Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile. Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done. Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective. Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be. I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse. But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind. several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations. lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times. i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
news flash:
When 2A was written, everyday people didn't have unfettered access to guns. It was a luxury item, and still is today. The only way for many people to acquire a gun was to join the state militia (it was well-regulated).
Aren’t there states out there that consider all of its residents as members of their “well-regulated militia”? Well regulated being that they are bound by the state’s laws and regulations? I think that if the wording were ever changed to only allow state militia personnel to own firearms, many other states would take this approach as well...and I would support their ability to do this.
"I support a well-regulated militia, as long as everyone is part of the militia and there are no regulations"
Wrong, I support the people. The “well regulated militia” wording and intent of the 2nd Ammendment argument has been hashed out in the other forum multiple times. If you want a recap, go dig the comments up. I am not going to participate in yet another debate on this dead horse. Maybe others would appease.
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile. Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done. Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective. Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be. I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse. But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind. several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations. lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times. i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
Except that's not what you said. Do you have a link to Feinstein and Pelosi's official statements on gun control and your claim that they want to ban them? I ask because the misrepresentation of facts and positions by those in favor of sensible gun control legislation is rampant, common and a tactic of the nutters. Please back your claims in the previous post with legitimate links to Feinstein, Pelosi's or all the "other" anti gunners. Google is your friend and if as common as you claim, it should be easy enough to link to.
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile. Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done. Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective. Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be. I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse. But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind. several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations. lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times. i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
news flash:
When 2A was written, everyday people didn't have unfettered access to guns. It was a luxury item, and still is today. The only way for many people to acquire a gun was to join the state militia (it was well-regulated).
So you're not denying they say it, just defending why they do? Thats fine, just trying to be clear because Halifax seems to deny any politician would even dream of getting ride of gun rights. At least you admit what is blatantly obvious. But you bring up when I think is the best defense of gun control, that it isn't the same as it was 200+ years ago. I don't think it equates to banning all guns, but one reason why I'm for restrictions on many of them.
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile. Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done. Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective. Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be. I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse. But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind. several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations. lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times. i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
news flash:
When 2A was written, everyday people didn't have unfettered access to guns. It was a luxury item, and still is today. The only way for many people to acquire a gun was to join the state militia (it was well-regulated).
So you're not denying they say it, just defending why they do? Thats fine, just trying to be clear because Halifax seems to deny any politician would even dream of getting ride of gun rights. At least you admit what is blatantly obvious. But you bring up when I think is the best defense of gun control, that it isn't the same as it was 200+ years ago. I don't think it equates to banning all guns, but one reason why I'm for restrictions on many of them.
I'm denying that "many" want to ban guns in their entirety. You claimed "many" and so far have offered 2 of 535. And have only linked to 1. If that's "many," well, just wow.
Have you ever flown over the US? Ever thought about what it would take to first, ban all guns and second, be able to confiscate them from every household that possesses them? But you fear it anyway?
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile. Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia.
Not when many of the anti-gun politicians make it known they want compete gun control, and say they hope it is a slippery slope that leads to that. You can't claim paranoia when then ones in charge want that done. Now, I don't think I'll see a gun ban in my lifetime. But it isn't paranoia for someone to fear that when so many want that.
We won't see effective gun legislature in this generation of politicians. Democrats are as much to blame as republicans. The ease of loopholes in gun laws and the ineffectiveness/pointlessness in other reflect how little those making the anti-gun laws really know about guns. For example the definition of a "fixed magazine" is so poor it is completely ineffective. Not until the anti-gun side is willing to be happy with effective gun laws will there be a small enough resistance to it. No pro-gun voter will ever believe many of the current politicians if they were to claim they'd be satisfied with just some new laws, no matter how effective they turn out to be. I for one am for gun restrictions. So are many people I know. I'm not surprised Ryan never heard of a bump stock, he doesn't make his career on gun control. But why haven't those who do heard of it? Effective gun control could be found if gun control lobbyist worked with a gun expert on creating such laws. And it wouldn't be hard to do, you could find gun experts willing to create effective gun laws. To not do that seems to me that you are either too dump of a politician to figure out that's why no change ever occurs, or you really don't care about making any changes but just want to run on the anti-gun image. I'm not sure which is worse. But we wont see anything change until we get a generation of politicians willing to make laws that still allow for hunting, self defense and even sport shooting. You can do that and still target violence and aspects of the guns used in this shooting.
