What legal gun owners are really afraid of.......

Right... "Absolute gun safety" with an unsecured shotgun next to the bed... Oxymoron?

I've repeatedly said that Obama's approach to gun control is wrong. How does that make him "God"? When I was active duty, I followed orders. I would have followed any lawful order given, no matter who the President was (it wasn't Obama).

You've proven time and again that you don't know anything about me, but you believe you're qualified to alledge that I like killing? That's just stupid enough to completely discredit your ability to undertake logical thought.

 

hey, you made the statement that you'd kill Americans, not me. Again, no acknowledgement about no kids in my house. Yep, there's a shotgun by the bed, in my house....tell me how that poses a threat to you somewhere in BFE land?
Technically speaking, the only ones that need to be concerned, is the ape coming into my house. don't respond with a what if..I'm talking about a clear, present real-time event, not a what-if......
Where do you draw the line on your BoR?

 

You've previously mentioned that the county you live in has significant drug production. You've also mentioned that these drug manufacturers break into unoccupied buildings...
What happens if, next time you come home from the grocery store, you find that some druggie has your shotgun? You are part of the problem.

 

sheer idiocy. What makes you think I leave my firearms loose in the house while I'm not there? You are in error... "safety does not compute...danger, Will Robinson, danger !!!"
Nope, you are the problem. You're willing to take agressive action. I am merely a defensive kind of fellow.
(*)(*)(*)(*), they'd have to get into the safe to get my guns. Since they wont be able to, they can try to carry the safe off? again, they'd have to do some major damage to the floor the safe is concreted into. So, what's your problem with that? Is it the fact that I have guns that scare you?
I'll ask you one more time, where do you draw the line with intrusion upon your Rights? What point do you say enough is enough?
How is it that you can limit my Rights? Just because you want to? Sorry slick, that Right doesn't belong to you..........

 

Let's see, what could have given me that impression.... maybe it was "I don't know where you got the notion that I am less than absolutely sure my guns are secured at all times with the exception of one. The pistol comes out only during target practice and cleaning. What the intruder needs to be worried about is the 12 g next to the bed." Sounds like a weapon you routinely keep unsecured...

As for where "the line" is drawn, how about this... If some behavior, when engaged in by the general public, causes more harm than good to society - occurances of that behavior should be minimalized. I believe that our current gun culture causes more harm than good, as such I believe that some controls need to be put in place to minimize the chances of straw purchases, increase the safety awareness of gun owners to minimize accidents, and ensure that illegally obtained weapons can be quickly identified by law enforcement.

As much as you want to believe the world revolves around you, this isn't about any single person. It's not about you or me, it's about what's in the best interests of the greatest number of people.

 

This is where your argument fails. That stoopid ol' BoR is Individual, not corporate. So it is about the single idividual no matter how you carry on, those are Individual Rights. They are not intrinsic with the government. Those are the things that government is not supposed to touch, regardless.
The Bill of Rights is the Rights of all Free Men, not just a select few, not for the good of society, but for the well being of the Individual. If misued, punishment can ensue, but punishment in lieu of "maybe" is hardly reason to intrude.
It is fear mongering that has brought this to the forefront by the media and the politicians who want to disarm the peons, like Feinstein, Boxer, Reid, and the list goes on. They will keep their guns in a gun free society, which would pretty much leave us at their mercy, along with your god, Maobama, and you're riding their sails.another day without accidental shootings here, no children killed, no firearms stolen or used in a crime. Not all those statistics apply to every person. you do know that, don't you?
Notice how our government is segregating us from them. It's ok for them, but not ok for us. That's why the BoR is there, to provide equal footing.
You keep forgetting, I am shameless and do not care what others think or do, just don't do it here.
and what just is it that makes a corrupt cop better than the average joe on the street? screw a bunch of cops. It is well known in here, I have no use for LEO. However, peace officers I can deal with.

 

Did you put a trigger lock on your weapon back in the Marines after they took it out of the armory? And now you make judgments on "unsecure" guns?

Why don't you and your leftist buddies encourage drug gangs and druggies to put trigger locks on their stolen and illegal handguns when they are not using them to commit crimes?

 

WOW, so your view of America is that it's just a bucket full of crabs... Everyone for themselves, stepping on each other to climb to the top. Sad. Didn't realize I was trying to talk sense to a sociopath.

 

Actually, like everyone else in my unit, my weapon never left my possession unless it was under guard or in the armory. So yes, I pass judgement on those "responsible owners" who are irresponsible to have unsecured weapons.

As for my "leftist buddies", I believe they'd rather stop the flow of weapons into criminal hands in the first place by ensuring guns are properly secured and that it is difficult for anyone to buy a gun and pass it on to their friend who couldn't get one for himself.

 

Felons support democrats overwhelmingly, as various studies have shown.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/12/john-lott-senator-al-franken-minnesota-felons-democrat/

Trying to stop the flow of weapons in the areas where there is the most crime is as useless as stopping the flow of narcotics into these same areas.

Rifles like AR's can easily be converted to full auto fire, as can many other weapons---so why are there hardly any of these weapons used in crimes. Wouldn't it make more sense to a criminal to have this extra firepower of a machine gun to use against cops and their victims?

The reasons why criminals don't buy or convert weapons to fire full auto is because there are manditory punishments, both federal and state, that are hard to get out of. So therefore, when felons see the punishment is too severe, they will not risk doing the crime.

Now any righteous, intelligent politican would see the enormous problem with gangland violence, and killing in urban hell-holes, and say, "Let's have the same tough laws that call for manitory punishments for gang violence with guns or any other weapon---just as they do for machine guns. Existing RICO laws could be used to take down whole gangs and make cities much safer."

But there are no righteous liberal demcrats in power that will do this. Black and Hispanic leftists ARE the core of the liberal democrat support group. Attempting to hold these thugs accoutable would enrage the voting base. So, no laws punishing the real people responsible for crimes will come about as long as leftist democrats are running things. They will blame the guns, and people like you will lick-up everything they tell you and believe it. Blame the gun, release the felon.

 

If the "responsible gun owners" of this country were forced to abide by the gun control the USMC enforced on us (I was in 8 yrs, former SSGT Military Police) they would lose their minds. I advocate gun control not gun bans! Responsible ownership should not or would not IMHO resist registration, background checks, tracing of weapons to original owners, keeping weapons out of the hands of those who can not control them or cannot qualify to own them in the first place. In the Marines, if we did not qualify, we not only did not carry we were usually discharged as an undesirable or under other than honorable conditions!

 

FINALLY!!!
I totally agree. "Control" and "Banning" are NOT the same thing. I support control measures, which may mean that fewer people are able to own/carry because (let's face it) some people are irresponsible morons.

 

thought you told me in a pm that you were in for 17 years??????????????????? Now it's 8...go figure

 

Interesting, first you claimed that I said I served for 17 years, now you claim CoolHandLuke@60 said he served for 17 years... I think you're having an aneurysm.

 

flu today...it was supposed to be directed at you, Logician...my bad, Cool, apologies

 

I've told you before, I served 17 years ago... The fact that you can't read because of a "flu" is your issue, not mine.

 

wtf????? are you delirious..........?????????
I was talking about the ship number...CVA 61 not CVA 64...............now don't you feel special

 

I suspect sociopathy is a prerequisite for gun ownership in Uh-merica. That and a rudimentary edumakayshon.

Trying to talk sense here is like discussing particle physics with 7 year olds.

 

then take a hint...............go debate sputnik...........

 

but this barrel is full of fish

 

Does anyone have a clue what this even means? Why would anyone debate a 57 year old satellite program that kicked off the space race, and what does it have to do with gun control?