Intolerance of gun owners nation-wide problem

"Pat Durkin column: Intolerance of gun owners nation-wide problem"


"That phenomenon isn’t unique to New York City. If you want to taste intolerance, let it be known you not only own guns, you like them. For instance, I can’t help but notice the worried looks and whispers of waiting passengers while helping a ticket agent check in my rifle or muzzleloader at the airport. In one case, my daughters overheard a woman tell her husband, “You’d think with children in his house he wouldn’t keep guns around.”

"Amazing. I would have thought she would have been more impressed that my three daughters — then fairly young — had stood in line for 30 minutes without irritating the spit out of everyone within hearing. At some point you would hope those judgmental sorts would look at your family group, consider the evidence before them, and realize gun ownership isn’t an indicator of criminal intent or aberrant behavior."

"Then again, I doubt they put much thought into it. There’s something smug and unyielding about anti-gun bigotry that’s just as stalwart as the most militant pro-gun dogma. They don’t see the irony that their otherwise “tolerant” views don’t extend beyond the predictable venues of race, religion or sexual preference."

"Then again, believe it or not, most gun owners aren’t seeking a debate. Most of us just want to be left alone so we can go to the range or field and enjoy our hobbies. We aren’t hurting anyone. Our individual interests don’t inspire a mope to do violence with a gun any more than spreading fertilizer on our gardens inspired a nut like Timothy McVeigh to turn that substance into a truck bomb."

http://www.wisinfo.com/northwestern/sports/stories/sports_16123481.shtml


Imagine that...anti-gun intolerance. :eyes:

...and declare the source irrelevant.

Unlike Benchley's recent submission that has Bill Oh Riley on their staff.

I don't own guns but I don't have any problem with guns or gun owners.

I have plenty of friends and family who are gun owners. And if my wife weren't so skittish on them I would probably buy one since I am interested in them.

However, I just have little patience for people who are gun owners but see some big conspiracy to take their guns away at every possible juncture.

There's just as little patience on the other side for people who perhaps would like some more legal accountability for gun safety and gun owners but yet who dont' want to see guns confiscated or taken away.

My point is that it's like any other group. There are fringe elements everywhere and its wrong to judge any group on that basis. Either non-gun owners who judge gun owners by the extreme NRA fringe, or Gun owners who judge all non gun-owners by the "take them all away" crowd.

"Our individual interests don’t inspire a mope to do violence with a gun any more than spreading fertilizer on our gardens inspired a nut like Timothy McVeigh to turn that substance into a truck bomb."

looking at the sort of bigoted humholes peddling this "gun rights" rubbish in public.

"While one might assume, for instance, that the city’s reputation for tolerance extends to all manner of behavior, it apparently does not extend to a love of guns.”
Imagine that....people in the big city not much caring for the Bernie Goetz fan club.

"For instance, I can’t help but notice the worried looks and whispers of waiting passengers while helping a ticket agent check in my rifle or muzzleloader at the airport."
Jeeze, you mean everyday people don't feel safer knowing a Daniel Boone wannabe is among them? Imagine that.

"They don’t see the irony that their otherwise “tolerant” views don’t extend beyond the predictable venues of race, religion or sexual preference."
Gee, hard to imagine, especially given the benevolent calls for brotherhood from such pro-gun notables at Pat Buchanan, Ted Nugent, Larry Pratt and David Duke.

"Many folks instinctively oppose guns, shooters and gun ranges without knowing anything about firearms or those who use them responsibly."
Ah yes, the "wheeeeee! guns!" gambit. <sarcasm>You know, pedophilia might bring folks comofort and sexual release....why don't we all try it and see before instinctively opposing it?</sarcasm>

"the “unspeakable delight” of hearing a black duck he shot thud onto the frozen mud"
Hey hey, uncle Dud...

They weren't claiming that everyone would like it if they just gave it a chance. They were (correctly) remarking that many people simply hate guns without having an understanding of how they can be enjoyed safely and responsibly.

"many people simply hate guns without having an understanding of how they can be enjoyed safely and responsibly"
Gee, and many people think having 115,000 Americans shot a year is a tragedy, want to apply the solutions that work in other industrialized democracies, and are tired of a multi-million dollar lobbying group fronting a corrupt industry blocking them at every turn.

And it's a funny thing, but the closer you look at "gun rights" the scummier it is. Much like a big chunk of the GOP.

If you really wanted to reduce senseless tragedy, you'd go after something that injures 30 times more people than guns first.