Who are the "many" anti-gun politicians that want "complete" gun control of which you speak? And who are these "so many" that want that? What are the current "effective gun laws?" What laws have been introduced and/or passed that don't allow "hunting, self-defense and sport shooting?"
Feinstein and Pelosi are two that instantly come to mind. several on here said they would support laws that would keep guns out of the hands of everyday people, I dont know how else to answer you second question, they don't hide that fact they would be pleased with those regulations. lots of current gun laws are effective. Some are not-it's been discussed here a dozen times. i never said current gun laws prevent hunting, sport, etc. I said you can (and should) pass laws that have restrictions that would make it illegal to own guns that function like the ones did in Vegas and still not impede hunting and sport shooting.
news flash:
When 2A was written, everyday people didn't have unfettered access to guns. It was a luxury item, and still is today. The only way for many people to acquire a gun was to join the state militia (it was well-regulated).
So you're not denying they say it, just defending why they do? Thats fine, just trying to be clear because Halifax seems to deny any politician would even dream of getting ride of gun rights. At least you admit what is blatantly obvious. But you bring up when I think is the best defense of gun control, that it isn't the same as it was 200+ years ago. I don't think it equates to banning all guns, but one reason why I'm for restrictions on many of them.
I'm denying that "many" want to ban guns in their entirety. You claimed "many" and so far have offered 2 of 535. And have only linked to 1. If that's "many," well, just wow.
Have you ever flown over the US? Ever thought about what it would take to first, ban all guns and second, be able to confiscate them from every household that possesses them? But you fear it anyway?
I've said "many" times that I personally don't fear that. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. Just stating that is the reason that others oppose gun regulation. I'm not going to give you a list of names that I believe would want something that could be compared to a ban. Mostly because I don;t feel like giving up the time to do so. I've also mentioned on here before most who fear a gun ban don't picture the government knock on their door across the country (and yes, I've flown CA to South Carolina many times, a long 5 1/2 hr flight). They fear legislature that will prevent them from continuing to keep up their hobby/sport/whatever. But yes, there are lots of politicians who would favor laws that would make it too difficult for the average person to afford a gun. There was this discussion a couple weeks ago where several on this thread said they would be in favor of such laws and would not consider it a ban. I would, if you pass a law with the intention of preventing people from doing something, that to me is a ban. And yes there are lots of politicians who know they cant remove guns, so they support bills that would make the cost of ammo too expensive. Which in my mind is completely ineffective because that will only impact the person who goes target shooting and make him give up the gun, and not the guy who uses a gun for armed robbery. But like I said I personally don't fear that. Although California has already passed some measures in that direction. I'm pretty sure it is illegal to buy ammo online there, and there was a bill to prohibit reloading of ammo (and I think it passed). Ammo, just like everything else, is half the price when you buy it online. Thats the only reason people do it. My wife even buys our diapers and diaper pale refills online because its half the price as Walmart. If someone passed a bill to ban the sale of online diapers but allowed you to still get the same ones from the store, you'd probably there there was something wrong with that too. Yes, of course diapers don't kill people. But they don;t target the ammo, they just make it more expensive so people don't buy as much as their way of gun restrictions. And that isn't a fear, that has already happened. So having people believe that one day it will just be too expensive and too much red tape is completely understandable to me. And CA might get there one day, I don't see it as a nationwide event in my lifetime.
a nutjob I used to work with, with a temper that I've never experienced before or since, used to make his own fucking bullets in his house. he once told me a story about how he pulled a gun on his neighbour because the guy cut some branches off a tree that was on his property, but the branches hung over into the neighbour's yard, getting leaves in his pool.
so glad he retired. we all thought if there's going to be an office shooting in Canada, it's going to be him.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
they fear they will pass legislation similar to that of Australia. which WON'T. EVER. HAPPEN.
You are right, that is untenable. That being said, there is probably a list of politicians that would vote for that type of legislation. I would put them in the category of eccentric or extremist and I will never vote for a politician that even supports such legislation. Get the extremism of both parties out of office and then you *may see some bipartisan change. But that, most likely, will never happen either. It seems more logical to disregard fairy tale untenable legislation all together and brainstorm outside the box ways of bringing people together to combat those that intend to do harm to others. But that is seeming more and more unrealistic too...I guess getting cynical and bitching on online forums is probably the most effective method.
