Here it comes

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 17, 2009, 8:21 pm

H.R. 45 introduced 01/06/09. Of course it is introduced by an Illinois Rep that incidentally was also the founder of the Black Panthers in Illinois.

1/6/2009--Introduced.
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.
Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.
Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.
Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.
Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.

This in conjunction with the assault weapons bill they have basically gives the Attorney General complete power over the firearms laws of the country. The AG they are pushing of course is Eric Holder who opposes private gun ownership entirely. In case you did not read their assault weapons bill, it provided a clause that stated that the AG could make illegal to own or transfer any gun that was "originally designed for military use". That of course covers pretty much every firearm on the planet.

Gonzoie - Luclin · Post by **Gonzoie - Luclin** » January 17, 2009, 8:33 pm

Our government will never ban personal gun ownership. They will try everything they can to get rid of loop holes and hopefully harsher charges for people who own a gun with no license.

I can walk into a gun show and buy a gun without ever having a license to own a gun. That makes sense.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 17, 2009, 9:24 pm

The main reason they do not license people for gun ownership is so the federal government cannot target you to remove guns when they decide the public should not have them. The 1928 Weimar gun legislation is eerily similar to what the current legislation is workign towards and that in case you do not know history was followed by a Nazi party rise to power with a public that was powerless to revolt.

In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 17, 2009, 9:35 pm

Gonzoie - Luclin wrote:Our government will never ban personal gun ownership. They will try everything they can to get rid of loop holes and hopefully harsher charges for people who own a gun with no license.

I can walk into a gun show and buy a gun without ever having a license to own a gun. That makes sense.

By the way, can you tell me what "loopholes" you actually believe there are? That is a nice hotbutton word, but it has no ass behind it. The "loopholes" the anti-2A people are referring to is the right of a person to sell something they own to another individual. The gun show "loopholes" are nothing more than attempting ot ban a private sale. 95% of all people selling anything at a show are FFL dealers that are already required to run federal background checks. The other 5% are almost all people selling long guns (shotguns and hunting type rifles) or a single firearm that they could also sell by posting an ad in a newspaper. Are you actually insinuating that the general public should not be allowed to sell their private property? Property that is protected by a constitutional amendment?

How about we actually focus on taking the criminals out of society and not worry about the law abiding public for just ONCE? Guns cause crime like your fork is responsible for making you fat.

Gonzoie - Luclin · Post by **Gonzoie - Luclin** » January 17, 2009, 10:02 pm

I may have misread, but where does it say you won't be able to sell your firearm?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 17, 2009, 10:28 pm

haha!

Step 1 is nearing completion! HA!

This will usher in a new era of government power and control, paving the way for A New World Order! Following this measure, Obama and his improved Nazi party will put into place it's secret police under the guise of Homeland Security. This highly trained and ruthless force of terror troops will systematically jail and murder every single person in the US that either owns a gun or has seen one on TV. The crematoriums will choke the skies with the ashes of gun owners! I will personally own lampshades made with the skin of gun owner's children! HAHAHA

SO SAITH THE SHEPHERD! SO SAITH THE FLOCK!

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » January 18, 2009, 12:01 am

I have no problem with these proposed regulations / restrictions. Hopefully it passes without being too watered down by the inevitable compromises needed to overcome the Killmolesque right-wingers in both houses that will be wetting themselves over this.

I've long favored the prohibition of direct private sales of firearms. I think that any transfer of a firearm between private citizens (non-dealers) should conducted through a third party broker (a licensed dealer specifically approved to handle such transactions) that would be subject to all background checks and cooling-off periods currently required for commercial sales.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 18, 2009, 1:30 pm

teehee, again w/ the "we must have our guns to protects our country from teh gubernment" argument.

Well, apparently they've made their move, you best get to shooting someone.

It's so fucking ridiculous it reminds me of the Yes Prime Minister bit regarding the Trident missile system that isn't a deterent because the brits would never use the bloody thing. 20 years later and their military is saying don't waste money replacing it because they wouldn't never use it without the US giving the green light anyway.

