And here they come out of woodwork

Status
Not open for further replies.
Caramon13 said:
Gun control doesn't necessarily include making things illegal. It means more regulation. There's a difference.

I will agree that SOME weapons should be illegal outright...but generally speaking we need more, not less regulation...
Click to expand...
Regulation, by definition, makes things illegal. FARs are regulations. It is illegal to fly if you are not in compliance with those regulations.
 
If only murder were better regulated. This stuff would never happen.
 
Caramon13 said:
Yes...really. Yours is the typical argument for gun owner rights. You are a (I presume) law-abiding citizen and you're following the process. So you argue it needs to be easier because its too tough to buy a gun when you "want" one. The criminals don't do it, so it should be easier for me.

It's a juvenile argument that has run its course.

There is no good reason for any American to own an arsenal. Protection, yes. Hunting, yes. A sidearm, a non automatic long gun and a shotgun. There you go. No more for you.

The right to bear arms doesn't mean the right to wield an arsenal. It was a practical and useful clause for a specific point in time and with SOME applicability to protection and food today. NRA and so many others are perverting it into an excuse to be able to buy a .50 caliber "toy" because..the constitution lets them..

All I hear from gun owners are "I want, I want, I want". Regulation laws should be telling them what they "get" based on what they "need" and qualified by what they already "have".
Click to expand...

Caramon,

Define "arsenal'. One gun in some politicians minds would qualify.

It seems you are at odds with the God-given rights enumerated in the Constitution. They were simply enumerated there to preserve those rights and secure them against government intervention. Governments, not only ours but many others, believe they have the authority to legislate things they do not agree with. It is all about power.

That said I'm glad I got in before the thread lock I can see coming.
 
Salty said:
Regulation, by definition, makes things illegal. FARs are regulations. It is illegal to fly if you are not in compliance with those regulations.
Click to expand...

Don't know what definition you are looking at but nothing I found says "regulation" = illegal.

A regulation is: Principle or rule (with or without the coercive power of law) employed in controlling, directing, or managing an activity, organization, or system.

In an emergency, does a pilot have the ability to deviate from any or all of the FARS? Is that illegal?

Regulations set boundaries, limit trade, provide guidelines, shape processes.
 
deonb said:
There were quite a few guns carried by both the spectators and performers in Vegas. This wasn't any kind of deterrence.

Out of curiosity - what kind of weapon would the concert-goers had to carry on them in order to have been able to successfully return fire to the shooter? Would that be even practical to carry around?
Click to expand...

I never said conceal carry eliminates all cases of firearm crime. Sniping from a distance is a special case and very rare, the overwhelming majority of self defense situations are close range.
 
steingar said:
These mass shooting make really sensational news, but they're rare. The more common things that happen are also mundane.
Click to expand...

Not really that rare. About 1 mass shooting per day this year that involves 4 or more people other than the shooter.

But I agree with this being sensational news - as far as Vegas is concerned, this is really just really the average for 1.5 days worth of gun deaths - it would hardly be a blip on a per/day graph. It's not close to being the most deadly day - June 19th this year had 123 gun deaths.

It made news because it all happened in the same place.
 
Norman said:
Caramon,

Define "arsenal'. One gun in some politicians minds would qualify.

It seems you are at odds with the God-given rights enumerated in the Constitution. They were simply enumerated there to preserve those rights and secure them against government intervention. Governments, not only ours but many others, believe they have the authority to legislate things they do not agree with. It is all about power.

That said I'm glad I got in before the thread lock I can see coming.
Click to expand...

I think I did in my post. Sidearm, non automatic long gun and a shotgun. Covers protection and hunting. Any hunter worth his/her salt only needs one bullet, maybe two. And personally a sidearm works fine for protecting my family.

If the framers of the constitution wrote "right to beer", does that automatically give people the right to own a beer refinery with no regulation on who to sell it to or who can drink it?
 
Caramon13 said:
Don't know what definition you are looking at but nothing I found says "regulation" = illegal.