FYI- That last line was sarcasm for those that have trouble recognizing. Does sarcasm mean that I have given up on the debate? Quite possibly...but not for the reasons that some of the eccentric people around here are going to try fabricating. It is due to the pointlessness of it all. People assuming, belittling, name calling, twisting and flat out fabricating lies in attempts to demonize others is where my “giving up” comes from. I recognize that I have done my part in name calling (libtards) and probably assuming here and there as well...so take this as my official resignation from “seriously” debating this issue with some around here. I will do my best not to comment to or recognize those that I deam unproductive. Thank you and props to you, Hugh, for being a positive beacon of light in these clusterfuck conversations!
a nutjob I used to work with, with a temper that I've never experienced before or since, used to make his own fucking bullets in his house. he once told me a story about how he pulled a gun on his neighbour because the guy cut some branches off a tree that was on his property, but the branches hung over into the neighbour's yard, getting leaves in his pool.
so glad he retired. we all thought if there's going to be an office shooting in Canada, it's going to be him.
Hugh, do you think there is something wrong about reloading?
a nutjob I used to work with, with a temper that I've never experienced before or since, used to make his own fucking bullets in his house. he once told me a story about how he pulled a gun on his neighbour because the guy cut some branches off a tree that was on his property, but the branches hung over into the neighbour's yard, getting leaves in his pool.
so glad he retired. we all thought if there's going to be an office shooting in Canada, it's going to be him.
Hugh, do you think there is something wrong about reloading?
sorry mcgruff, I'm not sure I understand your question.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
a nutjob I used to work with, with a temper that I've never experienced before or since, used to make his own fucking bullets in his house. he once told me a story about how he pulled a gun on his neighbour because the guy cut some branches off a tree that was on his property, but the branches hung over into the neighbour's yard, getting leaves in his pool.
so glad he retired. we all thought if there's going to be an office shooting in Canada, it's going to be him.
Hugh, do you think there is something wrong about reloading?
sorry mcgruff, I'm not sure I understand your question.
You said that crazy dude you worked with made bullets at home, it is known as reloading. I was just wondering your opinion on reloading. (You take old brass from the range and reload them to make a new bullet.)
a nutjob I used to work with, with a temper that I've never experienced before or since, used to make his own fucking bullets in his house. he once told me a story about how he pulled a gun on his neighbour because the guy cut some branches off a tree that was on his property, but the branches hung over into the neighbour's yard, getting leaves in his pool.
so glad he retired. we all thought if there's going to be an office shooting in Canada, it's going to be him.
Hugh, do you think there is something wrong about reloading?
sorry mcgruff, I'm not sure I understand your question.
You said that crazy dude you worked with made bullets at home, it is known as reloading. I was just wondering your opinion on reloading. (You take old brass from the range and reload them to make a new bullet.)
I really don't know. since he was the only person I know who does it, I attached his craziness to that behaviour, so it kind of made me think the behaviour was crazy in and of itself. I realize this is biased and generalized, but I just looked it up and it is legal, so I don't really have an issue with it I guess. I'm guessing people do it as it is cheaper than new ammunition?
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
they fear they will pass legislation similar to that of Australia. which WON'T. EVER. HAPPEN.
You are right, that is untenable. That being said, there is probably a list of politicians that would vote for that type of legislation. I would put them in the category of eccentric or extremist and I will never vote for a politician that even supports such legislation. Get the extremism of both parties out of office and then you *may see some bipartisan change. But that, most likely, will never happen either. It seems more logical to disregard fairy tale untenable legislation all together and brainstorm outside the box ways of bringing people together to combat those that intend to do harm to others. But that is seeming more and more unrealistic too...I guess getting cynical and bitching on online forums is probably the most effective method.
FYI- That last line was sarcasm for those that have trouble recognizing. Does sarcasm mean that I have given up on the debate? Quite possibly...but not for the reasons that some of the eccentric people around here are going to try fabricating. It is due to the pointlessness of it all. People assuming, belittling, name calling, twisting and flat out fabricating lies in attempts to demonize others is where my “giving up” comes from. I recognize that I have done my part in name calling (libtards) and probably assuming here and there as well...so take this as my official resignation from “seriously” debating this issue with some around here. I will do my best not to comment to or recognize those that I deam unproductive. Thank you and props to you, Hugh, for being a positive beacon of light in these clusterfuck conversations!
I try to be balanced. doesn't always work. but sometimes!
