Ante up anti gunners...what will you allow for normal gun owners, what do you want?

[jon_berzerk]

whatever it takes to keep people free.

So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't? When have firearms kept American people free?

This happened in the 1990s.......

How gun control led to genocide in this small European country

In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.

---

Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict. The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. -

As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country

Take a look at a country where everyone owns a gun: Afghanistan. Guns have not brought peace there.

wonder how that would work out

if one took the guns away from the good guys

or any group for that matter

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Whatever cops and soldiers use...we get...since we are the ones who pay their salaries...they do not run us....we hire and fire them....

Flame thowers, armored cars, automatic weapons... Is there no end?

Thank God all of those things are legal....

Legal or protected by the 2nd?

Does it really matter? I can own all of em if I want em so it's kinda moot aint it now?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

whatever it takes to keep people free.

So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't? When have firearms kept American people free?

This happened in the 1990s.......

How gun control led to genocide in this small European country

In July 1995, in Srebrenica — an area that had been officially declared a United Nations safe zone — the Serbian army perpetrated genocide against the Bosnians who had taken refuge there. The United Nations did nothing to stop the genocide. Those weeks — bloody, devastating and heartbreaking — were a high-speed version of what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-95 war.

---

Those who were attacked, mostly Muslims of Bosnia and other non-Serbs, did not have weapons to defend themselves as the gun control laws in communist Yugoslavia had been very strict. The procedure to obtain a license for firearms was so lengthy and so severe that most applicants were refused. Many of the individuals who successfully acquired a license were only given permission to own hunting guns, which were not particularly helpful in war-like circumstances. -

As a result, citizens were generally unarmed against the Serbian Army attackers. Civilians of Bosnia were forced to defend themselves with weapons they stole from local police stations that were already very limited in their resources. Bosnians started to organize “territorial defense” forces, which later grew into the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People in urban areas were more likely to come across some sort of weapon since they were in proximity of police stations and similar institutions where they could obtain firearms. Most of the genocide and brutal mass killings happened in the small cities and rural areas that did not have similar resources available and were easily cut off from the rest of the country. Srebrenica is one tragic example of such territory. - See more at: How gun control led to genocide in this small European country

Take a look at a country where everyone owns a gun: Afghanistan. Guns have not brought peace there.

Muslims are murderous savages.

 

[oldsoul]

All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.

All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.

Yet you mock responsible gun control.

Define it then.

??? I just did. Our regulation of machine guns is very effective. Expand it to include all firearms. No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.

Except that only criminals would be armed to the teeth. What kind of fantasy world do you live in where criminals obey laws? See, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. No gun law ever has, nor ever will, stop a criminal from committing a crime. If a criminal wants my wallet, on the other hand, he will have to kill me to get it. See the difference? You want to prosecute him for taking my wallet, I want to stop him from taking it.

Criminals don't obey laws? You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective? How many crimes are being committed by criminals wielding machine guns do we suffer every day?

Or ever?

Save your bumper sticker responses.

Criminals don't obey laws?

If you dispute this you are crazy.

You think that life in prison for illegal possession of a machine gun isn't effective?

It is effective as long as the person stays in prison. However, a "life" term is not what it seems.

"Life imprisonment sentences are rare in the federal criminal justice
system. Virtually all offenders convicted of a federal crime are
released from prison eventually and return to society or, in the
case of illegal aliens, are deported to their country of origin. Yet in
fiscal year 2013 federal judges imposed a sentence of life
imprisonment without parole1 on 153 offenders. Another 168
offenders received a sentence of a specific term of years that was
so long it had the practical effect of being a life sentence.
Although together these offenders represent only 0.4 percent of all
offenders sentenced that year,..." http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/f...eys/miscellaneous/20150226_Life_Sentences.pdf
It's only effective if it's used.
"In most, nearly all cases the judge sentences someone who gets life in prison to serve a minimum of 15 years." Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaLife_imprisonment
"
Although Congress abolished parole in the federal prison system, your husband's sentence will be reduced by 54 days per year, after the successful completion of each year, for "good conduct time" pursuant to 18 USC Section 3624(b). While 54 days per year equals a 15% reduction, and such is the percentage that the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") states that he will receive, the actual reduction will be approximately 47 days per year, or 13%, based on BOP's interpretation of "official detention:" good conduct time credits will be awarded based on the actual time to be served, not the total sentence. If he is eligible for the Residential Drug Abuse Program ("RDAP"), he will receive an additional possible 12 month reduction for its successful completion, and 6 months of community confinement (a combination of halfway house or "residential re-entry center" and home confinement immediately prior to his beginning his sentence of supervised release. - Joshua Sabert Lowther, Esq., National Federal Defense Group." If given a 15 year sentence in federal case do - Q&A - Avvo

Save your bumper sticker responses.

