Montana threatens to secede

[redtigerdragon]

I'd have to agree with the regulations. If you make it harder to get a gun legally into the country, it makes it harder to get a gun illegally into the country (state, whatever you want). I don't think they should be totally banned, because it was in our fore-fathers minds that we should be able to defend ourselves from threats both foreign and here in our own country. And why is it such a big deal if the government knows what weapons you have? If the government needed to know exactly all of my world possessions, I wouldn't be up in arms about it. Just another record of what I have, so if my house burns down I can get money for what I had (assuming I had a house or fire insurance). But we definitely need to regulate second hand sales. You sell your gun to someone who seems nice enough, then finds his wife in bed with another man and kills him. Gun comes back to you, you can't remember who you sold it to because you sold it like ten years ago. Or maybe that guy sells it to another guy, who sells it to another guy and the same scenario happens. Comes back to you, you say the guy who's picture they show you definitely didn't buy it from you, and you still can't remember the guy who did. And anyways, who says your a good judge of character? You sell it to a nice enough woman, who claims she just wants it for self defense, but little do you know she was just release from a mental institution and she's off her meds. She goes and shoots up a school because "they took my baby from me!"

[Kingfisher]

Please elaborate. I don't understand what you're agreeing with me on.

 

It seems to me that you're saying that new laws won't make a difference because criminals are going to do what they're going to do. If so, you're not agreeing with me. My point with the "no laws" thing is to show you that the logic you're using, when traced to conclusion, just doesn't work. You don't stop trying to prevent something just because people are going to try to figure a way around it. That's really crappy logic IMO, because if you really believe it then you might as well have no laws.

 

Also, per the "stop all the dramatics" stuff, I was thinking the same thing in regards to all your "ugly side of life/gun pointed at you" fluff. I thought that was really silly.

I don't think its up to the feds to decide what's best for me.

Verran if you chose to read what I said, I agreed with you meaning I don't carry a gun so if there was new laws for regulating guns it doesn't affect me.

 

I am just argueing in principle here that the folks in DC don't have a right to make blanket rules.

 

And that "fluff" as you called it has happened to me. The difference there was that I am rational. I'm not going to run out and get a gun just to get even.

 

Anyways, the bottom line here is that guns should be regulated by the state not the feds.

[Verran]

Anyways, the bottom line here is that guns should be regulated by the state not the feds.

I think it needs to be a combination of both. Sale/transaction laws differing between states does us absolutely zero good. It becomes a lowest-common-denominator issue at that point given how easy it is to move things between states. On the other hand, laws dealing with usage and carrying could very easily be state determined and not federal.

[Kingfisher]

What's wrong with the "current system" is that there is none! As has been stated, every state has its own rules, and that never works for anything.

 

In addition, the point Verran is making, and I agree on, is that restricting further WILL matter...down the road. No, things won't change overnight, but eventually, it'll be harder for criminals to acquire guns. Using the "war on drugs" argument is ridiculous. You can't hire people to stick a gun up their azz to smuggle onto a plane like you can with drugs. You can't stuff firearms inside teddy bears and avoid metal detectors like you can drugs. They're a completely different beast. Yeah, guns will still be available on the black market, but don't for a second think they'll be as readily available as some coke or heroin.

Are you serious? Yea let's smuggle in guns through the airports and see if we get past the TSA. Again, only a na

[Waco]

Are you serious? Yea let's smuggle in guns through the airports and see if we get past the TSA. Again, only a na

[Kingfisher]

I think you should read what he wrote again...

No, again you misinterpret my point.

I generalized, I should be more clear.

Ahem...

You are not going stop these illegal guns by having the folks in DC try and save us.

We agree to disagree and I'll kindly leave it at that.

[ClayMeow]

No, again you misinterpret my point.

I generalized, I should be more clear.

Ahem...

You are not going stop these illegal guns by having the folks in DC try and save us.

We agree to disagree and I'll kindly leave it at that.

There is a difference between agreeing to disagree and not understanding the arguments presented to you. You, kind sir, apparently fall into the latter.

[Kingfisher]

There is a difference between agreeing to disagree and not understanding the arguments presented to you. You, kind sir, apparently fall into the latter.

Well, you can be like Waco and selectively read it the way you did.

I was actually agreeing with you.

What I disagree with you on I thought I explained in my earlier posts.

Of course you can't board a plane and smuggle in weapons. I was being sarcastic.

I should have used smilies and eyerolls.

[Verran]

King, I am having an extraordinarily hard time understanding what you're trying to say. What is your point?

[Kingfisher]

King, I am having an extraordinarily hard time understanding what you're trying to say. What is your point?

None, I have no point.

I clearly don't understand at all.

The pen is blue.

[LoArmistead]

Why so much hatred for conceal carry? These are the people who, regardless of how lax y'all may believe the process is, actually spent the time and money to carry a concealed weapon in public legally. In the early 90s when conceal carry laws were first gaining traction, the gun regulation folks said there would "blood in the streets." "It'll be just like the shootout at the OK Corral all across America." Ever since then, they've tried, desperately, to find evidence that people legally carrying concealed have committed calculated acts of violence, or any other report to try and further restrict the use of conceal carry. Thus far, they've come up with zilch. So they use the threat of what might happen if someone carrying a weapon in a mall went berserk. Seeing as how there is no evidence of this ever happening, let's take a look at these stories:

 

Remember this upscale Utah mall? Crazy butt kid takes a gun in and starts shooting people at random? Gun free zone! How did this happen? Luckily there was an off-duty cop nearby, otherwise a lot more than five innocent people would've died. The kid wasn't supposed to be in there with a gun.

 

Or how about back as far as the UT Austin tower sniper? The only reason more than 16 weren't killed was because the local rednecks were laying suppressing fire down on the clock fire with their hunting rifles until the police snipers could get there. Standard issue side arms and shotguns don't tend to be very effective at 300.

 

Or how about the Omaha mall shooting?

 

If I really wanted to try and prove a point, the list could go on and on, but the one thing I am wanting to point out is that these shootings take place in gun free zones. Serial killers are awful, evil people, but they are also cowards. They always choose highly populated areas where people are least likely to be able to defend themselves. And nothing paints a big red bulls eye on peoples' backs better than a sign on the door or a law passed in DC that says "GUN FREE ZONE." Lambs to the slaughter. Aggressors always take calculated risks before making a move, no matter how crazy they are. That's why schizophrenics never pick on big muscular guys when they have their "uncontrollable outbursts." They choose the smallest, weakest looking person in the crowd to blow up on. A calculated assault. A gangbanger is more likely to rob a woman walking down the street yapping on her cell phone than he is a 6'2'', well-built, man walking down the street obviously paying attention to his surroundings. A calculated assault.

 

If it takes harder written tests and some other form of proof to reassure you guys that someone legally carrying a concealed weapon can

 

EDIT: There were about two paragraphs typed out below that cutoff line, but for some reason, my browser has been doing this a lot, I'll type it out, submit, and when it posts... it will randomly cut off part of the post. I have no clue why. Kinda frustrating...

Edited May 7, 2009 by LoArmistead

[Andrewr05]

The govt knows all the cars you own. You gave your consent when you registered them.

Maybe in New York...