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
a nutjob I used to work with, with a temper that I've never experienced before or since, used to make his own fucking bullets in his house. he once told me a story about how he pulled a gun on his neighbour because the guy cut some branches off a tree that was on his property, but the branches hung over into the neighbour's yard, getting leaves in his pool.
so glad he retired. we all thought if there's going to be an office shooting in Canada, it's going to be him.
Hugh, do you think there is something wrong about reloading?
sorry mcgruff, I'm not sure I understand your question.
You said that crazy dude you worked with made bullets at home, it is known as reloading. I was just wondering your opinion on reloading. (You take old brass from the range and reload them to make a new bullet.)
I really don't know. since he was the only person I know who does it, I attached his craziness to that behaviour, so it kind of made me think the behaviour was crazy in and of itself. I realize this is biased and generalized, but I just looked it up and it is legal, so I don't really have an issue with it I guess. I'm guessing people do it as it is cheaper than new ammunition?
A lot of people reload. Mostly for cost. Certain bullets for rare guns can cost $2-$3 for a single round. You go target shooting for 20 minutes and it would cost over $100. Even other, not-so-rare rounds can easily be in the 30-50 cent range for a single round for something considered common. Again, even 10 minutes of target practice adds up. And since I only go about 2-3 times a year and bring some old friends, its usually about a 2-3 hour event. It would cost several hundred dollars to buy that ammo new from a store. I personally don;t reload, but I try to buy factory reloads when possible. All those are are recycled cartridges where the factory reuses them. Those I believe are now banned in CA. That is honestly why I have gone target shooting about 3 times in the last 5 years. It is just too expensive. If I was a more avid shooter or hunter and was something I planned to do once a month even, I'd definitely reload myself. I just don;t want to spend $200 to go target shooting for an hour.
a nutjob I used to work with, with a temper that I've never experienced before or since, used to make his own fucking bullets in his house. he once told me a story about how he pulled a gun on his neighbour because the guy cut some branches off a tree that was on his property, but the branches hung over into the neighbour's yard, getting leaves in his pool.
so glad he retired. we all thought if there's going to be an office shooting in Canada, it's going to be him.
Hugh, do you think there is something wrong about reloading?
sorry mcgruff, I'm not sure I understand your question.
You said that crazy dude you worked with made bullets at home, it is known as reloading. I was just wondering your opinion on reloading. (You take old brass from the range and reload them to make a new bullet.)
I really don't know. since he was the only person I know who does it, I attached his craziness to that behaviour, so it kind of made me think the behaviour was crazy in and of itself. I realize this is biased and generalized, but I just looked it up and it is legal, so I don't really have an issue with it I guess. I'm guessing people do it as it is cheaper than new ammunition?
A lot of people reload. Mostly for cost. Certain bullets for rare guns can cost $2-$3 for a single round. You go target shooting for 20 minutes and it would cost over $100. Even other, not-so-rare rounds can easily be in the 30-50 cent range for a single round for something considered common. Again, even 10 minutes of target practice adds up. And since I only go about 2-3 times a year and bring some old friends, its usually about a 2-3 hour event. It would cost several hundred dollars to buy that ammo new from a store. I personally don;t reload, but I try to buy factory reloads when possible. All those are are recycled cartridges where the factory reuses them. Those I believe are now banned in CA. That is honestly why I have gone target shooting about 3 times in the last 5 years. It is just too expensive. If I was a more avid shooter or hunter and was something I planned to do once a month even, I'd definitely reload myself. I just don;t want to spend $200 to go target shooting for an hour.
You know where you can get free bullets and get regular shooting practice? Join the military.
a nutjob I used to work with, with a temper that I've never experienced before or since, used to make his own fucking bullets in his house. he once told me a story about how he pulled a gun on his neighbour because the guy cut some branches off a tree that was on his property, but the branches hung over into the neighbour's yard, getting leaves in his pool.
so glad he retired. we all thought if there's going to be an office shooting in Canada, it's going to be him.
Hugh, do you think there is something wrong about reloading?
sorry mcgruff, I'm not sure I understand your question.
You said that crazy dude you worked with made bullets at home, it is known as reloading. I was just wondering your opinion on reloading. (You take old brass from the range and reload them to make a new bullet.)
I really don't know. since he was the only person I know who does it, I attached his craziness to that behaviour, so it kind of made me think the behaviour was crazy in and of itself. I realize this is biased and generalized, but I just looked it up and it is legal, so I don't really have an issue with it I guess. I'm guessing people do it as it is cheaper than new ammunition?
