....A Well-Regulated Militia.....

[Sergeant Thorne]

Bear in mind that the homicide rate is actually going to be reduced in the U.S. somewhat as well, due to the presence of those guns. Are these all firearm-related homicides? I also feel the numbers may be skewing the issue if there are homicides factored into that rate which come from cities imposing firearm restrictions (which I'm confident is the case). Personally I would probably exclude homicides in gun-free zones as well.

[snoopy]

Well, my point is that between Switzerland, Australia, and the UK there doesn't seem to be any correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Swiss guns aren't lethal? (probably too tiny )

[callmeslick]

....was the left is forcing the only institution that teaches morality out of society. it is fact.

nonsense, religion is CLEARLY not the only source of morality,

did I say it was???? NOPE,, I said it was the only institution that teaches it

silly me, I was thinking of the family as an institution, or then again, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and so many other organizations outside the realm of the church which convey moral lessons.

[callmeslick]

well, my, my, my.....look how well this has worked for 15 years:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/1 ... ?GT1=38001

But has it worked?:

AUSTRALIA
While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has continued to increase. Robbery and armed robbery rates continue to rise.
Armed robbery has increased 166% nationwide. The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The costs of the police services bureaucracy, including the
hugely costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997. And for what? There has been no visible impact on violent crime

BRITAIN
In the past 20 years, both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearm laws; even banning all handguns in 1997. Unfortunately, these Draconian firearm regulations have totally failed. The public is not any safer and may be less safe. Police statistics show that England and Wales are enduring a serious crime wave. In contrast to handgun-dense United States, where the homicide rate has been falling for over 20 years, the homicide rate in handgun-banning England and Wales has been growing. In the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50%, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000

http://www.saf.org/journal/16/thefailedexperiment.pdf

astounding. The levels are up, but still a fraction of US levels, in terms of HOMICIDE by gun, and for urban areas all violent crime. Yet the pro-gun yahoos cite this as an example of failure of gun laws? How come, right here in the US, the vast bulk of the mass shootings(Sandy Hook was an outlier)
have occurred in the states with the loosest regulations on the trade in assault style weapons?

[woodchip]

And why do you find cities like Chicago and Washington DC have the highest homicide rates yet they have the strictest gun laws. Maybe I should dig up a list of all the kids that have died in Chicago from gunshots. I guess when kids only die one at a time they are unimportant

[CUDA]

....was the left is forcing the only institution that teaches morality out of society. it is fact.

nonsense, religion is CLEARLY not the only source of morality,

did I say it was???? NOPE,, I said it was the only institution that teaches it

silly me, I was thinking of the family as an institution, or then again, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and so many other organizations outside the realm of the church which convey moral lessons.

Ya silly you

Back to my point about the left trying to remove the institutions from America

ACLU vs. Boy Scouts of America

That word is Reverent. The Scout Law says "A scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the belief of others." It is this part of being a scout that has the ACLU all in an uproar recently.

This tax payer funded leftist organization seeks to undo the tradition of the Boy Scouts from within. Not enough tax payers are coming to the defense of this privately funded organization that teaches boys to be reverent toward God, and respectful of other religious beliefs, among the other qualities the Boy Scouts teach.

In 2000, a lesbian and agnostic couple joined with the ACLU to file a lawsuit against the city of San Diego, these people felt that they were being excluded by the BSA's religious policies in particular. Of course, the ACLU is also seeking to rid this nation of our national motto, and ban the wording of "In God we trust" from our currency.

On it's website under the heading of "Religious Liberty," the ACLU, in July of this year, applauded U.S. District Court Judge Blanche Manning's decision that bars the Pentagon from funding future Boy Scout Jamborees. This is the only youth organization funded by the Pentagon.

[callmeslick]

And why do you find cities like Chicago and Washington DC have the highest homicide rates yet they have the strictest gun laws. Maybe I should dig up a list of all the kids that have died in Chicago from gunshots. I guess when kids only die one at a time they are unimportant

because the surrounding states DO NOT have strict gun laws, and thus have vast numbers of suburban/rural homes with guns for the taking. As I noted earlier in the thread, I know of one group that has made a tidy living stealing carelessly stored weapons for several decades and reselling them on the streets. Also, note that several midwestern states with close proximity to Chicago and the commonwealth of Virginia, close to DC have serious issues around multiple purchases of assault weapons and handguns, with near out-of-control levels of straw purchase. And yes, I feel the urban carnage is every bit the problem that individual whackos is, and is yet another reason we have to start to get the access to and exchange of weaponry under very tight control.

[woodchip]

Would you mind defining what a "Assault Weapon" is.

[Krom]

An "Assault Weapon" is nothing more than a scary sounding name attached to ordinary weapons.

[callmeslick]

rapid fire weapon, not handheld(single hand) with larger magazine capacity. That's my definition. As Sen. from WVA said the other day, you don't need a lot of bullets for hunting. The average deer hunter doesn't even get off two shots at one target.most of the time.

[Will Robinson]

rapid fire weapon, not handheld(single hand) with larger magazine capacity. That's my definition. As Sen. from WVA said the other day, you don't need a lot of bullets for hunting. The average deer hunter doesn't even get off two shots at one target.most of the time.

I have a Glock 17, a very common weapon and there are many other similar weapons equally as common and plentiful. They have a very rapid rate of fire and are lethal out to a range farther than almost anyone can reliably hit a target. There are more gang bangers with Glocks than the there are using a weapon like the deranged shooters Bushmaster 'assault weapon' by far, and the deranged shooters wont have any trouble killing more than 30 people with a pistol like that long before a cop can be summoned.

The G17 can hold up to 30 rounds of 9mm ammo in a single magazine (actually there are 50 round drum magazines for them too). It comes stock from the factory with a pair of 17 round magazines. They would be legal under your rules and by allowing them you do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reduce any of the crimes that have spurred you to call for us to accept your proposed rules!

So why would we law abiding gun owners want to pare down our liberty for a cause that does nothing good? So the Dem's can pretend they did some good again?!? So you can write an open ended bit of legislation that you will amend to include banning anything else that you deem to be scary later on?

Storage and sales regulations will help and do nothing terrible to hamper our freedoms. That makes sense.

These 'assault weapon' bits of legislation are not warranted and if you insist on pushing them then all types of gun owners will have no choice but to band together and close ranks with the NRA, deny any changes, and use all those millions of dollars from the NRA to fund legal defense that now has recent Supreme Court rulings to shoot down any attempt at all, including the reasonable and needed regulations that you could get through if you were honest and sincerely trying to reduce illegal guns.

So what do you really want? Increased safety or just political posturing? Instead of trying to tell us gun owners what we need or don't need try telling your party to get real and achieve some reasonable and effective changes instead of continuing the status quo.

[Sergeant Thorne]

As Sen. from WVA said the other day, you don't need a lot of bullets for hunting. The average deer hunter doesn't even get off two shots at one target.most of the time.

I don't know why you say things like that, Slick. You know that hunting is not the primary issue. That's just some argument the NRA has used (still using it?). That's one of the reasons we've never been involved with the NRA. Assault rifles are for personal and property defense in extreme situations. The hunting part is just a bonus--a very useful secondary purpose in the meantime. An AR-10 shoulders very well for a scoped deer shot with that pistol grip, I would imagine. Assault rifles are assault rifles because they are designed to be much more effective in use than a standard semi-automatic rifle (which actually is "rapid fire"), not because they somehow just kill better. They carry better, they are more reliable, more durable, allow for more accessories, break down easier for cleaning, they are lighter (carry better), due to the pistol grip they are more accurate--It is a better gun, pure and simple. Like I said before, I believe that a free citizen ought to be able to be just as well armed as law enforcement and military, partly because they could conceivably be called upon by any situation to become either.

Just as a thought experiment, forgetting for a moment that our rights are protected by the 2nd amendment, can you explain to me, philosophically speaking, why a free citizen should not possess the same means of self-defense as his law enforcement or military? If you have a problem with my use of the term "self-defense", it's important to remember that anything which can be used in offense can be used just as well in defense. That really is the issue, in my mind, with ownership of "assault weapons". You're afraid of them because they work so well, but that's precisely why I'd like to have one when a couple of armed thugs try to break into my home while my family is in bed. Why should I desire a handicap in the interest of "public safety" in a life and death situation? And in the meantime I can engage in sporting events and hunting with the same, which supports a nice segment of the U.S. economy.

[callmeslick]

rapid fire weapon, not handheld(single hand) with larger magazine capacity. That's my definition. As Sen. from WVA said the other day, you don't need a lot of bullets for hunting. The average deer hunter doesn't even get off two shots at one target.most of the time.

I have a Glock 17, a very common weapon and there are many other similar weapons equally as common and plentiful. They have a very rapid rate of fire and are lethal out to a range farther than almost anyone can reliably hit a target. There are more gang bangers with Glocks than the deranged shooters Bushmaster 'assault weapon' by far and the deranged shooters wont have any trouble killing more than 30 people with a pistol like that long before a cop can be summoned.

yup, the Glock is a mess on a lot of levels. Holds a large magazine(not legal under my rules), but otherwise ok under my restrictions. That is exactly why I think my set of rules is MORE than reasonable. IMHO, the Glock ought to be banned, both due to the power and large magazines, but also the fact that it is a plastic POS that has no safety mechanism, which has frequently discharged in people's pockets.

So why would we law abiding gun owners want to pare down our liberty for a cause that does nothing good? So the Dem's can pretend they did some good again?!? So you can write an open ended bit of legislation that you will amend to include banning anything else that you deem to be scary later on?

nobody gave anyone the 'liberty' to imperil the bulk of the populace. SOMETHING has to be done.

Storage and sales regulations will help and do nothing terrible to hamper our freedoms. That makes sense.

agree. In fact, the French might have it right. Not only does a potential gun owner have to provide proof of storage safe, but has to wait one year after application for approval to own a gun(included in this is the explicit permission of a Doctor), and show proof of 4 training sessions during that year.
Seems reasonable to me, how about you?

These 'assault weapon' bits of legislation are not warranted and if you insist on pushing them then all types of gun owners will have no choice but to band together and close ranks with the NRA, deny any changes, and use all those millions of dollars from the NRA to fund legal defense that now has recent Supreme Court rulings to shoot down any attempt at all, including the reasonable and needed regulations that you could get through if you were honest and sincerely trying to reduce illegal guns.

So what do you really want? Increased safety or just political posturing?

I want common sense. Would you care to explain to me what purpose is served by even providing 'assault' style weapons, or hollow point ammo, to the general public?

[callmeslick]

As Sen. from WVA said the other day, you don't need a lot of bullets for hunting. The average deer hunter doesn't even get off two shots at one target.most of the time.

I don't know why you say things like that, Slick. You know that hunting is not the primary issue. That's just some argument the NRA has used (still using it?). That's one of the reasons we've never been involved with the NRA. Assault rifles are for personal and property defense in extreme situations. The hunting part is just a bonus--a very useful secondary purpose in the meantime. An AR-10 shoulders very well for a scoped deer shot with that pistol grip, I would imagine. Assault rifles are assault rifles because they are designed to be much more effective in use than a standard semi-automatic rifle (which actually is "rapid fire"), not because they somehow just kill better. They carry better, they are more reliable, more durable, allow for more accessories, break down easier for cleaning, they are lighter (carry better), due to the pistol grip they are more accurate--It is a better gun, pure and simple. Like I said before, I believe that a free citizen ought to be able to be just as well armed as law enforcement and military, partly because they could conceivably be called upon by any situation to become either.

sorry, but I don't see that right available to you, nor do I think it should be.

Just as a thought experiment, forgetting for a moment that our rights are protected by the 2nd amendment, can you explain to me, philosophically speaking, why a free citizen should not possess the same means of self-defense as his law enforcement or military? If you have a problem with my use of the term "self-defense", it's important to remember that anything which can be used in offense can be used just as well in defense. That really is the issue, in my mind, with ownership of "assault weapons". You're afraid of them because they work so well, but that's precisely why I'd like to have one when a couple of armed thugs try to break into my home while my family is in bed. Why should I desire a handicap in the interest of "public safety" in a life and death situation? And in the meantime I can engage in sporting events and hunting with the same, which supports a nice segment of the U.S. economy.

what segment are you referring to, emergency room medicine? Mortuary services? Geez, what possible reading of the 2nd amendment suggests the need to be as well armed as police or especially military. By your goofy definition, you should be able to posess nuclear weaponry. Sorry, but ever since we built a military, and the states developed(and collected taxes from the citizens) public safety organizations, the 2nd amendment is essentially a quaint anachronism, which as you demonstrate, has become both unneeded and a public menace.

[Sergeant Thorne]

but also the fact that it is a plastic POS that has no safety mechanism, which has frequently discharged in people's pockets.

Oh God. Yes, please save us from ourselves! My dad has owned any number of glocks since I was very young. They are very reliable guns, and he has never discharged the weapon in-holster or in a pocket. Personally I don't care for the way they feel in-hand, and I don't care for the sights, but it's a quality firearm. The most important safety is never to put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot the gun. You need to stop spinning everything, Slick.

[Sergeant Thorne]

sorry, but I don't see that right available to you, nor do I think it should be.

Which?

[callmeslick]

but also the fact that it is a plastic POS that has no safety mechanism, which has frequently discharged in people's pockets.

Oh God. Yes, please save us from ourselves! My dad has owned any number of glocks since I was very young. They are very reliable guns, and he has never discharged the weapon in-holster or in a pocket. Personally I don't care for the way they feel in-hand, and I don't care for the sights, but it's a quality firearm. The most important safety is never to put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot the gun. You need to stop spinning everything, Slick.

ask Plexico Burris. Yes, I know, it's a perfect example of poor owner operation, but isn't that sort of the issue here?

[callmeslick]

sorry, but I don't see that right available to you, nor do I think it should be.

Which?

the right of a citizen to own the same level of armaments as police or military. Either we pay taxes to be protected, or we just arm the citizenry. Don't need both, and, as reality seems to show us, having both is counterproductive.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Yes, I know, it's a perfect example of poor owner operation, but isn't that sort of the issue here?

Let's make the world a better place and say they're nothing alike, slick. That way we can talk about one thing without accidently spilling into something totally unrelated. FortheloveofGod.

[woodchip]

yup, the Glock is a mess on a lot of levels. Holds a large magazine(not legal under my rules), but otherwise ok under my restrictions. That is exactly why I think my set of rules is MORE than reasonable. IMHO, the Glock ought to be banned, both due to the power and large magazines,

Come on Slickster, by banning firearms that can hold large capacity mags you are effectively eliminating every semi auto gun out there (which is what you are really angling for). If a firearm uses a magazine, there is a large capacity magazine made for it. And why should a Glock be banned because of it's power? It is no more powerful than any other pistol of equal caliber.

I want common sense. Would you care to explain to me what purpose is served by even providing 'assault' style weapons, or hollow point ammo, to the general public?

For one I suggest you look at the Camp Perry National finals and see what platform wins the most. The AR-15 style rifle is extremely accurate.

Which leads to varmint shooting. Loads of varmint hunters use a AR-15 both for accuracy and the high velocity nature of the .223 round ( I'll let you figure out the high velocity part)

Hollow point bullets are made to incapacitate (or kill) a attacker. If you are carrying a pistol for protection, the hollow point is very useful (though I use a standard round nose flying ashtray in my .45 acp)

[callmeslick]

ok,Thorne, let's stick to some basic issues(although I think the number of gun owners who are completely incompetent IS a great deal of the problem):

1. Until very recently(1980 or so), the 2nd Amendment was never construed as to forbid strict state restrictions on gun ownership.

2. After the assault-weapon ban was lifted, we have had a uptick in mass shootings, using such weapons

3. Statistics have long shown that people who own guns are considerably more likely to be shooting victims.

4. Nations, such as Austrailia, which have imposed strict restraints on certain more lethal firearms and ammo, have seen a drop in multiple shootings.

