wtf Colorado?

[RandyDaytona]

Or the part where they think background checks will do anything to keep people from steeling guns and using them for crime?

I seriously doubt that most criminals "steel" the firearms they use, mainly because there are too many legal (or legal-appearing) ways to get them.

Magazine restrictions are pretty stupid, IMO, and don't do much to stop violent crime.

But I have no issue whatsoever with undergoing a background check to buy a gun. If the fact that I have to be inconvenienced, delayed, have my rights infringed upon, or whatever else you want to call it...if that will potentially keep even one emotionally-unstable person from getting a gun, I'm all for it.

 

[JohnnyT]

I'm not sure if that was a feeble attempt to offend me, but I take no issue with being called malcontent in this matter. I am dissatisfied with the way leftist politicians use tragedy to further their agenda instead of addressing real problems. I am rebellious against rules that are unjust and are without any merit whatsoever. I will always oppose things that inconvenience me or take away what I have without any real justification besides providing some false sense of security to people like you.

So, stop breathing downwind from those NJ sewage plants and learn to comprehend what you are reading.

If my intent was to offend you it would have been far more poignant, very obvious, and without question. I only called you what you admittedly said you are - and I think always will be. Your one of those people that reads the news just looking for something to be angry about so you can hear yourself talk.

This doesn't give me any sense of security nor is it intended to like the randyDaytona guy thinks too. It's only a small step that is being taken to possibly help prevent MASS killing. That's all.

If the changing of a magazine prevents one single solitary death then it is well worth a tad bit of inconvenience to you.

Were you naive enough to think that nothing would be done after Newtown? You should be thankful if that's all that changes in your state.

And for all that NJ is known for, coming back with sewage is indeed feeble.

If you don't like it, you have the RIGHT to move out of state or country.

 

[H2O_Doc]

Citing the particular proposals in Colorado, we at least have a discreet target to shoot at here (pun intended) and one can maybe cite ideals, laws, personal beliefs in a rational discussion. It does, however, seem to be edging toward occasional hyperbole and incorrect assertions. These discussions interest me and I like getting a sense of people's positions and how they reach their conclusions. Just unfortunate when it goes from discussion to debate to name calling to uni-directional information flow.

Curious to see where this goes.

 

[H2O_Doc]

Citing the particular proposals in Colorado, we at least have a discreet target to shoot at here (pun intended) and one can maybe cite ideals, laws, personal beliefs in a rational discussion. It does, however, seem to be edging toward occasional hyperbole and incorrect assertions. These discussions interest me and I like getting a sense of people's positions and how they reach their conclusions. Just unfortunate when it goes from discussion to debate to name calling to uni-directional information flow.

Curious to see where this goes.

 

[YotaLac]

You don't think most criminals steal guns to commit crimes? Put the starbucks down, take off your snuggie, and wake up. If I wanted to commit a robbery, why would I go buy a gun that is gonna be linked to me, and commit a crime with that gun. I'm gonna go down the street to my boy who knows a guy with the hookup. I pay $100 for a gun with the serial number scratched off, go do my dirt, and ditch the piece. Not linked to me in anyway. The first mistake people make is to think all criminals are dumb. Most criminals arent the clowns on Home Alone. But anyways, off subject. Whats the BFD? The BFD is, wether its the right to bear arms, or the right to free speech, its your RIGHT, just like it is mine. You don't want to excersize your right, thats fine. But don't sit back and watch them take it away from me, and then ask me what MY problem is. I'm so sick of these "feeling concious, trendy hipsters" and what not preaching about gun control. I'm the first person in a room to promote peace. The sad fact is this isnt always a peaceful world. These laws arent here to make anything any safer. Laws dont effect criminals, or people with mental issues. You want a safer community, want to help out your fellow man? Buy a gun. Chicago has no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Over 500 gun related deaths last year, and as of Jan 29th already more than 40 in 2013. Thats the BFD. Our govt wants to limit my ability to protect myself....in a nutshell sir.

 

[H2O_Doc]

The stats are more complicated than simple correlations. It might be that high crime cities are more likely to turn to gun control than low crime areas. Seems reasonable. Maybe not justifiable, but reasonable in some capacity. This might make it easy to conclude that gun control leads to higher crime in a specific instance where that isn't true. Of course, I leave open that it COULD be true on some cases. The point is that it takes a deeper analysis to draw any meaningful conclusion.

Careful with simple statistics.

