DescentBB

Lets look at it this way. While just about all immigrants had their enclaves like little Italy, what all of them had in common was a desire for their children to be fully American and succeed. While they may have spoken their mother tongue at home, the kids were expected to learn and speak english. Because of this America became stronger.

Now we have a good percentage of Mexican people coming into our country who have no desire to learn english and America caters to them. When was the last time you heard a phone message to press 1 for Italian or Vietnamese or Pushtu. We are having our 2nd go around with legalizing illegal Mexican immigrants that back when Reagan signed amnesty for them, the bill was to take care of the problem. Now instead of 3 million illegals we have 12 million. Part of Reagans bill was for tighter boarder security but of course we see how well that worked out. So what does anyone expect now? Does anyone here actually believe Obama will enforce tightened security? Does any one think 30 years from now we won't be looking at 40 million illegals? Show me some proof where a Comprehensive Immigration bill will cure the problem.

Hehe Woody, I imagine when Slick and his buddies finally screw the pooch, we will just end up arming them

callmeslick wrote: Wait until the Obama team gets the troops to bombard Congress with phone calls, texts and tweets. We will see relative political clout in action.

He's too late. Frome Forbes:

"We found that the NRA and the pro-gun rights voices are winning the influence battle and will continue to be strong and more influential if the pro gun control voice remains fragmented."

"It’s a Marathon, not a sprint. It seems the NRA has the stamina to out-run the pro-gun control movement. They are persistent, un-yielding and gaining influence. It will be interesting to see how the pro-gun control voice responds and how the influence between the two groups changes as the debate persists."

"The pro-gun rights voice is rapidly gaining influence while the pro-gun control voice has tapered in recent weeks. Momentum is shifting and the gun control debate is becoming a platform benefiting gun rights advocates."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers ... n-control/

Notice slick, how I include links with my post instead of trust me type assurances

woodchip wrote:...
Notice slick, how I include links with my post instead of trust me type assurances

That's only because you have to work for a living instead of getting to go fishing or play cards with an expert on every subject.



Anyway, back on topic for me. Obama said:

"I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations," Obama said. "And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake. Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas.

Well too bad the media doesn't ask him the obvious question to explore that point he raised. 'What does he think it is about urban areas that change guns?'

flip wrote:I'm not in the habit of condemning all people to be stupid and beneath me Slick. I elevate people, I do not box them in. First hand account of the dangers of disarming a population, a completely overwhelmed Police Officer by now:

Ah, good ol' Snopes. Here's a little hint, flip: if you're citing a long quote you got from a chain e-mail or Facebook wall post, do everyone a favor and look it up on Snopes first. 9 times out of 10 it'll have an entry on there, usually noting what's false about it.

woodchip wrote:Here's another little truism "First comes registration, then come confiscation"

So we should have to register motor vehicles, as a matter of general public safety...but God forbid we register items whose fundamental purpose is to kill people at a distance. That'd make no sense at all!

thus far, by the way, no one has come to confiscate my cars,,,,,,

Top Gun wrote:...
So we should have to register motor vehicles, as a matter of general public safety.....

I reject the premise that they are registered to provide any public safety. They are registered for taxation purposes.

Also, registering who owns firearms, or keeping a registry of firearms and who owns them, doesn't provide any safety measures either. It does provide the federal government with the list of who needs to be disarmed. Which, by the way, is exactly why they haven't been given that list so far...

I’m pretty sure registering your car, has more to do with stolen vehicles, insurance…licenses…etc, and not a thing to do with public safety…and last time I checked…there is no major political movement to ban cars yet…no wait.

Edit: after reading the post below…

The primary reason for vehicle registration is to provide proof of ownership, anything beyond that, which provides assistance to law enforcement is a bonus.

BTW, the "license" is the primary vehicle to provide public safety…keeping blind people and the inept off of the streets. (in theory)

Will Robinson wrote:

Top Gun wrote:...
So we should have to register motor vehicles, as a matter of general public safety.....

I reject the premise that they are registered to provide any public safety. They are registered for taxation purposes.

are you serious? Do you know often, nationwide, cops trace the registration records by way of tracking down criminals?

