normal' is. See, that's where the problem begins because in my experience, people who have to say they support 'reasonable' regulation generally support nothing of the kind.  "Reasonable" becomes indicative of anything but reasonable. Oh, well that's easy.  Have you been convicted of a violent crime of any sort?  No gun for you, for 10 years. (back ground check by state governments).  Have you used a gun to commit a crime?  (aggravating factor at sentencing).  Are you under the care of a psychiatrist/psychologist?  A word from them to the local police... no guns for you.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
July 16, 2014, 10:24:48 AM
What hostility? I stated a fact. My response was no more hostile than your declaration that you would not accept "because this is 'merica".

But the truth is, that is essentially the answer - as you and others have pointed out hundreds of times, a good percentage of the American people own firearms. Even more support the right to own them. No, I DON'T believe that in America, you'd get away with what you describe here.
Oh, I've never referred to myself as a 'law abiding' citizen... except ironically.  And, yes, I'm always willing to accept the consequences of my defiance.  Alaska will be voting on marijuana soon, it seems likely.  I will vote to end prohibition.  Unjust laws must be defied and they must be struck down, if possible.   I would have been part of the 'underground railroad' back in the slavery days... you?  Would you defy an unjust law?  That was 'humor'.  Applying a stereotypical 'drunken red neck' phrase to someone who is clearly neither is, 'humor'.
sr. member
Activity: 994
Merit: 441
July 16, 2014, 10:20:31 AM
What I'm saying is that a national policy will help in two major ways - first, it will reduce availability (notice I said reduce, not eliminate) of black market guns by shutting down at least PART of the flow source by making unregistered sales illegal everywhere.
What's your source for making that claim?

It's called an opinion - and one based in sound logic. The problem you and I have is that you seem to think I'm calling this a magic bullet - which I'm not, and without a magic bullet, you're unwilling to consider ANY  measures.
I'm willing to consider any measure that is guaranteed to drastically cut down on crime without violating our right to keep and bear arms. If you can't guarantee that, then no, I will not support another useless law on top of the 29,000 already on the books.
That's your copout way of saying that you would not support any regulation. You demand absolute guarantee. You ain't gonna get that. And NO law is going to INSTANTLY solve the problem - or likely even completely eliminate it. There is no magic bullet. But I'll give you a chance here - show me you can be reasonable. Don't lay down demands for guaranteed results from a suggestion of mine - you tell me - specifically - what measures YOU would support. Go ahead.


By the way, I'm talking about REPLACING the "29,000 already on the books" with one national policy that is standard everywhere. My proposal does not stack anything on top of what is already there.


But again, I'm eager to hear YOUR idea for a solution. Lay it on me.
Nothing you suggested will have any effect on criminals, so why would I support something that only burdens law abiding citizens? In your desperate zeal to do something, anything, you lose sight of common sense. Your ideas are hysterical non-starters, and you admit yourself that they are not solutions, so no, I won't support them. Don't be so stupid.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
July 16, 2014, 10:17:52 AM
Quote
I feel obligated to support laws that make it harder for criminals and mentally ill people to get their hands on them.
Such as?  I mean, it's already pretty hard to buy a firearm and sometimes mental illness descends upon someone unexpectedly.
Quote
I also recognize that some places - some states and cities - have been reactionary in their approach, and always thinking that they have gun laws, but crime is still happening, they've instituted stricter and stricter laws that really only affect the law abiding.
That's true.  The 'law abiding' are, by definition, not the problem and there is this risk;  being made into a criminal when a law is created.  A gun owner hasn't actually done anything wrong and is not about to yet some dweeb in a legislature passes a law and 'poof', the gun owner is a criminal.
You should have read the whole post before starting to pick it apart. I addressed this - the point is that I support a national standard that would supersede all state and local regulation.
Hysterical reaction - the law I'm talking about would not make people who own firearms into criminals. The truth is, neither do the bans - which I don't support. Let's say your state bans all handguns (again - NOT something I'd support). Owning one prior to the ban going into place does not make you a criminal. Even if the law (as it likely would) required citizens to turn in their handguns, or have them permanently disabled, you STILL would not become a criminal unless you made the conscious decision to disregard the law and not do it.

