The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old July 26, 2012, 11:45 AM   #51
Sinlessorrow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2011
Posts: 146
I wonder if Obama realizes we use the M16FOW and our enemies use the AK-47?
Sinlessorrow is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:46 AM   #52
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 524
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraigwy
Lets take a closer look at the AK47
kraigwy, I learn something almost every time you post!
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 12:15 PM   #53
BigMikey76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 437
Quote:
While I don’t fundamentally disagree with this statement either the devil is indeed in the details. For instance what are some ways they might use to reduce access to guns by criminals?

Enact a Federal five day waiting period to buy a gun allowing more detailed background checks.

Require background checks for ammo purchases.

Require all sales to go through a FFL even individual to individual.

Eliminate on-line sales of guns and ammo.
I agree that these measures are probably the most likely steps to be taken, if any steps are taken at all. I don't, however, see these as completely bad things. All of the things you mentioned here are aimed at reducing the chances of criminals getting their hands on guns. If your background has no red flags, then all it would be is an inconvenience. You would still be able to purchase firearms, just not quite as fast. In an organized society, the government is tasked with protecting the populace. We may not always agree with the way they do it, but that is part of representative government. Accepting an inconvenience so the government can try to do its job is not the same as giving up rights. To the best of my knowledge, there is no "right to walk out of the store with my new gun without a waiting period."

Quote:
If a legislative body wrote a law and said that "everyone has to do A, B, and C," we infer from the statute that the legislature intended to exclude D from the list of things everyone has to do.
That is true, but it doesn't really apply. We are not talking about a legislative body. We are talking about a speech. Even if we were talking about legislation, however, your logic is still not quite on track. You are talking about legal obligations, not rights. The concern is not whether we HAVE to do something, as in your example, it is whether we will be ALLOWED to do something. The logic you presented works the other way in this case. If the law says we are NOT ALLOWED to do A, B and C, but does not mention D, and we therefore assume that the legislature intentionally left D off the list, that means we ARE allowed to do D. That is a much more appropriate example in this situation. The logic of intentional exclusion as it applies to this example lends itself far more readily to the idea that anything not mentioned was left out because there is no intention of restricting it.
__________________
“Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.”

A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
BigMikey76 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 12:17 PM   #54
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 1,188
Quote:
Comm-cents wrote:
I liked what he said, there was a spike in gun sales after the recent tragedy, the more he spews his ignorance the better the odds that we will lose!
WE will lose or HE will lose?
Mike38 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 12:19 PM   #55
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Do you realize the National Guard was still being called the militia in the 1920s? I think maybe the word "militia" now has a bad connotation, seeing as how some otherwise very nice folks take it upon themselves to try to organize their own private army and call it a militia.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 12:29 PM   #56
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,798
Quote:
I agree that these measures are probably the most likely steps to be taken, if any steps are taken at all. I don't, however, see these as completely bad things.
Well, the issue was keeping guns away from criminals and I doubt any of the hypothetical things I mentioned would work. We have to remember that criminals are not going to follow the law and would certainly find simply ways around these supposed controls.