Also, registering who owns firearms, or keeping a registry of firearms and who owns them, doesn't provide any safety measures either. It does provide the federal government with the list of who needs to be disarmed. Which, by the way, is exactly why they haven't been given that list so far...

a friend of mine and I were talking on the phone the other night....he's one of the staunchest gun owning pals I have, carry permits in MS and LA, travels with federal permits, etc. His whole idea is not to bother with tracking sales at all,nor locally variable carry laws, but having a nationwide firearms ownership permit, complete with background checks and mandatory update of address change. His idea is to then use that permit for purchase, for display in carry situations, everything.
In other words, authorities would be able to locate who CAN own a weapon, but not who owns what or how much. Does that seem tolerable to the gun owners here? I have no opinion, never thought of that spin until that point, but it seems a responsible, honest attempt at finding workable common ground.

I would buy into a national permit for conceal carry, good in any state or city (yes Mayor Bloomberg, that includes your city) with the right to carry your firearm anywhere, including schools and churches. Permit would be good to purchase firearms anywhere as proof you are a person of good standing. Records of the sale would NOT be allowed. Laws regarding ownership and carry would be identical in all states.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Top Gun wrote:...
So we should have to register motor vehicles, as a matter of general public safety.....

I reject the premise that they are registered to provide any public safety. They are registered for taxation purposes.

are you serious? Do you know often, nationwide, cops trace the registration records by way of tracking down criminals?

Yes I'm serious because I understand the difference between creating safety and investigating a crime after the fact...

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Also, registering who owns firearms, or keeping a registry of firearms and who owns them, doesn't provide any safety measures either. It does provide the federal government with the list of who needs to be disarmed. Which, by the way, is exactly why they haven't been given that list so far...

a friend of mine and I were talking on the phone the other night....he's one of the staunchest gun owning pals I have, carry permits in MS and LA, travels with federal permits, etc. His whole idea is not to bother with tracking sales at all,nor locally variable carry laws, but having a nationwide firearms ownership permit, complete with background checks and mandatory update of address change. His idea is to then use that permit for purchase, for display in carry situations, everything.
In other words, authorities would be able to locate who CAN own a weapon, but not who owns what or how much. Does that seem tolerable to the gun owners here? I have no opinion, never thought of that spin until that point, but it seems a responsible, honest attempt at finding workable common ground.

Meeting basic criteria for permission to own a gun sounds reasonable on it's face but that has been used by left leaning sherrifs in the past to deny permits so I accept it under the caveat that they write it the way most States do their concealed carry permits which is the law reads the State "must issue" the permit unless they can show cause based on specific violations of law, mental handicap, restraining order, etc. Not just because the ideological wind blows left due to who is in office and/or seeking higher office.

I don't think this reaches the kind of 'ground' that people like Feinstien and Pelosi and Obama etc. are trying to reach however. Or even you, since you think we all need nothing more than shotguns with limited capacity!

How about similar criteria for voter registration? When the same kind of requirement is proposed for voting it is shouted down as voter intimidation, racism, etc. How is doing it for guns any different?

Come to think of it more clearly....why would I need a permit from the government to own something they have no authority to keep me from owning? If they pass a law that says I can't get a gun without their permission then they have violated my 2nd amendment right. So the purchase component has to be removed from any permit purposes.

Hehe, before you go on fact finding missions TG, you should finish reading all the posts before or after .

flip wrote:Hehe, before you go on fact finding missions TG, you should finish reading all the posts before or after .

I...read every single post in the thread, buddy. If you're referring to your throw-away line about an "above article" being misinformation, which didn't even refer to your own article, then I have to ask: why the hell would you deliberately post a source you knew was erroneous?

Spidey wrote:I’m pretty sure registering your car, has more to do with stolen vehicles, insurance…licenses…etc, and not a thing to do with public safety…and last time I checked…there is no major political movement to ban cars yet…no wait.

Edit: after reading the post below…

The primary reason for vehicle registration is to provide proof of ownership, anything beyond that, which provides assistance to law enforcement is a bonus.

