Anti-gun Gunnies

[Bartkowski]

Also gun control has been shown many times to be ineffective or worse rather than better, because a criminal is not someone who obeys laws. At the moment no specific events are comming to me as times of ineffective gun control, but I used to know many times due to the fact that now I unfortunatly live in a township that near everyone is surprised to find out you have guns, and people call you trash for wearing cabela's t-shirts.

 

[Bartkowski]

Reasonable "gun control" only further legitimizes gun ownership IMO. No Constitutional right is an unlimited one.

No, it does not further ligitmize because "reasonable gun control" is not about controlling guns. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

And thank you for "explaining" the 2nd ammendment.

 

[tkendrick]

A few years back I accidently stumbled on the perfect response for the hunters who hate handgun/assualt rifle crowd.

After listening to a five minute diatribe from one such individual, I calmly looked at him and said, "You kill animals? What kind of sadistic SOB kills animals? Don't you know that all animal abusers turn into murderers sooner or later?"

He was still sputtering when I walked out the door.

I've been back to that shop several times. I must have got him to thinking, 'cause he HAS changed his tune.

 

[brentn]

That youtube post was AWESOME, thank you, made my day. Marked it as a favorite on my account, hahah, thats great. One of the best parts is when she's trying to describe what a barrel shroud is, and he says just at the last second "no its not" hahah
great stuff

 

[GhostlyKarliion]

stupid people should be outlawed...

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Luckily for me, I don't have many anti-gun friends.

I have no anti-gun friends. For some reason they simply can't keep their mouths shut about guns and that leads to arguments that I generally win with logic. After that we don't seem to want to have anything to do with each other. Fine by me. Life's too short to spar with ultra-stupid people.

 

[fast200]

No troll here

Guys,

Let me clarify on my position here a little.

I'm a big gun rights guy, but my statement was simply disagreeing with the 2A purists out there. I do not believe any right is unlimited, including the right to bear arms. There is no unlimited right to speech, or to press, or to any other right outlined in the founding documents.

In my opinion, this also means that we cannot just go out and buy any weapon we want, at any time we want. In my opinion, states (not the feds) have the right to put reasonable gun control laws on the books. "Reasonable" is determined by the people of each respective state, as long as the burden of gun owning folks is not too great. For example, a background check is 'reasonable'. Training may be 'reasonable'.

I am not advocating any further gun control, I am not 'scared' of machine gun's, I am not uneducated about machine guns, and I do not think people who own full autos have bad intentions or are bad people. I believe waiting periods are stupid, conceal carry 'shall' be in every state, and shooting is a blast. I just don't think you need to take with full auto with you hunting, much less everywhere else.

I just felt I had to chime in, because all those hunters who you think are anti-gunners may not be as anti as you think.

Attack me if you want, but throwing allies overboard because of small differences in opinion is stupid.

 

[cambeul41]

The people of each state?

Pure democracy is mob rule at the ballot box. I don't want those who know nothing about the subject controlling me.

Who should be consulted when making motor vehicle laws? Choose one.
a) Non-drivers whose “common sense” knowledge of cars comes from headline news and reading accident reports.
b) Researchers, driving teachers and expert drivers.

Of course, you chose a) Non drivers . . . . Oh, you didn’t? If that is the case, let me ask this. . . . .

Who should be consulted when making gun laws? Choose one.
a) Non-shooters whose “common sense” knowledge of guns comes from headline news and reading accident reports.
b) Researchers, shooting instructors and expert shooters.

 

[mustanger98]

So the problem in reality is that when non-gunnies, too many of whom are scared stupid of guns from the news, define reasonable gun control, gun owner's rights become burdened. That's part of why some states have waiting periods along with the background checks.

In Georgia, we can buy pretty much any weapon we want any time we want... as long as it's not Class 3. I remember back in 1988 when the Presidential race was between Bush and Dukakis and Dukakis wanted more gun control. There was one guy screaming at me that they wanted a waiting period so somebody wouldn't get mad and go buy a shotgun to kill their wife. The arguement against all that is like R. Lee Ermey was quoted as saying... "every time I buy a gun I have to fill out all these useless forms even though I have [so many] guns at home." In my case, I have a GA Firearms License (aka CCW) and I like being able to walk into a gun shop and buy whatever I want without having to do more than to fill out the 4473. The reason I can is because in GA, my CCW stands good for the background check.