All these controls would do is score politicians a few points and make things more difficult for law abiding citizens. The bigger problem is that after implementing some “reasonable” controls when there is not reduction in violence guess what’s next ever more draconian levels of control.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 12:34 PM   #57
pgdion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,118
One thing some states have and some don't (mine does) is a requirement to have a permit to purchase a hand gun or any AR style rifle. I like this solution myself and feel it offer us all the rights we deserve with an extra barrier between the criminals/crazies and the guns. It's nothing more than a slightly more in depth background check (which everyone should still pass if not a felon and not un-stable) but it does require showing up in person at your local police dept or sheriff's office in filling out a form in front of them. There is no cost and if your good, you get your permit to purchase in about a week. It's good for a year, is continuously renewable, and lets you buy a gun and take it with you same day. I think that many would have a tough time even showing up in person or passing the screening. I don't think the Gifford's shooter would have made it and I doubt Holmes would have either. They just would have come off as too unstable I think (and I'm not sure they would even have tried to get the permit). This system also stops the heat of the moment rash thinking to some extent because there is now a waiting period for that first gun. I like the system myself and it hasn't stopped me or anyone I know from getting all the guns we want. I personally feel better knowing that not just anyone can walk in off the street at anytime and buy a handgun or AR style rifle.
__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time!
pgdion is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 12:44 PM   #58
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,798
Quote:
I don't think the Gifford's shooter would have made it and I doubt Holmes would have either.
So, what do you base this on? When I got my permit the government clerical worker took my form, fingerprints and $75. There was no psychological screening and I doubt she looked at me more than once during the entire process. I suspect neither of the people you mentioned would have been denied a permit based simply on the observation of the person processing the request.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 12:47 PM   #59
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
The president and all these anti gunners want to live in a fairly land state where only the government at various levels has guns. In history nations that have done this have ALWAYS paid a high price in blood and lives for these policies. Ask the people of North Korea what that price is...

Look at the UK and other places, the government cannot claim they lowered murder or anything else, in fact in some cities crime is higher than ever and the police have taken to skewing what’s reported as a crime to try to lower the numbers...

Australia restricted guns to the point when they had a infestation of rabbits they had to hand out dynamite to the farmers to try to help deal with the problem... Funny I never thought dynamite was a safe as a firearm... (Not that it goes off easily)

I think its funny that in a election year they are now willing to roll the gun control carpet out in front of everyone.... This is one administration that simply does not learn from the past...
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 12:48 PM   #60
BigMikey76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 437
Quote:
Quote:
I agree that these measures are probably the most likely steps to be taken, if any steps are taken at all. I don't, however, see these as completely bad things.
Well, the issue was keeping guns away from criminals and I doubt any of the hypothetical things I mentioned would work. We have to remember that criminals are not going to follow the law and would certainly find simply ways around these supposed controls.
This is absolutely correct. The law breakers will always find a way to break the law, but that doesn't mean that the lawmakers should not try to make it more difficult for them.

The other end of it is the enforcement of laws, which was a major point in the President's speech. He said that part of the equation is working with LE to make sure that the laws are enforced. That is really all the government can do.
__________________
“Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.”

A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
BigMikey76 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 12:50 PM   #61
pgdion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,118
I just don't think some of these nut cases would even have the guts to go into their PD. Keep in mind that Holmes was turned away from a range on a 'bad' feeling about him. not saying this is a catch all or guarantee, just an extra barrier. BTW - I'm not suggesting to do what your state does (that's 'gone too far'). Here there are no fingerprints and there is no cost (so everyone can do it). Just requires showing up in person, filling out a background form, and then passing a little scrutiny than the FFL check does. I like the system.
__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time!
pgdion is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 12:50 PM   #62
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,553
Quote:
One thing some states have and some don't (mine does) is a requirement to have a permit to purchase a hand gun or any AR style rifle.
And just how would that have changed things in most of the mass shooting we've had the last few years?

Short Answer: None, none what so ever. Chicago has more restrictive firearms laws, how is that working out for them?

Your ideals are like many (all) gun control laws, the sound good, give people a warm fuzzy feeling, but haven't reduced crime one little bit.

So what do they accomplish besides "infringe" on Law abiding citizens.

Infringe.................where have I seen that word before?

Quote:
Infringe: to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress:
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 01:09 PM   #63
Axelwik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2012
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 389
I really don't think that Obama will take away gun rights. If he's so anti-gun, then why did he do these things?

From http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-...ard-gun-rights

Quote:
September 2008: Obama seeks to reassure gun owners: "I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. ... There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away." Nonetheless, gun sales go up when Obama wins, apparently because of fear that new restrictions are imminent under his administration.

2009: As president, Obama signs a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons in the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and other national parks and wildlife refuges and another that lets people carry guns in their checked bags on Amtrak trains.

