no I think the current laws in place are more than enough


seems like liberals do hate freedom, unless it's for one of the selective causes they have

[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 4:49 PM. Reason : ..]

8/10/2006 4:47:33 PM

How is that a response to

"And honestly, you're acting as if you're a champion of liberty, while your opponents hate freedom.

You're both arguing for regulation of arms (and if you think you aren't, I take it private ownership of nukes is ok?), just slightly different levels of regulation."

?


You love freedome because you think todays regulations are a little too strict.

They hate freedom because they think the laws are a little too lax.

CLEARLY

8/10/2006 4:51:39 PM

where did I say ownership of WMDs is ok?


you people are dense

I said there is enough regulation as is, the courts are the ones letting people down when it comes to gun crimes and criminals

and yeah, liberals are all about selective rights

they want to extend every right imaginable to the segment that votes for them, but fuck the rest of the country

this shit is why I hate politics and politicians

8/10/2006 5:18:24 PM

Yeah conservatives don't do that at all

8/10/2006 5:22:51 PM

boonedocks why do you think all conservative / pro-gun people consider tanks and nukes as "arms" that we have the right to own?

8/10/2006 5:34:37 PM

Quote :

"this shit is why I hate politics and politicians"

to be as well "educated" and superior as liberals claim to be some of you sure suck at reading comprehension

8/10/2006 5:53:04 PM

^ & ^^ his point is that you are both still in favor of regulation. having some regulation isnt championing some radical rights movement. the difference is what you consider reasonable regulation. you think current laws are too strict, but obvioulsy things like nukes and whatnot shouldnt be privately owned. i personally see no need for anyone to own a handgun. sure the nuke example is a hyperbole, but it gets the point accross.

in the grand scheme of things your regulation isnt far off from my regulation when you look at the entire spectrum.

[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 7:11 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2006 7:10:46 PM

Quote :

""

go to the dictionary and look up hyperbole....then come back and report your findings

8/10/2006 10:18:23 PM

i dont see the problem mister numbers. since he is so in favor of the supposed "rights" he needs an extreme example to understand my view on handguns.

[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 10:27 PM. Reason : but ur more than welcome to continue jumping in with no pointand tell me why my usage is so terrible]

8/10/2006 10:26:09 PM

i was responding to jbtilley

8/10/2006 10:39:05 PM

sry it was so long ago id forgotten he'd posted

[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 10:42 PM. Reason : rather convenient that i had just used hyperbole too heh]

8/10/2006 10:41:34 PM

Quote :

"BETTER ATTACK THE OCEAN"

8/10/2006 10:45:29 PM

how many people die result of ocean attacks every year?

8/10/2006 10:53:05 PM

Ban everything that can possibly hurt a negligent person.

8/10/2006 10:58:50 PM

Pretend that anyone of consequence wants to ban guns, then argue against that make-believe person.

8/11/2006 12:03:58 AM

I'd like to point out that many people want to have a pistol to protect themselves from bad people even if the bad people don't have a gun.

8/11/2006 12:39:23 AM

Quote :

"Ban everything that "

is designed to efficiently kill people

8/11/2006 6:34:05 AM

and has little meaningful use

8/11/2006 9:20:37 AM

"Ban everything that is designed to efficiently kill people"

I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and that especially related to firearms people have strong opinions. However, what some people (not necessarily anyone in this thread personally) fail to realize is that ... criminals do not follow laws . I know this is shocking and ground-breaking but true. Therefore only law-abiding citizens are affected by gun control. In my opinion the solution isn't to try to legislate the tool of a crime, but to prosecute the crime committed and give meaningful punishments for it. Firearms are inanimate objects which a user may use in either a good or bad way.

EDIT to add: Open invitation to anyone who has anti-gun leanings but has never actually fired a firearm. If you would like, I'll try to take you to the range to actually give it a try. PM me.

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 10:43 AM. Reason : blah]

8/11/2006 10:21:10 AM

Quote :

"Therefore only law-abiding citizens are affected by gun control."

8/11/2006 10:22:23 AM

Quote :

"Ban everything that is designed to efficiently kill people"

Knives, sticks, hands

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 10:23 AM. Reason : .]

8/11/2006 10:22:48 AM

Quote :

"and has little meaningful use"

para-sales, experimental aircraft, bungee cords, skies, etc.

8/11/2006 10:49:49 AM

When a criminal has to expose himself to the risk of arrest in order to procure a firearm, gun control's effects begin to extend beyond those who follow the law.

8/11/2006 11:46:45 AM

there are already laws to prevent this shit

8/11/2006 11:48:46 AM

Laws that prevent a criminal from trying to find a gun?

Do fucking tell.

8/11/2006 11:57:13 AM

laws that prevent a criminal from acquiring one already exist

go look up firearms laws federal and NC

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 12:04 PM. Reason : and possessing]

8/11/2006 12:04:34 PM

OH.

YOU MEAN LAWS THAT REQUIRE A CRIMINAL TO EXPOSE HIMSELF TO THE RISK OF ARREST IN ORDER TO PROCURE A FIREARM?

8/11/2006 12:07:50 PM

he is already exposing himself to the risk of arrest planning or carrying out a crime


and he can tack on more felonies if he has a firearm or uses one

8/11/2006 12:15:40 PM

Planning a crime doesn't expose you to the risk of arrest if it takes place in your head. It's not like it requires careful documentation of days of careful consultations with experts in order to kill somebody with a gun.

The fact that a criminal has to expose himself to risk of arrest in order to get a gun demonstrates clearly that gun control impacts even those who have no respect for the law.