Oh ho, you say, now isn't the time to use your precious concealed handgun to protect yourself from the government. Ok, then when is? If a cop knocked on your front door tomorrow and asked nicely to see your handgun, would you shoot him before handing it over? Like fuck you would.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » January 18, 2009, 2:03 pm

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is exactly that, to allow the general population the option of overthrowing the government. Although I believe that there's really no chance of it happening save a monumental catastrophic event, nonetheless I hold the constitution in higher regard than the whining of the left on this matter. I do think certain cities need stricter gun transaction laws to lower the number of fatalities, but it should be up to the local legislature and not the federal government to pass these laws.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » January 18, 2009, 2:08 pm

Does this mean I'll have to register my cock?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 18, 2009, 3:30 pm

Xyun wrote:The purpose of the 2nd amendment is exactly that, to allow the general population the option of overthrowing the government. Although I believe that there's really no chance of it happening save a monumental catastrophic event, nonetheless I hold the constitution in higher regard than the whining of the left on this matter. I do think certain cities need stricter gun transaction laws to lower the number of fatalities, but it should be up to the local legislature and not the federal government to pass these laws.

Ah yes, but it's a catch 22 isn't it. You're not going to bring out the big whips and enslave the people to the "catastrophic" point they they'll use their guns until you go around and disarm them first. So again, if this is the disarming phase, time to get shooting.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 18, 2009, 7:03 pm

Xyun wrote:The purpose of the 2nd amendment is exactly that, to allow the general population the option of overthrowing the government. Although I believe that there's really no chance of it happening save a monumental catastrophic event, nonetheless I hold the constitution in higher regard than the whining of the left on this matter. I do think certain cities need stricter gun transaction laws to lower the number of fatalities, but it should be up to the local legislature and not the federal government to pass these laws.

How can cities be allowed to pick and choose what part of the constitution they want to uphold? If they want to reduce fatalities, then they need to start with the source. Joe gun owner who legally bought firearms and has no criminal record is not going out and commiting random murders. Start frying every one of these murdering gangster wannabe's and you eliminate the ones commiting the murders and you provide a real deterrent to people. There is no more "street cred" if their role models get fried. The problem with this is that the whining pussy liberals who cry about "guns are bad" are also the ones crying about how the death penalty is over the top. This is the real world....you cannot have this both ways.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 18, 2009, 7:40 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Xyun wrote:The purpose of the 2nd amendment is exactly that, to allow the general population the option of overthrowing the government. Although I believe that there's really no chance of it happening save a monumental catastrophic event, nonetheless I hold the constitution in higher regard than the whining of the left on this matter. I do think certain cities need stricter gun transaction laws to lower the number of fatalities, but it should be up to the local legislature and not the federal government to pass these laws.
How can cities be allowed to pick and choose what part of the constitution they want to uphold? If they want to reduce fatalities, then they need to start with the source. Joe gun owner who legally bought firearms and has no criminal record is not going out and commiting random murders. Start frying every one of these murdering gangster wannabe's and you eliminate the ones commiting the murders and you provide a real deterrent to people. There is no more "street cred" if their role models get fried. The problem with this is that the whining pussy liberals who cry about "guns are bad" are also the ones crying about how the death penalty is over the top. This is the real world....you cannot have this both ways.

Guns aren't bad, concealed carry is though. Oh, and I'm all for the express lane death penalty.

Also, handguns are bad. There's no great reason to have one that isn't solved by a rifle or a shotgun.

But rifles with high capacity clips are bad, again, no great reason to have one that doesn't consist of moving down crowds of people.

Oh yes, and nukes are bad too. I don't think you should have the right to bear nukes, but if you really want to that would seem constitutionally protect too.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » January 19, 2009, 12:19 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Xyun wrote:The purpose of the 2nd amendment is exactly that, to allow the general population the option of overthrowing the government. Although I believe that there's really no chance of it happening save a monumental catastrophic event, nonetheless I hold the constitution in higher regard than the whining of the left on this matter. I do think certain cities need stricter gun transaction laws to lower the number of fatalities, but it should be up to the local legislature and not the federal government to pass these laws.
How can cities be allowed to pick and choose what part of the constitution they want to uphold? If they want to reduce fatalities, then they need to start with the source. Joe gun owner who legally bought firearms and has no criminal record is not going out and commiting random murders. Start frying every one of these murdering gangster wannabe's and you eliminate the ones commiting the murders and you provide a real deterrent to people. There is no more "street cred" if their role models get fried. The problem with this is that the whining pussy liberals who cry about "guns are bad" are also the ones crying about how the death penalty is over the top. This is the real world....you cannot have this both ways.