2010: The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives Obama a grade of "F'' for failing to push even the gun restrictions he supported while campaigning.
In 2009 he actually EXPANDED gun rights!
Axelwik is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 01:27 PM   #64
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,553
Quote:
2009: As president, Obama signs a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons in the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and other national parks and wildlife refuges
Not to get political be lets be fair here.

That bill was a rider to another bill he had no choice in signing. It was not a stand alone bill. He did in fact come out with an executive order reversing another's executive order allowing firearms into National Parks.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 01:40 PM   #65
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMikey76
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryLee
While I don’t fundamentally disagree with this statement either the devil is indeed in the details. For instance what are some ways they might use to reduce access to guns by criminals?

Enact a Federal five day waiting period to buy a gun allowing more detailed background checks.

Require background checks for ammo purchases.

Require all sales to go through a FFL even individual to individual.

Eliminate on-line sales of guns and ammo.
I agree that these measures are probably the most likely steps to be taken, if any steps are taken at all.
If you want to see at least some of the things Obama is contemplating, you can read about them -in his own words- in the article he wrote for the Arizona Daily Star following the Giffords shooting. The actions cited in that article essentially boiled down to making NICS information more accurate, complete, and timely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMikey76
I don't, however, see these as completely bad things. All of the things you mentioned here are aimed at reducing the chances of criminals getting their hands on guns.
How does an arbitrary waiting period achieve anything? The information is either available in NICS or it is not. Unlike wine, database search results do not improve with age.

How does a background search for ammo achieve anything? If NICS checks work properly for guns, criminals will not have guns in which to use ammo; if they do not work for guns, they will also not work for ammo.

Requiring all sales to go through FFLs would only enrich gun dealers. If you think all purchasers need to be checked through NICS (and I do not), open NICS up to individual use.

Please explain how eliminating "online sales" achieves anything. Buying a gun "online" simply means you have reached an agreement to conduct a transaction with/through an FFL or a face-to-face transaction with an individual. As to ammo, see above.
gc70 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 01:46 PM   #66
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraigwy
That bill was a rider to another bill he had no choice in signing. It was not a stand alone bill. He did in fact come out with an executive order reversing another's executive order allowing firearms into National Parks.
I don't think Obama revoked the regulation adopted by the Bush administration; a federal court took care of that without his involvement. However, the Obama administration did not pursue a challenge of the court ruling or conduct the environmental impact assessment that was the court's basis for invalidating the regulation.
gc70 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 01:51 PM   #67
tobnpr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 3,232
Far as I'm concerned, he (Obama) can keep shooting himself in the foot...
There is LESS support for stricter gun regulations- not more- among the voting public.

Other than the far-left liberals, that won't let facts interfere with their arguments, informed Americans and firearms owners know that allowing self-defense weapons into the hands of law-abiding citizens has lowered violent crime and murder rates- not raised them...

The Democrats- even Reid- understands that the majority of centrist and right-leaning Dems will not support stricter gun regulations.

How are those strict gun control laws working out in Chicago for ya, Rahm?
Only the gang-bangers and criminals have guns...

The problem is, it starts under the guise of "high capacity magazines"...
Who needs them, "they" say...
Well, I would fairly say, no one...
BUT...the problem is, if you ban magazines with say, capacity of 50 rounds or more- it will open the FLOODGATES...

They won't be happy stopping there. They'll continue to whittle away at our 2nd Amendment rights. So, there must be a line in the sand...right now.

What "they" also don't realize is that anyone that trains with their weapons, can effect mag changes in two seconds.

There was just an episode of TAC TV where Vickers competed with Sterling subgun against a competition handgun shooter.
Despite the fact that the handgun shooter had to effect a mag change, he was every bit as accurate, and effective against the clock and targets as Vickers with the subgun...

