Price for gun rights is paid in PA.

The BBQ Pit
421

Fair statement but it doesn’t go far enough. The cry of the pro gun crowd is “these guns do X and never COULD do Y, and they aren’t even close to Q, therefore, you’re an idiot” and the cry from the anti gunners is “guns kill people, -which they do- nobody hunts with an M16 (AR-15) -which is essentially true- and these people were killed with one, therefore, guns should be banned, you gun nut”

There’s a middle ground and we haven’t talked about it. Gun people are notoriously stubborn about these things and essentially the anti-gunners just want fewer dead people, which is on the side of the angels 100%. I don’t yet know HOW to get there, but it’s gonna take more than me to get us there.

422

This is just what I was alluding to when I said,

The rights do not exist because the government lets us have them, the rights exist independent of and irrespective to the government. The Constitution is a safeguard that probibits the government from infringing upon the natural and inherent rights of free individuals.

423

They aren’t stolen. They’re purchased by me as a ‘collector’ from an FFL and sold to anyone with ready cash and I don’t have a record and further I’m not required to keep one in every state, this is especially true of long guns.

424

The cites, gonzomax, the cites.
It really is past time for you to choose:
a) Provide the cites.
b) Admit you lied.

425

One could just as easily make the case that what anti-gunners want is to give the state a monopoly on lethal force. You go ahead and keep kidding yourself that there is any kind of real middle ground with people who have the long history of duplicity that they do. Show me one piece of convincing evidence that they can be satisfied. However much restriction we accept in the name of compromise, they will always want more.

426

First and foremost, piss off. I’ve been nothing but respectful (with the one offhand comment to Scumpup) this entire pit thread, and you have the gall to talk that kind of shit? Those officers died at the hands of a madman who threatened his mother and by extension the entire neighborhood. There are good cops who will lay it down for you if it comes to that, by the little accounts we’ve gotten so far, the officers that were murdered were those kind of cops, show some respect.

Second, the registration of weapons would work if done properly, and there wasn’t the immediate comparison to Hitler’s Germany :rolleyes:. Would it prevent every crime, or even half of them? Nope. Though if it saves a life and costs nothing more than what’s being put in by the buyers, I consider that a win.

With regard to murder investigations, yes, 48 hours is typically when the trail goes cold, that’s obviously not an absolute. I’m not entirely sure what the scenario was that brought LE to your apartment, but depending on the size of the PD, the odds are good that those two weren’t the only ones working the case. What’s more, I’d bet you don’t know every angle of the investigation, you truly never know where an investigation will lead.

427

That’s true, and the reason pro-gunners need to remain vigilant about the protections afforded by our founding documents. Don’t kid yourself, both sides are duplicitous because they both have an agenda that they’re trying to get met. It’s folly to deny that there not only is a middle ground, but that there MUST be. We will not give up our weapons yet we want fewer gun deaths. They want guns taken or controlled out of existance, and they too want fewer gun deaths.

There IS a middle ground because there must be.

428

Right you are…

429

There was a thread here (not recently) where the OP wanted to discuss ways to prevent firearms accidents, suicides, and murders other than by restricting gun possession. They wanted to talk about gun safety education, general suicide prevention, anger management etc. but the thread was soon hijacked by those who just want to control the physical objects, not what people do with them.

So you are not correct that (all) anti-gunners just want fewer dead people.

430

Is this a joke? Unless the state can actually control the brains of gun owners, the only other option is to control who may have guns by legal means. I will freely admit that there are many illegal ways to acquire guns, and laws about who may posess them won’t make any difference to those willing to break the law to do so.

How do you require a gun owner to take safety training without either the threat of taking the gun away, or preventing the purchase until the training has been completed?

Really, maybe I’m missing something here, and if you can suggest some other means I’d be interested in hearing it. Because gun control is ALL about keeping guns out of the hands of people who would mis-use them. There are many problems implementing this, of course – mostly because about the only definition that just about anyone can agree on is to keep guns out of the hands of people who’ve been convicted of mis-using them previously.

431

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, just as there are people like Richard Poplawski on our side, there are cranks and nuts on their side too, the idea PG at least IMO, is not to get dragged into either sides nuttiness and temper their emotion with our logic and our logic with their emotion.

432

The thing is that as a pro-gunner, we’ve been exposed to the far left NO GUNS EVER YOU SMALL DICKED GUN NUTS meme so that every horse looks like a zebra.
This, IMO, is what PG is responding to, and truly, there are people that believe no one should ever have guns for any reason, so she has a valid concern.