BTW, the "license" is the primary vehicle to provide public safety…keeping blind people and the inept off of the streets. (in theory)

That's certainly one aspect of it, but the context I was thinking of was that, at least in most states, all registered vehicles have to undergo some sort of annual inspection, which ensures that the vehicle isn't spewing out toxic levels of smog, and isn't about to fall apart while traveling at highway speeds. In order to use your vehicle on public roadways, it has to meet certain minimum standards, so that it doesn't physically become an issue for the rest of the driving public. As you point out, unfortunately it's not nearly so easy to do that for the driver...

I...read every single post in the thread, buddy. If you're referring to your throw-away line about an "above article" being misinformation, which didn't even refer to your own article, then I have to ask: why the hell would you deliberately post a source you knew was erroneous

Slick got the point imagine, no surprise you didn't

EDIT: Let me make it easy for you. It doesn't matter if something is true or not, it only matters if you can make a majority of people believe it is true.

I also imagine the reason Slick chose to disengage from that discussion is because those numbers make perfect common sense in a population that has been totally disarmed. Had he continued the conversation, He surely would have to admit that partial confiscation could not possibly address the problem either, and the last links I posted go to show it's failed policy, otherwise there is no need to lie about the numbers.

Top Gun wrote:[...
That's certainly one aspect of it, but the context I was thinking of was that, at least in most states, all registered vehicles have to undergo some sort of annual inspection, which ensures that the vehicle isn't spewing out toxic levels of smog, and isn't about to fall apart while traveling at highway speeds. In order to use your vehicle on public roadways, it has to meet certain minimum standards, so that it doesn't physically become an issue for the rest of the driving public. As you point out, unfortunately it's not nearly so easy to do that for the driver...

You are wrong.

You can register a car without having a safety inspection.
Only two states require safety inspections.

Every state requires registration of vehichles however, and to get registered you have to prove to the government that you paid them their tax revenue.

Registering cars is not about safety nor would safety be the reason for registration of guns.

Will Robinson wrote:

Top Gun wrote:[...
That's certainly one aspect of it, but the context I was thinking of was that, at least in most states, all registered vehicles have to undergo some sort of annual inspection, which ensures that the vehicle isn't spewing out toxic levels of smog, and isn't about to fall apart while traveling at highway speeds. In order to use your vehicle on public roadways, it has to meet certain minimum standards, so that it doesn't physically become an issue for the rest of the driving public. As you point out, unfortunately it's not nearly so easy to do that for the driver...

You are wrong.

You can register a car without having a safety inspection.
Only two states require safety inspections.

Um, there are many more than two. What shocks me the most are the states that don't require any inspections, even emissions. Because that makes sense.

flip wrote:Slick got the point imagine, no surprise you didn't

EDIT: Let me make it easy for you. It doesn't matter if something is true or not, it only matters if you can make a majority of people believe it is true.

Ah good, so you engaged in the very same sort of obfuscation that clouds pretty much every public debate topic in this country. Congratulations, you're part of the problem!

Top Gun wrote:...
Um, there are many more than two. What shocks me the most are the states that don't require any inspections, even emissions. Because that makes sense....

I think you will find only a couple of those 17 states tie registration to safety inspections.
In other words they will gladly take your tax dollars/registration fee for a car that has no safety inspection sticker...thus it becomes registered with no concern for it's safety status.
Then you can drive away and be pulled over for lack of a safety inspection sticker, or not, in most of those 17 states. Consequently, registration does not equal safety.

But that whole discussion is tracking way off course relative to the point you tried to make: guns+registration=gun safety.
How does having my name on a registration log somewhere make my gun safer? As far as I know we have no national problem with guns that are in bad repair.....leaving pieces in the lanes at the target range...they do "spew out toxic chemicals"...lead...but they are supposed to do that so your analogy is flawed from the start.

However, if you have a good answer for that, how would a new a national registration make my gun safer than the current log created when you buy a gun that is kept by the dealers and accessible by warrant for all law enforcement.
It helps law enforcement after the fact, in some investigations, but after the bullets hit it is too late to cause safe conditions for the registered gun in question.

What it DOES do is give the Feds a list of who has what, and if they can mandate registration then they must have the power to revoke registration. That is BAD.

