Pro-Gun / Hunting Thread

[ok2bclever]

Good one over9five, NRA non-biased.

 

[susiedriver]

NRA site!?! Come on 9.5, you can do better than that, can't you?

 

[over9five]

I think u both kno I was kidding on the "un-biased" part!

 

[susiedriver]

Fact of the matter is, gun control brings out the extremes on both sides. As I stated before, I really have no problem with gun ownership. Loopholes, non-enforcement of laws, special interests, I do have a problem with.

I see no problem with a waiting periods and background checks on ANY gun purchase. I don't think it would hurt to record purchasers of ammo, and reloading supplies.

You want to own a number of military assault weapons? Subject yourself to random checks by authorities to make sure you can account for them. Subject yourself to testing to make sure you are capable of handling them. Subject yourself to psychiatric testing to ensure youre responsible enough to own such a powerful machine that exists solely to kill other human beings.

You want a hunting rifle or shotgun, fine. Apply for permits, have a background check, wait 10 days, register it and head for the woods. A rational person *should* be able to do that.

 

[over9five]

Random checks by authorities? Testing? Psychiatric testing?????

Who pays for all this? Are you going to add thousands of dollars to the price of each gun? Of course not, that wouldn't work. So who pays? You got it! The taxpayer.

A simple criminal record check that takes seconds in this age of computers is enough.

There are ALREADY enough gun laws and regulations on the books, We certainly don't need more. What we need is ENFORCEMENT of current laws, tougher sentencing, MORE PRISONS.
I know, more prisons cost money too, but I think its a better way to spend taxpayer money.

 

[susiedriver]

o/9.5,

Only for owners of 'military' weapons. Hunting weapons, just normal background check and waiting period.

 

[ok2bclever]

"A simple criminal record check that takes seconds in this age of computers is enough"

That does sound simple, but the reality is the systems are not capable of that in speed or accuracy.

I disagree with psychiatric testing as this is at best an artform and not a science, but I could agree with annual verification of physical ownership.

I also believe that yes, this should be incorporated into the luxury of purchasing or "collecting" military grade weaponry rather than on all us taxpayers who have no interest in owning a bazooka or whatever.

"Prisons" just means you wish to contain the aftermath at taxpayers cost.

I certainly am in agreement we need enough prisons so we are not releasing criminals on a priority basis to relieve overcrowding.

I think background checks prior to purchase (regardless of how long it takes as accuracy is more important the convenience to the purchaser) is reasonable for any guns and it is in this content where I have a problem with the gun nuts crying about butter knives when more comprehensive checks regarding the slipshod gun shows and such are brought up.

Realize, I don't equate gun ownership (am one) with gun nuts.

 

[quebec_driver]

GUYS, we`ve been there done that and it cost billions, gun control does NOT remove firearms from the criminals hand. Canada has a gun control law, it took my father in law (a retired police officer with the RCMP, Canada`s national police) 6 months to get his possession permit, by the way we have possession permits, acquisition permits, permits for restricted weapons(handguns and automatic weapons), fees when you acquire a firearm, BIG BROTHER can walk in to your house at any time to verify that you are storing YOUR firearms according to the law. You also have rules for the transportation of weapons, new rules when you go to the firing range, if you transport a handgun you MUST advise the POLICE of the destination and route. So as a law abiding citizen, in a democratic country, as a gun owner , and in view of all the restraint imposed on me, I feel as if I`m a criminal. And Susie for your info, I`m a hunter, it is a family tradition that I hope to pass on to my daughters. And for you people who want gun control check out the cost per capita in Canada then do the math for the USA

 

[ezrider]

Susie

The issue does bring out extremes, I'd agree. I would add that there can be more than two sides to the issue, and that's what adds to the maze of misunderstanding and rather "fuzzy" statistics provided by one side or another...or another...etc.

I'm not very big on making radical changes to the U.S. Constitution. I don't think the founding fathers meant for it to be treated like some decorative multi-layer cake where each hand tried to cut and slice it in an effort to avoid the the corner pieces or the gross hard flowers made from the icing nobody wants to eat. It was meant for everybody. Since every individual has different views of what would be ideal, the document will never be perfect for the individual. The best that can be achieved are laws that can be agreed to be acceptable to all or at least most. Most I'm willing to bet would agree, at least in principle, with the 2nd Ammendment.

The real issue with the that principle and whether it has or has not been eclipsed, circumvented or violated revolves around where is the line drawn on the individual's right and at what point does it start to supercede the common good (or public safety) to all as a group (society). Restrictions and stiff penalties if done right would perhaps yield positive changes over time if done right and compromises reached. Frankly, I doubt it will ever happen. Mass proliferation of firearms has become big bussiness in this country. Gun manufacturers don't want background checks or testing or any comprehensive measures because the longer a fair percentage of buyers have to wait, the less likely that percentage will follow through with making the purchase. Less buyers mean a shrinking marketplace, and big bussiness wants more buyers, not less.