And you'd be more concerned about handguns than assault rifles, too.

You propose "solutions" to the gun violence problem that harrass law-abiding gun owners and have no effect on criminals.

or tell it to these folks...

Then they'd realize how much they are splitting up the Democratic party by pushing the guns wedge deeper and deeper.

And as much as you love to slobber on Kerry, let me give you a little reality check...if he weren't running against the most incompetent president in the history of the United States, he'd stand very little chance of winning this election.

That's from one Democrat to another, by the way.

"let me give you a little reality check...if he weren't running against the most incompetent president in the history of the United States, he'd stand very little chance of winning this election."
Sez you....but we all know by now what THAT's worth.

n/t

but then he's a parody of the sort of ignorant bigoted shit who hangs out at cesspools like highroadrage. Sometimes I even take lines from humholes like that to use in his rants..

and when you have thoroughly crushed my spirit go ahead and dump the Santa myth and the tooth fairy fallacy on me, too.

Santa never myth-s.....

Guy goes hunting with his buddy, and in the morning when the buddy gets up to pee, a rattlesnake bites him on his johnson.

"Oh my God," cries the buddy. "I'm going to die."

"Nonsense," says the guy. He grabs his cellphone and calls the rangers' station. "Hello? My buddy got bit by a rattlesnake. What do we do?"

The ranger says "You have to suck out the poison."

The guy hangs up the cellphone.

"Quick!" says his buddy, "What did the ranger say?"

"The ranger said, you're going to die."

ha ha


:headbang:

...any incumbent with half a brain should be able to win re-election (or selection as the case may be). But therein lies the problem.

are making the Democratic case so forcefully on those gun owner foru-No, that's right...they're over here making excuses about why they don't want to say one fucking pro-Democrat word out loud where their fellow gun owners might hear them.

Not that they're at all shy about posting dittohead crap from cesspools like American Daily or pictures of John Wayne Gacy over HERE, to show us all how "pro-democrat" they really are.

As much as you and Dianne Feinstein would like everyone else to believe.

It's heartwarming to see the way you defend those pro-Democrat values you do believe in at gun owner forums...oh, that's right...you can't be bothered to say "boo" over there...you're too busy posting right wing crap here.

"As much as you and Dianne Feinstein would like everyone else to believe."
Gee, op....cry me a fucking river.
--90% of Americans want to close the gun show loophole
--86% want increased penalties for gun trafficking
--79% want background checks for ALL firearm transactions
--77% want an assault weapons ban....
--67% want ALL firearms registered

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=29642

Who's trying to drive a wedge again?

--90% of Americans want to close the gun show loophole
--86% want increased penalties for gun trafficking, just like Charles Schumer proposes
--79% want background checks for ALL firearm transactions
--77% want an assault weapons ban....
--67% want ALL firearms registered

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=29642

If you are going to spout off, at least do it factually. If you want private gun sales to be regulated, then say so. The "loophole" you speak of has nothing to do with gun shows.

Oh, and what percentage of Americans think that "assault weapons" are machine guns? Or are such details just "gun porn" to you?

From the "Americans for Gun Safety" web site:

The Gun Show Loophole: Background Checks at Gun Shows

In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Bill, which requires federally licensed gun dealers to perform background checks on all gun buyers. And the system has worked fairly well - since this law went into effect in 1994, background checks have stopped over 800,000 convicted felons, domestic abusers and other illegal buyers from getting guns. But because the Brady Bill does not apply to private gun sellers, criminals and other prohibited buyers who cannot buy firearms at gun stores can skirt the law and obtain guns from private sellers at gun shows. In most states, these gun sales do not require a background check. That means no ID, no questions asked.

Criminals and gun-runners have figured it out – according the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, gun shows are now the second leading source of guns recovered in illegal gun trafficking investigation. And it doesn’t stop with domestic criminals: AGS has uncovered cases in which known or suspected terrorists were able to obtain guns at gun shows.

So far, only 18 states have closed the gun show loophole and require background checks for all gun show sales (or require some kind of firearms ID card for purchasing a gun). Colorado and Oregon recently closed the loophole by a vote of the electorate – loophole-closing ballot initiatives in both states passed by wide margins in the 2000 election. But in 32 states, the loophole remains wide open.

<more>

http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/the_issues_gun_loop.asp

who have to be in the line of fire every damn day because the GOP kowtows to an extremist few....