Hey, I'm all for the death penalty. I never said cities should pick and choose which part of the constitution to uphold, I just don't want gangbangers and retards with ak-47s.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 19, 2009, 12:58 pm

I don't want them with them either. The issue then is how do you keep them out of their hands? Obviously making a law is not the answer. It is already illegal for pretty much all of them to own any firearm, so all the laws are going to do is keep the guns out of the hands of people who won't use them for crimes.

If you want my personal opinion, you are going to have to violate someone's rights to eliminate guns from the criminals...and it is not the law abiding people whose rights should be violated. Maybe they should allow search and seizure for anyone convicted of a felony that involves drugs or violence. That would allow the police to target the known pieces of shit and eliminate guns from the street without messing with the people who can follow the laws of society.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 19, 2009, 1:08 pm

I am anti-gun and anti-death penalty.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » January 19, 2009, 1:55 pm

Every time Kilmoll posts on this subject I think about him fantasizing about being in a "Red Dawn" scenario thanking his god for his 2nd ammendment rights, except wouldn't he yell "Buckeyes" instead of "Wolverines"?

I live in Western Canada. We're pretty redneckish up where I come from (they call Alberta "Texas North" for a couple reasons) but we don't have very many legal handguns up here due to gov't restrictions and to be honest I don't see a reason for them. I don't buy into this "I need to protect my household" crap that people spout off: to me its like winning a lottery, albeit the wrong type of lottery. Protecting my house can be done as effectively with a baseball bat most of the time. We do have illegal handguns, because like any other illegal substance, if someone wants it, they can get it but adding more guns to the mix means its easier to get them into the hands of those we don't want to have them.

Honestly, when it comes to control/registration, I like the system we had in place about 10 years ago: owners had to pass checks to get a permit to purchase a firearm but as long as they could produce a valid certificate in a store, they didn't have to license and register each individual item. They also need need these certificates (revalidated every 5 years) to transport firearms outside their own home (even to take them hunting) so there is a continuous database of owner/users. I honestly see that as a happy medium: it addresses the screening of prospective purchasers but at the same time it respects their privacy in terms of not recording what they purchase. The Canadian gov't did institute a national registry of all firearms and its been a clusterfuck riddled with inaccuracies, some alleged privacy breaches due to released data, cost overruns and honestly its redundant because vast majority the people who will register their hunting firearms, will have these certificates to transport, thus a record in case of something like police response to disturbance at an address should come up with a flag of firearm owner anyway.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » January 19, 2009, 2:00 pm

I'm pretty sure he'd yell "STEELERS!"

Fash · Post by **Fash** » January 19, 2009, 2:06 pm

His last post is quite rational. I really can't understand the rest of you... all I hear is a cacophony of vagina.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » January 19, 2009, 2:15 pm

zaelath, please tell me why concealed carry is bad?

Siji · Post by **Siji** » January 19, 2009, 5:46 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:owner who legally bought firearms and has no criminal record is not going out and commiting random murders. Start frying every one of these murdering gangster wannabe's and you eliminate the ones commiting the murders and you provide a real deterrent to people. There is no more "street cred" if their role models get fried. The problem with this is that the whining pussy liberals who cry about "guns are bad" are also the ones crying about how the death penalty is over the top. This is the real world....you cannot have this both ways.

This. Yes.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 19, 2009, 6:53 pm

*~*stragi*~* wrote:zaelath, please tell me why concealed carry is bad?

It requires a handgun, handguns are bad, and badness is transitive

There's no need for concealed carry. It completely removes the "deterence" of an armed target; which one are a group of thugs going to mug, a fat kid with a concealed carry permit, or a fat kid carrying a shotgun?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 19, 2009, 7:02 pm

Except that in the US, someone carrying a shotgun around is going to be hassled by the police when the calls come in with "man with a gun calls" start coming in. The general public being the sheep they are do not even know that open carry is legal and those that do open carry end up getting charged under false pretenses in many cases. Ohio alone has seen several cases with this happening due to the police themselves not knowing the laws. That then leads to taxpayer money being wasted for the arrest and following lawsuit by those charged.