 

[bofa]

But I have no issue whatsoever with undergoing a background check to buy a gun. If the fact that I have to be inconvenienced, delayed, have my rights infringed upon, or whatever else you want to call it...if that will potentially keep even one emotionally-unstable person from getting a gun, I'm all for it.

Keep in mind that background checks do not account for mental instability and do not apply to purchases on the black market or firearms that are stolen... you know, the ones often used in crimes or mass murders. This is basically an extra step and expense for those that already follow the law. I can pass a background check with ease and don't mind doing so, but this step simply adds more expense to firearm transactions with no real benefit.

If my intent was to offend you it would have been far more poignant, very obvious, and without question. I only called you what you admittedly said you are - and I think always will be. Your one of those people that reads the news just looking for something to be angry about so you can hear yourself talk.

This doesn't give me any sense of security nor is it intended to like the randyDaytona guy thinks too. It's only a small step that is being taken to possibly help prevent MASS killing. That's all.

If the changing of a magazine prevents one single solitary death then it is well worth a tad bit of inconvenience to you.

Were you naive enough to think that nothing would be done after Newtown? You should be thankful if that's all that changes in your state.

And for all that NJ is known for, coming back with sewage is indeed feeble.

If you don't like it, you have the RIGHT to move out of state or country.

Interesting summation based on my stance on gun control. Maybe you are speaking from experience?

And you said it all... POSSIBLY and even that word is too generous. There has not been a single documented mass murder prevented by mag capacity restrictions. Look it up and tell me if you find otherwise. In the meantime, go ahead and replace that word with NEVER.You are guessing, throwing darts at a dart board, and hoping for the best, just like these knuckleheads in office. The difference is they have an agenda to push to at least it's benefiting them. You are just spewing garbage you heard on the news.

What about Newtown gives our government to take away something from its citizens? What part of Newtown would have been prevented with a mag restriction or background check? These weapons were stolen and their proper owner murdered. Kids locked in a classroom without any security was like shooting fish in a barrel for this psycho. He could have changed mags 3 times or 20 times and done the same damage.

I don't need to move to disagree with government and stand up for myself. I will do so right here. If you don't want to hear it, move along.

Citing the particular proposals in Colorado, we at least have a discreet target to shoot at here (pun intended) and one can maybe cite ideals, laws, personal beliefs in a rational discussion. It does, however, seem to be edging toward occasional hyperbole and incorrect assertions. These discussions interest me and I like getting a sense of people's positions and how they reach their conclusions. Just unfortunate when it goes from discussion to debate to name calling to uni-directional information flow.

Curious to see where this goes.

Agreed. My original point was to encourage Coloradans that care about this issue to contact their senators before the bill passes. My request is somewhat self-serving given my personal plans.

 

[H2O_Doc]

Don't forget the that the constitutionality to, in some manner (and with narrow limitations) regulate what "arms" can be legally owned is well established, even among more conservative justices. Look to Heller to make a principled argument against a particular proposal (or elsewhere). It isn't as easy as reflexively saying that any proposed limitation is unlawful. Good to dig into current law.

 

[H2O_Doc]

BofA: gotcha and understood. Always interested I'm seeing your posts, even when you take me to task.

 

[JohnnyT]

You don't think most criminals steal guns to commit crimes? Put the starbucks down, take off your snuggie, and wake up. If I wanted to commit a robbery, why would I go buy a gun that is gonna be linked to me, and commit a crime with that gun. I'm gonna go down the street to my boy who knows a guy with the hookup. I pay $100 for a gun with the serial number scratched off, go do my dirt, and ditch the piece. Not linked to me in anyway. The first mistake people make is to think all criminals are dumb. Most criminals arent the clowns on Home Alone. But anyways, off subject. Whats the BFD? The BFD is, wether its the right to bear arms, or the right to free speech, its your RIGHT, just like it is mine. You don't want to excersize your right, thats fine. But don't sit back and watch them take it away from me, and then ask me what MY problem is. I'm so sick of these "feeling concious, trendy hipsters" and what not preaching about gun control. I'm the first person in a room to promote peace. The sad fact is this isnt always a peaceful world. These laws arent here to make anything any safer. Laws dont effect criminals, or people with mental issues. You want a safer community, want to help out your fellow man? Buy a gun. Chicago has no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Over 500 gun related deaths last year, and as of Jan 29th already more than 40 in 2013. Thats the BFD. Our govt wants to limit my ability to protect myself....in a nutshell sir.

Where is it that you live that you feel you need more than 15 rounds of ammunition per magazine to "protect yourself"?