 

[Monkeybear]

I agree a bit with fast200, that "There is no unlimited right to speech, or to press, or to any other right outlined in the founding documents."

I agree with background checks because I don't think people convicted of felonies, (certifiable)crazy people, sex offenders, and multiple violent crime offenders should be allowed to own firearms. Its when you start adding people who have done nothing to that list that I start to get mad. I think a simple call takes a few minutes and keeps the criminals out of the gun shops/shows.

I agree that using a gun in a robbery should result in a stiffer sentence than an unarmed robbery.

I agree that CCP or OC should be "shall issue". I have no problem with forcing someone to take a proficiency class to carry a firearm, lots of idiots out there and if you are going to legally carry I would like to think you have at least heard the basics of firearm responsibility. Its a pain for all of us who are knowledgeable responsible adults but necessary for the ignorant and stupid.

What I don't like is preventing surplus and imports from coming stateside. I don't like banning hundred year old calibers that in that hundred years have probably killed less people in the United States than any other non-wildcat cartridge(.50BMG). I don't like banning handguns or "non sporting" firearms. I don't like going after the guns. Its stupid. Sure some people probably should not own firearms, go after them. Go after gangs, go after the mob, go after drug dealers. Sure; stop insane people and wife beaters from buying guns, stop violent ex-cons and sex offenders from buying them too. Just don't do it by getting rid of everyone else's guns too.

I've no problem with crazies and criminals being prevented from buying machine guns but when you stop innocent right minded Americans from buying them I get pissed off. The problem with gun control is that the laws always want to prevent me from buying guns because gangs are using them or some crap. If gangs are using guns in crimes getting rid of my guns isn't going to stop them.

 

[RLsnow]

most politicians (as far as i know! probably many exceptions!!!!!!) have very little insight in what works

they might read the newspaper and see some guy shot up a mcdonalds or whatever with an assault rifle? "hmm, assault rifles should be banned, if they were. how would anyone get them? FOOLPROOF!!"


im sorry, i probably went alittle over board (that was just an example, don think it actually happened.) and i have a habit of...lashing on politicians

srry

 

[TimboKhan]

Educate me:

I thought class III licences were federal licenses. How can IA not have a class II license if it is federal?

 

[Cork]

I do not have any class 3 firearms, but love to shoot them when given the chance. Ask those with concerns to name one of the many hundreds of murders they have heard about on the news where a machine gun was used. Spraying down night clubs and mass murder of bad guys by bad guys is a hollywood thing.
cork

 

[HKUSP45C]

Let me take a stab at this ....

I agree a bit with fast200, that "There is no unlimited right to speech, or to press, or to any other right outlined in the founding documents."

Actually, there is. Like all rights they end where the well being of people directly harmed by thier exercise begins. See when you slander, libel or defraud you have infringed on someone else's rights. Barring that, you can print or say any damn thing you please. It really is is an unlimited right as it currently is outlined in the BoR.

The same consideration should be divested to the 2nd one on that list. Which is to say, once you use a gun to infringe on the rights of others, you should be punished accordingly. Until you do so, you should be left well alone to your devices.

I agree with background checks because I don't think people convicted of felonies, (certifiable)crazy people, sex offenders, and multiple violent crime offenders should be allowed to own firearms. Its when you start adding people who have done nothing to that list that I start to get mad. I think a simple call takes a few minutes and keeps the criminals out of the gun shops/shows.

As long as we're making lists, can I add my "special undesirables" to yours? Once we're all done adding them I wonder how many people will be "equal" enough to make muster.

Dangerous people and those intent on harming others are not the ones affected by laws. But, then, you knew that. Background checks are meaningless. Truly. Cho passed a couple before doing his little blood dance. People who are convicted of crimes and released back into society have done thier time. Leave them be, they are citizens again.

If they aren't dangerous anymore why are we continuing to punish them? If they are still dangerous why are we letting them roam amongst us?

I agree that using a gun in a robbery should result in a stiffer sentence than an unarmed robbery.

Why? Because there's a greater chance of harming someone than if I used say, a machete, a crowbar, a box cutter or a thermo-nuclear detonator? Umm, armed robbery is already against the law. It is an entirely different crime than robbery. We really don't need modifiers that indicate the "type" of weapon used to make it "more illegal."