You don't think the typical small time hack selling this stuff out of his van during the tent-sale wouldn't be throwing a hissyfit at the prospect of having to be held accountable for who he sold what to? Of course not. That would take more time and attention to detail, and that means effort, money and responsibility. Those types don't want any part of it, and that's why so many of the guys making the easy money cry that river about how they are protecting the American way citing the right to bear arms.

What a load of tripe. What it's really about is they want to keep thier seat on the gravy train and make sure it never leaves the station. Most often it's never about thier "right to bear arms", it's about keeping thier privilige to sell arms as quick and easy as they can to whoever is willing to pay, regardless of what the buyer's intentions happen to be. From what I've seen these gun peddlers are in the same group as the crack dealer on the corner or the loser "entreprenuer" running the crystal-meth lab. The 2nd Ammendment is no justification for what they are doing, and they know it.

The only way I'd have less respect for them is if they started calling themselves "independent contractors".

 

[dannyboy]

"I see no problem with a waiting periods and background checks on ANY gun purchase. I don't think it would hurt to record purchasers of ammo, and reloading supplies."

And I bet you dont see any problem with going into walmart and having to sign a sheet with your name and address just to purchase some sudafed.

Well I do. Why should law abiding citizens have to go through all this BS when it is the crimials that are misusing the drugs. The same holds true with guns and ammo. Why go through all the BS because the criminals misuse the product.

Time to crack down on the bad guys and leave the honest American citizen the rights that have been hard earned.

As for hunting, there was a time when I did. But there comes a time in a persons life when there is no sport in killing an animal. Not judging those that do, but I would rather hunt with a camera these days. Maybe I have just seen too much death to deal with it.

But then again, there was a dog last year that had been killing everything around, including cats and other dogs. I was pleasantly surprised that i have not lost the touch. One shot, very little blood, didnt feel a thing, and while he was looking at me, never saw it coming.

d

 

[therodog]

EDITORIAL: So Much For Gun Control

 

[therodog]

Here we go again. Another Canidate pretending to be pro-gun, just like John Kerry tried, and failed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/26/AR2005082601819.html

 

[therodog]

Im all for this : Backround checks at gun shows..

New state law makes debut at gun show

 

[wkmac]

I'm personally against so-called background checks not because I'm against the checks themselves but because the broader taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for those gun owners who choose to exercise the right of gun ownership which by the way I'm for 100% if one chooses to exercise that right. I'll also agree many people aren't capable of properly and responsibly exercising that right so here we are. I also believe the same is true for a rather surprising large number of licensed automobile drivers and stats. suggest you're risk of death or injury from a automobile is some degree greater than from a gun. However I'm sure those risks would change for someone who found themselves in close proximity to an irresponsible gun owner or gun possesser.

I'd rather see organizations like NRA for example along with gun manufactures to come up with their own system using criminal data bases, finger printing and I'm not opposed to consideration of the prospective gun owner being required to post some type of bond in order to purchase a gun from the manufacturers. If you didn't pass the industry itself would bar you from purchasing. If as a private individual or maker you sold a weapon to a non authorized person, then by contract you could be heavily fined with huge economic sanctions which could include confiscation of properties if said levies weren't satisfied. Now before you cry 2nd amendment, those rights are only forced upon gov't but do not apply to individuals or private companies acting in a voluntary relationship or contract with one another. In other words, what I'm suggesting is gun owners policing and do background checks on themselves rather than sitting on their butts forcing the taxpayer to foot the bill and then subjecting themselves to the perils of those who would choose to politize the whole issue for political gains while at the same time coming up with solutions that really don't and won't address the problem to begin with.

I believe pro-gun organizations as well as anti-gun organizations have no real interest in completely winning their positions because this would mean the task is 100% complete and the need for their organizations and them having a job with political clout and excess would cease to exist. This Hegelian Dialectic exists across the board with most if not all political stripes and movements within the corridors of power and will continue to do so as far as the eye can see IMO.

The problem itself is not the gun. The problem is people. We no longer respect the other fella in his property or his thoughts and opinions. We've come to view the world from our standpoint only and nothing else will satisfy. If our neighbor won't live like we want them too then we generally take several courses of action. One is to get the gov't to force them to live our way and this entails political organizing and getting "our kind of people" in office. Once done we change the laws so that our neighbor has no choice but to live our way or face sanctions within the criminal justice system. This is a case of where we use gov't as the mechanism of force, the gov't becomes the gun if you will. At first, it's in it's holster but visable with the hopes this with scare the offender into compliance. If this isn't enough thne the situation could esculate to where the weapon is brought to bare.