Bumper sticker responses? How about you explain to me how "...Shall not be infringed." is unclear or debatable.

 

[Al Azar]

whatever it takes to keep people free.

So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't? When have firearms kept American people free?

How the hell do you think we won our independence?

The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.

Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...

What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?

To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces. That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.

 

[Coyote]

The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.

Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”​

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:

In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.

Since online a gun and voting are both basic civil rights.....would you agree to a tax on voting and a test before you can vote?

No.

Voting is a fundamental right to the democratic process. Gun ownership is not.

 

[Coyote]

The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.

Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”​

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:

In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.

I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?

What are the chances that we'll see an increase in drunken shooting incidents? Guns used first in lieu of other dispute resolutions? And, what are the chances those guys are going to get robbed anyway? Low.

 

[Coyote]

The problem with guns here, is the culture behind it. I was listening to an interview with a Norwegian on their gun culture.

Like Americans, many Norwegians own guns. But according to Seierstad, the culture of gun ownership is very different in the two countries. In Norway, for example, it's uncommon to see guns outside organized settings like gun clubs or during hunting season.


“Yes, there’s a high percentage of gun ownership in Norway," she says, "but those guns are used mainly one week in the year during the hunting of elk season ... the rest of the year it’s locked down and stored.”


Even US and Norwegian law enforcement have different approaches to firearms.


“The police has not been armed in Norway,” Seierstad says. “People in the US could say, ‘Well, isn’t that scary?’ Well when the police is not armed, the drug dealer is not armed, the criminals are not armed, because no one is armed.”

After Orlando, Americans and US lawmakers are arguing over whether to strengthen (or even weaken) gun regulations. But after the attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norwegian law didn't change.


The Norwegian government did set up a committee that proposed tighter gun laws — including mandatory medical background checks, regular checks on weapon owners and better lists accounting for guns with lead ammunition — but none of these proposals went into effect.


Why? The reason was pretty simple.

“We had quite restrictive laws,” Seierstad explains. "We have very very few gun accidents and gun murders.”​

You don't see testosterone impaired idiots walking around like this:

In my mind common sense gun control would look at changing the culture as much as changing any laws. I'd have no problem with some sort of education course in safe use, legal issues etc before you can purchase gun. I'd also have no problem with having certain types of weapons banned, and the purchase of large amounts of weapons and ammunition causing a red flag to be raised. Universal background checks.

I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?

All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.

All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.

Yet you mock responsible gun control.

Define it then.

??? I just did. Our regulation of machine guns is very effective. Expand it to include all firearms. No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.

Machine guns are regulated. Assault style weaponry is not. There's not a whole lot of difference between the two anymore.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

whatever it takes to keep people free.

So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't? When have firearms kept American people free?

How the hell do you think we won our independence?

The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.

Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...

What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?

To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces. That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.

I'm not worried about our military,they tend to be staunch defenders of the Constitution.

 

[Al Azar]

"... shall not be infringed" needs to be taken in context. The foundation for the entire constitution is encapsulated in its preamble, where it sets forth the function of our government to "promote the common welfare". It's hard to rationalize blocking public safety efforts as being in the spirit of promoting our welfare, but some folks sure manage to twist and torture its meaning to promote their agenda of fear.

 

[oldsoul]

Where in the constitution is registration prohibited?

Ever heard of the 10th amendment? Let me refresh your memory"
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Seems pretty much as clear as "...shall not be infringed."

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

"... shall not be infringed" needs to be taken in context. The foundation for the entire constitution is encapsulated in its preamble, where it sets forth the function of our government to "promote the common welfare". It's hard to rationalize blocking public safety efforts as being in the spirit of promoting our welfare, but some folks sure manage to twist and torture its meaning to promote their agenda of fear.

Since you apparently missed it the first time....

 

[Al Azar]

I understand where you are coming from, but ask yourself this: How likely is it that someone is going to rob any of those guys in your picture? Pretty low right? That would be kinda stupid if you ask me. Now, what if the vast majority of people in the US where concealed carriers? How long do you think it would take before criminals would change, if chances were pretty good that granny was "packin' heat"?