I agree that CCP or OC should be "shall issue". I have no problem with forcing someone to take a proficiency class to carry a firearm, lots of idiots out there and if you are going to legally carry I would like to think you have at least heard the basics of firearm responsibility. Its a pain for all of us who are knowledgeable responsible adults but necessary for the ignorant and stupid.

Who gets to decide what "proficiency" entails? I bet if we all put our two cents in and ask everybody else to do the same there wouldn't be a single "proficient" person left.

Consequences are all that is necessary for the ignorant and stupid. Hurt someone with a gun, go to jail. Hmmm, seems like we have something like that written down somewhere in this country already.

What I don't like is preventing surplus and imports from coming stateside. I don't like banning hundred year old calibers that in that hundred years have probably killed less people in the United States than any other non-wildcat cartridge(.50BMG). I don't like banning handguns or "non sporting" firearms. I don't like going after the guns. Its stupid. Sure some people probably should not own firearms, go after them. Go after gangs, go after the mob, go after drug dealers. Sure; stop insane people and wife beaters from buying guns, stop violent ex-cons and sex offenders from buying them too. Just don't do it by getting rid of everyone else's guns too.

And here lies your logical flaw. Once we start a list of things we can infringe on it just grows, almost by itself. It also has the added bonus of effecting exactly the people you were trying to protect while not effecting at all the people you were trying to target.

Pretty soon it'll be "Sure stop the Jews and the Arabs from owning them. Just don't do it by getting rid of else's guns too."

That's one pretty slippery slope you're playing on there. Be careful you don't fall into the list you're making on it.

I've no problem with crazies and criminals being prevented from buying machine guns but when you stop innocent right minded Americans from buying them I get pissed off. The problem with gun control is that the laws always want to prevent me from buying guns because gangs are using them or some crap. If gangs are using guns in crimes getting rid of my guns isn't going to stop them.

See, you've seen the error of your ways, although you seem to be unaware of it.

You can't get criminals to obey the law. If you could, they'd cease being criminals. All gun control does is harass the law adiding, since it's really only they who obey the law.

So, I say we stop trying to infringe on the rights of everyone by making laws that try to get bad people to stop being bad people with guns. Let's just punish bad people and leave everyone else alone. Seems so simple, doesn't it?


One last note: Machine guns aren't "special deadly" they are just guns. I might be happier to have a gang banger spraying his Mac-10 .380 at me than I would an angry practiced shooter with a .38 revolver taking careful shots. Though, to be honest, I'd prefer not to be shot at in the first place.

Also, unless I were going to battle with 40 or 50 friends against a similar number of assailants full auto would be close to my last choice of weaponry. Careful aimed semi-auto fire would be the most beneficial for the problems any of us are likely to face. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want to own one, in the eventuality that my first hypothetical outlined arose. There's just no reason I can think of that should preclude ANYONE who's free from owning one. If you have one I'd sure like to hear it.

"Reasonable" gun control is wrong-headed and dangerous thinking. Please, as a favor to those of us who enjoy freedom and responsibility, stop advocating it.

It's gun owners with attitudes like those outlined in the quotes above (and I know there are a lot of them) that make me want to say "Get on our side or get off of it." The middle of the road is no place to be. That's not a personal attack, it's the way I see your argument, in general.:banghead:

 

[lance22]

Yes - I Know What Anti-Gun Gunners Are Called!

They are called "Wisconsin Sportsmen".

I might add to this that the most rabid, inflammatory, foaming-at-the-mouth anti gunner I have ever met in my life - was an avid hunter. He was a friend of a friend, and though we never had 'dialogue', I did 'try' to have discussion with him a time or two as he was slandering me to my face. The best I could do - not being able to say even a single word without interruption - was to suggest that he turns his guns over to the local police because his ideology does not leave room for guns 'in a home'.

BTW - my right to Free Speech is UNLIMITED. I can say anything I want - now if I do say something that causes harm (thinking the old 'yell fire' deal) then I might go to jail. BTW it is not illegal to 'yell fire' if in fact there is a fire. My right to guns should be this way - I can own anything I want, carry what I want - but if I use it in a way that causes harm (assault) then I go to jail. The idea that rights are not absolute is something I must absolutely disagree with. This is what the Magna Carta was all about - that people have absolute rights - and the only question is whether or not there is going to be a fight over it.