A lot of people reload. Mostly for cost. Certain bullets for rare guns can cost $2-$3 for a single round. You go target shooting for 20 minutes and it would cost over $100. Even other, not-so-rare rounds can easily be in the 30-50 cent range for a single round for something considered common. Again, even 10 minutes of target practice adds up. And since I only go about 2-3 times a year and bring some old friends, its usually about a 2-3 hour event. It would cost several hundred dollars to buy that ammo new from a store. I personally don;t reload, but I try to buy factory reloads when possible. All those are are recycled cartridges where the factory reuses them. Those I believe are now banned in CA. That is honestly why I have gone target shooting about 3 times in the last 5 years. It is just too expensive. If I was a more avid shooter or hunter and was something I planned to do once a month even, I'd definitely reload myself. I just don;t want to spend $200 to go target shooting for an hour.
You know where you can get free bullets and get regular shooting practice? Join the military.
Yes, that's a realistic solution...... And yet you wonder why many pro-gun people are unwilling to work with those on your side with such great ideas like that.
a nutjob I used to work with, with a temper that I've never experienced before or since, used to make his own fucking bullets in his house. he once told me a story about how he pulled a gun on his neighbour because the guy cut some branches off a tree that was on his property, but the branches hung over into the neighbour's yard, getting leaves in his pool.
so glad he retired. we all thought if there's going to be an office shooting in Canada, it's going to be him.
Hugh, do you think there is something wrong about reloading?
sorry mcgruff, I'm not sure I understand your question.
You said that crazy dude you worked with made bullets at home, it is known as reloading. I was just wondering your opinion on reloading. (You take old brass from the range and reload them to make a new bullet.)
I really don't know. since he was the only person I know who does it, I attached his craziness to that behaviour, so it kind of made me think the behaviour was crazy in and of itself. I realize this is biased and generalized, but I just looked it up and it is legal, so I don't really have an issue with it I guess. I'm guessing people do it as it is cheaper than new ammunition?
A lot of people reload. Mostly for cost. Certain bullets for rare guns can cost $2-$3 for a single round. You go target shooting for 20 minutes and it would cost over $100. Even other, not-so-rare rounds can easily be in the 30-50 cent range for a single round for something considered common. Again, even 10 minutes of target practice adds up. And since I only go about 2-3 times a year and bring some old friends, its usually about a 2-3 hour event. It would cost several hundred dollars to buy that ammo new from a store. I personally don;t reload, but I try to buy factory reloads when possible. All those are are recycled cartridges where the factory reuses them. Those I believe are now banned in CA. That is honestly why I have gone target shooting about 3 times in the last 5 years. It is just too expensive. If I was a more avid shooter or hunter and was something I planned to do once a month even, I'd definitely reload myself. I just don;t want to spend $200 to go target shooting for an hour.
You know where you can get free bullets and get regular shooting practice? Join the military.
Yes, that's a realistic solution...... And yet you wonder why many pro-gun people are unwilling to work with those on your side with such great ideas like that.
That's not the reason at all. The reason we can't work together is because of the bullshit slippery slope argument. We cannot put any common sense laws into place because of what? It's not because of someone making a joke that gun-fetishists should just join the military.
a nutjob I used to work with, with a temper that I've never experienced before or since, used to make his own fucking bullets in his house. he once told me a story about how he pulled a gun on his neighbour because the guy cut some branches off a tree that was on his property, but the branches hung over into the neighbour's yard, getting leaves in his pool.
so glad he retired. we all thought if there's going to be an office shooting in Canada, it's going to be him.
Hugh, do you think there is something wrong about reloading?
sorry mcgruff, I'm not sure I understand your question.
You said that crazy dude you worked with made bullets at home, it is known as reloading. I was just wondering your opinion on reloading. (You take old brass from the range and reload them to make a new bullet.)
I really don't know. since he was the only person I know who does it, I attached his craziness to that behaviour, so it kind of made me think the behaviour was crazy in and of itself. I realize this is biased and generalized, but I just looked it up and it is legal, so I don't really have an issue with it I guess. I'm guessing people do it as it is cheaper than new ammunition?
