Of course a gun can be used for target practice, or for hunting animals, or to create a great deal of mechanical energy. But there are also a lot of guns designed to kill. That is their function.
A gun is designed to send a projectile out at a high rate of speed with a great deal of mechanical energy, nothing more or less.
What YOU as a person point it at...determines its lethality.
Many states have this [gun registration] requirement, including California.
Another reason not to live in California.
Thankfully, we still have states' rights (at least for now) so if you don't like the CA gun laws, you can move to a state where they are more to your liking.
Genuine question - do you not see a need for society to do something about that ongoing, low level fear (I'm not saying what the answer would be)? Or are you happy having to take a loaded firearm to bed?
I'm not worried about a low level of fear...I very seldom think about it.
But people DO break into houses, I'm guessing they do where you live too. They often carry weapons...at least a knife or club or whatever.
I prefer to have the option to blow them away and have the cops come by later to collect the floor meat afterwards.
I want to have as much force available as humanly possibly to defend my home, loved ones and property.
Walking around minding your own business....or just being friendly, around me or my home, no problem.
Minor detail I know. But since when has that ever stopped you from posting your ignorance?
Well, yes they did..they banned them and forced them to give them up..
Oz does apparently have a restriction from uncompensated confiscation of private property, so they got around that with a "buyback"..but you really didn't have any choice in the matter. A rose by any other name....
Shawn: "First off, we have Achmed on the line..Achmed, how's it going today and what can we do for you?"
Achmed: "Well, Shawn, I just got 20 of those lovely AR-15's in the last segment, that we're gonna modify, and well...have some 'fun' with soon. Oh, and I wanted to give a shout out to your co-host Jill that is out today sick...We Miss you Hon!!"
(Sounds of shouts....lalalalallalalala...*boom*...).
Achmed: "Oops, sorry Shawn, we have a few federal friends at the door and I have to go for now...but really loved the AR's and I will come back later for that handsome carry case and bandolier"....
I don't understand what's so crazy about needing to register firearms?
Well, for one reason, the government has absolutely NO reason to know how many or what weapons I have. I"m law abiding, not committing crimes with them, and therefore they have no need to know.
But mostly, in many cases around the world, the FIRST step in confiscation of weapons, was registration of them. First they learn who has what, then they know where to come to take them away.
The government really has VERY LITTLE need to know much about my personal life, what I own or what I do. They should stay as much out of my life as possible. That's they way is it supposed to be set up here in the US.
Cabela's is a beautiful store instead you stop and think, "Everything for sale in this huge, overdecorated store is dedicated to one purpose: to help people kill things!" (Ok, maybe some of the kid's toys are an exception.)
Yeah, but you gotta pay sales tax when you go into Cabela's. Online purchases, at least ammo...save that tax money!!
A sensible start would be, all guns locked away in gun clubs and in homes, jail time for carrying one outside the home or gun club.
No, that doesn't work for me.
If my gun is unloaded and locked away in a safe, or worst off-site from my house at whatever a "gun club" is....it does me no good for self defense.
I don't think many criminals breaking in my place are going to be polite enough to wait for me, to run down the hall, to the safe and fiddle the combination to open it, and then load the weapons, etc.
No..I sleep with a 9mm with 15 in the magazine and one in the pipe. All I have to do is grab it beside my bed, flip the safety and start shooting. I tend to have several guns this way around my house so that I'm never far from one. I just like it that way. No kids.
But what would your law do..to people that live more rurally? There's a lot of folks not living in cities. and they regularly use guns to go hunting, to shoot wild animals threatening family or livestock...etc. Why hamper them?
You're wanting to punish the vast majority of responsible US citizens for the acts of a few, but granted effective bad folks?
Screw them....I have noticed that you don't see any many terrorists trying shit in the southern states like TX, LA, MS, AL.....I think its because most every one is loaded up to the teeth. Most folks I know carry loaded firearms (at least one) in their cars with them wherever they go. If Achmed trys some shit...he'd likely be getting caught in a hail of return fire LONG before the cops show up.
Considering how the government is trying to take them, it is a rational fear.
Of course the government needs to have the cops go door to door and collect all of those things.
Well, I believe how they did it in Australia, was they first required all weapons to be registered, so the govt knew where they were located and who had them.
Then, the confiscated them.
