Guns Targetted at New Generation

[Sweetpumper]

not by a long shot.

Yes, they do.

[freetoroam]

Ma'am, people have been giving you the same reasoning for weeks here. A what about that post made you realize the asinine logic of punishing law abiding citizens for the acts of criminals that you haven't been able to grasp before? It's all been said over and over to ya.

I was asking a hunter who gave me an answer without getting all gun hoe on me. Maybe it might have been mentioned, but no one has mentioned how they felt being compared to the gang members with guns, until now. the main thing discussed was people owning guns full stop, I had mentioned myself enough time that i have no problem with hunters owning guns, but, the main argument was the non hunters.

Respect.

Edited January 29, 2013 by freetoroam

[freetoroam]

If keeping my guns locked and secure, registering them, etc. keeps ONE gun out of ONE bad guys hands, I don't mind doing it. If it keeps ONE child from harming themselves or anyone else, I don't mind doing it.

No big deal. As a hunter, doing these things don't affect my hunting in the least.

My state is one of those with fewer gun laws.

And we are about 28th in gun violence.

Nibs

if I were a hunter hunting for food, I would say the same thing.

[F3SS]

I was asking a hunter who gave me an answer without getting all gun hoe on me. Maybe it might have been mentioned, but no one has mentioned how they felt being compared to the gang members with guns, until now.

I had mentioned myself enough time that i have no problem with hunters.

Well there you have it then. A large chunk of this gun control debate has been to demonize gun owners of all types. Those who don't hunt have every right and reason to bear arms too and being labeled dangerous, careless, mentally ill and having their names and addresses published on an interactive online map is just the opposite of what should be going on. All of those things should pertain strictly to criminals and gang members and not decent people.

[questionmark]

Well there you have it then. A large chunk of this gun control debate has been to demonize gun owners of all types. Those who don't hunt have every right and reason to bear arms too and being labeled dangerous, careless, mentally ill and having their names and addresses published on an interactive online map is just the opposite of what should be going on. All of those things should pertain strictly to criminals and gang members and not decent people.

As long as there is the second amendment everybody has a right to have as many guns as he wants for whatever purpose. But that does not mean that they should be excused from acting like grown ups with them. If we could achieve that we would not need these discussions.

[F3SS]

As long as there is the second amendment everybody has a right to have as many guns as he wants for whatever purpose. But that does not mean that they should be excused from acting like grown ups with them. If we could achieve that we would not need these discussions.

Right. But you know full well yourself that most do act responsible. I've said before that you never hear stories of responsible people going about their responsible lives. Why would you? Who cares? It's boring and expected. You only hear the bad and while the bad stories are many they still don't paint a true likening of the big picture which is there are hundreds of millions of guns in civilian hands and gun crimes only account in the thousands. The irresponsible are a minuscule percentage and we all stand with you against them.

[questionmark]

Right. But you know full well yourself that most do act responsible. I've said before that you never hear stories of responsible people going about their responsible lives. Why would you? Who cares? It's boring and expected. You only hear the bad and while the bad stories are many they still don't paint a true likening of the big picture which is there are hundreds of millions of guns in civilian hands and gun crimes only account in the thousands. The irresponsible are a minuscule percentage and we all stand with you against them.

When that minuscule percent are capable to instill terror then it pertains the government to take action. And laws cannot be made for minuscule percents, but must be made for all.

[F3SS]

When that minuscule percent are capable to instill terror then it pertains the government to take action. And laws cannot be made for minuscule percents, but must be made for all.

there are plenty of laws and they are made for all but so far those laws haven't stopped the minuscule percentage from ignoring them. Laws are good but enough is enough. If they aren't working something else must be tried. Piling on laws only further restricts the freedoms and abilities of those who can act responsible without them.

[+HerNibs]

if I were a hunter hunting for food, I would say the same thing.

Not sure I understand your response. I don't hunt to survive. I do eat what I hunt but I don't have to for food.

I don't feel that anyone is comparing me or insinuating that I am equal to or the same as a gang member because I own a gun.