A lot of people reload. Mostly for cost. Certain bullets for rare guns can cost $2-$3 for a single round. You go target shooting for 20 minutes and it would cost over $100. Even other, not-so-rare rounds can easily be in the 30-50 cent range for a single round for something considered common. Again, even 10 minutes of target practice adds up. And since I only go about 2-3 times a year and bring some old friends, its usually about a 2-3 hour event. It would cost several hundred dollars to buy that ammo new from a store. I personally don;t reload, but I try to buy factory reloads when possible. All those are are recycled cartridges where the factory reuses them. Those I believe are now banned in CA. That is honestly why I have gone target shooting about 3 times in the last 5 years. It is just too expensive. If I was a more avid shooter or hunter and was something I planned to do once a month even, I'd definitely reload myself. I just don;t want to spend $200 to go target shooting for an hour.
You know where you can get free bullets and get regular shooting practice? Join the military.
Yes, that's a realistic solution...... And yet you wonder why many pro-gun people are unwilling to work with those on your side with such great ideas like that.
a nutjob I used to work with, with a temper that I've never experienced before or since, used to make his own fucking bullets in his house. he once told me a story about how he pulled a gun on his neighbour because the guy cut some branches off a tree that was on his property, but the branches hung over into the neighbour's yard, getting leaves in his pool.
so glad he retired. we all thought if there's going to be an office shooting in Canada, it's going to be him.
Hugh, do you think there is something wrong about reloading?
sorry mcgruff, I'm not sure I understand your question.
You said that crazy dude you worked with made bullets at home, it is known as reloading. I was just wondering your opinion on reloading. (You take old brass from the range and reload them to make a new bullet.)
I really don't know. since he was the only person I know who does it, I attached his craziness to that behaviour, so it kind of made me think the behaviour was crazy in and of itself. I realize this is biased and generalized, but I just looked it up and it is legal, so I don't really have an issue with it I guess. I'm guessing people do it as it is cheaper than new ammunition?
A lot of people reload. Mostly for cost. Certain bullets for rare guns can cost $2-$3 for a single round. You go target shooting for 20 minutes and it would cost over $100. Even other, not-so-rare rounds can easily be in the 30-50 cent range for a single round for something considered common. Again, even 10 minutes of target practice adds up. And since I only go about 2-3 times a year and bring some old friends, its usually about a 2-3 hour event. It would cost several hundred dollars to buy that ammo new from a store. I personally don;t reload, but I try to buy factory reloads when possible. All those are are recycled cartridges where the factory reuses them. Those I believe are now banned in CA. That is honestly why I have gone target shooting about 3 times in the last 5 years. It is just too expensive. If I was a more avid shooter or hunter and was something I planned to do once a month even, I'd definitely reload myself. I just don;t want to spend $200 to go target shooting for an hour.
You know where you can get free bullets and get regular shooting practice? Join the military.
Yes, that's a realistic solution...... And yet you wonder why many pro-gun people are unwilling to work with those on your side with such great ideas like that.
That's not the reason at all. The reason we can't work together is because of the bullshit slippery slope argument. We cannot put any common sense laws into place because of what? It's not because of someone making a joke that gun-fetishists should just join the military.
Both you and Mace are right. I think the slippery slope argument is used too often, although it clearly does have some merit due to the inability of legislators to actually understand the terminology they should be using when crafting legislation around gun control issues. But Mace is also right - he was providing factual background info on reloading, and also related why he doesn't shoot much, and then he gets jabbed out of nowhere. Nothing Mace said was in that post was inaccurate or even controversial, and yet he was still hit with a sarcastic shot. I guess the root of both of your points goes straight to our inability to communicate or engage in dialog effectively. Without dialog, and without compromise, the gun issue will remain as is.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
a nutjob I used to work with, with a temper that I've never experienced before or since, used to make his own fucking bullets in his house. he once told me a story about how he pulled a gun on his neighbour because the guy cut some branches off a tree that was on his property, but the branches hung over into the neighbour's yard, getting leaves in his pool.
so glad he retired. we all thought if there's going to be an office shooting in Canada, it's going to be him.
Hugh, do you think there is something wrong about reloading?
sorry mcgruff, I'm not sure I understand your question.
You said that crazy dude you worked with made bullets at home, it is known as reloading. I was just wondering your opinion on reloading. (You take old brass from the range and reload them to make a new bullet.)
I really don't know. since he was the only person I know who does it, I attached his craziness to that behaviour, so it kind of made me think the behaviour was crazy in and of itself. I realize this is biased and generalized, but I just looked it up and it is legal, so I don't really have an issue with it I guess. I'm guessing people do it as it is cheaper than new ammunition?