I really do not understand your hostility.  You seem to be suggesting that it's not possible for a government to make criminals with the stroke of a pen.  Governments occasionally make laws 'retroactive'.  Additionally, passing a law that the legislators know is going to be ignored... what is that if not creating criminals out of thin air?  Suppose next year Congress decides that all US citizens must purchase bell bottom jeans.  After all, the bell bottom jeans industry is in crisis!  Literally 100's of jobs are on the line here.  But you DD, you anarchist scofflaw, refuse to buy your bell bottoms and blatantly walk around in your kilt, brazenly not even wearing drawers.  You're a criminal not because of something you did but because of something you didn't do... buy your damned bell bottoms.  :-)

Merely because something is law does not mean it should be obeyed.  In fact, un-just laws should not be.
MY hostility? That's downright comical, dude. Look at your bizarre hysterical  arguments on this - you paint this idiotic scenario about how the government is going to make you a criminal by passing a law. No, the government does NOT make you a criminal by passing laws. YOU make yourself a criminal by CHOOSING not to abide by those laws. Like I said, even if the government did pass a law banning all handguns, you would not be a criminal unless you chose not to divest yourself of those guns. But in the REAL world, that's not going to happen. Yes, there are some who WANT it. But there are not NEARLY enough people who want it to EVER get it passed. It's not going to happen. But people like you and Cowboy use THAT as a silly excuse to oppose ANY reasonable regulation of guns or the sale and purchase of them. What's funny is that it has about the same chance of being passed as your hypothetical requirement to buy bell bottomed pants.
I rest my case... or is your 'ground state' that of an angry jerk? Cause and effect apply here... unless you are going to suggest that 'cause and effect' have been legislatively banned? In the 'real world' that has happened.  It has even happened here. The example was meant to be funny and illustrative of how one is made into a criminal with the stroke of a pen.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
July 16, 2014, 10:12:50 AM
What I'm saying is that a national policy will help in two major ways - first, it will reduce availability (notice I said reduce, not eliminate) of black market guns by shutting down at least PART of the flow source by making unregistered sales illegal everywhere.
What's your source for making that claim?

It's called an opinion - and one based in sound logic. The problem you and I have is that you seem to think I'm calling this a magic bullet - which I'm not, and without a magic bullet, you're unwilling to consider ANY  measures.
I'm willing to consider any measure that is guaranteed to drastically cut down on crime without violating our right to keep and bear arms. If you can't guarantee that, then no, I will not support another useless law on top of the 29,000 already on the books.
That's your copout way of saying that you would not support any regulation. You demand absolute guarantee. You ain't gonna get that. And NO law is going to INSTANTLY solve the problem - or likely even completely eliminate it. There is no magic bullet. But I'll give you a chance here - show me you can be reasonable. Don't lay down demands for guaranteed results from a suggestion of mine - you tell me - specifically - what measures YOU would support. Go ahead.


By the way, I'm talking about REPLACING the "29,000 already on the books" with one national policy that is standard everywhere. My proposal does not stack anything on top of what is already there.


But again, I'm eager to hear YOUR idea for a solution. Lay it on me.
legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1147
The revolution will be monetized!
July 16, 2014, 10:12:44 AM
In America we believe that without gun ownership it is not America anymore.  We insist that our ability to overpower the government is at hand all the time. Unlike most of the world, the government is our servant. It is not allowed to make rules that change that balance.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
July 16, 2014, 10:11:53 AM
Study: Murder, Violent Crime Fall as Concealed Carry Rises 130 Percent           
A study released by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) shows the murder and violent crime rate has fallen significantly while concealed carry in this country surged 130 percent.

According to the CPRC, concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. rose from 4.6 million in 2007 to 11.1 million during the time period of 2007 to 2013.

And during that span, as more Americans got permits to carry guns with them for self-defense, the murder rate fell from "5.6 to 4.4 per 100,000." This is a 22 percent drop.

"Overall violent crime also fell by 22 percent over that period of time."

The report indicates that the number of concealed carry permits is not only still growing, but is doing so at a "faster and faster" rate.
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/07/new-report-from-crime-prevention-research-center-shows-11-1-million-americans-hold-concealed-carry-permits/
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
July 16, 2014, 10:02:43 AM
Yes, sana, I am amongst the center. I lean left, but I am, overall, a moderate. In fact, Alaska, this issue is one of those that PROVES I'm part of the middle. I don't support bans on civilian ownership of guns. I DO support gun ownership, and even concealed carry. I just support reasonable regulation on both. What regulation of guns do YOU support?
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
July 16, 2014, 09:58:26 AM
Registration of ALL guns would do that; but then, it would also let the government know what guns you have, and with your delusional paranoia, you think that the government would then come for your guns and you would be defenseless.  Even though it would stop criminals from obtaining guns, because the undocumented flow would cease, your fear of your own government prevents you from advocating it.  Is this not the truth?
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
July 16, 2014, 09:49:40 AM
What hostility? I stated a fact. My response was no more hostile than your declaration that you would not accept "because this is 'merica".

But the truth is, that is essentially the answer - as you and others have pointed out hundreds of times, a good percentage of the American people own firearms. Even more support the right to own them. No, I DON'T believe that in America, you'd get away with what you describe here.
Pages:
Jump to: