DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:Isaac,
That study clearly amplifies Vision's point. Folks who can accept both right and left ideas are the intelligent ones.

If only you believe people that those lean right are far and few.

callmeslick wrote:Thus, the centrists. Further, nothing about the acceptance of ridiculous notions like 'death panels', blind Obama-hate stuff, government takeovers, etc, qualifies as a 'conservative' or 'right' notion. It's simply crazy. Folks who buy into crazy thinking are not intelligent.

That I agree with, but I won't willingly sit idly by and be grouped into that category of nut jobs, simply because I don't like Obama and I'm pro-gun.

not liking Obama is fine, and your right. Claiming him to be alien-born, the Antichrist, a Muslim plant, plotting to take over the government or invade Texas is not fine and strongly suggests the need for professional help. Likewise, being pro-gun ownership is fine. Being rabidly against any effort to maintain some sort of civilized control over who obtains guns, or laws to maintain public safety via restraints on the USE of guns is also beyond acceptable in a civilized society. As I noted above, James Webb is pro-gun, an owner and hunter. He also realizes, and always has, that there need to be limitations upon gun ownership by folks who have proven to be violent or unstable mentally. He believes in RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, as do I. With freedoms come responsibilities. Sadly, we have come to a point in the US, where folks whine about lost freedom long after they've relinquished all sense of personal responsibility for actions within those freedoms.

I'm using numbers to reference parts in your paragraph. I hope that's ok.

callmeslick wrote:not liking Obama is fine, and your right. Claiming him to be alien-born, the Antichrist, a Muslim plant, plotting to take over the government or invade Texas is not fine and strongly suggests the need for professional help. Likewise, being pro-gun ownership is fine. Being rabidly against any effort to maintain some sort of civilized control over who obtains guns, or laws to maintain public safety via restraints on the USE of guns is also beyond acceptable in a civilized society [1]. As I noted above, James Webb is pro-gun, an owner and hunter. He also realizes, and always has, that there need to be limitations upon gun ownership by folks who have proven to be violent or unstable mentally[2]. He believes in RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, as do I[3]. With freedoms come responsibilities[4]. Sadly, we have come to a point in the US, where folks whine about lost freedom long after they've relinquished all sense of personal responsibility for actions within those freedoms[5].

[1] You could easily brand me as one of those people simply because I don't buy into "something is better than nothing" approach that pass laws that save no lives, because they target the gun's aesthetics and not the criminal.

[2]You know it's illegal to sell to anyone who can't legally fill out a 4473 on that grounds that they're trying to circumvent the system.

[3]I don't know what that's suppose to mean, because everyone believes that. How is he different? You learn that through a parent or range instructor. Law doesn't teach the four rules of firearm saftey. Are you saying he wants to enforce these teaching through law? I'm asking because you know more about him than I do.

[4] Freedom or security. Pick one.

[5] Most people are pissed at their state representatives. Like the people in Washington, Massachusetts, or Commiefornia. Washington got hit hard with i-594. It was passed under that banner of "common sense", yet nobody there knows what to do with it. Not even the state department that assists with firearms questions. Of course it's been a year since I learned about it, things might have gotten better since, but googling around yields nothing but horror stories about left leaning common sense.

edit: sorry for the grammar. My coworker is making me get back to work and won't let me proof read. Hopefully my points get across.

Isaac, you need to read that article a little more closely, then read my post again.

vision wrote:Actually, research shows that people who lean center are smarter, at least in the US.

yeah I thought you wrote lean left. Misread.

How the hell do you lean center?

Spidey wrote:How the hell do you lean center?

It means no matter how you lean the world adjusts so you're always in the center:

Isaac--
First off, good job, footnotes and all! Now, get back to work.

In reply--using your footnotes:
1. If you think gutting the enforcement of existing laws and gutting the agencies responsible for doing so is responsible, you ARE part of the problem.
2.Yes, I know the laws. But, see above.
3.I think the key points relating to Webb and guns are these: Restore the power to enforce the laws around background checks and sales records. Avoid new laws until that occurs, for the reasons you state and finally, quit making gun ownership and control a front burner issue as it is nationally and regionally divisive, when we have far greater issues to discuss.
4.I choose freedom, but with a high level of individual responsibility. From that, security should flow. Far easier said than done, I fully realize.
5.This response has utterly nothing to do with the thrust of my comment which you footnoted. I was NOT limiting my observation to gun rights, but to ALL freedoms, from speech on down the list.

Thanks. Out of the other items the one I want to pick at is one I love arguing about.

>>1. If you think gutting the enforcement of existing laws and gutting the agencies responsible for doing so is responsible, you ARE part of the problem.

That's just it. ATF rules on barrel length an fore grip placement have saved no lives. And at the state level, keeping my conceal carry permit locked to a hand full of states that can opt out of recognizing it also saves no lives. It just makes permit holders boycott that state and criminals are going to carry wherever the hell they want anyway. I think there's room for improvement if we had a pro-gun president, just like things were improved in Texas on open-carry and out half-assed attempt at campus carry.

Isaac, that boycott business works both ways. Increasing numbers of us(your fellow citizens) are now boycotting all states with lax laws around concealed carry, with a lot of folks boycotting all states which allow concealed carry whatsoever. I'm ok with it being a state issue, but have utterly NO interest in making concealed carry the law of the land, and about 65% of the voting public agrees with me. As for the ATF in general, they don't make the rules, Congress does, but they DO have the task of enforcement. Given the level of budget cutting they've been subjected to, coupled with Congress blocking a permanent head of the agency for over a decade now, one has no idea how well the extant regulations work. Background check backlogs are a sick joke, as are inventory/records audits. There simply is no staff to handle that. We cannot have it both ways, whining about not needing new laws, while blocking enforcement of existing laws.

callmeslick wrote:Isaac, that boycott business works both ways. Increasing numbers of us(your fellow citizens) are now boycotting all states with lax laws around concealed carry, with a lot of folks boycotting all states which allow concealed carry whatsoever[1]. I'm ok with it being a state issue, but have utterly NO interest in making concealed carry the law of the land, and about 65% of the voting public agrees with me[2]. As for the ATF in general, they don't make the rules[3], Congress does, but they DO have the task of enforcement. Given the level of budget cutting they've been subjected to, coupled with Congress blocking a permanent head of the agency for over a decade now, one has no idea how well the extant regulations work[4]. Background check backlogs are a sick joke, as are inventory/records audits. There simply is no staff to handle that[5a]. We cannot have it both ways, whining about not needing new laws, while blocking enforcement of existing laws[5].

1. The average (above average in inelegance, of course...) democrat doesn't know anything about gun law and swarm to pro-gun states and get shocked when their co-workers post pics of their range day. I'm sure a small percentage are aware or just assume there are no gun laws in some states, but last I checked, "the people's republic of Austin" has plenty of Commiefornians and "pro-gun" fudds.

2. That's fine, but I'd make this comprise: If you want guns to be treated like cars, then I better be able to carry everywhere that's open to the public, meaning my CHL and DL are valid in all 50 states.

3. Did you just confuse "making rules" with "passing law"? The ATF writes half brained rules every year. And they do make rulings all the time without the oversight of congress. Like rules on what's considered a stock or a fore grip on after-market parts. Super important stuff like that saves millions of live /s

4. They'd save money by paying firearm instructors to give the general public free lessons. That would at least cut down on the number of accidents and treat firearm safety as an education problem rather than a criminal one. But as long as the left considers guns as killing machines they'll never take that route.

5. It's almost as if the left has to learn to trust the general public to do the right thing. Give gun owners new tools to work with, not new red tape. Trust gun owners to properly use the same systems FFLs use to green light people on sales. Make background check tools free, easier, and more available. Because whether you like it or not, we already have to trust people because the alternative method means being a helicopter parent and like you say "There simply is no staff to handle that"[a].

1. couldn't disagree more. Most Democrats and Independants are quite well aware of gun laws.
2. I don't wish possession and/or carry of deadly weapons, whose SOLE PURPOSE is killing or injuring to be equated with motor vehicles.
3. I can see that the ATF has to issue rulings to clarify the laws, and really don't see where the issue is. Sorry.
4.You seemingly fail to grasp that the majority of your fellow citizens not only don't desire firearms training, but have no desire to own one, either. Guns ARE killing machines, and I have yet to hear from you what other purpose you'd suggest they have. Woodcarving tools, perhaps?
5.We've trusted gun owners forever to 'do the right thing' and while many(most, in my circle) do, the outliers are killing our society. Most illegal weapons on the streets come from one of two sources: (sadly) law enforcement agency theft and theft from perfectly well-intended private citizens. Having spent a few years of my misspent youth in rather close contact with a motorcycle club in New England which garners MASSIVE money from trade in stolen weapons, I have a pretty good grasp on the lax storage and control many private citizens exert. Sorry, I'm not going to just sit around and wait for everyone to pass a training certification at this juncture, because of the vast number of guns out there at the moment. You have to come up with better solutions, or, as I suggested earlier, let others try.

callmeslick wrote:1. couldn't disagree more. Most Democrats and Independants are quite well aware of gun laws.