Mr. Obama, not long back, mentioned on TV (approx 1:36) specifically mentioned the models of Australia and the UK when it came to guns....I'm surprised more folks didn't catch onto that one.
If he's looking to those models for "sensible" gun laws, then confiscation is what he considers to be sensible.
He says it here again (first time I heard it)...at marker 5:26 and runs a few seconds.
If that is the model he wants, then, registration and then confiscation is what he considers "sensible" gun control laws.
I also am catching on to him more and more conflating gun "safety" with gun control....the two terms are not interchangeable, but he seems to be trying to steer the conversation that way.
Every time there is a mass-shooting or similar, gun sales go up because the marketing department of the gun manufacturing lobby (NRA) goes into full swing about how the gubement is gona take yer guns.
Actually, the NRA and gun manufacturers don't HAVE to do any marketing after a tragedy like this...the Democrats, led by Mr. Obama himself, often have their first or second words out of their mouths.."We need 'sensible' gun control"....they want to ban semi-automatic weapons that "look scary", etc.
The second something happens, many US citizens are afraid with good reason from many of our elected officials, that they want to start banning and removing weapons.
I added the removing of weapons, in that...if they banned the AR-15 tomorrow and the AK-47....unless they confiscate the existing ones, you'll not see a drop in their numbers for decades upon decades upon decades. There are just too many out there!!
So, yes, for gun owners, the left start jumping up and down about more restrictive gun laws while the corpses are still warm minutes after a tragedy like this occurs.
Funny thing is...it appears that overall, gun violence in the US has been in a downturn over the past number of years. It is just these "spree" killings that has seemed to have popped up lately.
I'm still wanting to know what "sensible" gun laws will be. So far, this last one, happened in CA which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US, yet all weapons seem to this point to have been made legally. What laws would they introduce to prevent the recent shooting? Any more changes over the CA laws and you start to seriously impede law abiding citizens' rights to buy, own and use weapons, which are the vast majority of gun owners.
I wonder who nutty old Uncle Don will go for next?
You know, I have a theory.
I think Donald came into this thing, as a lark...running for president would get him a lot of attention and when he dropped out after a good showing, he's have more demand for him thereafter on news, etc.
I think, this long term support as nominee has surprised even HIM...who likely didn't want to really be president, just to run and get some "credit"....
I think with his marks in the polls, it is scaring even HIM that he could get the nomination, and therefore...is amping up the "crazy" to be able to get out of being nominated, yet still never have to voluntarily drop out, etc.
I think theres a possibility he got into this never meaning to win...and is maybe scared shitless he might really do it...?
Seems like a big number off the cuff, but by definition there are roughly 72 million 1%-ers in the world.
Err...you don't have to be a 1%-er to have enough disposable income to drop a mere $1500 on a watch. I mean, no, a middle class person doesn't buy on every day, maybe once every couple years...at most.
What is your definition of 1%-er? To me, that the folks raking in billions a year. Not a middle to upper middle class guy making around the $200-$250K a year mark.
That type salary can easily afford this type of watch, and not sneeze at it much....but they are hardly rich!!
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.
It applies to individual rights to bear arms.
Remember, the Constitution isn't there to GRANT you rights, you are born with them. The Constitution is there mainly to enumerate the LIMITED powers the Federal govt is supposed to have.
it has to do with companies like AllScrip and its ilk lobbying and buying off congress
Sounds like the deeper problem, and the solution, would be to somehow BAN all Lobbyists!!!!
I wonder if there would be any way to do so...without stamping on freedom of speech issues...?
If nothing else, maybe make the requirement to meet with your congress critter, it HAS to be in their home state, AND it has to be public, no private meetings?
Of course at some point they will be made legal, as soon as the state makes a law to extract their 30 pieces of silver from riders: mandatory lights, license plates, taxes, and insurance.
What's next?
Are they going to start trying to require us to register, license and pay tax on fucking bicycles next?!?!
Well, FWIW, you might want to give a high-end bluetooth headset a shot, if you haven't.
Bose, plantronics.. anything above $50 has substantially better speaker and microphone quality than you'll find on a handset these days. It's still to great, but it's better.
Can you give some model numbers and maybe links?
I'm needing to be on a bluetooth headset for work most of the day..and can't find one that give good microphone enough for me to sound 'normal" to folks on the other end.