The other means would be for the individual themselves to brannish their own weapon and go over and then force the neighbor into complying with their desires. At least in this case it's more honest although still very wrong. Is this an extreme view? In one sense yes it is but consider this. A group of businessmen go to a town council and convince them that their business development plan would greatly enhance the revenue coffers of the town while bringing in economic growth for the overall town. The plan requires the town to seize privately owned land in order to enact this plan and this happens daily around this country in light of the Kelo decision. This is the private will via the use of public force and if the private property owner refuses to sell or subject to the control of the public will of the private developers then the guns will come out. 100 plus years ago, land barons hired "regulators" to impose their wills on the small individual land owners around them so they could expand for profit and gain. Now the "regulators" are law enforcement forced by law to do the bidding of the 21st century land barons like Walmart for example.

This is just 1 example of 1000's and 1000's that just shows the problem is ourselves, not some man-made mechanism. We can outlaw every gun on the planet to the point of destroying them all but we'd find some other means of imposing our wills on others. Until we in our individual capacity find the means to police ourselves first and foremost, then gun control will be as fruitless an effort as trying to herd cats!

Here's something real ironic to think about. Let's say you could convince everyone around the globe for the next year to practice to the letter "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not kill", what impact would this have? To clarify, these precepts aren't just limited to judeo-christian teaching but are found around the world in most all belief systems in one way or another so don't construe the above as my way of espousing a certain religious creed or doctrine. I myself am open to the best of what all have to offer.

 

[tieguy]

"WOW! I had no idea that the NRA was selling guns."

Really? You had no idea the NRA was a vehicle of the gun manufactorer?You had no idea the NRA / gun manufactorers leverage the right to bear arms issue to sell guns to anyone and everyone?

Here is my point. I strongly believe you a law abiding citizen should have the right to protect your family and property with a gun.

You will do a great job protecting your family with that gun if a crook tries to break your front door down with an axe while you are in the house.

However the average citizen has no defense for the carjacker who walks up behind him at the local wal mart and sticks a gun to the back of his head. Any attempt to pull his gun and shoot would result in the death of the average citizen and his family.

Unless the average citizen stands in front of the wal mart with his gun in the ready position and challenges any stranger who approaches by pointing his weapon at that stranger and yelling halt. Obviously that is not an option.

The average criminal is much better schooled in gun play than the average citizen. Regardless of what you think the average citizen does not go through life warily assessing each person they come across while maintaining a grip on his weapon. The average criminal in public will always have the option of choosing the time and place of his criminal activity and will almost always get the drop on the average citizen.

Thus if you wish to make the average citizen safer then you have to find a way to take the gun out of the hand of the average criminal. Calling me an anti gun nut does not give you that answer and in fact makes me less safe.

Until you and I the supporters of the right to bear arms start having a serious discussion on how we will take the gun out of the criminals hands none of us are truly safe.

 

[ok2bclever]

Yeah, god forbid we inconvenience any LAW ABIDING CITIZEN in the slightest to try to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

Let freedom ring.

 

[susiedriver]

Or cold medications out of the hands of meth users.

 

[over9five]

Or alcoholic beverages out of restaurants. Amazing they won't let you drink while driving, but you can get drunk at a restaurant or bar and then drive home.

I motion we no longer allow bars and restaurants to sell alcohol. The roads will be much safer and we will save thousands of lives a year.

Yes, thats right, I am anti-alcohol, and my plan will save more innocent lives than your anti-gun plan.

 

[over9five]

"You had no idea the NRA was a vehicle of the gun manufactorer?"

Thats a lot different from your prior post of:

"The NRA sells the handguns to the criminals.."

The NRA is also the vehicle of almost 3 million Americans who not only subsribe as members, but also donate to effect policy and legislation through lobbying.

 

[tieguy]

Yep there are many law abiding members of the NRA. The real financial push behind the NRA is the gun manufactorer. As they do want to sell as many guns as possible and I don't really think they care who buys the guns.

Again I strongly believe in the law abiding citizens right to protect himself, his home and his family with a gun.

But at the same time I am sick and tired of the gun sellers manipulating my right to own a gun to sell them unchecked.

I'm sick and tired of seeing so many people die each year because these weapons are not controlled.

I fully understand and in some ways agree that part of the problem is we have laws that don't work.

I also believe we don't do enough to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and there is no doubt in my mind gun manufactorers will resist any efforts we make that result in less guns being sold and thus less profits for them.

That is a no brainer.