For those of you who think

[Jazendar]

That is like saying restrict cars to 80 mile an hour engines, I don't know if there is a speed limit over 75 other than the autobahn anyway. It would theoretically and lawfully make sense, but the boast factor plays a vital part in today's influenced mindset. Who needs a car to go over 160 miles an hour besides nascar?

[Gaazy]

Theres a lot of hunting incidents and deaths in this state, its sad really. Someone was actually killed a few weeks back here when the idiot heard rustling in the bushes so he decided to shoot blindly at the sound, which turned out to be another hunter scrambling around. With so many hunters here, I wish they would put the hunters safety class in schools more. Most of the deaths are idiots falling out of treestands though

[Evermore]

Theres a lot of hunting incidents and deaths in this state, its sad really. Someone was actually killed a few weeks back here when the idiot heard rustling in the bushes so he decided to shoot blindly at the sound, which turned out to be another hunter scrambling around. With so many hunters here, I wish they would put the hunters safety class in schools more. Most of the deaths are idiots falling out of treestands though

was that the gun's fault? that could have easily been a bow and arrow

[Arlos]

I'm pretty curious to hear Gaazy's & Minrott's responses to my post.

-Arlos

[Gaazy]

Psst, its bow season Evermore, he did shoot him with a bow. But it could have been either gun or bow like you said, and in hunters safety class they teach you safety with both of them. All I meant was you learn safety for gun and bow in those classes, and they should be offered more, thats all.


And Arlos, I wouldnt mind having a system like that at all as far as having to take the classes and things before you can buy a gun and I really do think it might make the people taking the classes think a little more before acting and cut down on accidents. Hell, if it saves one life it was worth passing. People get hurt damn near every year here because of the same situation you talked about - not knowing whats beyond your target. Ive been watching for a gun safety class here lately to take as a matter of fact, and took the hunting safety class when I was younger, and learned a lot from them.

[Evermore]

i agree arlos. i am all for a licensing program.

ah gaazy i didnt realize you have bow going on there as well. i havent really hunted outside of PA.

[Lueyen]

I believe people need structure, and if the population has the exact same power as the government does than we're living in chaos. The mob has absolutely no reason to listen to authority.

That statment gets right to the heart of things Zan, I can definetly see why you don't understand/agree with a lot of what has been said against gun control.

You see the people as subject to the government, that is the polar opposite of the entire ideology behind the United States government. Government, is granted it's power by the people, government is subject to the people not the other way around. We don't want the people to have the exact same power as the government, we want the people to be MORE powerful then the government.

To use an analogy, you see government as the boss, and the people as the employees. We see the people as the boss and government as the employees, and should government stop serving the will of the people, it then becomes time to fire that employee and hire a new one.

[Spazz]

You see the people as subject to the government, that is the polar opposite of the entire ideology behind the United States government. Government, is granted it's power by the people, government is subject to the people not the other way around. We don't want the people to have the exact same power as the government, we want the people to be MORE powerful then the government.

To use an analogy, you see government as the boss, and the people as the employees. We see the people as the boss and government as the employees, and should government stop serving the will of the people, it then becomes time to fire that employee and hire a new one.

That is nice and idealistic. Gave me a warm fuzzy feeling even. But its bullshit. The government doesnt listin to the people here any more. It tells them.

[Zanchief]

I believe people need structure, and if the population has the exact same power as the government does than we're living in chaos. The mob has absolutely no reason to listen to authority.

That statment gets right to the heart of things Zan, I can definetly see why you don't understand/agree with a lot of what has been said against gun control.

You see the people as subject to the government, that is the polar opposite of the entire ideology behind the United States government. Government, is granted it's power by the people, government is subject to the people not the other way around. We don't want the people to have the exact same power as the government, we want the people to be MORE powerful then the government.

To use an analogy, you see government as the boss, and the people as the employees. We see the people as the boss and government as the employees, and should government stop serving the will of the people, it then becomes time to fire that employee and hire a new one.

That's simply not true.

Employee's decide who get's hired then they hand them over the keys.

[Lueyen]

You see the people as subject to the government, that is the polar opposite of the entire ideology behind the United States government. Government, is granted it's power by the people, government is subject to the people not the other way around. We don't want the people to have the exact same power as the government, we want the people to be MORE powerful then the government.

To use an analogy, you see government as the boss, and the people as the employees. We see the people as the boss and government as the employees, and should government stop serving the will of the people, it then becomes time to fire that employee and hire a new one.

That is nice and idealistic. Gave me a warm fuzzy feeling even. But its bullshit. The government doesnt listin to the people here any more. It tells them.

Yes theory and practice are rarely exactly the same, but we still need to take diciplinary measures before termination .

[Lueyen]

That's simply not true.

Employee's decide who get's hired then they hand them over the keys.

I'm unsure if you are trying to argue with my analogy... or use that same analogy to argue against what I was using the analogy to illustrate.

Eitherway... analogies aren't perfect, and I don't expect you to agree with me, however there is nothing untrue about what I stated.