A regulation is: Principle or rule (with or without the coercive power of law) employed in controlling, directing, or managing an activity, organization, or system.

In an emergency, does a pilot have the ability to deviate from any or all of the FARS? Is that illegal?

Regulations set boundaries, limit trade, provide guidelines, shape processes.
Click to expand...
No. You're not allowed to jump in a plane you aren't "regulated" to fly and take it into a TFR, and then charge your passenger for all expenses when you only have a PPl, just because you perceive an emergency.

The regulations defIne what is and is not legal.
 
Salty said:
No. You're not allowed to jump in a plane you aren't "regulated" to fly and take it into a TFR, and then charge your passenger for all expenses when you only have a PPl, just because you perceive an emergency.
Click to expand...

C'mon man, that's what pilots all over do daily..sqawking 7700 is just a way to get priority clearance in the air or ground...everyone knows that..
 
mscard88 said:
Her
Click to expand...


The first words that come to mind?
Screen-Shot-2017-10-02-at-12.27.06-PM.png
 
Caramon13 said:
Here's option B. Leave guns alone and regulate ammunition. Without bullets, they are just fancy bashing devices..
Click to expand...

Well, there are a lot of reloaders out there already.

As for owning an arsenal, I guess it depends on your definition. I have maybe 2 dozen guns, a wide variety. I have some collectibles from WWII that I absolutely love. If I had to sell any, these would be the last to go. I have an AR15 for plinking with my dad and brother. It's the fun one. .22LR Henry lever action that I bought for my son's first gun. I still have my Marlin .22 that was my first gun. An old Sears .20 ga mom bought me for my 12th birthday, and a .20 ga my dad gave my son. My conceal and carry is a shield 9mm, but I have the full size M&P too, and a Ruger .22 for plinking and rodents out at dad's farm. There are a few other assorted ones, almost all used exclusively to compete with against my brother and son out at dad's.

I'm not being argumentative, but just asking nicely, which ones should be made illegal and taken away from me? And what would it really accomplish if they were taken from me? I've never done anything illegal with them in my life and have never even contemplated doing so. There are millions of others in my situation who have done nothing wrong.

I get that you want to do something, but I don't see the answer being to take away any or all of my guns.
 
Let me try another approach. If the regulations don't make anything illegal, then nuts and everyone else can still do anything they do today.
 
azblackbird said:
Somebody is severely misleading you on that stat. :yesnod:
Click to expand...

Not really. There have been 270 mass shootings this year. The only "trick" to that stat is that it also includes injuries, not just fatalities. Some of those mass shootings had no fatalities, or had only the shooter as a fatality.
 
I think the biggest problem is that mass murderers are glamorized by the media. The people that do these kinds of things do it to get attention. It's their last ditch effort to gain fame. Negative press is still press, and the more negative, the more press. Would our subject shooter have done what he did if he had no expectation of publicity after the fact? I don't know the answer to that, but I think that we would see a lot less of these things happen it that were to be the case. Certainly, thirty years ago media treatment of that sort of incident would have been handled differently than it is today. It just wasn't the cool, in thing to do back then.

Also note that he had stockpiles of ammonium nitrate as well. Had his venue not included a protected, high level perch from which to shoot, a shrapnel bomb could have been a fallback, with similar if not greater casualties.
 
Salty said:
Let me try another approach. If the regulations don't make anything illegal, then nuts and everyone else can still do anything they do today.
Click to expand...

Willing to bet that this guy didn't do anything illegal until he fired the first shot. Also willing to bet that if all psychological and background testing laws that have ever been proposed have passed, it still wouldn't have flagged this guy.

This is the new normal. It will remain the normal until some other form of technology in the future obsoletes guns.
 
Salty said:
Let me try another approach. If the regulations don't make anything illegal, then nuts and everyone else can still do anything they do today.
Click to expand...

Bro I think you are confused...

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2015/10/whats-the-difference-between-laws-and-regulations.html

Laws are the products of written statutes, passed by either the U.S. Congress or state legislatures. The legislatures create bills that, when passed by a vote, become statutory law.