Just remember....when seconds count, the police are only a couple minutes away.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 19, 2009, 7:07 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Except that in the US, someone carrying a shotgun around is going to be hassled by the police when the calls come in with "man with a gun calls" start coming in. The general public being the sheep they are do not even know that open carry is legal and those that do open carry end up getting charged under false pretenses in many cases. Ohio alone has seen several cases with this happening due to the police themselves not knowing the laws. That then leads to taxpayer money being wasted for the arrest and following lawsuit by those charged.

Just remember....when seconds count, the police are only a couple minutes away.

Mmmmm, I have to agree with everything you've said there, but I'm still not sure that's a great argument for CC.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 19, 2009, 8:03 pm

How about this then....concealed carry has stopped thousands of violent crimes that could have ended with a murder or serious injury, without a shot ever being fired? Criminals in general are cowards that prey on those they have an advantage over. People that carry generally train to be better shots than your typical ghetto thug. In most cases, just the concealed carry holder pulling their firearm sends the would be attackers scurrying.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 19, 2009, 8:53 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:How about this then....concealed carry has stopped thousands of violent crimes that could have ended with a murder or serious injury, without a shot ever being fired? Criminals in general are cowards that prey on those they have an advantage over. People that carry generally train to be better shots than your typical ghetto thug. In most cases, just the concealed carry holder pulling their firearm sends the would be attackers scurrying.

Documentation for that? I don't buy it, the thug is close quarters by the time he gun comes out (other than rare cases like Bernard Goetz where they are stupid enough to try stuff in a crowd) so how good your aim is isn't really relevant.

I know Mr Goetz wasn't licenced, but I don't see anything in the 2nd amendment about that either.

http://www.courttv.com/archive/verdicts/goetz.html (civil verdict, which just goes to prove, if you're going to shoot someone make sure they don't get up)

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » January 19, 2009, 8:56 pm

Zaelath wrote:
*~*stragi*~* wrote:zaelath, please tell me why concealed carry is bad?
It requires a handgun, handguns are bad, and badness is transitive

There's no need for concealed carry. It completely removes the "deterence" of an armed target; which one are a group of thugs going to mug, a fat kid with a concealed carry permit, or a fat kid carrying a shotgun?

I don't think that's a realistic situation and If I had a CCW I would most likely not even pull it out if I was being mugged unless it was an absolute life or death no alternatives situation. Open carry is an all around bad idea and carrying around a shotgun is just not realistic. Just so I'm not misunderstanding you, your thinking is that everyone should open carry or people should have the right to defend their lives removed from them completely?

And for the record I do not own a gun and I would chose not to conceal carry if I did.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 19, 2009, 9:34 pm

Zaelath wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:How about this then....concealed carry has stopped thousands of violent crimes that could have ended with a murder or serious injury, without a shot ever being fired? Criminals in general are cowards that prey on those they have an advantage over. People that carry generally train to be better shots than your typical ghetto thug. In most cases, just the concealed carry holder pulling their firearm sends the would be attackers scurrying.
Documentation for that? I don't buy it, the thug is close quarters by the time he gun comes out (other than rare cases like Bernard Goetz where they are stupid enough to try stuff in a crowd) so how good your aim is isn't really relevant.

I know Mr Goetz wasn't licenced, but I don't see anything in the 2nd amendment about that either.

http://www.courttv.com/archive/verdicts/goetz.html (civil verdict, which just goes to prove, if you're going to shoot someone make sure they don't get up)

I can't pull every single case up because it would take me years to find them all and link them. Just in Ohio, I know of people on certain forums I frequent that have had encounters and had to pull their gun. So far, I only know of a couple that have had to pull the trigger. I have seen numbers from the Dept of Justice saying guns are used to stop crimes in the area of 250,000 times a year. I am trying to find a reputable link from a government organization to back that up.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 19, 2009, 9:49 pm

*~*stragi*~* wrote:people should have the right to defend their lives removed from them completely?

Where's that from? /boggle

Yes, if you're going to have eveyone armed, make it obvious they're armed. Why does it need to be a secret? How is a hidden pistol more able to protect you than a visible one?

