Should we "compromise" on gun control?

ASMALLVOICE

ASMALLVOICE

Well-Known Member
Canna Sylvan said:
What if your grand children realize murdering animals for sport is barbaric and guns should be used for protection or shooting non-living targets only?
Click to expand...
I can only teach them what I believe to be right and just, once they come of age, the ball is totally in their court. Who am I to tell, we are not rulers, just teachers. I only kill to eat or preserve what is mine, as far as the blackbirds and squirrels, sorry but I am not going to let them tear up stuff around the home front if I can stop them. If you lived where I lived, you would catch my drift. I have cleaned my yard of squirrels, to double digit numbers, and in less than a year, it is right back to where it started and/or a bit worse. They are destructive when they get into larger groups and their breeding rate is of equal tenacity.

All in all, I am totally for the preservation of all species of animals, but if I have use for one, then use shall I. I personally think it is a natural instinct to use only what is needed and preserve the rest.

Peace

Asmallvoice
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
funny, i always get accused of the opposite of a persecution complex.

you guys ever gonna decide whether i suffer from persecution or white privilege? or do you guys just want to keep waving your asses in the wind, hoping that the wind blows you in the right direction?

fucking idiots.



the article was written about a 37 year old fucking quote that does not even sniff reality as it passes by.

you are a paranoid, moronic, dumb shit with a persecution complex and a massive racist streak.

just go away, you dumb shit.
Click to expand...
I read an article a month or two ago that expressed the same sentiment, Slate, Huffpo, the Nation, don't really remember where. It talked about the progression from registration of guns to ever more strict regulation to final confiscation; that is the plan.

Don't compromise with anti-constitutionalists. Simple words to live by.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
funny, i always get accused of the opposite of a persecution complex.

you guys ever gonna decide whether i suffer from persecution or white privilege? or do you guys just want to keep waving your asses in the wind, hoping that the wind blows you in the right direction?

fucking idiots.



the article was written about a 37 year old fucking quote that does not even sniff reality as it passes by.

you are a paranoid, moronic, dumb shit with a persecution complex and a massive racist streak.

just go away, you dumb shit.
Click to expand...
What the hell is "white privilege"?
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
A selection of quotes from the "common sense gun control" types that Buck is so enamored with:

Or one could begin the gun control conversation with this from Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in 1995 when she revealed in an interview on 60 Minutes:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban – picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. American, turn ‘em all in! – I would have done it.
​
Or this from Charles Krauthammer in 1996:

The assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea…
Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. (emphasis added)
​
Or this from Roger Rosenblatt in Time magazine in 1999 when he wrote:
I think the country has long been ready to restrict the use of guns … and now I think we’re prepared to get rid of the damn things entirely: the handguns, the semis and the automatics.
​
Or this from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo following the Sandy Hook shooting last December:
Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale [of guns] to the state could be an option…

​
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process#


"The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them. Canada has a national firearms registry. We need to copy their model. We need a law demanding all firearms be registered to a national database. We need to know who has them and where they are. We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners. The federal government provides the money and technical expertise, and the State police carry it out. Like a funded mandate. Most firearms already have a serial number on them, so it would really be a matter of taking the information already on the ATF form 4473 and putting it in a national database. I think about 6 months should be enough time.


Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.


Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that "lost" them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn't. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag."
 
Someacdude

Someacdude

Active Member
So you are for or against this, im lost
desert dude said:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process#


"The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them. Canada has a national firearms registry. We need to copy their model. We need a law demanding all firearms be registered to a national database. We need to know who has them and where they are. We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners. The federal government provides the money and technical expertise, and the State police carry it out. Like a funded mandate. Most firearms already have a serial number on them, so it would really be a matter of taking the information already on the ATF form 4473 and putting it in a national database. I think about 6 months should be enough time.


Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.


Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that "lost" them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn't. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag."
Click to expand...
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Someacdude said:
So you are for or against this, im lost
Click to expand...
Sorry to be unclear. Buck was foaming at the mouth about the whole plan being "37 years old and irrational to boot". I simply posted an article published six months ago, and a bunch of quotes from contemporary politicians and "leaders", to show the currency of the thinking, and the continued boobery of Buck.

I am very much against it. I think that such a move by the loony left might spark an armed revolution in the country. My commitment to 2A and the constitution is absolute.
 
W

Wilksey

Well-Known Member
When it comes to gun control, you're always going to have to make compromises.

Sometimes you need to land the shot NOW, so you can't clean up the sight picture the way you'd like, which is fine. On target is sometimes all you're going to get, rather than on the exact spot you'd like ON the target.

Other times you're going to have to take more time than you'd like in order to land the shot. However, that's what you've GOT to do, so you do it.

And, of course, there will be times when you're going to have to compromise on the firing position you use. Standing rifle shots suck, but sometimes you've got no choice, so you've got to take the shot, even though it's better to have a more stable shooting platform.

Sometimes you have to compromise on what you are going to carry. I'm an AR guy, and if I could carry my M4 everywhere, I would, but that's just not practical due to people who soil themselves whenever they see somebody with a rifle. Let's face it, handguns are ass when it comes to stopping people that are trying to kill you. Period. ALL of them suck compared to a good rifle or shottie. However, due to the rampant hoplophobia that exists in "urbania", you may have no other choice but to carry a handgun to defend yourself and family.

So, in the end, compromise is a necessary evil when it comes to gun control, and we all practice it whether we like it or not.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Canna Sylvan said:
Do you meditate too? Right now now I'm trying to figure out mandala and mudra while maintaining proper pranayama.
Click to expand...
... attempting to merge in Now. All goes nowhere and everywhere, giant and small, and time merely flows through it.

...as it seems. :)
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
Congress shall pass NO law....


Doesnt leave much room for compromise. Nor should it.
Click to expand...

ah, willful ignorance. that is right up your alley!

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
ah, willful ignorance. that is right up your alley!

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Click to expand...
The founding fathers wrote the constitution. They made it VERY clear.

Having the SCOTUS fuck it up later is not their problem.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
The founding fathers wrote the constitution. They made it VERY clear.

Having the SCOTUS fuck it up later is not their problem.
Click to expand...
how many times have you told me "the jury acquitted him" with respect to zimmerboy (a decision i accept and even understand), but when the highest court in the land makes their ruling, you cry and whine like a little bitch?

you can't have it both ways, child.

put on your big boy pants and deal with reality. no amendment is absolute.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
how many times have you told me "the jury acquitted him" with respect to zimmerboy (a decision i accept and even understand), but when the highest court in the land makes their ruling, you cry and whine like a little bitch?

you can't have it both ways, child.

put on your big boy pants and deal with reality. no amendment is absolute.
Click to expand...
My rocket launcher says otherwise...

Loopholes? We dont need no stinkin loopholes... LOL!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top