Democrats they may be aware that gun laws exist but don't know much specifically else they wouldn't keep calling for more laws. Your statement earlier proves my point:

"Restore the power to enforce the laws around background checks and sales records."

I suggest you try going out to buy a pistol or try to get a CCW. Of course if you have a felony conviction on your record from those years of hanging around with the 1%'s then you might as well forget about buying one.

callmeslick wrote:2. I don't wish possession and/or carry of deadly weapons, whose SOLE PURPOSE is killing or injuring to be equated with motor vehicles.

And yet more people die from autos than firearms.

callmeslick wrote:3. I can see that the ATF has to issue rulings to clarify the laws, and really don't see where the issue is. Sorry.

Sorry but Issac was pointing out unnecessary rules and not rule making

callmeslick wrote:4.You seemingly fail to grasp that the majority of your fellow citizens not only don't desire firearms training, but have no desire to own one, either. Guns ARE killing machines, and I have yet to hear from you what other purpose you'd suggest they have.

Yes, guns are killing machines. They kill deer, bear, rabbit, pheasant, squirrel. They also kill clay pigeons and paper targets.

Ferno wrote:I used to smoke some pretty good ★■◆● back in the day (IE: ten years ago or so), but I never had the ★■◆● woody is smoking.

If you had the opium laced weed we used to get out of Thailand, you'd realize what you thought was good ★■◆● was really dog poo

vision wrote:

Isaac wrote:Then it assumes everyone leaning left is smarter.

Actually, research shows that people who lean center are smarter, at least in the US.

Yeah, kinda like this school district in St Pauls who paid big bucks to get ideas on how to implement feel good policy for problem students. If you care to read about the aftermath:

http://eagnews.org/teachers-complain-ch ... -training/

well, Isaac, it was a good and intelligent exchange there for a while......

woodchip wrote:If you had the opium laced weed we used to get out of Thailand, you'd realize what you thought was good ★■◆● was really dog poo

That explains soooo much.

opium laced hash was readily available in the New England region. Just sayin'.

and, to amplify one point I was trying to make about having things both ways.....this is a very simplistic, and sarcastic cartoon, but speaks truth:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:1. couldn't disagree more. Most Democrats and Independants are quite well aware of gun laws.

Democrats they may be aware that gun laws exist but don't know much specifically else they wouldn't keep calling for more laws. Your statement earlier proves my point:

"Restore the power to enforce the laws around background checks and sales records."

I suggest you try going out to buy a pistol or try to get a CCW. Of course if you have a felony conviction on your record from those years of hanging around with the 1%'s then you might as well forget about buying one.

readily available at gun shows(the piece itself) or in about a thousand bars and sportsmans clubs. The CCW is not the issue at hand. I'm aware of the rules there, and Isaac merely pointed out the irregularities between states.

callmeslick wrote:2. I don't wish possession and/or carry of deadly weapons, whose SOLE PURPOSE is killing or injuring to be equated with motor vehicles.

And yet more people die from autos than firearms.[/quote]
right, because of the vastly greater time spent using them.

callmeslick wrote:3. I can see that the ATF has to issue rulings to clarify the laws, and really don't see where the issue is. Sorry.

Sorry but Issac was pointing out unnecessary rules and not rule making[/quote]
some might not feel them unnecessary.

callmeslick wrote:4.You seemingly fail to grasp that the majority of your fellow citizens not only don't desire firearms training, but have no desire to own one, either. Guns ARE killing machines, and I have yet to hear from you what other purpose you'd suggest they have.