A lot of people reload. Mostly for cost. Certain bullets for rare guns can cost $2-$3 for a single round. You go target shooting for 20 minutes and it would cost over $100. Even other, not-so-rare rounds can easily be in the 30-50 cent range for a single round for something considered common. Again, even 10 minutes of target practice adds up. And since I only go about 2-3 times a year and bring some old friends, its usually about a 2-3 hour event. It would cost several hundred dollars to buy that ammo new from a store. I personally don;t reload, but I try to buy factory reloads when possible. All those are are recycled cartridges where the factory reuses them. Those I believe are now banned in CA. That is honestly why I have gone target shooting about 3 times in the last 5 years. It is just too expensive. If I was a more avid shooter or hunter and was something I planned to do once a month even, I'd definitely reload myself. I just don;t want to spend $200 to go target shooting for an hour.
You know where you can get free bullets and get regular shooting practice? Join the military.
Yes, that's a realistic solution...... And yet you wonder why many pro-gun people are unwilling to work with those on your side with such great ideas like that.
That's not the reason at all. The reason we can't work together is because of the bullshit slippery slope argument. We cannot put any common sense laws into place because of what? It's not because of someone making a joke that gun-fetishists should just join the military.
It really is though, at least it contributes to it. I've said over and over that I am for gun control. Cap magazine limits, strict laws on assault rifles, I'm fine with all that. But I make 1 comment that I even own a gun and I get thrown into a group of "gun-fetishists" I go target shooting less than once a year, and the follow up to that was join the military and call me a gun fetish. As Jeffbr even said, I make an honest statement about reloading and instead of asking questions, there's just jabs. That happens quite often. I've said several times just today that I don't fear the slippery slope and dont think I'll see a ban. But if you think those jabs aren't part of the problem, then you're wrong. Its that so many of the anti-gun feel that way about anyone who owns a gun that really give that fear life. Only a week ago lots of people on here were blaming anyone with a gun for the deaths of 58 people. When so many of one group feel so strongly about a topic, and consistantly demean anyone who doesn't agree, they are going to be met with equal extremes from the opposite side. Both sides need to take responsibility because there's an unwillingness to work with eachother on both sides. Accusing only gun owners will not get anything done, and our culture will be having this same conversation 100 years from now.
ever changing stories and timelines. this story seems to have made its way down the memory hole. NYTs did a good job piecing parsing together with audio and video
There'll be another shocking event soon enough to stir up this forum.
Good luck American people. Given the inevitability... may it not be you (just someone else instead so you can live to argue about how machine guns are your 'right' afforded to you by your musket carrying forefathers)!
I think this tragedy happened long enough ago that it is now appropriate to talk about gun control. What? We've moved on? Damn.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
This incident has been buried and no one in congress, the WH, media or anywhere else even asks about it or gun policy changes. At least local news is still running something. It's going to be a long time before the investigation is complete though.
Comments
Pelosi: "“So what?” Pelosi responded. “They’re going to say, ‘You give them bump stock, it’s going to be a slippery slope.’ I certainly hope so."
Don't really need a link because its all over the news. But here's one anyway
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/05/pelosi-hopes-for-slippery-slope-on-gun-regulations/
Thats fine, just trying to be clear because Halifax seems to deny any politician would even dream of getting ride of gun rights. At least you admit what is blatantly obvious.
But you bring up when I think is the best defense of gun control, that it isn't the same as it was 200+ years ago. I don't think it equates to banning all guns, but one reason why I'm for restrictions on many of them.
I'm denying that "many" want to ban guns in their entirety. You claimed "many" and so far have offered 2 of 535. And have only linked to 1. If that's "many," well, just wow.
Have you ever flown over the US? Ever thought about what it would take to first, ban all guns and second, be able to confiscate them from every household that possesses them? But you fear it anyway?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
-EV 8/14/93
- J Lennon
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
I'm not going to give you a list of names that I believe would want something that could be compared to a ban. Mostly because I don;t feel like giving up the time to do so. I've also mentioned on here before most who fear a gun ban don't picture the government knock on their door across the country (and yes, I've flown CA to South Carolina many times, a long 5 1/2 hr flight). They fear legislature that will prevent them from continuing to keep up their hobby/sport/whatever. But yes, there are lots of politicians who would favor laws that would make it too difficult for the average person to afford a gun.
There was this discussion a couple weeks ago where several on this thread said they would be in favor of such laws and would not consider it a ban. I would, if you pass a law with the intention of preventing people from doing something, that to me is a ban.