Hell, I don't even buy the argument that you're defending your life in most cases, you're defending your property. Unless someone is out to murder you there's little reason to expect that a criminal wants to kill you, and IF the target is murder, your concealed weapon is useless unless they want to talk about it first like some bad movie villain.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 19, 2009, 10:00 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Zaelath wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:How about this then....concealed carry has stopped thousands of violent crimes that could have ended with a murder or serious injury, without a shot ever being fired? Criminals in general are cowards that prey on those they have an advantage over. People that carry generally train to be better shots than your typical ghetto thug. In most cases, just the concealed carry holder pulling their firearm sends the would be attackers scurrying.
Documentation for that? I don't buy it, the thug is close quarters by the time he gun comes out (other than rare cases like Bernard Goetz where they are stupid enough to try stuff in a crowd) so how good your aim is isn't really relevant.

I know Mr Goetz wasn't licenced, but I don't see anything in the 2nd amendment about that either.

http://www.courttv.com/archive/verdicts/goetz.html (civil verdict, which just goes to prove, if you're going to shoot someone make sure they don't get up)

I can't pull every single case up because it would take me years to find them all and link them. Just in Ohio, I know of people on certain forums I frequent that have had encounters and had to pull their gun. So far, I only know of a couple that have had to pull the trigger. I have seen numbers from the Dept of Justice saying guns are used to stop crimes in the area of 250,000 times a year. I am trying to find a reputable link from a government organization to back that up.

Perhaps, I'd be interested to see the numbers. You do have to be careful with statistics though, like the "statistically head injuries increase when you issue soldiers helmets" tale. i.e. was the crime prevented or diverted to someone else?

Would "certain forums" be gun owners forums? Careful with your sample data there....

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 19, 2009, 10:14 pm

The argument against open carry is that if someone wants to rob you or a palce you are in, them seeing your weapon openly displayed may make you a pre-emptive target if they are intent on following through. If you want to read on a lot of different items with surveys and such, google John R. Lott and digh through for relevant stats. His survey results showed 95-98% of the time that a firearm merely drawn deterred an attack or robbery. His antagonists argued with his methods and claimed it was "only" 70-80%.

Again, it is not foolproof to carry and think you cannot be murdered by someone that is intent upon killing you outright with no warning. There are an incredible amount of people defending themselves or others (including saving police officers) while killing the assailants. If you would like, I can link you up several cases, including two very recent ones in Florida (with video).

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 20, 2009, 1:02 am

You could also say the people on the flight that ditched in a cornfield on 9/11 saved thousands without a gun too. And that the prevalence of legal guns is a direct contributor to the prevalence of illegal (stolen) guns, such that it's an arms race that's only being paid for by the citizens.

I can't say for certain that more guns would be beneficial or detrimental to your society, and that's the only real problem I usually have with the pro-gun lobby; their argument is all but impossible to prove conclusively but they're committed rather than convinced.

Anyway, I think it's been an interesting discussion and at least civil by VV standards. I hope you get to keep your gun(s), and I hope they never get fired in anger

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » January 20, 2009, 1:43 pm

Zaelath wrote:
*~*stragi*~* wrote:people should have the right to defend their lives removed from them completely?
Where's that from? /boggle

Yes, if you're going to have eveyone armed, make it obvious they're armed. Why does it need to be a secret? How is a hidden pistol more able to protect you than a visible one?

Hell, I don't even buy the argument that you're defending your life in most cases, you're defending your property. Unless someone is out to murder you there's little reason to expect that a criminal wants to kill you, and IF the target is murder, your concealed weapon is useless unless they want to talk about it first like some bad movie villain.

It's what you're saying, man. You don't like handguns and your alternatives are not realistic. Open carrying is such a bad idea-it does nothing but make you a target for people looking for a free gun, or for cops to harass you if they happen to be ignorant of your local laws, or other random retards who just see a gun and panic. It opens you up to a whole new world of shit. Carrying around rifles and shotguns is just not going to be realistic, not to mention a rifle would be far more dangerous to innocents than a handgun if you had to use it due to the power behind the rounds.