The non-shooting (and some of the shooting, as well) public is just plain ignorant...and I don't mean that in a mean way, just in the pure definition of the term. They don't understand the FACTS.
tobnpr is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 01:53 PM   #68
Axelwik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2012
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 389
Kraigwy, I'm just stating facts... everything else is just talk.

I voted for Obama in 2008 and will again this year.
Axelwik is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 01:54 PM   #69
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,850
Latest Pres. statement on gun laws -

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...ws-130201.html

Looks like the AK statement doesn't indicate push for new laws but a general look, blah, blah. Romney basically said the same thing.

It will blow over, the Olympics will fill the cable news shows. Some ranting and that's it.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 02:03 PM   #70
Sparks1957
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,474
Quote:
We are not going to stop murder in this country. We can either allow people to defend themselves or make them easier targets
Some of the ideas being posted here by gun owners are pretty disturbing... having to go your police department to get a permit to buy a gun? Eliminating on-line sales of guns and ammo? What?

Since when do criminals pay a whole lot of attention to the law? All you are suggesting will simply make it more difficult for law-abiding people to participate in the shooting sports.

Places like Chicago do not allow people to carry guns... and look at the statistics about gunshot deaths there, it clearly is working isn't it?

I'm all for keeping weapons out of the hands of the lunatic fringe, believe me. You won't do it by passing more gun laws.
Sparks1957 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 02:09 PM   #71
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,553
Quote:
The problem is, it starts under the guise of "high capacity magazines"...
Who needs them, "they" say...
Well, I would fairly say, no one...
Again, I'll go back to my stand on competition shooting.

One of the events in Service Rifle Matches is the Rattle Battle, or Infantry Trophy Match fired at Camp Perry and other major matches.

The ITT requires high cap. magazines. You basically start out with a team of 6 shooters, you are issued a set amount of ammo and fired at different ranges. Starting at 600 yards the targets are exposed for 50 seconds. During that time the team fires at 8 targets. They then move to shorter ranges doing the same thing in the same time period. The more hits you score and the furthest ranges, rather then the shorter, the higher your score.

If you tried to fire the match with 5 or 10 round magazines you'd run out of time before you got you rounds off.

The same thing with pistol shooting. Many active type shooting matches, such as steel challenge, etc, depend on high cap magazines to be competitive. It's about time, and high cap magazines help you with the time.

I am well aware that not everyone shoots competition, but to say NO ONE but criminals and soldiers have a use for military style "service rifles" and/or high capacity magazines is misstating facts and doing a dis-service to thousands of competitors of shooting sports.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 02:16 PM   #72
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMikey76
That is true, but it doesn't really apply. We are not talking about a legislative body. We are talking about a speech. Even if we were talking about legislation, however, your logic is still not quite on track. You are talking about legal obligations, not rights. The concern is not whether we HAVE to do something, as in your example, it is whether we will be ALLOWED to do something. The logic you presented works the other way in this case. If the law says we are NOT ALLOWED to do A, B and C, but does not mention D, and we therefore assume that the legislature intentionally left D off the list, that means we ARE allowed to do D. That is a much more appropriate example in this situation. The logic of intentional exclusion as it applies to this example lends itself far more readily to the idea that anything not mentioned was left out because there is no intention of restricting it.
Well, yes and no. As you might imagine, I read this somewhat differently. I agree with your statement that "If the law says we are NOT ALLOWED to do A, B and C, but does not mention D, and we therefore assume that the legislature intentionally left D off the list, that means we ARE allowed to do D." However, my statement dealt with requirements, yours with prohibitions. Neither one deals with rights.

Let's take a look at the original quote from the OP:
Quote:
“I – like most Americans – believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.

“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” he added.
We have to go somewhat far afield into speculation as to what this omission means, and I doubt that either you or I or anyone else will know exactly why SD was not mentioned, absent a clarifying statement.