We forget that the anti-gun crowd has a point and the anti-gun crowd forgets we have a point and we have at each other like angry wolverines, never accomplishing anything more than talk and bad feelings.

433

It’s not true. And these types of guns are almost NEVER used in crimes. They’re used to hunt small game all the time.

They are, without question & without doubt, some of the least-used-in-crimes guns!

There really isn’t a middle ground, because it’s been stated dozens of times, by many gun control advocates that the end goal is the complete ending of all citizen ownership.
A middle ground, or compromise, is where both sides gain something. If I want 0, and they want 100, and we compromise on 50, they still want 100, I still want 0, but we’re already at 50, and now they’re yelling for 100, and we compromise at 75, and I still want 0, but they still want 100, and so we compromise again at 92, and so, and so on, and so on.

434

Handgun Registration in Maryland has yielded zero saved lives, and has been used zero times in criminal cases.

435

Nope.
Every piece of their “compromise” legislation that gets spiked is an accomplishment.
Every new “shall issue” state is an accomplishment.
Heller was a (tempered) accomplishment.
Fact of the matter is that we’ve largely been winning for a while now.
That is because we realized that there is no way to compromise with them.
…and I’m well past giving a wet shit about their feelings.

436

I’m not familiar with the Handgun Registration law in Maryland, but regarding your first statement, you can’t possibly know that. If one crazy bastard who was dead set on a murder-suicide was flummoxed in his plan by this law, then at lease two lives were saved … but no one would ever even know about it.

Just because no one can produce a spreadsheet detailing all the lives that were saved, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

I’m not even saying you’re wrong, just that you can’t possibly know that to be true.

437

IMO the reason that ridiculous things like the assault gun ban, which deals essentially with cosmetic issues, get passed, is that the NRA is too powerful to allow any meaningful restrictions to be passed, and the anti-gun group lets itself get pushed onto a corner of passing something stupid rather than nothing at all.

What if there was a fairly straightforward law that outlawed the manufacture of all semi-automatic weapons? I understand this to mean guns that can be fired by simply pulling the trigger again and agin with no intervening steps needed to fire. If I am wrong about this, please correct my misstatements.

Add another law that you have 10 years to turn in an existing semi-automatic weapon to any law-enforcement agency and be reimbused the full retail cost of the weapon. After 10 years, the weapon is subject to confiscation if it is ever seen in public.

And a couple of similar laws restricting the manufacture strips, clips or magazines capable of feeding more than 5 bullets into a firing chamber without reloading?

IMO, these laws would, eventually, substantially reduce the number and/or severity of the spree killing incidents that seem to be happening so often.

I don’t see them as unreasonable, but I can’t imagine they would have any chance at all of being passed.

As an alternative, it might make sense, rather than restrict the weapon, to give closer scrutiny to those who want to acquire weapons. I would actually have more problems with this approach myself. Because I have a great deal of trouble imaginging some kind of psychological screening reliable enough to weed out who was “safe” enough psychologically to have a gun.

I would rather try to reduce the dangerousness of the weapons rather than the scope of those who can own them.

So where do I fall on the gun-nut to anti-gun-nut slippery slope?

438

Bullshit.

439

Christ on a crutch I KNOW! But the people with the loud voices, the mothers, the preachers, the politicians, they don’t know, nor do they have to, nor do they care! They have to be understood before we can get them to understand, WE have to make our position completely unassailable before we go any further. The constitution is not sufficient protection because it is not a permanent document. If the cries are loud enough, the constitution will change. We must of course remain vigilant, but just like ANYTHING else, there cannot be 0-100 OR 100-0. The same is true of every hot button issue, gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, whatever it is, the idea that either side is 100% correct is a lie.

For those that want complete bans, we must stand united against it in any and every way necessary, if they cannot be convinced, then the issue is theirs, not ours, as long as we have given all we can in the way of thoughful and honest debate and discourse, and still they remain unconvinced, then we stand apart, period. We’re not doing that, we’ve never done that. They’ve never done that either. There is a way to hold a line without releasing common sense.

440

Doing so is to ignore the possibility that while you’re in the corner bitching and complaining with a finger in each ear, the hired guns from the alphabet society are kicking in your back door with a warrant to take your guns.

This may be true. Show me.