americans don't piss around.....they shoot!

Vagrant · Post by **Vagrant** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:21 am

RFK and MLK in the about same year as I recall.
Since then one president has been shot at and one shot and wounded, the gun controll act of '68 sure worked great.

Bonzo · Post by **Bonzo** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:44 pm

Vagrant wrote:RFK and MLK in the about same year as I recall.
Since then one president has been shot at and one shot and wounded, the gun controll act of '68 sure worked great.

Mr. Vagrant,

You got that right ol' pal. The criminals have better control of their guns since the politicians went out of control trying to control them.

Best Regard's,

Bonz

Vagrant · Post by **Vagrant** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 4:44 pm

For a history of how gun control was done in Merry Olde England read;
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm
From a "right" [or even a duty], to a "privilage", to a crime, and always by small "reasonable" retrictions.

missaman · Post by **missaman** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:04 pm

mr vagrent intresting article thanks for the link
my 2 cents. i agree that every citizen should be able to carry a concealed wepon as long as they have had a background check and are over 18 years old. i pisses me off to no end that i can't do this leaglly in my state. even though i have no criminal record.
while i have handguns for home defence, shot guns and rifles for hunting and plinking. i see no real reason the average citizen needs to own a high capacty sks, ak or ar-15 okay, this is where wally and bonz can jump in.
i have been within 100 feet from a drive by shooting in da hood. some idiot hanging out the window of his car with a sks. got the guy i guess he was "aiming" at. while small children were running all over the place.
last point. when are we as a nation going to stop putting up with crap!
lock the idiots up and throw away the key! or better yet some public executions may get the message across. and let me carry my .45 so at least i can shoot back
don't get me started on the fact that i'm not supposed to protect my property. that was a seperate thread.
missaman

Teddy · Post by **Teddy** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:17 pm

Mr. Missaman,

"i see no real reason the average citizen needs to own a high capacty sks, ak or ar-15"

That was the whole point of the study.... stopping law-abiding citizens from owning exotic weaponry does NOTHING to stop them being used by criminals.....the law-abiding could own machine-guns because they wouldn't be used to shoot people.... just for fun!

The "Slippery Slope" illustrates how the "reasonable" laws become more and more restrictive until you have NO MORE GUNS!!

TOTALLY DISARMED
Teddy

missaman · Post by **missaman** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:31 pm

teddy i see your point. i guess that kind of thing does not intrest me much. i used to own a m1 carbine wih the 30 round clips folding stock and bayonet. i'd much rather be shooting at targets with my oldest daughter.
as a matter of fact i'm taking her out for her first time to the range this week end as that is what she wanted for her 13th b day purchased a marlin .22 for her
missaman

Bonzo · Post by **Bonzo** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:31 pm

Mr. Missaman,

You have totally missed the point about the right to keep and bear arms, what it stands for, and why it is there. The reason the 2nd ammendment was drafted is a gaurantee that if we (The People) are called to arms, then we have the arms to defend ourselves, neighbors, property and country. I sure the hell ain't gonna wait for anyone to come defend me if the shit comes down in my neighborhood. Why should law abiding citizens be denied that right to own an AK-47, while the hoods are out there with illegally procured weapons? I think the only real way to understand our gun rights is to go back and get inside the heads of the founders of the USA. The right goes back to English law, and ancient times.

Best Regard's,

Bonz

missaman · Post by **missaman** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:36 pm

mr.bonz i guess we have diferent tastes in weponry i would prefer to have one that will not let them close enough to spray and pray.

missaman · Post by **missaman** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 8:29 pm

mr. bonz and mr. teddy.
do you agree that convicted felons should not be able to leaglly own a firearm? if you do then you are in favor of some sort of gun control.
i for one don't want some a hole with a record of robbing and shooting getting another gun when he gets out.
now i'm not stupid enough to believe that he can't get one the street. but at least it adds five more years onto his next sentence.
i would really prefer that they be shipped to some remote island with gun boats patroling around it. and let them fend for themselvs.
it costs us $38,000 a year to house feed and watch just one of them.
my property taxes went up 200.00 a year just for that reason.
missaman