Anyway, Obama specifically mentioned "hunting and shooting" as part of a "cherished national heritage." My contention is that the omission of "self defense" indicates that Obama or at least his speech-writers do not consider self defense to be part of that "cherished national heritage." My conclusion: this indicates to me a belief that while hunting and shooting are worthy of protection, SD is not (either in the speech writer's mind, or Obama's).

In the realm of legislation and caselaw, consider how the restrictive jurisdictions have briefed out the issue of "whether there is an RKBA outside the home." Those attorneys charged with upholding restrictive laws have consistently claimed that Heller stands only for the proposition that there is a 2A right to keep and bear arms inside the home, and only inside the home. Heller did not deal with carry outside the home, and courts will not (typically) answer a question that was not asked. That said, the omission from the discussion of any RKBA outside the home is being held up to mean that there is no RKBA outside the home.

It is my sincere hope that you are right and that the administration has absolutely zero designs on restricting the RKBA. I do not, however, believe that to be the case.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 02:22 PM   #73
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 3,235
Quote:
Look at the UK and other places, the government cannot claim they lowered murder or anything else, in fact in some cities crime is higher than ever and the police have taken to skewing what’s reported as a crime to try to lower the numbers...

That is like suggesting that guns are the cure to crime.

If that were the case then crime rates in the US would, surely, be close to nil.

Guns are a defence against crime. That is all.

Now, I whole heartedly agree that UK firearm law is excessively restrictive and should, at least be revised to allow for personal/home protection.

I would suggest that far more effective cures to crime would be greater education, equality and opportunity for people from all backgrounds and walks of life in a given country.
__________________
You cannot wake someone who is pretending to sleep. Stop pretending. Wake up.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 02:28 PM   #74
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,185
I'm confused.

AK47s, by which I think Obama means part-plastic, pistol-grip, detachable-mag, semi-auto weapons like the AR-15, do not belong in the hands of street criminals. I think we can all agree on that, but no actual or proposed law is likely to be able to address that problem, and it's a very minor problem compared to criminals with guns generally.

What I cannot agree with is this administration's apparent belief that such weapons belong in the hands of gun runners who will carry them across the border and pass them on to people who shoot our border patrol agents.

Calling for public policy that will remove evil guns from the hands of criminals is like calling for a manned space mission to Alpha Centauri. Except that the latter would be ridiculed for being unrealistic, while gun-haters eat up anti-gun proposals without considering if they will actually achieve their perceived goals, and without considering collateral damage.
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)

Last edited by tyme; July 26, 2012 at 02:54 PM.
tyme is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 02:39 PM   #75
BigMikey76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 437
I'm gonna try to stay out of this after this post, as I believe most of what I have to say has been said already, either by me or by others.

The speech the President gave was in response to a terrible and regrettable incident. As the President, he was obligated to say something, and he did. I have listened to that speech a few times now, and I can't see any legitimate way to interpret it as an attack on gun rights. He said that the government needs to take what measures it can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. He said that the government, in the form of law enforcement, should make greater efforts to ensure the enforcement of the existing laws. He also said that social programs should be supported, particularly programs aimed at helping to stop kids from getting to the point that they resort to violence.

He did not say that he wants to take away the rights of lawful gun owners. He did not say that he wants to ban assault weapons. He made no mention of firearms used for self-defense by law-abiding citizens.

I think a lot of people are reacting to their own fears and preconceived notions here. Because he is a Democrat, it is assumed that he is automatically an anti-gun activist, despite the fact that there is no real evidence to support that. That is the same as assuming that all Republicans have secret stashes of weapons and ammo in their cellars. The truth is that there are many different variations out there. I, for example, am a Democrat, but I love my guns, and I will stand up right next to you in defense of my right to own them. I know Republicans who don't like guns, and think there ought to be more restrictions on them.

To put it succintly (I know, too late) we are involved in a debate over the meaning of statements that were not even made. In a debate like that, there is no winner.

Soapbox dismounted.
__________________
“Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.”

A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
BigMikey76 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16611 seconds with 7 queries