Yes, guns are killing machines. They kill deer, bear, rabbit, pheasant, squirrel. They also kill clay pigeons and paper targets.[/quote]
right, that is quite true. I know so many handgun hunters, so many concealed weapons hunters and the like. Jokers like yourself, trying to cloud a rather obvious debate with stupid asides makes a very real debate into a muddle of nonsense. Thanks a load. Now, sit down and let the adults continue.

woodchip wrote:Yeah, kinda like this school district in St Pauls who paid big bucks to get ideas on how to implement feel good policy for problem students.

Not sure how that's related to the subject at hand, but whatever you say man. The school obviously has some unique problems and it requires a unique solution. Let them work on it. Policies that work in some places won't in others. People are complicated.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:If you had the opium laced weed we used to get out of Thailand, you'd realize what you thought was good ★■◆● was really dog poo

That explains soooo much.

Yeah, no kidding. What a burnout. Totally makes sense of all the goofy thoughts.

Sorry, I was on mobile for a while and can't really E&C unless I've got a good keyboard.

callmeslick wrote:1. couldn't disagree more. Most Democrats and Independants are quite well aware of gun laws.
2. I don't wish possession and/or carry of deadly weapons, whose SOLE PURPOSE is killing or injuring to be equated with motor vehicles.
3. I can see that the ATF has to issue rulings to clarify the laws, and really don't see where the issue is. Sorry.
4.You seemingly fail to grasp that the majority of your fellow citizens not only don't desire firearms training, but have no desire to own one, either. Guns ARE killing machines, and I have yet to hear from you what other purpose you'd suggest they have. Woodcarving tools, perhaps?
5.We've trusted gun owners forever to 'do the right thing' and while many(most, in my circle) do, the outliers are killing our society. Most illegal weapons on the streets come from one of two sources: (sadly) law enforcement agency theft and theft from perfectly well-intended private citizens. Having spent a few years of my misspent youth in rather close contact with a motorcycle club in New England which garners MASSIVE money from trade in stolen weapons, I have a pretty good grasp on the lax storage and control many private citizens exert. Sorry, I'm not going to just sit around and wait for everyone to pass a training certification at this juncture, because of the vast number of guns out there at the moment. You have to come up with better solutions, or, as I suggested earlier, let others try.

1. Come on... Cops in their own jurisdiction can't keep gun laws straight. The problem with gun law is that it changes all the time. If you want to hear my story on getting pulled over, let me know. Going back to line [1], having a general idea of what the laws should be can actually be completely different from they really are and what people can do. To prove that, people still call 911 when they see a proper open carry rally complete with signs and banners saying. They'll get call after call by people asking "I just saw some people with guns and banners walking around... I don't know if they can do that". Unless you passed a CHL class recently and subscribe to gun law updates, keeping up is work most people don't do.

2. the sole purpose of a bomb is to kill. The purpose of a gun is to survive hundreds of rounds of training in case it needs to be used.

I can't finish or proof read this. Believe it or not, me and my coworker are closing the office early to go to the range. Too bad you can't join us. I'm sure you'd beat us in our plinking matches.

Isaac wrote:Sorry, I was on mobile for a while and can't really E&C unless I've got a good keyboard.

that's OK. I can't really E&C without some decent weed and a couple glasses of wine. Your excuse is better than mine!

1. Come on... Cops in their own jurisdiction can't keep gun laws straight. The problem with gun law is that it changes all the time. If you want to hear my story on getting pulled over, let me know.

hell yes. I love a decent story with a moral. Go for it. Still doesn't address your targetting Dems as not knowing, though.

2. the sole purpose of a bomb is to kill. The purpose of a gun is to survive hundreds of rounds of training in case it needs to be used.

sorry, Isaac, I like you and respect you, but that is one evasive answer. You know damned well that the good folks at Smith and Wesson, Glock et al do not design handguns for that purpose.

I can't finish or proof read this. Believe it or not, me and my coworker are closing the office early to go to the range. Too bad you can't join us. I'm sure you'd beat us in our plinking matches.

highly unlikely, as, in the 30 years since I gave up the darker side of my misspent youth, my only firing of weaponry has been duck guns in cold, damp marshes. And that is not anything I'm going to win prizes at, either.

callmeslick wrote:and, to amplify one point I was trying to make about having things both ways.....this is a very simplistic, and sarcastic cartoon, but speaks truth:

Most gun owners don't want background checks at gun shows either. They've passed a gun show background check law to close that loophole here in Oregon and some people are throwing a fit, even a county commissioner board is taking exception.

http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-county-vot ... 38562.html