5. We have an Army, we have State Police, Local police and National Guard units. Why do we need to arm the citizenry?

6. 75% of NRA members apparently support far stricter restraints on the sale of weapons, and the nature of ammunition and availability of
assault rifles and large magazines for semi auto weaponry. Why shouldn't we regard their opinion as a very reasonable benchmark?

[callmeslick]

For one I suggest you look at the Camp Perry National finals and see what platform wins the most. The AR-15 style rifle is extremely accurate.

who the feck cares if people are buying them to kill people? Really, it's a serious question.

Which leads to varmint shooting. Loads of varmint hunters use a AR-15 both for accuracy and the high velocity nature of the .223 round ( I'll let you figure out the high velocity part)

see above. I'm sure a lot of other long-barrelled, small caliber weapons(see, I get the high velocity part) are available as single shot rifles. Seems most folks could do in squirrels and the like without the need for an AR-15.

Hollow point bullets are made to incapacitate (or kill) a attacker. If you are carrying a pistol for protection, the hollow point is very useful (though I use a standard round nose flying ashtray in my .45 acp)

see my comment re: death rates of gun owners and lack of need if you are paying taxes for public protection. Think I'm projecting a fantasy? Sorry, but I've been in places and situations that would scare your well-armed ass into urinating on yourself, and live today precisely because I arrived unarmed.

[Sergeant Thorne]

sorry, but I don't see that right available to you, nor do I think it should be.

Which?

the right of a citizen to own the same level of armaments as police or military. Either we pay taxes to be protected, or we just arm the citizenry. Don't need both, and, as reality seems to show us, having both is counterproductive.

Ok, thank you. You say you don't see that right available to me. In part it is, and no in part this is actually more a philosophical consideration. I can legally own most of the weaponry used by the military. By the way nuclear arms were not included in "military", by virtue of the fact that I'm not crazy (and of course you brought it up)--there are plenty of reasons not to allow public ownership of WMDs--common sense dictates that a weapon which requires layers of authority to use inside of the military cannot be wielded by one man outside of the military. That would be absurd.

Now, you say that either we pay taxes to be protected or we are armed. I can't believe you're actually trying to argue this here, because it is absurd. Public "protection" law enforcement is not good enough to eliminate the need for self-defense. Should we pretend it is and ignore where it does not meet the need as you indicate it should? What you SAY reality SEEMS to show, and what reality has shown are at odds here. The reality is people have defended themselves and lived because of it in the absence of the police (happened on the next block last year--an older man shot and killed a violent intruder). Law enforcement has a role to play, but there is ample responsibility for personal protection left to the individual.

[woodchip]

Sorry, but ever since we built a military, and the states developed(and collected taxes from the citizens) public safety organizations, the 2nd amendment is essentially a quaint anachronism, which as you demonstrate, has become both unneeded and a public menace.

Hmmm, care to enlighten us as to how many times a cop/military has been around to prevent anything from happening? Connecticut is just another example of a cop never being around when you need one. And would you want to wager on who is safer? A citizen with a CCW or a cop?

[callmeslick]

[--common sense dictates that a weapon which requires layers of authority to use inside of the military cannot be wielded by one man outside of the military. That would be absurd.

ok, then, as you no doubt know, there are all kinds of layers of military authority which need to be passed through before anyone can use a firearm, so by your logic.......

Now, you say that either we pay taxes to be protected or we are armed. I can't believe you're actually trying to argue this here, because it is absurd. Public "protection" law enforcement is not good enough to eliminate the need for self-defense.

I would argue that the risk, overall, is not that bad. Further, if you deem it to be so, the correction should be to those responsible for public safety, which isn't you.


I get you back to an irrefutable fact. Those that own firearms are WAY more likely to die by the gun than those who don't. How's that work for your theory of self-defense? Sure, we can all find examples of folks who did protect themselves from harm with a gun, but one can find far more examples of folks who die by misuse or theft of their own weapons. Most recently, I can think of a woman in Newtown, CT. And, further, her weapons acquisitions led to the death of 20 little souls without a clue what a 'weapon' was. Yet, some folks(hopefully far less folks than a week ago, it seems) cling to the preposterous notion that guns are the key to a safe society.