I currently have the LG Infinim (sp?) which has great sound on my end, but I'm often told by other on the phone listening to me, that I sound like I"m in a tunnel, or they can't hear me as well as speaking into the phone itself.....
Of course I hate the fact that there are cheaply made, bad component unsafe versions of these things and they should be pursued and dealt with....
However, the blurb about NYC, trying to ban them because they "weren't licensable" just chaps my ass....
More and more, govt seems to be there for NOTHING more than regulating everything, and charging you money for the "privilege".
With this type of regulation and down neck breathing of govt to the public back in decades past...we'd certainly not have the nice things we do today, and buggy whips would still be the fashion everywhere!!
Perhaps they make distinctions between professional and amateur league corruption?
Well, I'd say that in the past, LA would definitely outdo NY in the corruption, I mean hell, in the 80's Edwin Edwards, when walking out on the steps of the courthouse where he'd just been indicted, announced he was running for re-election, and by damn...he won again.
But in recent years, especially after Katrina, LA has cleaned its corrupt act up by leaps and bounds.
But in the past, no other state could hold a candle to LA. I mean, the best story I heard was Tiger Stadium at LSU. Huey Long wanted Federal dollars to build the stadium, but they wouldn't give him money for a stadium.
The feds would give money to build a new dorm on campus, so, what did Huey do? He had them build a dorm with the funds...it just happened to be stadium shaped!! No kidding!!
When I went to school there decades ago, they still had dorm rooms on the outside walls of Tiger stadium. They have since then finally closed them all off to students and I believe they are all storage now, but when I went to school there, I knew kids that lived in the Stadium Dorm.....
That would be unethical, both because you're hawking fraudulent tests, but also because you're encouraging people to believe that their delusion is accepted by the medical community by dint of having a test for it.
Probably dark sarcasm, but to be clear, eugenics is bad. If for no other reason than the definition of the "eu-" changes. "Medieval scientists master genetics, soon to end plague of non-religious thought!"
It was about 99% dark sarcasm...but the thought wasn't eugenics, but natural selection, nature weeding out the bad genes.
Taking oneself out of the living world isn't really a "normal" thing....she had something wrong with her, quite possibly mental, also possibly genetic and could have been passed on (whether it was wifi allergies, or just some bad brain joo-joo), so by killing her self, natural selection takes place.
Eugenics would suggest that it was a man made effort to remove her to alter the gene pool, but I posit that her dying of an accident, stupidity or due to having faulty genes, is natural selection at its best.
Think along the lines of the old emails with the Darwin Awards
Slashdot Mirror
Well, then they just need to learn to live with it...just as the states around CO are having to live with legal pot in CO.....
Each state SHOULD be able to regulate most laws on these things to fulfill the wishes of the citizens of those states.
Remember, you are a citizen of your state first, and then a citizen of the United States seconds...at least, that's how it was set up.
A gun is designed to send a projectile out at a high rate of speed with a great deal of mechanical energy, nothing more or less.
What YOU as a person point it at...determines its lethality.
Another reason not to live in California.
Thankfully, we still have states' rights (at least for now) so if you don't like the CA gun laws, you can move to a state where they are more to your liking.
Just exactly how the US was set up originally...
Just curious..which semi-automatics would you allow folks to own vs those not allowed to own?
Or, are you saying the common folks should only be able to own single fire/bolt action rifles?
What about pistols...should we not allow semi-auto pistols too..those were also used in the most recent CA shooting spree.
I'm not worried about a low level of fear...I very seldom think about it.
But people DO break into houses, I'm guessing they do where you live too. They often carry weapons...at least a knife or club or whatever.
I prefer to have the option to blow them away and have the cops come by later to collect the floor meat afterwards.
I want to have as much force available as humanly possibly to defend my home, loved ones and property.
Walking around minding your own business....or just being friendly, around me or my home, no problem.
Break in my home for any reason....you're fucked.
Well, yes they did..they banned them and forced them to give them up..
Oz does apparently have a restriction from uncompensated confiscation of private property, so they got around that with a "buyback"..but you really didn't have any choice in the matter. A rose by any other name....
But yes, I consider Mandatory Buy Back of Guns the same thing as confiscation of guns.
And mandatory registration of guns is the first step for that....and Obama and crowd know this.