[Gaazy]

Ya hehe npnp our rifle season starts in a couple weeks Evermore

[Tikker]

You're proving my point. Military weapons get better. By saying that only the military is allowed to have these weapons you're effectively stamping out any chance of a civilian population to resist a toletarian regime.

hrm

so how do you feel about iran, iraq, south korea, etc getting nukes?

they need to have equal footing with the US in case the US starts to raise shit

shit, the government has nukes, I better get some too

you don't think it's retarded to start an arms race between the government and it's citizens?

you cannot compare nukes with small arms. just wont work I have yet to see a bullet that can render thousands dead and areas unlivable.

You missed my point completely, but I'll answer your nonsensical point

Who gets to draw the line of what's acceptable for individuals to own weaponwise?
The government
if you disagree with that, you elect a diff't government. but if you're not able to elect a government that shares your minority view, you better learn to obey, or move somewhere else.

oh and tikker, hunting rifles kill people too when misused.

so can a spoon you retard. that's not even a valid arguement

[Lueyen]

Who gets to draw the line of what's acceptable for individuals to own weaponwise?
The government
if you disagree with that, you elect a diff't government. but if you're not able to elect a government that shares your minority view, you better learn to obey, or move somewhere else.

Ah but Tikker, this is where our constitution and bill of rights is such a beautiful thing. It doesn't matter if you are a minority, because a majority still can not override the civil rights of the minority. As a matter of fact those civil rights are so well protected it is extremly difficult for the people to give them up even voluntairly since it takes quite a bit to amend the constitution.

Honestly I'd like to thank you and Zan both for your participation in this post...its a very nice reminder of just what it is we have here in the US, not in the technical structure of our government, but in the basic ideals, and I genuinely feel bad for you two, not because of what you don't have, but because you don't even seem to know that you are missing it. >< sorry if that sounds like a jab, I don't mean it in that way at all.

[Evermore]

You're proving my point. Military weapons get better. By saying that only the military is allowed to have these weapons you're effectively stamping out any chance of a civilian population to resist a toletarian regime.

hrm

so how do you feel about iran, iraq, south korea, etc getting nukes?

they need to have equal footing with the US in case the US starts to raise shit

shit, the government has nukes, I better get some too

you don't think it's retarded to start an arms race between the government and it's citizens?

you cannot compare nukes with small arms. just wont work I have yet to see a bullet that can render thousands dead and areas unlivable.

You missed my point completely, but I'll answer your nonsensical point

Who gets to draw the line of what's acceptable for individuals to own weaponwise?
The government
if you disagree with that, you elect a diff't government. but if you're not able to elect a government that shares your minority view, you better learn to obey, or move somewhere else.

oh and tikker, hunting rifles kill people too when misused.

so can a spoon you retard. that's not even a valid arguement

tikker you are over emphasizing and its ridiculas to use these examples to make your point. Why dont you try using ones that are a bit more relivant to the situation?

also putz, hunting rifles were used LONG before any of these "military weapons" to kill people. so AH HA it is a valid point! never thought you would be that thick.

You are def off your roll.

[10sun]

Theres a lot of hunting incidents and deaths in this state, its sad really. Someone was actually killed a few weeks back here when the idiot heard rustling in the bushes so he decided to shoot blindly at the sound, which turned out to be another hunter scrambling around. With so many hunters here, I wish they would put the hunters safety class in schools more. Most of the deaths are idiots falling out of treestands though

True story, friend of mine shot a kid who was out on his first hunting trip with his father.

The hunter and his son had gone onto my friend's property without realizing it.

Funnily enough, we were all playing paintball and my friend had thought the kid was one of the rest of us, so there was no damage aside from a deep bruise most likely... the kid still cried like a bitch though.

-Adam

[Tikker]

tikker you are over emphasizing and its ridiculas to use these examples to make your point. Why dont you try using ones that are a bit more relivant to the situation?

also putz, hunting rifles were used LONG before any of these "military weapons" to kill people. so AH HA it is a valid point! never thought you would be that thick.

You are def off your roll.

you're making even less sense now evermore

a weapon is a weapon is a weapon

someone has to draw the line as to what's acceptable for personal use, and what's not

that's the point I'm making

[Spazz]

Well id rather have the best " weapons" for defending myself just in case... better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it wouldnt you say.

[Evermore]

tikker you are over emphasizing and its ridiculas to use these examples to make your point. Why dont you try using ones that are a bit more relivant to the situation?

also putz, hunting rifles were used LONG before any of these "military weapons" to kill people. so AH HA it is a valid point! never thought you would be that thick.

You are def off your roll.

you're making even less sense now evermore

a weapon is a weapon is a weapon

someone has to draw the line as to what's acceptable for personal use, and what's not

that's the point I'm making

You must be the type of person that shows up to a gun fight armed with a knife. yes this is sarcasm.


i am sorry you cant seem to understand that one weapon is NOT the same as another. I understand your point someone has to "draw the line". I get it. But to say that a or a .50 Barrett is the same as a .22 remington is totally ludacris. I have yet to see a 22 that has a 1500 meter effective range and can pentrate the same stuff the barrett can. the differences in the weapons capabilities and uses are what is going to define and determine where the line is drawn.