Teddy · Post by **Teddy** » Thu Jul 31, 2003 8:46 pm

Mr. Missaman,

There is no point whatsoever in trying to stop felons (or anyone else for that matter) from purchasing firearms... if they want one they WILL get one... it's THAT simple! ..... CARRYING is a different matter ..... I'm inclined to favour the idea of a "training course" as adopted by many states going from "May issue" to "Shall issue" for EVERYONE wishing to carry concealed. You might as well include the felons because you CAN'T stop them from getting a gun.... successfully completing that course would then allow that person to carry a firearm consistent with the one used to qualify. NOW.... carrying WITHOUT said permit should be punishable by a mandatory 10 years minimum .... plus whatever else may be considered by the courts.

Best wishes
Teddy

Vagrant · Post by **Vagrant** » Fri Aug 01, 2003 8:21 am

The real question is not why should certain types of weapons be allowed. The question is why shouldn't they be allowed. If you ban one type another becomes "the problem" and it is banned. Then another becomes 'the problem" and it is banned [ask anyone in England who used to own a pistol]. Would I let a convicted felon own a gun? Yes IF his FULL sentance has been served, [and he didn't use a gun in the offense]. The U.S. Constitution does not list any forbidden class of individuals.
I enjoy shooting everything from Air rifles to AK-47s to blowguns etc, and see no reason I should not enjoy anything I use if I don't harm others. Why should the government tell me something is banned because of what MIGHT be done with it as long as I'm not the one doing it?

J-man · Post by **J-man** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 12:26 am

I wouldn't want to make it easy for a felon to get a gun. But IF they were allowed to get them legally with a certain degree of difficulty it would wipe out the black market for firearms.

Personally I think if you've severed your time, your a freeman, you paid your debt and you should be treated like everyone else. If you have a chance to "re-offend" then why was this person given such a light sentence in the first place?

Bonzo · Post by **Bonzo** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 1:02 am

J-man wrote:I wouldn't want to make it easy for a felon to get a gun. But IF they were allowed to get them legally with a certain degree of difficulty it would wipe out the black market for firearms.

Mr. Joint-Man,

The liberal press here in the states would have you believing that all criminals are exempt from any waiting periods and can legally buy guns from any gunshop in the USA, and, all semi-automatic firearms are fully automatic.

Personally I think if you've severed your time, your a freeman, you paid your debt and you should be treated like everyone else. If you have a chance to "re-offend" then why was this person given such a light sentence in the first place?

I have a good friend who spent 12 years in the joint for beating up a cop (3 years), and stabbing a druggie (9 years). He's allowed to still have kitchen knives in his house, but he cannot have a gun for life, nor vote, even though he has repaid his debt to society (many times over). It's the assholes (Dukakis) who intentionally let out predators (Willie Horton) and they murder, rob and rape the innocent citizens. The politicians should be responsible. Dukakis (cock-less) went as far to say he would have done nothing different in the case of Horton. That alone cost him the Oval Office.

Best Regard's,

Bonz

Vagrant · Post by **Vagrant** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:48 am

Back in the 80s someomne told me that there were 17 people in Massachusettes that were killed by 1st degree murderers who were alowed to go home for birthdays, Christmas, etc. on the honor system, wiilie wasn't the only failure.

Bonzo · Post by **Bonzo** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 6:24 am

Vagrant wrote:Back in the 80s someomne told me that there were 17 people in Massachusettes that were killed by 1st degree murderers who were alowed to go home for birthdays, Christmas, etc. on the honor system, wiilie wasn't the only failure.

Mr. Vagrant,

The crime Willie commited in the first place should have been rewarded by a nylon rope. The cocksucker.

Best Regard's,

Bonz

PS-I still hate Du-cockless.