And really...name calling and insults? Why can't we just deal with facts and have a nice adult conversation?
Shawn: "First off, we have Achmed on the line..Achmed, how's it going today and what can we do for you?"
Achmed: "Well, Shawn, I just got 20 of those lovely AR-15's in the last segment, that we're gonna modify, and well...have some 'fun' with soon. Oh, and I wanted to give a shout out to your co-host Jill that is out today sick...We Miss you Hon!!"
(Sounds of shouts....lalalalallalalala...*boom*...).
Achmed: "Oops, sorry Shawn, we have a few federal friends at the door and I have to go for now...but really loved the AR's and I will come back later for that handsome carry case and bandolier"....
Well, for one reason, the government has absolutely NO reason to know how many or what weapons I have. I"m law abiding, not committing crimes with them, and therefore they have no need to know.
But mostly, in many cases around the world, the FIRST step in confiscation of weapons, was registration of them. First they learn who has what, then they know where to come to take them away.
The government really has VERY LITTLE need to know much about my personal life, what I own or what I do. They should stay as much out of my life as possible. That's they way is it supposed to be set up here in the US.
Yeah, but you gotta pay sales tax when you go into Cabela's. Online purchases, at least ammo...save that tax money!!
No, that doesn't work for me.
If my gun is unloaded and locked away in a safe, or worst off-site from my house at whatever a "gun club" is....it does me no good for self defense.
I don't think many criminals breaking in my place are going to be polite enough to wait for me, to run down the hall, to the safe and fiddle the combination to open it, and then load the weapons, etc.
No..I sleep with a 9mm with 15 in the magazine and one in the pipe. All I have to do is grab it beside my bed, flip the safety and start shooting. I tend to have several guns this way around my house so that I'm never far from one. I just like it that way. No kids.
But what would your law do..to people that live more rurally? There's a lot of folks not living in cities. and they regularly use guns to go hunting, to shoot wild animals threatening family or livestock...etc. Why hamper them?
You're wanting to punish the vast majority of responsible US citizens for the acts of a few, but granted effective bad folks?
Screw them....I have noticed that you don't see any many terrorists trying shit in the southern states like TX, LA, MS, AL.....I think its because most every one is loaded up to the teeth. Most folks I know carry loaded firearms (at least one) in their cars with them wherever they go. If Achmed trys some shit...he'd likely be getting caught in a hail of return fire LONG before the cops show up.
Well, I believe how they did it in Australia, was they first required all weapons to be registered, so the govt knew where they were located and who had them.
Then, the confiscated them.
Mr. Obama, not long back, mentioned on TV (approx 1:36) specifically mentioned the models of Australia and the UK when it came to guns....I'm surprised more folks didn't catch onto that one.
If he's looking to those models for "sensible" gun laws, then confiscation is what he considers to be sensible.
He says it here again (first time I heard it)...at marker 5:26 and runs a few seconds.
If that is the model he wants, then, registration and then confiscation is what he considers "sensible" gun control laws.
I also am catching on to him more and more conflating gun "safety" with gun control....the two terms are not interchangeable, but he seems to be trying to steer the conversation that way.
Actually, the NRA and gun manufacturers don't HAVE to do any marketing after a tragedy like this...the Democrats, led by Mr. Obama himself, often have their first or second words out of their mouths.."We need 'sensible' gun control"....they want to ban semi-automatic weapons that "look scary", etc.
The second something happens, many US citizens are afraid with good reason from many of our elected officials, that they want to start banning and removing weapons.
I added the removing of weapons, in that...if they banned the AR-15 tomorrow and the AK-47....unless they confiscate the existing ones, you'll not see a drop in their numbers for decades upon decades upon decades. There are just too many out there!!
So, yes, for gun owners, the left start jumping up and down about more restrictive gun laws while the corpses are still warm minutes after a tragedy like this occurs.
Funny thing is...it appears that overall, gun violence in the US has been in a downturn over the past number of years. It is just these "spree" killings that has seemed to have popped up lately.
I'm still wanting to know what "sensible" gun laws will be. So far, this last one, happened in CA which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US, yet all weapons seem to this point to have been made legally. What laws would they introduce to prevent the recent shooting? Any more changes over the CA laws and you start to seriously impede law abiding citizens' rights to buy, own and use weapons, which are the vast majority of gun owners.