Nibs

[F3SS]

Maybe the problem with some laws are the penalties attached. When I was a kid an older cousin of mine had a boyfriend who was killed. Stabbed in the heart. He was in the wrong neighborhood late at night. Anyways, his killer turned himself in and got five years for straight up murder, not self defense. I don't think he even served his whole term and was released right back into the hood.

[questionmark]

there are plenty of laws and they are made for all but so far those laws haven't stopped the minuscule percentage from ignoring them. Laws are good but enough is enough. If they aren't working something else must be tried. Piling on laws only further restricts the freedoms and abilities of those who can act responsible without them.

Naturally there are plenty of laws that are ignored, and there are even more that are as useful as tits on a bull. So far there is only one useful law, and that is the Brady Bill. The rest you can dump in a toilet. Now the Brady Bill has to be expanded to private sales and a law needs to be passed that makes people pay for the damage their guns cause. That could help.

[+HerNibs]

Naturally there are plenty of laws that are ignored, and there are even more that are as useful as tits on a bull. So far there is only one useful law, and that is the Brady Bill. The rest you can dump in a toilet. Now the Brady Bill has to be expanded to private sales and a law needs to be passed that makes people pay for the damage their guns cause. That could help.

It is helpful but I think the background checks need to be run on everyone owning/buying a gun.

Nibs

[Sweetpumper]

Maybe the problem with some laws are the penalties attached. When I was a kid an older cousin of mine had a boyfriend who was killed. Stabbed in the heart. He was in the wrong neighborhood late at night. Anyways, his killer turned himself in and got five years for straight up murder, not self defense. I don't think he even served his whole term and was released right back into the hood.

I was perusing Reddit and came across a guy who was robbed in his store, shot three times and is partially paralyzed. I don't even know if this is the appropriate thread, but here it is anyway:

Q: What's your view on gun control? Did being shot change it?

A: Every US citizen who passes a drug test, not convicted of a felony or taking some sort of mental medicine should be allowed to carry any gun they want anywhere they want. Had the law allowed me to have a concealed gun on me at that time, I would not have been shot that day and there would be one less criminal in this world.

Q: How do you think the situation would have played out had you had a gun? I mean, you say below if I'm correct, that he walks in a points at you. Could a gun in your immediate vicinity have even the odds in any way concidering his "strategical" advantage?

I'm genuinely curious here.

A: I was ex-military. Had I had a pistol on me, he would not be in prison right now. When he missed his first shot, there was a few second delay between the 2nd and 3rd shots. Plenty of time for me to be able to draw and ventilate him.

[F3SS]

I was perusing Reddit and came across a guy who was robbed in his store, shot three times and is partially paralyzed. I don't even know if this is the appropriate thread, but here it is anyway:

Q: What's your view on gun control? Did being shot change it?

A: Every US citizen who passes a drug test, not convicted of a felony or taking some sort of mental medicine should be allowed to carry any gun they want anywhere they want. Had the law allowed me to have a concealed gun on me at that time, I would not have been shot that day and there would be one less criminal in this world.

Q: How do you think the situation would have played out had you had a gun? I mean, you say below if I'm correct, that he walks in a points at you. Could a gun in your immediate vicinity have even the odds in any way concidering his "strategical" advantage?

I'm genuinely curious here.

A: I was ex-military. Had I had a pistol on me, he would not be in prison right now. When he missed his first shot, there was a few second delay between the 2nd and 3rd shots. Plenty of time for me to be able to draw and ventilate him.

That's an awesome testimonial. Though the drug test part is iffy. I might agree with it if it were anything but pot. You can smoke a joint and fail a drug test 3 weeks later and you can sniff lines every other night yet pass a drug test after mellowing out for a few days. Lastly, if a drug test is such a taboo subject concerning those who I pay for, ie entitlements, then it damn sure wont be a part of the conversation concerning a constitutional right. But I digress. In sum that is one awesome resilient man with his head screwed on straight.