Regulations, on the other hand, are standards and rules adopted by administrative agencies that govern how laws will be enforced. So an agency like the SEC can have its own regulations for enforcing major securities laws. For instance, while the Securities and Exchange Act prohibits using insider or nonpublic information to make trades, the SEC can have its own rules on how it will investigate charges of insider trading.

Like laws, regulations are codified and published so that parties are on notice regarding what is and isn't legal. And regulations often have the same force as laws, since, without them, regulatory agencies wouldn't be able to enforce laws.

Laws make things illegal, regulations deal with enforcement. They are NOT the same thing, but they are similar. That was my point.
 
Caramon13 said:
It's a juvenile argument that has run its course.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. But stooping to insulting terms like "juvenile" is frequently what gun controllers are reduced to when they find themselves unable to make a logical, fact-based argument.


There is no good reason for any American to own an arsenal. Protection, yes. Hunting, yes. A sidearm, a non automatic long gun and a shotgun. There you go. No more for you.
Click to expand...

Well, first we'd have to get to an agreed definition of "arsenal," but the three you list hardly comprise one. There are, in fact, many good reasons to own far more guns than that, as guns are quite specialized for different purposes. At the moment, I think I have about 20, and each has different and specific purposes.

But that's beside the point. Bear in mind that we have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. Please try applying your argument to any other enumerated right and see if it holds water. (Does anyone really need more than 3 books? Or need to post to a forum more than 3 times per day?) The argument to limit the number of guns a citizen can own is silly, as there is no compelling and demonstrable justification that it will in any way reduce crime. Furthermore, it is entirely impossible to implement such a restriction without setting aside most of the rest of the Constitution.



The right to bear arms doesn't mean the right to wield an arsenal. It was a practical and useful clause for a specific point in time and with SOME applicability to protection and food today. NRA and so many others are perverting it into an excuse to be able to buy a .50 caliber "toy" because..the constitution lets them.
Click to expand...

Does the right encompass the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government? Because that was the original reason for it. Such an ability today would require much more than the three weapons you seem to think are sufficient.

Also, please consider that the Constitution doesn't "let" us do anything. It restricts the Government. There's a profound difference between those two things, and a US citizen should hold that difference dear.


All I hear from gun owners are "I want, I want, I want". Regulation laws should be telling them what they "get" based on what they "need" and qualified by what they already "have".
Click to expand...

Again, we don't have a Bill of Needs. We have rights, and many of us are quite serious about preserving them.

But if you don't like this particular right, the Constitution can be amended. Have at it. Good luck.
 
deonb said:
Not really. There have been 270 mass shootings this year. The only "trick" to that stat is that it also includes injuries, not just fatalities. Some of those mass shootings had no fatalities, or had only the shooter as a fatality.
Click to expand...
You know what's really funny. The majority of those "mass shootings" took place in cities/states with some of the strictest gun laws and regulations in the entire nation. Why is that? I thought strict gun laws and regulations were supposed to work. :dunno:
 
Caramon13 said:
Here's option B. Leave guns alone and regulate ammunition. Without bullets, they are just fancy bashing devices..
Click to expand...
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
Gerhardt said:
Well, there are a lot of reloaders out there already.

As for owning an arsenal, I guess it depends on your definition. I have maybe 2 dozen guns, a wide variety. I have some collectibles from WWII that I absolutely love. If I had to sell any, these would be the last to go. I have an AR15 for plinking with my dad and brother. It's the fun one. .22LR Henry lever action that I bought for my son's first gun. I still have my Marlin .22 that was my first gun. An old Sears .20 ga mom bought me for my 12th birthday, and a .20 ga my dad gave my son. My conceal and carry is a shield 9mm, but I have the full size M&P too, and a Ruger .22 for plinking and rodents out at dad's farm. There are a few other assorted ones, almost all used exclusively to compete with against my brother and son out at dad's.

I'm not being argumentative, but just asking nicely, which ones should be made illegal and taken away from me? And what would it really accomplish if they were taken from me? I've never done anything illegal with them in my life and have never even contemplated doing so. There are millions of others in my situation who have done nothing wrong.