And yes there are lots of politicians who know they cant remove guns, so they support bills that would make the cost of ammo too expensive. Which in my mind is completely ineffective because that will only impact the person who goes target shooting and make him give up the gun, and not the guy who uses a gun for armed robbery.
But like I said I personally don't fear that. Although California has already passed some measures in that direction. I'm pretty sure it is illegal to buy ammo online there, and there was a bill to prohibit reloading of ammo (and I think it passed). Ammo, just like everything else, is half the price when you buy it online. Thats the only reason people do it. My wife even buys our diapers and diaper pale refills online because its half the price as Walmart. If someone passed a bill to ban the sale of online diapers but allowed you to still get the same ones from the store, you'd probably there there was something wrong with that too. Yes, of course diapers don't kill people. But they don;t target the ammo, they just make it more expensive so people don't buy as much as their way of gun restrictions. And that isn't a fear, that has already happened. So having people believe that one day it will just be too expensive and too much red tape is completely understandable to me. And CA might get there one day, I don't see it as a nationwide event in my lifetime.
so glad he retired. we all thought if there's going to be an office shooting in Canada, it's going to be him.
-EV 8/14/93
FYI- That last line was sarcasm for those that have trouble recognizing. Does sarcasm mean that I have given up on the debate? Quite possibly...but not for the reasons that some of the eccentric people around here are going to try fabricating. It is due to the pointlessness of it all. People assuming, belittling, name calling, twisting and flat out fabricating lies in attempts to demonize others is where my “giving up” comes from. I recognize that I have done my part in name calling (libtards) and probably assuming here and there as well...so take this as my official resignation from “seriously” debating this issue with some around here. I will do my best not to comment to or recognize those that I deam unproductive. Thank you and props to you, Hugh, for being a positive beacon of light in these clusterfuck conversations!
do you think there is something wrong about reloading?
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
Mostly for cost. Certain bullets for rare guns can cost $2-$3 for a single round. You go target shooting for 20 minutes and it would cost over $100.
Even other, not-so-rare rounds can easily be in the 30-50 cent range for a single round for something considered common. Again, even 10 minutes of target practice adds up. And since I only go about 2-3 times a year and bring some old friends, its usually about a 2-3 hour event. It would cost several hundred dollars to buy that ammo new from a store.
I personally don;t reload, but I try to buy factory reloads when possible. All those are are recycled cartridges where the factory reuses them. Those I believe are now banned in CA.
That is honestly why I have gone target shooting about 3 times in the last 5 years. It is just too expensive.
If I was a more avid shooter or hunter and was something I planned to do once a month even, I'd definitely reload myself. I just don;t want to spend $200 to go target shooting for an hour.
And yet you wonder why many pro-gun people are unwilling to work with those on your side with such great ideas like that.
We cannot put any common sense laws into place because of what? It's not because of someone making a joke that gun-fetishists should just join the military.
I've said over and over that I am for gun control. Cap magazine limits, strict laws on assault rifles, I'm fine with all that.
But I make 1 comment that I even own a gun and I get thrown into a group of "gun-fetishists"
I go target shooting less than once a year, and the follow up to that was join the military and call me a gun fetish.
As Jeffbr even said, I make an honest statement about reloading and instead of asking questions, there's just jabs.
That happens quite often.
I've said several times just today that I don't fear the slippery slope and dont think I'll see a ban. But if you think those jabs aren't part of the problem, then you're wrong. Its that so many of the anti-gun feel that way about anyone who owns a gun that really give that fear life. Only a week ago lots of people on here were blaming anyone with a gun for the deaths of 58 people. When so many of one group feel so strongly about a topic, and consistantly demean anyone who doesn't agree, they are going to be met with equal extremes from the opposite side.
Both sides need to take responsibility because there's an unwillingness to work with eachother on both sides. Accusing only gun owners will not get anything done, and our culture will be having this same conversation 100 years from now.
this story seems to have made its way down the memory hole.
NYTs did a good job piecing parsing together with audio and video
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/insider/reporting-on-las-vegas-pixel-by-pixel.html
Good luck American people. Given the inevitability... may it not be you (just someone else instead so you can live to argue about how machine guns are your 'right' afforded to you by your musket carrying forefathers)!
It’s An Honor To Continue Being Valued Over Countless Human Lives
-EV 8/14/93
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
-EV 8/14/93
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/how-the-fbi-and-atf-are-aiding-the-las-vegas-shooting-investigation/