All the pro-gun arguments are based on Charlie Bronson films.

All the pro-responsible gun control arguments are based on facts.

Yet you mock responsible gun control.

Define it then.

??? I just did. Our regulation of machine guns is very effective. Expand it to include all firearms. No law-abiding citizen would be adversely affected.

Machine guns are regulated. Assault style weaponry is not. There's not a whole lot of difference between the two anymore.

Machine guns are the perfect example of how gun control in the United States works.

 

[Al Azar]

So the firepower of individuals should at least equal that of the gov't? When have firearms kept American people free?

How the hell do you think we won our independence?

The rebels and the military both used the same classes of weapons.

Now, back to personal nuclear weaponry...

What the hell does a nuke have to do with it?

To protect us, to put us on an even footing with our potential enemy, the US Armed Forces. That was the intent of the founding fathers when they gave us the right to bear arms, according to what I read here.

I'm not worried about our military,they tend to be staunch defenders of the Constitution.

Then scratch one excuse off your list, and understand that you've just admitted that what the founding fathers intended is no longer valid.

 

[Coyote]

WV passed a concealed carry law recently.

West Virginia legalizes concealed carry without a permit | Fox News

Beginning June 5, anyone over age 21 who can legally possess a firearm will be allowed to carry it concealed on their person without having to obtain a permit. West Virginia has long allowed permitless open carry but, like most states, required a permit to carry a concealed firearm. With the new law the state will become the eighth in the nation to implement what gun rights activists call “constitutional carry.”


The law also creates a provisional permitting process for those between the ages of 18 and 20 who wish to carry a concealed firearm within the state. Individuals between the ages of 18 and 20 had previously been excluded from the permitting process altogether.​

No permit.

No required training.

18 and up.

That means on college campus'.....brilliant idea.

 

[oldsoul]

"... shall not be infringed" needs to be taken in context. The foundation for the entire constitution is encapsulated in its preamble, where it sets forth the function of our government to "promote the common welfare". It's hard to rationalize blocking public safety efforts as being in the spirit of promoting our welfare, but some folks sure manage to twist and torture its meaning to promote their agenda of fear.

How does the government knowing where all the LEGAL guns are "promote the general welfare"?
How has background checks promoted the general welfare?
More to the point, just how much freedom and liberty are you willing to give up to feel safe? Me, I'll feel pretty safe with a Glock on my hip, but you go ahead and do what you do to feel safe.

 

[Al Azar]

Where in the constitution is registration prohibited?

Ever heard of the 10th amendment? Let me refresh your memory"
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Seems pretty much as clear as "...shall not be infringed."

Perfect. You're making my case. Show where the constitution prohibits the states from registering firearms and performing background checks on purchasers. It's our right protected by the 10th Amendment, after all, and doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.

 

[Al Azar]

"... shall not be infringed" needs to be taken in context. The foundation for the entire constitution is encapsulated in its preamble, where it sets forth the function of our government to "promote the common welfare". It's hard to rationalize blocking public safety efforts as being in the spirit of promoting our welfare, but some folks sure manage to twist and torture its meaning to promote their agenda of fear.

How does the government knowing where all the LEGAL guns are "promote the general welfare"?
How has background checks promoted the general welfare?
More to the point, just how much freedom and liberty are you willing to give up to feel safe? Me, I'll feel pretty safe with a Glock on my hip, but you go ahead and do what you do to feel safe.

When you know who the registered owner of a firearm is, you know who isn't. Penalizing possession of a firearm not registered to the bearer is one of the three gun control steps I explained at the git-go, oh so long ago, before we we got off-track into a 2nd Amendment argument.

 

[oldsoul]

Where in the constitution is registration prohibited?

Ever heard of the 10th amendment? Let me refresh your memory"
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Seems pretty much as clear as "...shall not be infringed."

Perfect. You're making my case. Show where the constitution prohibits the states from registering firearms and performing background checks on purchasers. It's our right protected by the 10th Amendment, after all, and doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.

We are not talking about states registering, we are talking about the feds doing it. Nice attempt at bait and switch though. Gotta give you props for that.

 

[oldsoul]

When you know who the registered owner of a firearm is, you know who isn't.

And you also know where to go to confiscate them. You really don't get it do you?