[freetoroam]

Not sure I understand your response. I don't hunt to survive. I do eat what I hunt but I don't have to for food.

I don't feel that anyone is comparing me or insinuating that I am equal to or the same as a gang member because I own a gun.

Nibs

Its not difficult to understand. If you hunt and you eat what you hunt, then fine, but if you murder animals for the fun of it, its not fine.

If you own a gun because you go hunting (and eat what you catch) then there is nothing wrong with that at all.

The main issue here was the multi million dollar company going out full force to advertise their guns, and seeing that is the gangs which are the problem in respect to no respect for guns, then surely its annoying for the genuine guns owners who do respect them.

I was saying that the multi million dollar company is taking advantage of a couple of incidents which have happened to promote their business, at the end of the day, all those responsible gun owners do not need someone telling them about guns, surely hunters know. But I still think that sending guns and ammo to youth clubs is manipulating the situation.

[freetoroam]

It is helpful but I think the background checks need to be run on everyone owning/buying a gun.

Nibs

I still cant believe that this is not the case....but I know it is.

All those willing for a background check are more likely to be responsible with their guns, the gangs and criminals will not go through the routes of being able to get checked, they all have guns and will still get hold of them somehow.

[Gummug]

I said the same in another thread...I would have a lot more respect for Obama if he would just once address black on black gang crime.

Maybe he's afraid he would lose their votes...a vote is a vote, after all, even if it is from a thug.

[Michelle]

Maybe he's afraid he would lose their votes...a vote is a vote, after all, even if it is from a thug.

I had to log on to give you this....

[F3SS]

I still cant believe that this is not the case....but I know it is.

All those willing for a background check are more likely to be responsible with their guns, the gangs and criminals will not go through the routes of being able to get checked, they all have guns and will still get hold of them somehow.

So your on the side of reason now? You understand that is exactly the reason more gun laws won't help, right?

[CrimsonKing]

I still cant believe that this is not the case....but I know it is.

All those willing for a background check are more likely to be responsible with their guns, the gangs and criminals will not go through the routes of being able to get checked, they all have guns and will still get hold of them somehow.

This is what i have been saying all along!We have wide open borders,laws that will only effect law abiding citizens is foolish and stupid to back yet that is exactly what is happening!

[ninjadude]

We have wide open borders,l

and you would be completely wrong.

The U.S. Border Is More Secure Than Ever Before

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/28/1503581/the-us-border-is-more-secure-than-ever-before/

[CrimsonKing]

LMAO you sir can bring up all your little polls and statistics the gov can shove down your throat and you can believe them if you want i care not.If they are so secure how did uncounted millions of illegals get here?How does all the untold amount of drugs get here?Magic?Go ahead quote me and respond however you like next time im here i will talk to full grown adults about the problems this country is facing.Not a liberal dem troll who has nothing better to do than argue about problems that have been in the news for 30 or 40 years now and act like they dont exist because barry's polls told him so.

[Rafterman]

and you would be completely wrong.

The U.S. Border Is More Secure Than Ever Before

http://thinkprogress...an-ever-before/

Because Think Progress told me........perhaps by their definition that starts at we should have no borders.

If it's so secure, why don't you head down to Texas or Arizona and have a good old camp out - you know, 85-89 miles beyond the sign that tells US citizens to not go beyond this point (90 miles from the border). Build a big campfire, sing some songs, cook up some smores. Have a regular old hootenanny.

[freetoroam]

So your on the side of reason now? You understand that is exactly the reason more gun laws won't help, right?

I could see that ages ago, but that was not what I was asking from the start, its what the guns owners were saying, I get that. What my question was, was about the multi million dollar company and how people felt about that. Thats what this thread is about, the multi miilion dollar company......saying that, there are so many different threads about guns, things are getting a bit confusing, but this thread IS not about gun laws...period.

[freetoroam]

This is what i have been saying all along!We have wide open borders,laws that will only effect law abiding citizens is foolish and stupid to back yet that is exactly what is happening!

Yes, i agree, but this thread is not about that.