What does this tell you? It's more dangerous being at home in the U.S., than in Iraq fighting militants.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/justice/t ... index.html

No goofball! If you were not always so quick to try and criticize and correct someone you would understand.

http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

According to the Kennesaw Police Department, the city's most recent crime statistics show 243 property crimes per 100,000 residents in 1998, or .243 per 1,000.

The city's crime rate continues to be far below other metro Atlanta city's with similar populations, like Decatur. In 1998, Decatur recorded 4,049 property crimes per 100,000 residents.

Everybody that I know knows this about Kennesaw, including criminals .

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: “When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.” Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.

I think Kennesaw is a perfect example of how an armed citizenry is a huge deterrent to criminals. You don't rob or attack someone you know is armed, you go for the easy mark.

Top Gun wrote:
That's certainly one aspect of it, but the context I was thinking of was that, at least in most states, all registered vehicles have to undergo some sort of annual inspection, which ensures that the vehicle isn't spewing out toxic levels of smog, and isn't about to fall apart while traveling at highway speeds. In order to use your vehicle on public roadways, it has to meet certain minimum standards, so that it doesn't physically become an issue for the rest of the driving public. As you point out, unfortunately it's not nearly so easy to do that for the driver...

Other than taking a test initially to get your drivers license, what other inspection of the driver is there. Last I heard there is no background check.

callmeslick wrote:thus far, by the way, no one has come to confiscate my cars,,,,,,

Let a few maniacs drive onto a school playground during recess and run over a bunch of kids...you might have your car confiscated

nah, they'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands.....

There is an interesting and sadly predictable corellation to cars along the lines Woodchip is talking about. In the recent past there was an effort on the left to demonize the SUV. If a car accident caused a fatality or was otherwise particularly noteworthy due to the damage it caused instead of reporting that 'someone' died in a car crash they began reporting 'someone killed by an SUV'.
Now we are seeing 'someone killed with a semi-automatic weapon' instead of someone shot.

The anti gunners are trying to make all semi-autos out to be unnecessary, psycho killer tools so they can get ignorant voters to support a ban on al of them.
That would pretty much take away over 90% of America's defensive weapons.

What most people don't understand is a semi-auto works just like a revolver.....one trigger pull, one bullet fires....pull it again, another bullet fires...

The anti gunners writing the law know this but they make no distinction because their goal is to disarm.

I think most folks get the difference, Will. Also, they get the potential for large capacity magazines in a mass killing situation, and they understand in many cases velocity of fire, nature of ammo, etc. You might be surprised what folks who pay attention understand. And, please, again, tell me who wants to confiscate anything?

callmeslick wrote:I think most folks get the difference, Will. Also, they get the potential for large capacity magazines in a mass killing situation, and they understand in many cases velocity of fire, nature of ammo, etc. You might be surprised what folks who pay attention understand. And, please, again, tell me who wants to confiscate anything?

No they don't slick. I hear them repeating the numerous falsehoods everyday. I saw you repeating some about the Glock...'goes off in your pocket, cheap plastic', etc. etc.

Look at your comments just now. "velocity of fire" the velocity of a semi-auto ranges from barely leathal at 400 feet per second up to 3000 feet per second depending on the caliber, bullet weight and powder load. THE SAME range of velocity is available in revolvers...actually revolvers are the handguns with the more powerful ammo available to them because they don't have to deal with the slide mechanism coping with the recoil of the explosion.

If you meant 'rate -of-fire' instead of velocity then, once again, you are creating a false premise because revolvers, just like semi-auto's can fire faster than almost any human can operate them some of them actually can cycle faster than semi-auto's. I posted this link to one of the few humans who can shoot as fast as his revolver can.

So why do you use the words, or concepts of "velocity" or "types of ammo" etc. as things that make 'assault weapons" or "semi-auto's" different from guns you claim we should be able to keep? They are no different in revolvers than they are in semi-auto's! You are trying to create the belief in people that there is a difference and that the semi-auto or assault weapon is more dangerous so that people will allow you to remove those weapons from our possession. "semi-auto" covers damn near every handgun in america!