You might want to focus more energy on getting out of there than what weaponry you need to have to continue to live there.

I feel for you dude.

 

[bofa]

BofA: gotcha and understood. Always interested I'm seeing your posts, even when you take me to task.

:tea: It's not my intent to take anyone to task. I just get a little miffed when others think its okay for the govt to take something away just because it's not important to them. What if the govt imposed a ban on importing 4Runners because a few of them were involved in drive-bys?

 

[H2O_Doc]

:tea: It's not my intent to take anyone to task. I just get a little miffed when others think its okay for the govt to take something away just because it's not important to them. What if the govt imposed a ban on importing 4Runners because a few of them were involved in drive-bys?

You can pry my TE from underneath my cold dead butt-cheeks; that's what I'd say.

Now, if it was a Limited....well, you'd be doing me a favor.

 

[Singtoe]

This is what people don't get.

Without the second amendment, all the others wouldn't exist.


The second amendment was not set up for sportsman or for home protection. It was set up to protect us from the government.

What good is 15 rounds if your adversary has twice as many.

 

[JohnnyT]

This is what people don't get.

Without the second amendment, all the others wouldn't exist.


The second amendment was not set up for sportsman or for home protection. It was set up to protect us from the government.

What good is 15 rounds if your adversary has twice as many.

But then the real question is do you deserve the right the 2nd amendment provides you if you missed your adversary 15 times and likely woke up your neighbors while you never even had the decency to even practice?

I say NO.

 

[H2O_Doc]

This is what people don't get.

Without the second amendment, all the others wouldn't exist.


The second amendment was not set up for sportsman or for home protection. It was set up to protect us from the government.

What good is 15 rounds if your adversary has twice as many.

While I agree on the philosophical grounds for having a second amendment (clearly based largely on the fear of an oppressive gvt), what evidence is there to suggest that without the 2nd there would no others? It seems like tautological talking points that make for good advertising but not much else. Remember that 1st amendment rights are or first line protection of liberty and the 2nd a last resort.

 

[Singtoe]

Sacrifice -

There are some dumb people on this forum. If AWB or magazine restriction saves one innocent killing then it would all be worth it...

That is bull shite.

How many of our forefathers died trying to free us from a tyrannical government.

 

[bofa]

But then the real question is do you deserve the right the 2nd amendment provides you if you missed your adversary 15 times and likely woke up your neighbors while you never even had the decency to even practice?

I say NO.

So heat of the moment, moving targets, or simple bad aim (or any of the dozens of other things that can come up) remove the right to defend yourself... and because you woke up your neighbors. I'm done with you... you are clearly trolling. :wave:

 

[Singtoe]

But then the real question is do you deserve the right the 2nd amendment provides you if you missed your adversary 15 times and likely woke up your neighbors while you never even had the decency to even practice?

I say NO.

WTF.

If the government doesn't fear its people, then the people are doomed.




Lets say that in your perfect world, there are no arms, and you relied solely on the government for protection.

Lets say that President does an executive order and takes all your property to be shared with people who have none.

Let say that you protest and take this to court (appointed by judges from the president) and the court rules that the executive order is constitutional.

Are you going to gather your peace love cohorts and protest in the street. Thus, the government will mow you down with machine gun fire because they thought you were terrorist by terrorizing the public with your protest.

Your screwed.


15 rounds leads to 10 rounds which leads to 5 rounds which leads to 1 round and finally to NO rounds allowed.

 

[H2O_Doc]

Sacrifice -

There are some dumb people on this forum. If AWB or magazine restriction saves one innocent killing then it would all be worth it...

That is bull shite.

How many of our forefathers died trying to free us from a tyrannical government.

Are you saying that our founding fathers would unanimously agree that there is no limit to what arms could be owned either during their times or currently? I'm not trying to put words in you mouth, but I am trying to understand your point more specifically.

 

[Singtoe]

While I agree on the philosophical grounds for having a second amendment (clearly based largely on the fear of an oppressive gvt), what evidence is there to suggest that without the 2nd there would no others? It seems like tautological talking points that make for good advertising but not much else. Remember that 1st amendment rights are or first line protection of liberty and the 2nd a last resort.

What evidence. What rock have you been hiding under. Look at South Africa, look at Cambodia, look at North Korea. People are killed all the time for expressing their views about the government. Yet, these countries have very strict gun laws.

"Remember that 1st amendment rights are or first line protection of liberty and the 2nd a last resort." This is wrong. They should be treated equally.