quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
That's not at all unsubstantiated. The gun grabbers will respond to rebuttals on how useless their gun control proposals are with "we'll......it's a start".
If they could get every single semi automatic and all hand guns, it would satisfy them for awhile but only until they figure out what a high power bolt action hunting rifle or a 12 gauge pump action can do.


Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them..............Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it."

People driven by fear might think when someone says "its a start" they mean a start to repealing the 2nd Amendment and not mean its a start to trying to reduce the number of senseless deaths. ETA - (that is quite a huge assumption to make.)

If you think the gun control proposals are useless, yet:

quote:

I'm in support of gun laws and restrictions

as you stated in post #119; what exactly are your suggestions for gun laws and restrictions?

The Feinstein quote was made on February 5, 1995 during a "60 minutes" interview and it was concerning one type of weapon that she was asked about - assault weapons. Those very words were taken and misrepresented so that the NRA could scare their supporters into believing Feinstein is trying to ban all guns. This resulted in members donating more money. (Gee, what a surprise.) Just what I said - fear mongering. But of course its me who is being naïve. On with the body count.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Don't like open carry for several reasons.
Neither do I.
I support better background checks but don't want it turned into a witch hunt.
I agree on both points.
I am not an NRA member.
Then that comment was not meant for you. It was meant for organizations whose lobbyisst influence legislation at a national level.
I favor stiffer penalties for firearm crimes, which the NRA does, or at least used to support.
So do I. You are right, the NRA used to support that and a lot of other things.
If the background checks currently stop a few hundred thousand guns a year from being sold
why are the prosecutions for attempting to buy a gun illegally in the 10's annually.
Because there is more money in chasing down drugs. Police Depts. don't make money for chasing down illegal gun buys.
How can we say current laws don't work when we don't enforce them?
We can't say that.
The legitimate restrictions on all other rights are focused not on their potential for misuse
but on their actual misuse, why should the right to bear arms be any different.
Some are, some aren't. Voting, marriage and driving all come to mind. They all require showing some form ID (in most states) and they have all have legitimate restrictions on who can exercise those rights (in most states.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
That's not at all unsubstantiated. The gun grabbers will respond to rebuttals on how useless their gun control proposals are with "we'll......it's a start".
If they could get every single semi automatic and all hand guns, it would satisfy them for awhile but only until they figure out what a high power bolt action hunting rifle or a 12 gauge pump action can do.


Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them..............Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it."

People driven by fear might think when someone says "its a start" they mean a start to repealing the 2nd Amendment and not mean its a start to trying to reduce the number of senseless deaths. ETA - (that is quite a huge assumption to make.)

If you think the gun control proposals are useless, yet:

quote:

I'm in support of gun laws and restrictions

as you stated in post #119; what exactly are your suggestions for gun laws and restrictions?

The Feinstein quote was made on February 5, 1995 during a "60 minutes" interview and it was concerning one type of weapon that she was asked about - assault weapons. Those very words were taken and misrepresented so that the NRA could scare their supporters into believing Feinstein is trying to ban all guns. This resulted in members donating more money. (Gee, what a surprise.) Just what I said - fear mongering. But of course its me who is being naïve. On with the body count.

Once you establish the governments right to ban one type of firearm, in this case guns that look like assault weapons (there were no assault weapons on the list)
you have a precedent for the next type.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
Not at all a huge assumption and driven only by fear of losing our constitutional rights. Past actions and the words of the gun grabbers themselves more than show "it's a start" means a start to severely restricting citizens access to firearms.

I myself have made that statement; on one of these threads if I am not mistaken, and never once did it mean anything about taking away guns or even severely restricting citizen access to them.

Banning common semi automatics or restricting magazine capacity isn't useful but I asked you first, what would you suggest ? And while your at it I'm curious to know what you think an "assault weapon " is. I still think you're being naive.

I have made suggestions in other threads such as no loopholes for gun shows, allowing the authorities to flag people who have been deemed dangerous. And end to the "open carry" foolishness, stricter penalties for gun owners who allow their guns to fall into the hands of children who then shoot themselves or others. Funding for free basic gun safety (and gun law) classes for gun owners. Incentives for gun owners who agree to take those safety classes.

Do you want my definition of an assault weapon as it was taught to me in the Army or do you want the Federal Government's definition that was used when they ordered the range officer to put a device on my M16 that stopped it from firing automatic?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

well, yeah and no, I mean reality slips away with that one, consider those children that might be in the home that have not learned to poop into something they are not wearing for example. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAYuseful but I asked you first, what would you suggest ? And while your at it I'm curious to know what you think an "assault weapon " is. I still think you're being naive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
Not at all a huge assumption and driven only by fear of losing our constitutional rights
Do you want my definition of an assault weapon as it was taught to me in the Army or do you want the Federal Government's definition that was used when they ordered the range officer to put a device on my M16 that stopped it from firing automatic?

Then you know they weren't trying to ban assault weapons. They just claimed they were cause it would sound better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

"Man Kills His New Black Neighbors Without Warning Because He Assumed They Were Thieves"





http://iacknowledge.net/man-kills-his-new-black-neighbors-without-warning-because-he-assumed-they-were-thieves/

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

"Man Kills His New Black Neighbors Without Warning Because He Assumed They Were Thieves"





http://iacknowledge.net/man-kills-his-new-black-neighbors-without-warning-because-he-assumed-they-were-thieves/

With any luck they will lock the guy up somewhere safe where he never has to worry about people breaking into buildings again. Perhaps somewhere with a nice high fence and a few guard towers sprinkled about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Past actions and the words of the gun grabbers themselves more than show "it's a start" means a start to severely restricting citizens access to firearms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Past actions and the words of the gun grabbers themselves more than show "it's a start" means a start to severely restricting citizens access to firearms.

Think there might be some paranoia in that thought process? You know like when you refer to gun enthusiests with positions slighty different than your own as "gun grabbers".

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Past actions and the words of the gun grabbers themselves more than show "it's a start" means a start to severely restricting citizens access to firearms.

Think there might be some paranoia in that thought process? You know like when you refer to gun enthusiests with positions slighty different than your own as "gun grabbers".

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Past actions and the words of the gun grabbers themselves more than show "it's a start" means a start to severely restricting citizens access to firearms.

Think there might be some paranoia in that thought process? You know like when you refer to gun enthusiests with positions slighty different than your own as "gun grabbers".

I didn't read which of my posts you were responding to. when I did I noticed that you put my name on someone else's post
Real class there.
This combined with a false accusation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Because you cant use quotes properly, it appears that you said it........in post 188
Quite understandable too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

If you expect to be understood correctly... you have to be sure that your typing skills are up to it.
people get misdirected, confused and dont always read the post you(generic) are responding to...
This isnt the first time you havent "formatted" your post and been misunderstood, by him or anyone else.

just some friendly advice
misunderstanding thru bad communication is not helpful anywhere