[callmeslick]

Sorry, but ever since we built a military, and the states developed(and collected taxes from the citizens) public safety organizations, the 2nd amendment is essentially a quaint anachronism, which as you demonstrate, has become both unneeded and a public menace.

Hmmm, care to enlighten us as to how many times a cop/military has been around to prevent anything from happening?

wow, I'd love to sit back in a comfy chair and watch you repeat this load of crap to a cop. Any cop. Preferably a Philly cop or NYC cop.

Connecticut is just another example of a cop never being around when you need one. And would you want to wager on who is safer? A citizen with a CCW or a cop?

give me the cop any day.

[Sergeant Thorne]

although I think the number of gun owners who are completely incompetent IS a great deal of the problem

To maintain our deviation long enough not to offend reality, incompetent gun owners cannot be misconstrued to be any portion of the problem of a few gun owners that go out and kill people. Unless you're referring to people who don't lock their firearms up as being completely incompetent. Not to be overly anal, but not locking your firearm up does not alone make you completely incompetent, logically speaking. Ordinarily I wouldn't require that kind of accuracy of a topic, but I've had an eyeful of vagaries and generalizations in this thread. And in this case this particular portion of incompetence is the only one that can be construed as lending to these events, leaving gun owners free-and-clear in all other aspects of gun ownership.

(I'd take the cop too, but nobody's perfect and even a cop may need backup)

[Sergeant Thorne]

--common sense dictates that a weapon which requires layers of authority to use inside of the military cannot be wielded by one man outside of the military. That would be absurd.

ok, then, as you no doubt know, there are all kinds of layers of military authority which need to be passed through before anyone can use a firearm, so by your logic.......

This authority pertains to military deployment and engagement, not specific firearms use. You argue like a 17-year-old I have to deal with at work, Slick! Knock it off!

[callmeslick]

although I think the number of gun owners who are completely incompetent IS a great deal of the problem

Unless you're referring to people who don't lock their firearms up as being completely incompetent.

and, of course, I am. And, have been from the beginning of the thread.

Not to be overly anal, but not locking your firearm up does not alone make you completely incompetent, logically speaking. Ordinarily I wouldn't require that kind of accuracy of a topic, but I've had an eyeful of vagaries and generalizations in this thread. And in this case this particular portion of incompetence is the only one that can be construed as lending to these events, leaving gun owners free-and-clear in all other aspects of gun ownership.

not sure where you get the free-and-clear part. Other irresponsible behaviors abound.

(I'd take the cop too, but nobody's perfect and even a cop may need backup)

won't continue down this path except to say that the statement inferring that cops and such don't prevent anything is beyond absurd. It's an insult to every policeman who ever walked a beat.

[woodchip]

For one I suggest you look at the Camp Perry National finals and see what platform wins the most. The AR-15 style rifle is extremely accurate.

who the feck cares if people are buying them to kill people? Really, it's a serious question.

Serious answer, when your own govt is giving arms to drug cartels which are then used to kill our citizens, why should we not own the same weapons?

see above. I'm sure a lot of other long-barrelled, small caliber weapons(see, I get the high velocity part) are available as single shot rifles. Seems most folks could do in squirrels and the like without the need for an AR-15.

So are you advocating all hunters and target shooter should only be allowed single shot rifles?

Think I'm projecting a fantasy? Sorry, but I've been in places and situations that would scare your well-armed ass into urinating on yourself, and live today precisely because I arrived unarmed.

Sorry dipshit, while you were still in grade school I got my draft notice in 1967, joined the Marine Corp and did my tour. You have no real conception of the term "When the ★■◆● hits the fan". Live in your fantasy world, I got a big enough dose of reality that I don't need any more.

[CUDA]

in the Portland shooting, a trained citizen with a CCWP (young man in his 20's) drew on the shooter and confronted him. while he didn't pull the trigger for fear of hitting people passing behind the shooter. the Shooter never shot another person, and committed suicide shortly after. that man with his gun saved the lives of a lot of lives. so lets take that right away so only people that steal guns will have access to them.