As to common sense gun laws - I recall that the 'common sense' people were all for the proposed san fran gun ban / DC gun ban / Chicago (Willmington?) bans. Hillary C herself uses the phrase "common sense gun control" quite often including on her website - and she agrees whole heartedly with the UN proclimation on the subject.

 

[romma]

Before we beat him with the troll club, let's find out if there is a reason he thinks that way

Send #22 to re-education camp! (Kidding)

I think we need reasonable, common sense gun laws!

Of course the people that make this proclaimation are neither reasonable, nor have any common sense...

 

[Monkeybear]

HKUSP45C- I thought a major point of my post was that while I believe that crazy people and gang members should not be allowed to have guns most of the laws in the works or in effect just serve to take them away from honest Americans. Upon rereading my post I guess it didn't really come across as much as I hoped it would.

As to the background checks, if you commit a violent felony, are a sex offender, or if you if you forget to take your meds you go schizo then I think that you should not be allowed to buy a firearm. If you are involved in a hit and run I think you should not be allowed to drive a car. Same thing to me.
You might not agree with me but the "Your either with us or against us" argument is not going to change my mind. Their rights to own a firearm ended when they displayed the willingness/ability to impose on the rights of others.

As to the carry class, the whole "but who decides? argument just appeals to me emotionally but not rationally. A basic safety course for anyone who wants to carry makes sense to me. It might not to you, I am not trying to convince you. I am just giving a differing opinion: I see nothing wrong with being a 2A purist.

To me some people that have already demonstrated that they are ill suited to the responsibilities of firearm ownership. If you have ever seen anyone in a gun store that you thought should not be there, have ever been cautious about who you sell one of your firearms to or knew someone that you would absolutely never let handle, much less know you have, one of your guns then you know what I mean, at least a little.

I think a lot of shooters are somewhere in the middle of the two opposite extremes. There are many I have talked to that that don't believe that anyone should be able to buy anything. The problem is that the laws never attempt to limit the criminals. They always want to limit everyone. They always want to take everything away from everyone.

 

[fast200]

#33

You said:"The people of each state?
Pure democracy is mob rule at the ballot box. I don't want those who know nothing about the subject controlling me. "

Its called federalism. The people of each state impress their will through representative state governments, not pure democracy.


#39

You said: "Actually, there is. Like all rights they end where the well being of people directly harmed by thier exercise begins."

If you want to see harm, start issuing full autos without background checks to criminals. If this happens, none of us will be able to own.

 

[MisterPX]

You want hypocracy, I've got hypocracy. One of the leaders in WI's fight for CCW says that only the police and military should have NFA machine guns.

 

[HKUSP45C]

Monkeybear, I wasn't really trying to convince you that your opinion was irrelevent. You're certainly entitled to it, in fact I love that other people think differently than I do. I also think your statement was well written and intelligently conveyed.

My issue with your post is that it contains fundamentally flawed logic. As for my comment about "who decides" being an emotional appeal, I'd posit that ALL gun control is based on emotional appeal, not reality.

Like I said, you can't legislate people into obeying the law or being smart for that matter. What you can do is lock those who've harmed others until they aren't a threat (or bury them where they fall) and leave those who obey the simple tennants of society alone.

Sadly, we have seen the simple truth that those who are determined to harm others, do. They simply do it, laws or not. By creating claases of folks who are debarred from exercising thier rights you invite that class to be expanded at the whim of the electorate. AND, it doesn't solve the problem. It just harrasses the masses, mostly law abiding. As to crazies and violent offenders (why everyone throws sex offender in with these I'll never know) why are they out and about? Either they have paid a fair price for thier crime and are citizens again or they aren't fit for society. We can't have it both ways. Granted we currently do but, you need to talk to your states Govenor and Legislators about your outrage over that state of affairs, I have.

I re-iterate: Background checks are worthless as determining the intent of the purchaser. Many, many crimes have been committed with legally owned guns. By folks who passed the checks to get them. Why not forego the BGCs and let people buy the tools they need. We could even lock up the ones who decide to hurt other people. To illustrate, the only crime I'm aware of ever committed with a NFA weapon was carried out by a police officer with his legally owned (presumably on PD letter-head) Mac-10 .... How's that for laws doing the job?