We should just replace all guns with katanas and bullets with anime that would be sweet i'd want sailor moon

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » January 20, 2009, 1:45 pm

I agree with Killmol for the most part on this subject, having grown up in Wisconsin. We all own guns there and most of us know how to shoot them accurately. I certainly agree that frying a fair number of gang bangers, without a lengthy apeals process, would make a dent in the escalation. You have to be careful, however, that you don't end up with a situation like Texas, however, where the local authorities stack the system so that if you are ten times more likely to get whacked if you are not a white christian male. You also have to make sure the laws deal with idiots like that texan who shot the two men in the back harshly, to avoid having an old west mentaility take over in this country. That concern aside, I am not a fan of gun control, because the criminals will always be able to get weapons and the police can't be everywhere at once. I am fine with conceal carry, as long as you have a spotless felony record and take required gun safety courses. What I am not fine with is a bunch of fucking rednecks or gang bangers picking up assault weaponry at a gun show with no paper trail.

The other issue with this is, of course, that each region of the nation is different. You have the upper midwest, where I am from, where most people know from an early age how to properly fire and maintain a weapon and a generally healthy respect for firearms. You have the southwest, like Texas, where they act like they are fucking cowboys and have gunracks on their pickups and most people have no clue how to properly use a gun. Then you have west coast, where hardly anyone other than criminals and cops have weapons and more shooting deaths occur here, intentional and accidental, than anywhere else. No overhaul of gun laws can possibly occur without taking that into account.

The second amendment has a noble intent, but it was concieved at a time before even cased amunition existed. If every man woman and child in the country had their own handgun, there is still no way in hell they could even hope to oppose the domestic military. There is just too much of disparity in the firepower of armaments and training for that to even be concievable. The only way it would ever happen is if parts of the armed forces rebelled themselves, and they of course already have access to weapons. So, in as much as the second amendment is constitutional and a vital statement of the nature of our democracy, it is in practical terms a relic of the past.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » January 20, 2009, 1:48 pm

Oh and:

Zaelath wrote:Hell, I don't even buy the argument that you're defending your life in most cases, you're defending your property. Unless someone is out to murder you there's little reason to expect that a criminal wants to kill you, and IF the target is murder, your concealed weapon is useless unless they want to talk about it first like some bad movie villain.

Stragi wrote:I don't think that's a realistic situation and If I had a CCW I would most likely not even pull it out if I was being mugged unless it was an absolute life or death no alternatives situation.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » January 20, 2009, 1:54 pm

Jice Virago wrote:
The second amendment has a noble intent, but it was concieved at a time before even cased amunition existed. If every man woman and child in the country had their own handgun, there is still no way in hell they could even hope to oppose the domestic military. There is just too much of disparity in the firepower of armaments and training for that to even be concievable. The only way it would ever happen is if parts of the armed forces rebelled themselves, and they of course already have access to weapons. So, in as much as the second amendment is constitutional and a vital statement of the nature of our democracy, it is in practical terms a relic of the past.

Patrick Swayze saved America with a hunting rifle and a chevy what are you talking about?!?1

God what a sweet movie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_I4WgBfETc

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 20, 2009, 11:04 pm

*~*stragi*~* wrote:
Zaelath wrote:
*~*stragi*~* wrote:people should have the right to defend their lives removed from them completely?
Where's that from? /boggle

Yes, if you're going to have eveyone armed, make it obvious they're armed. Why does it need to be a secret? How is a hidden pistol more able to protect you than a visible one?

Hell, I don't even buy the argument that you're defending your life in most cases, you're defending your property. Unless someone is out to murder you there's little reason to expect that a criminal wants to kill you, and IF the target is murder, your concealed weapon is useless unless they want to talk about it first like some bad movie villain.
It's what you're saying, man. You don't like handguns and your alternatives are not realistic. Open carrying is such a bad idea-it does nothing but make you a target for people looking for a free gun, or for cops to harass you if they happen to be ignorant of your local laws, or other random retards who just see a gun and panic. It opens you up to a whole new world of shit. Carrying around rifles and shotguns is just not going to be realistic, not to mention a rifle would be far more dangerous to innocents than a handgun if you had to use it due to the power behind the rounds.

We should just replace all guns with katanas and bullets with anime that would be sweet i'd want sailor moon

The handgun is not the only form of self-defence available, if you want to pretend it is, and that therefore I'm suggesting anyone who is attacked should roll into the feotal position and await the inevitable, that's your issue.