You know, I have a theory.
I think Donald came into this thing, as a lark...running for president would get him a lot of attention and when he dropped out after a good showing, he's have more demand for him thereafter on news, etc.
I think, this long term support as nominee has surprised even HIM...who likely didn't want to really be president, just to run and get some "credit"....
I think with his marks in the polls, it is scaring even HIM that he could get the nomination, and therefore...is amping up the "crazy" to be able to get out of being nominated, yet still never have to voluntarily drop out, etc.
I think theres a possibility he got into this never meaning to win...and is maybe scared shitless he might really do it...?
Err...you don't have to be a 1%-er to have enough disposable income to drop a mere $1500 on a watch. I mean, no, a middle class person doesn't buy on every day, maybe once every couple years...at most.
What is your definition of 1%-er? To me, that the folks raking in billions a year. Not a middle to upper middle class guy making around the $200-$250K a year mark.
That type salary can easily afford this type of watch, and not sneeze at it much....but they are hardly rich!!
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.
It applies to individual rights to bear arms.
Remember, the Constitution isn't there to GRANT you rights, you are born with them. The Constitution is there mainly to enumerate the LIMITED powers the Federal govt is supposed to have.
Sounds like the deeper problem, and the solution, would be to somehow BAN all Lobbyists!!!!
I wonder if there would be any way to do so...without stamping on freedom of speech issues...?
If nothing else, maybe make the requirement to meet with your congress critter, it HAS to be in their home state, AND it has to be public, no private meetings?
That, at least...might help...?
Seriously???
Where do you live? I was being half sarcastic...I never thought they'd really do this somewhere...?!?!
What's next?
Are they going to start trying to require us to register, license and pay tax on fucking bicycles next?!?!
Can you give some model numbers and maybe links?
I'm needing to be on a bluetooth headset for work most of the day..and can't find one that give good microphone enough for me to sound 'normal" to folks on the other end.
I currently have the LG Infinim (sp?) which has great sound on my end, but I'm often told by other on the phone listening to me, that I sound like I"m in a tunnel, or they can't hear me as well as speaking into the phone itself.....
Thanks in advance!
However, the blurb about NYC, trying to ban them because they "weren't licensable" just chaps my ass....
More and more, govt seems to be there for NOTHING more than regulating everything, and charging you money for the "privilege".
With this type of regulation and down neck breathing of govt to the public back in decades past...we'd certainly not have the nice things we do today, and buggy whips would still be the fashion everywhere!!
Well, then, sign me up for YOUR spot on the list.
I do want to live forever....hell, if the vampire thing was real, I'd do it in a heartbeat!!
Seriously....
Nope, it was more of the Corps of Engineers (feds) ignored warnings for years that they needed re-enforcing and did nothing about it....
Well, I'd say that in the past, LA would definitely outdo NY in the corruption, I mean hell, in the 80's Edwin Edwards, when walking out on the steps of the courthouse where he'd just been indicted, announced he was running for re-election, and by damn...he won again.
But in recent years, especially after Katrina, LA has cleaned its corrupt act up by leaps and bounds.
But in the past, no other state could hold a candle to LA. I mean, the best story I heard was Tiger Stadium at LSU. Huey Long wanted Federal dollars to build the stadium, but they wouldn't give him money for a stadium.
The feds would give money to build a new dorm on campus, so, what did Huey do? He had them build a dorm with the funds...it just happened to be stadium shaped!! No kidding!!
When I went to school there decades ago, they still had dorm rooms on the outside walls of Tiger stadium. They have since then finally closed them all off to students and I believe they are all storage now, but when I went to school there, I knew kids that lived in the Stadium Dorm.....
A fool and his money are soon parted.
There's a sucker born every minutes.
Anything for a dollar....
It was about 99% dark sarcasm...but the thought wasn't eugenics, but natural selection, nature weeding out the bad genes.
Taking oneself out of the living world isn't really a "normal" thing....she had something wrong with her, quite possibly mental, also possibly genetic and could have been passed on (whether it was wifi allergies, or just some bad brain joo-joo), so by killing her self, natural selection takes place.
Eugenics would suggest that it was a man made effort to remove her to alter the gene pool, but I posit that her dying of an accident, stupidity or due to having faulty genes, is natural selection at its best.
Think along the lines of the old emails with the Darwin Awards