I hope that sheds some light for you

[Evermore]

Well id rather have the best " weapons" for defending myself just in case... better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it wouldnt you say.

yup

[Spazz]

You can stop you some bad guys with a .50 bmg WA BAP

[Minrott]

You missed my point completely, but I'll answer your nonsensical point

Who gets to draw the line of what's acceptable for individuals to own weaponwise?
The government
if you disagree with that, you elect a diff't government. but if you're not able to elect a government that shares your minority view, you better learn to obey, or move somewhere else.

No. That's mob rule. That's like saying the Nazis were right because most Germans hated Jews, or that slavery was okay and the slaves should have voted the government out.

If everyone is allowed to arm themselves to the teeth, and express their individual rights, why bother with a centralized government at all?

I'd prefer we didn't have a strong central government. The federal government does nothing but restrict me. I recieve no benefit from a federal government. They don't protect our countries borders, they get us into wars that Wisconsin has no reason to be a part of, and they put us under draconian tax strain to fund their corporate Federal Bank. I'd love to live in a confederacy, where States said what happens inside their own borders, so people in Wisconsin didn't have to live by California politics. I'm not going to argue about this subject, you asked, I answered.

Arlos. I'm sorry your brother was endangered by an irresponsible person. But why punish me for it? My friend was killed by a snowmobile, but I don't want to hamper other responsible snowmobilers by putting ridiculous regulations on them. I want the person responsible for the accident to be punished for it.

I do not agree with what you consider to be reasonable considerations. I do not agree with licensing or registration. These are simply lists that gives the government the ability to go door to door with a SWAT team when they decide to round up all firearms. I could be persuaded to agree to a "Firearms saftey course." In fact, I'd like to see it taught in highschools. The only reason the government can restrict you and force you to get a drivers license however, is because driving is a privelidge. It isn't a right gauranteed by the Bill of Rights.

About machine guns. People can't get liscenses to own machine guns. Because a license to own a machine gun is not required.

The only way Congress could (semi)legally control machine guns or other NFA regulated weapons is by using Interstate Commerce. Not by saying "this type of gun is illegal." So they taxed them. They put a cost prohibitive (at the time, 1934) tax of $200 per weapon on them. This is where the BATF came from. Treasury agents with time on their hands after prohibition started enforcing this obscure and generally unrecognized law. Eventually the agency was formed. The whole reason behind Waco is because those poor people were in posession of guns that required a $200 tax they had not payed. Not because the guns were against the law to own.

You can get a license to deal or manufacture NFA weapons, which is a Federal Firearms License coupled with a Special Occupational Tax #2 (manufacturer) or #3 (dealer). But any non-felon civilian living in a state that does not ban the weapon may own an NFA regulated weapon.

It would be interesting to note here that since 1934 only 1, one single crime has been committed with a legally owned machine gun, and that was committed by an off duty police officer, and no one was injured. Can Corvettes claim that track record of safety?

Finally, no, for the next two years I do not see a change in gun laws happening. That's why I'm going to be using this time wisely buy buying and storing what they DID ban in 1994, buy reloading as much ammunition as possible and preparing for the worst in '08. Because believe you me, Nancy Pelosi, Schumer and Feinstein are rabidly anti gun, and will force their hand with a Democratic president.


I was asked to explain my position and I believe I've done so coherently and politely. I never started this with the intention of changing anyones mind. Most people are either so engrained in their position, or completely uneducated on it that they refuse to look at evidence or facts, much less at what can be considered simply my opinion. However if I opened anyones eyes to simply see my side and why I believe what I do (because about 50% of the gun owning community believes what I do, the rest couldn't care less what happened as long as they get to keep their deer rifle) then I'm happy to have said my piece.


I believe in personal responsibility and liability. I believe in the rights gauranteed me, because they were gauranteed me with just as much reason as freedom of speech and assembly. I believe that any further infringment on these rights is a downhill slope to fascism, and that's why I'm as unbending in my beliefs as I appear to be.

[Minrott]

If you really truely believe that people will be safer without guns, I empathize with your position. I understand that it may seem simple to you, if there are no guns, people cannot be hurt by them. Believe me, that is a noble idea. But if that were true, if that were possible, why is it that in the United States, gun crime is highest where the restrictions are their most draconian? Washington D.C. for example.

Crime is not caused by guns, guns are used in crime. You cannot combat crime by banning guns, just as you cannot combat robberies by outlawing ski masks. There are reasons behind the ridiculous murder rate in Washington, and none of them have anything to do with the legality of firearms.

Fight crime by fighting poverty and poor education. Fight gun accidents with education and saftey devices (locks/safes).

[Minrott]

Finally, see my signature. If you don't understand yet, then google it.

[Tikker]

If you really truely believe that people will be safer without guns, I empathize with your position.

it's why I live where I live~