I don't give a shit if the cops harrass people for open carry, it's either legal or it's not. CCW makes me a lot more nervous than someone carrying a gun in a proper holster, are you going to use the same bullshit logic to say you shouldn't CCW that you use for open carry?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 20, 2009, 11:09 pm

*~*stragi*~* wrote:Oh and:
Zaelath wrote:Hell, I don't even buy the argument that you're defending your life in most cases, you're defending your property. Unless someone is out to murder you there's little reason to expect that a criminal wants to kill you, and IF the target is murder, your concealed weapon is useless unless they want to talk about it first like some bad movie villain.

Stragi wrote:I don't think that's a realistic situation and If I had a CCW I would most likely not even pull it out if I was being mugged unless it was an absolute life or death no alternatives situation.

Meaning what? That if they shot you once you'd then draw your weapon?

If they have a gun pointed at you to rob you, that's not life and death, or do you expect them to announce their intent to shoot in some deranged soliloquy?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 21, 2009, 5:08 pm

Here is a link to a HUGE set of links to stories of happy endings.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefense ... ogger.html

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 21, 2009, 5:32 pm

About 2 years ago a local resturant owner shot and killed 2 intruders that broke into his business in the middle of the night. It was dark. He called out a warning and fired twice, killing both of the children. He closed his sandwich shop down about a month later.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 21, 2009, 5:53 pm

Maybe parents should make sure their kids are not breaking into businesses in the middle of the night? Who lets their kids out in a city called battle Creek to play in the streets at night?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 21, 2009, 6:00 pm

OH, it's absolutely the parent's fault their kids were shot and killed. No question.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 21, 2009, 8:18 pm

Then again if they weren't committing illegal acts... Honestly I dont have much sympathy when bad things happen to bad people. Yes it's sad that they were young but that's the risks you face when you lead the criminal lifestyle. If they would have lived they would have gained mad street cred.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » January 21, 2009, 8:55 pm

I don't see a problem with concealed carry. Most "shall issue" states require some form of formal firearm training. Plus, it isn't the criminals who are getting their CCWs! Hell, even most pro athletes are too retarded to have a permit...they just carry anyway and wind up shooting themselves in the leg while at a nightclub wearing sweatpants. In NY!

Hell, CA has some of the toughest gun laws in the country yet violent crime in urban areas is off the charts (per capita).

Anyone have crimes involving guns information for Vermont? I believe it is the only state left that allows any "peaceable citizen" to carry concealed without any sort of permit.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 21, 2009, 9:30 pm

Vermont is too white to have serious crime issues. If you want to really look at some seriously messed up shit, look into the percentage of violent crimes committed by black males from the ages of 16-30 as opposed to everyone else in the country. Homicides committed by black males is 7 times higher than homicides by white.....even though it is a 70% to 14% difference in total population. There is a very very serious cultural problem among the black society to glorify violence.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 21, 2009, 11:29 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Here is a link to a HUGE set of links to stories of happy endings.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefense ... ogger.html

Yeah, I'm not sure the penalty for theft should be murder though... and I'm *for* the death penalty, as stated.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 21, 2009, 11:32 pm

Canelek wrote:I don't see a problem with concealed carry. Most "shall issue" states require some form of formal firearm training. Plus, it isn't the criminals who are getting their CCWs! Hell, even most pro athletes are too retarded to have a permit...they just carry anyway and wind up shooting themselves in the leg while at a nightclub wearing sweatpants. In NY!

Hell, CA has some of the toughest gun laws in the country yet violent crime in urban areas is off the charts (per capita).

Anyone have crimes involving guns information for Vermont? I believe it is the only state left that allows any "peaceable citizen" to carry concealed without any sort of permit.

The laws in CA aren't going to affect the availability of illegal weapons; unless you have weapons checks on state borders...

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 21, 2009, 11:32 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Vermont is too white to have serious crime issues. If you want to really look at some seriously messed up shit, look into the percentage of violent crimes committed by black males from the ages of 16-30 as opposed to everyone else in the country. Homicides committed by black males is 7 times higher than homicides by white.....even though it is a 70% to 14% difference in total population. There is a very very serious cultural problem among the black society to glorify violence.

Ummm, and with that the conversation is over.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » January 21, 2009, 11:38 pm

Thank Science! I thought we'd never finish discussing Obama's Speech.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 22, 2009, 12:30 am

Ashur wrote:Thank Science! I thought we'd never finish discussing Obama's Speech.

I think I missed something. When did this thread become about Israel?