Non gun users hear "semi-auto" and they think military, machine gun, etc. AND if you have the pundits and media talking heads on TV associating the phrase semi-auto with the other evil designation "assault weapon", then the two phrases quickly become synonymous in the mind of the uninformed.
And that is the way the anti-gun agenda is planted and nurtured in the mind of the uninformed voter. It is a campaign, Obama has activated his complete campaign machine for this fight, you even mentioned it in another thread. You know damn well what's going on, stop pretending to be ignorant.

As for who is trying to confiscate them, Pelosi said just a few days back that 'the plan is to dry up the supply to get rid of them'....so she knows the confiscation is going to be hard to sell but the stated goal is to rid them from our use. The charter for HandGun Control Inc used to have the confiscation in it but they realized that was bad PR so they changed it...with reassurances to their members that their position didn't change, only their tactics.
And you want to take all of them except shotguns.
There are plenty more examples, just watch the anti-gunners on TV, they will tell you!

It was funny when some dillweed called in to Rush Limbaughs show and swore up and down that if you cad a collapsable stock on a AR-15 and you push the stock in (collapsed) the gun would turn into a fully automatic weapon. This is the kind of brain dead low information voter that will hang on every word someone like Slick will spew.

It’s funny how he states how dumb people are to support some of his arguments, then goes on to state how smart people are to support others…I’m detecting a pattern here.

Spidey wrote:It’s funny how he states how dumb people are to support some of his arguments, then goes on to state how smart people are to support others…I’m detecting a pattern here.

note that I said 'those people who pay attention' in the above. Don't let that be confused with my longstanding observation that the average citizen of the US is as dumb as a brick.

slick, your President stumbled into an important distinction but the media is of course not going to ask him to explain. So here is your chance to be Obama's press spokesman, I'll be the reporter who commits a random act of journalism and asks you the question.

President Obama said:
""I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations," "And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake. Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas."

My question is 'How are guns different in urban areas? I assume he doesn't mean the physical nature of the weapon is somehow different, and since the murder rates are as much as 20x higher in some of those urban areas, what is this difference he sees? And how do any of his proposals deal with those differences?

I wonder how many urban dwellers love hunting as much as their rural counterparts.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:It’s funny how he states how dumb people are to support some of his arguments, then goes on to state how smart people are to support others…I’m detecting a pattern here.

note that I said 'those people who pay attention' in the above. Don't let that be confused with my longstanding observation that the average citizen of the US is as dumb as a brick.

You initially said that "most folks get the difference" now you are saying that the average person doesn't get the difference so what the hell were you disagreeing with then?!?
It looks like your response to me was more BS spin from the aptly named slick!

Will Robinson wrote:My question is 'How are guns different in urban areas? I assume he doesn't mean the physical nature of the weapon is somehow different, and since the murder rates are as much as 20x higher in some of those urban areas, what is this difference he sees? And how do any of his proposals deal with those differences?

guns serve a far different purpose in urban areas, in several ways, and I think that's what he was getting at. First off, in most urban areas police coverage and response is faster, so less purpose in warding off in-home burglers and such. Second, there are a ton of illegally obtained weapons on the streets, and far more often guns are used in crimes as opposed to 'sporting use', than in rural areas. How do proposals deal with this? I can't really say, for sure, but it would seem that stricter enforcement of certain laws(exec orders) would help a bit. I've always said that certain magazines and certain types of ammo benefit criminals(ie gang types) far more that the average law-abiding citizen. Like I state, I'm not sure the reasoning, you might have to inquire more deeply of the people making the regs, I'm not a spokesperson.

Will, how convenient of you to leave out my words,"what folks who pay attention understand"

So you agree comrade slick, that it was the low information voter who got Obama elected.

woodchip wrote:So you agree comrade slick, that it was the low information voter who got Obama elected.

hell, if anything, most GOP voters were even more uninformed than the other side. If all the population is relatively clueless, the only thing favored is the spread of partisan BS, and campaigns for both sides aiming for the easy pickings. That much I'll agree with.

What you say may be true except you do know that Romney won the independent vote so your line about partisan bullpucky is just that.

I think what Slick is saying, in his opinion, is that most people are misinformed and gullible and therefore more easily misled . I don't think he's taken certain things into account myself and it is under that guise of false confidence will certainly come back to bite him.

EDIT: Come back to bite all of us actually.

It already has