I get that you want to do something, but I don't see the answer being to take away any or all of my guns.
Click to expand...

It's a good question Gerhardt..and the answer is "I don't know". I don't think anyone does. I'm not trying to be argumentative (much) anyway either, mostly just bored at work at lunch enjoying a good discussion.

Lemme ask you this..does your right to own antique firearms or be a collector (however benign your intentions) provide a framework to allowing a psycho to be able to stockpile 50 guns for mass chaos? Assuming those guns are obtained lawfully and no one actually knows this person is a psycho..remember criminals are a completely separate exception.

If giving up your collection for a gun or two would provide a lower probability of someone less rational than you doing the same for other reasons, would you give it up?
 
Caramon13 said:
It's a good question Gerhardt..and the answer is "I don't know". I don't think anyone does. I'm not trying to be argumentative (much) anyway either, mostly just bored at work at lunch enjoying a good discussion.

Lemme ask you this..does your right to own antique firearms or be a collector (however benign your intentions) provide a framework to allowing a psycho to be able to stockpile 50 guns for mass chaos? Assuming those guns are obtained lawfully and no one actually knows this person is a psycho..remember criminals are a completely separate exception.

If giving up your collection for a gun or two would provide a lower probability of someone less rational than you doing the same for other reasons, would you give it up?
Click to expand...
No. Just like I wouldn't give up my right to innocence until proven guilty. Even if it provides a lower probability of a guilty person getting away with a crime. Or just like I wouldn't give up my right to free speech, even if it means jerks get to spew racist nonsense.
 
Caramon13 said:
Bro I think you are confused...


Like laws, regulations are codified and published so that parties are on notice regarding what is and isn't legal. And regulations often have the same force as laws, since, without them, regulatory agencies wouldn't be able to enforce laws.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's me that's confused. If a regulation doesn't make something illegal, which your first sentence clearly says it CAN do, then it serves no purpose. It changes nothing. Nobody has to do anything differently if it wasn't there. If someone is no longer allowed to do something because of the regulation - then the regulation is making something illegal.
 
Caramon13 said:
provide a framework to allowing a psycho to be able to stockpile 50 guns for mass chaos?
Click to expand...
Here's what I love about the media and those who have been brainwashed by them.

Since when does the number of guns a person owns or have "stockpiled" have to do with anything related to a mass shooting? Last time I checked, I can only shoot one gun at a time, unless of course if I'm some trick shooter and can maybe pull a Doc Holliday, or Wild Bill Hickcock and shoot two at a time.

It's like collecting cars. I can only drive one at a time.
 
Salty said:
I don't think it's me that's confused. If a regulation doesn't make something illegal, which your first sentence clearly says it CAN do, then it serves no purpose. It changes nothing. Nobody has to do anything differently if it wasn't there. If someone is no longer allowed to do something because of the regulation - then the regulation is making something illegal.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking lots of what was done was already illegal....and it didn't stop a thing.
 
Half Fast said:
No, it isn't. But stooping to insulting terms like "juvenile" is frequently what gun controllers are reduced to when they find themselves unable to make a logical, fact-based argument.

Well, first we'd have to get to an agreed definition of "arsenal," but the three you list hardly comprise one. There are, in fact, many good reasons to own far more guns than that, as guns are quite specialized for different purposes. At the moment, I think I have about 20, and each has different and specific purposes.

But that's beside the point. Bear in mind that we have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. Please try applying your argument to any other enumerated right and see if it holds water. (Does anyone really need more than 3 books? Or need to post to a forum more than 3 times per day?) The argument to limit the number of guns a citizen can own is silly, as there is no compelling and demonstrable justification that it will in any way reduce crime. Furthermore, it is entirely impossible to implement such a restriction without setting aside most of the rest of the Constitution.

Does the right encompass the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government? Because that was the original reason for it. Such an ability today would require much more than the three weapons you seem to think are sufficient.

Also, please consider that the Constitution doesn't "let" us do anything. It restricts the Government. There's a profound difference between those two things, and a US citizen should hold that difference dear.