This:

The problem is that the laws never attempt to limit the criminals. They always want to limit everyone. They always want to take everything away from everyone.

Sums up the problem with your belief structure. Laws will always hinder those who obey them. They are of no concern to criminals. Trying to make enough laws to keep criminals from breaking any will only effect those inclined to follow them, thus, the non-criminals.

So, yes, we disagree. Safety classes for CHLs is a bad idea, creating whole classes of prohibited persons is a bad idea (especially when you really start defining crazy, wow that could run a gammit of ailments) is a bad idea and lastly creating more regulation of the sale and purchase of an OBJECT is an abysmally bad idea.

That's really the crux of the argument. Guns are just objects, property, things. They aren't really any more dangerous (and arguably less so) than the cars you brought up. We don't need any regulation covering the sale of objects, as it relates to who can buy them, especially when the object in question is benign in and of itself. I could see regulating things like bio hazard waste or highly unstable explosives but those things are dangerous by virtue of thier very existence, with no outside actor's intent needed to do harm.

Also, checks, taxes, regulation, classes, serial numbers, ballistic fingerprinting, so on and so forth will NEVER, ever harrass the criminals, what they do is assume EVERYONE is a criminal until they prove otherwise.

What you're asking for is two things that are in conflict by default:

You want to keep criminals (and crazies and sex offenders) from being able to buy guns, then in the same breath you say you don't want to endure the laws that (could possibly, maybe, kind of, not really) make that happen, which you support as a means of doing it.

Now, THAT's eating your cake, having it too and giving it away, while keeping it.

So, we've had our say. One last thing, I did ask you for a compelling reason that would preclude a free man from owning a NFA weapon. Do you have one? I'd like to hear it if you do.

 

[mustanger98]

#43

If you want to see harm, start issuing full autos without background checks to criminals. If this happens, none of us will be able to own.

The criminals already get everything they want or can afford without background checks. Restricting us law abiding citizens while thinking you'll catch criminals through background checks they're not going through... that's harm.

 

[Monkeybear]

I guess what I am saying in a nutshell is that I believe in some forms of gun control but I just don't see how its possible to do so by creating laws. I would like to eat my cake and have it too, who wouldn't. I agree with the idea but I don't see how it would work.

I also see no problem with people owning full auto guns. I want a full auto gun, with a silencer, heck make it a full auto .50bmg with a silencer.

 

[woof]

I pretty much agree that more gun control is not needed except for the certifiable crazies and, as has been said, those who have forfeited rights by abusing them. But I'll tell you what really gives me pause - when I hear some fringe types (my characterization) going on and on with a certain gleam in their eyes about what here is called SHTF or about wild scenarios of gangs of BGs invading their homes. Many gun rights crusaders are (it seems to me) obsessed with some post-apocalyptic vision of brass flowing like Niagra as the brave and heroic militia mow down the - and I'm never quite sure who is being mowed down here - the other side I guess. And those who feel compelled to carry around the house (do they shower unarmed?). I really feel that for many of these guys, every day that the S "doesn't" HTF and every day their home isn't invaded is a disappointment. Recognizing that I'm a little strange in a number of ways, I'm not ready to infringe on their rights to be what I consider strange - but they do scare me. I think this thread makes the very good point that more gun control, if it comes, is going to come not from either of the polarized sides getting bigger or stronger, but from the center beginning to lean.

 

[Stump Water]

I also [saw? heard?] that Stainless Steel will rust.

It will.

 

[fast200]

#46

You said: "The criminals already get everything they want or can afford without background checks. Restricting us law abiding citizens while thinking you'll catch criminals through background checks they're not going through... that's harm.

I am not trying to "catch" criminals with background checks. I am trying to keep criminals from buying legally. If you drop the background check, many criminals will just buy from gun stores. I believe we gun owners have the high ground when we point out that criminals don't buy legally.

In a perfect world where gun ownership and carry rights are recognized by the courts and almost all of America, a purist attitude is great. After all, who is going to blame the "tool" for the fool in that circumstance?

But the reality is gun ownership has NOT been recognized as a set in stone right in this country (even though it is a legal right), and the gun grabbers will use everything to take them all away from us.

My argument simply is that limited gun control, like background checks and training, further legitimizes our cause and helps people see past the stereotypical image of a gun owner. Without those, we get lobbed in with the crooks!