Period.

8/11/2006 12:18:57 PM

ok then, enforce all the laws we already have


there are more important things to worry about than honest people having firearms... which may be *gasp* a good thing that they do

8/11/2006 12:20:14 PM

Enforcement is the executive branch's problem. Why don't you take it out on them...

8/11/2006 12:25:09 PM

the current has done things to help ease that


reciprocity of concealed carry laws from state to state

and the sunset of the 1994 ban which was retarded as hell

my beef is with the courts, lawyers, criminals, DA's, and certain law enforcement agencies


[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 12:27 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2006 12:26:28 PM

Then your beef is primarily with the interpretation of existing laws, and with the enforcement of them second.

8/11/2006 12:32:17 PM

thats fine... where did you think that my beef was with in the first place?


other than gun grabbing politicians and holywood types that feel I shouldn't own a gun but yet feel that they should have armed bodyguards with them

I hate those folks too

8/11/2006 12:35:06 PM

It sounded to me like your beef was with the gun-banning boogeyman, who lives on Powerline and similar blogs, but doesn't really exist as a viable political entity, who's constantly trying to steal the right to gun ownership.

A healthy distaste for hypocrites never hurt anyone, I just find it odd that many gun owners and gun rights activists still believe in him.

8/11/2006 12:45:19 PM

You need a false villian to rally support for your cause.

8/11/2006 12:49:05 PM

do you really believe that there are no people in power that are gun grabbers?

my hippocracy only goes so far, well I try not to be that way at all really

but yeah... my beef lies primarily with the system that doesn't enforce existing laws but yet tries to create more

8/11/2006 12:50:08 PM

Not anyone in a position of power where there is a reasonable chance of them getting anywhere with it, no

8/11/2006 12:53:07 PM

uh huh

so the clintons, kennedys, feinsteins, etc etc of the country wield no power?

8/11/2006 12:54:39 PM

they dont want to take every gun

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 12:58 PM. Reason : OH NOES CLINTON MADE ME WAIT 5 DAYS]

8/11/2006 12:56:49 PM

just yours

8/11/2006 12:57:53 PM

why don't you look up some quotes he had about gun control

thats the only thing he could muster

ted kennedy is about banning private ownership but yet his bodyguard was busted for carrying a loaded pistol and an MP-5 in some airport

what makes him so special that he can have protection from a fully automatic MP-5 but I can't have an AR-15 to go shoot at targets and compete with... or have a pistol of my own?


[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 1:01 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2006 12:59:15 PM

Quote :

"do you really believe that there are no people in power that are gun grabbers?"

No, I don't believe that. What I do believe is that their declining, and already incredibly limited number reflects a continual increase in popularity of a nationwide view that banning guns is simply not a viable policy in American politics. Poll after poll supports this analysis, which is doubly true in a post-9/11 environment in which many people in this country fear terrorists are in their own neighborhoods.

Ultimately, there isn't enough public support to convince half of Congress to end the right to bear arms. And even if there were, they'd still need more. To ban guns outright would require the vote of 2/3 of both houses of Congress with quorum, and ratification by 38 of the states. Remember, we're not just talking about changing the law; we're talking about amending the Constitution.

I doubt the paradigm shift in public opinion required to make such an alteration could occur within the next century, let alone by any of the next few national elections.

---

It's also interesting to note that some gun owners explicitly do not trust the local government to protect them from run-of-the-mill criminals, but do trust the national government to build Democracies out of dictatorships.

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2006 1:04:20 PM

I understand and I agree.. but there is plenty of movement against them... and plenty of hatred for gun owners

http://www.gunowners.org/abcnews.mpg

mms://a568.v129484.c12948.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/568/12948/v0001/vod.ibsys.com/2005/0908/4946889.300k.wmv

8/11/2006 1:06:29 PM

8/11/2006 1:07:46 PM

You're confused.

I haven't at any point suggested there was no movement to limit gun ownership. There is. But we're talking about the gun-grabbing boogeyman that wants to ban guns. They're distinctly different issues.

And I find it questionable that there are truly that many people with "hatred of gun owners." Some are uncomfortable around guns, and are easily deceived into believing stereotypes about gun owners, but I doubt many people honestly walk around saying "man, I sure thought Bill was cool until I saw his Glock. Now I hate him."

8/11/2006 1:09:32 PM

Quote :

"what makes him so special that he can have protection from a fully automatic MP-5 but I can't have an AR-15 to go shoot at targets and compete with... or have a pistol of my own?"

Um he's ted kennedy

8/11/2006 1:11:53 PM

and a murderer... but because he is rich, famous, and a politican he gets to protect his life while I, average guy can't?


cause thats what it sounds like you are saying

what about when Rosie ODonnel's bodyguard got caught with a weapon where he should not have been.... it's ok for her to want average folks to not be able to protect themselves while she has armed bodyguards?

8/11/2006 2:27:28 PM

Bodyguards get in trouble for having guns in the wrong place all the time, whats your point?

No, I don't think they are allowed to break the law. Yes, I think that certain people need bodyguards for obvious fuckign reasons that I am not goin to take the time to explain.

8/11/2006 2:42:08 PM

so what you are saying is that some people are better that others and deserve the right of protection that the bill of rights currently offers everyone while others are left to wait for the government or police to be their protector


and yeah... bodyguards get busted for shit all the time, but do you think that the people they are protecting don't know that their bodyguards are equipped with the same weaponry (or better) that they seek to outlaw or keep common citizenry from having?

fuck double standards

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 2:46 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2006 2:45:51 PM