[callmeslick]

Thorne,
two points--1) epic quote fail back at cha!
2) sorry to rile you up, but you chose the example, I turned it around on you.

[woodchip]

won't continue down this path except to say that the statement inferring that cops and such don't prevent anything is beyond absurd. It's an insult to every policeman who ever walked a beat.

Go to Chicago and ask anyone there if a cop was around when a drive by happened or a school girl got dragged into a abandoned building and raped. Whats absurd is the new fantasy you're trying to project that govt. agencies will be there when the bad guys show up. The little kids in Conn. sure didn't see any.

[callmeslick]

Serious answer, when your own govt is giving arms to drug cartels which are then used to kill our citizens, why should we not own the same weapons?

since the government never did so, and the proof is evident(allowing straw sales to be tracked is not the same as giving anything to anyone), I don't see where lying helps your credibility.

So are you advocating all hunters and target shooter should only be allowed single shot rifles?

yeah, I am. Good to see you chose to put your reading glasses on this evening.

Sorry ****, while you were still in grade school I got my draft notice in 1967, joined the Marine Corp and did my tour. You have no real conception of the term "When the **** hits the fan". Live in your fantasy world, I got a big enough dose of reality that I don't need any more.

I've sat in rooms of armed bikers, Dominicans and Colombians, and have seen adequate ★■◆● hit the fan in a non-military situation. Actually, my experience is FAR more pertinent than yours in this context. Thank you for your service, but sorry to disabuse you of your high ground.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Thorne,
two points--1) epic quote fail back at cha!

I fixed it!

2) sorry to rile you up, but you chose the example, I turned it around on you.

Ya, the 17-year-old at work turns things around too, but it never makes a lick of real sense if you think about it. Just admit you're wrong and we can move on.

[callmeslick]

Go to Chicago and ask anyone there if a cop was around when a drive by happened or a school girl got dragged into a abandoned building and raped.

geez, what an idiot. And, I repeat, an idiot willing to piss on the work of every cop who ever pinned on a badge. How many things, every day, in every city and small town, do cops serve to intervene in(either actively on by their mere presence)? Merely because every incident cannot be avoided doesn't make it a shortcoming that needs to be rectified with more guns on the street.

[woodchip]

since the government never did so, and the proof is evident(allowing straw sales to be tracked is not the same as giving anything to anyone), I don't see where lying helps your credibility.

I'm sorry, there I thought when you allow a single straw buyer to obtain 700 assault style rifles and look the other way when he channels them to the drug cartels, that you were knowingly defacto giving them. My bad.

So are you advocating all hunters and target shooter should only be allowed single shot rifles?

yeah, I am. Good to see you chose to put your reading glasses on this evening.

And this is why you'll not succeed.

I've sat in rooms of armed bikers, Dominicans and Colombians, and have seen adequate ★■◆● hit the fan in a non-military situation. Actually, my experience is FAR more pertinent than yours in this context. Thank you for your service, but sorry to disabuse you of your high ground.

I've rode bikes and sat in biker bars with armed 1%'ers also. So what?

[CDN_Merlin]

Been reading this thread since the start but never commented. Won't get involved but I thought you'd like to see this article.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/11-year-old ... -1.1084557

Even young kids are bringing guns to school now. This is NOT/NOT what we need.

[woodchip]

Go to Chicago and ask anyone there if a cop was around when a drive by happened or a school girl got dragged into a abandoned building and raped.

geez, what an idiot. And, I repeat, an idiot willing to piss on the work of every cop who ever pinned on a badge. How many things, every day, in every city and small town, do cops serve to intervene in(either actively on by their mere presence)? Merely because every incident cannot be avoided doesn't make it a shortcoming that needs to be rectified with more guns on the street.

Not a slam on police. I respect the work they do. However, don't try to paint this picture that a cop will be there when you need him most. They aren't. It's up to you to take charge of protecting yourself. Then again I guess the liberal mindset wants people dependent on govt.