Again, we don't have a Bill of Needs. We have rights, and many of us are quite serious about preserving them.

But if you don't like this particular right, the Constitution can be amended. Have at it. Good luck.
Click to expand...

The three I list would be the limit, theoretically..its a start. Sorry but you will never convince me you need 20 guns for 20 different purposes. The fact is you have 20 because you wanted 20 and..that's the problem with things today.

Of course you need more than 3 books. There are at least 3 subjects in school, I think, I learned two of them, I forget what the third was though...

What government are you overthrowing? I'm not talking about militia or military, I'm talking about private citizens.
 
I think we should ban obnoxious hotels, or vegas itself. That would have solved this one.
 
My grandfathers both had a dozen guns each as long as I've been alive. Neither has ever shot anyone to my knowledge. My dad owned half a dozen my whole life. Never shot anyone. I've owned dozens of guns. Never shot anyone.

Using the same bad logic the gun haters do, I've just proven that gun owners don't kill people and it's ok to own lots of guns.
 
Salty said:
I don't think it's me that's confused. If a regulation doesn't make something illegal, which your first sentence clearly says it CAN do, then it serves no purpose. It changes nothing. Nobody has to do anything differently if it wasn't there. If someone is no longer allowed to do something because of the regulation - then the regulation is making something illegal.
Click to expand...

Breaking a regulation doesn't mean you broke a law. And it doesn't mean you did something illegal. Some some regulations carry the force of a law, but they are not a law, therefore cannot be illegal.

If I fail to adhere to cloud clearances in VFR flight, I may be in violation of a regulation, but I ain't going to jail..and it's not illegal.

Lemme help you out again.

Illegal means: contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.
 
steingar said:
If you own a firearm your odds of dying from one increase substantially.
Click to expand...

But not necessarily because you own the firearm. Data like this is extremely misrepresented. It includes such gun owners as gang members and people getting a gun to protect themselves from a stalker.
 
Caramon13 said:
Breaking a regulation doesn't mean you broke a law. And it doesn't mean you did something illegal. Some some regulations carry the force of a law, but they are not a law, therefore cannot be illegal.

If I fail to adhere to cloud clearances in VFR flight, I may be in violation of a regulation, but I ain't going to jail..and it's not illegal.

Lemme help you out again.

Illegal means: contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.
Click to expand...
You ought to let this guys lawyer know about this. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/21/gyrocopter-pilot-sentenced-4-months-prison/83271738/
 
Rushie said:
But not necessarily because you own the firearm. Data like this is extremely misrepresented. It includes such gun owners as gang members and people getting a gun to protect themselves from a stalker.
Click to expand...
You are of course correct. i was simply referring to a number of statistical analyses.
 
Caramon13 said:
Sorry but you will never convince me you need 20 guns for 20 different purposes.
Click to expand...
Somebody please take this guy out shooting and educate him on how each gun has it's own particular use, feel, and shooting style. Maybe once he has some fun, he'll see why so many people like to collect various types of guns. :cool:
 
Caramon13 said:
There is no good reason for any American to own an arsenal. Protection, yes. Hunting, yes. A sidearm, a non automatic long gun and a shotgun. There you go. No more for you.

The right to bear arms doesn't mean the right to wield an arsenal. It was a practical and useful clause for a specific point in time and with SOME applicability to protection and food today. NRA and so many others are perverting it into an excuse to be able to buy a .50 caliber "toy" because..the constitution lets them..

All I hear from gun owners are "I want, I want, I want". Regulation laws should be telling them what they "get" based on what they "need" and qualified by what they already "have".
Click to expand...

Wow. Please God don't let the day come when you get to determine what my "needs" are! Who are you that you get to determine the why, the what and how many? The fact that you blantanly misunderstand the purpose of the Second Amendment is proof enough that your opinion should not be heeded. Why do you have so little regard for the Constitution?
because..the constitution lets them..
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. Because the Constitution allows us. It's a shame that our Constitutional rights bring you such grief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top