"CLOSE THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE: John Kerry supports the Reed-McCain Amendment to close the loophole in our gun laws that allows individuals to buy guns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows with no background check.  That means felons, violent juveniles, and terrorists who would otherwise be barred from obtaining dangerous weapons can easily buy one at a gun show with no questions asked.  Americans support closing the gun show loophole so that gun shows can continue uninterrupted without being magnets for criminals trying to get around the law. The gun show loophole undermines our National Instant Criminal Background Check System, one of our best tools to keep dangerous weapons from falling into the wrong hands."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0302.html

Where the private seller chooses to make their sale is irrelevant. It's as much a "gun show loophole" as it is a "parking lot loophole" or a "living room loophole."

The vast majority (nearly all) sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers who perform background checks and enforce waiting periods. Until you go to a gun show and attempt to make a gun purchase, please leave the commentary on this issue to those of us who have.

Like so many of us have said, requiring private sales to go through a broker who can perform a background check is not unreasonable.

how much I think your opinion is worth....

"I just want to make one point about each of the amendments we are discussing today. First, on closing the gun show loophole. The NRA's only argument against closing the gun show loophole is that allowing for a three day waiting period would effectively shut down gun shows because they are weekend operations.
Here is the GAO report that the NRA does not want you to see. This report, requested by one of the leading gun control opponents in the Senate completely debunks the NRA myth that the three day waiting period will shut down gun shows.
78% of all instachecks are completed within three minutes. 95% are completed within two hours. And only 5% take more than one day to complete. But those 5% are far and away the most likely Brady checks to turn up a felon. In fact, they are 20 times more likely to result in a denial than the other 95%. A background check won't affect gun shows more than a pittance.
This report was issued on February 29th. You haven't heard a peep about it, because it is the GAO report the NRA wants to lock away in a closet. Why? Because it kicks away the one remaining leg the gun lobby has to stand on to block the gun show loophole. "

http://www.schumer.senate.gov/1-Senator%20Schumer%20Website%20Files/pressroom/press_releases/PR00168.html

He tells you to fuck off even when you agree with him.

If it were up to him, the Democratic party would consist of ten people, and iverglas wouldn't be allowed to vote.

anybody should be prevented from voting...

That was pro-gun Jebbo Bush that told people that...and it was pro-gun Mary Rosh that tried to justify it with his phony pseudoscience.

Such nice playmates the RKBA crowd has...

But I'm not at all surprised that that whizzed over your head.

It didn't whizz....it just lay there in a sodden heap....

Someone here has got fascism on the brain.

But imagine what I think of YOUR opinion, op. Now I think I'll go slobber on John Kerry some more.

""While IBPO backed George Bush in the 2000 election, he has let them down as President, cutting funding for programs that put cops on the street and threatening the overtime pay of thousands of police officers.
“For some reason, these folks in the White House keep taking cops off the streets,” Kerry said. “For some reason, when they needed money to spend, they thought it was a good idea to take over half a billion dollars from the COPS budget but not one dime from the tax cuts they gave to the wealthiest folks. We know that America is stronger when our neighborhoods are safer and our communities are protected. And with the help of the men and women of law enforcement around the country, that’s what we’ll do.”
As President, John Kerry will stand by America’s police officers. He will provide $25 billion in immediate fiscal relief to states and communities -  money that states and localities will be able to use for crime fighting and homeland security efforts. He will promote shared intelligence between state and local authorities and federal agencies in order to strengthen homeland security efforts and reduce crime by creating a neighborhood prosecutor program that will bring prosecutors into high-crime communities. Kerry stands with law enforcement officers and supports reauthorization of the assault weapons ban.
Kerry is also supported by the International Union of Police Associations."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0514.html

Study after study proves that they get them from law-abiding gun owners and through channels that were created to accommodate law-abiding gun owners. So there is a connection.

And the comparison with cars is silly. People need cars, they don't need guns. You might as well cite statistics on choking and death due to obesity to call food a national menace.

because it is true.

Of course, I'm proud of that fact.

I don't doubt your assertion, I'd just like to see the supporting research that backs it up.

And as for "needing" cars but not guns...if you live in a major metropolitan area with mass transit, you don't "need" a car. If you live in a rural area with dangerous wildlife you do "need" a gun.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

I live in a city of over 200,000, and our mass transit system is a bad joke. If you're not going downtown, forget it. It's the same all over the country. Only in a few of the very biggest cities is it possible to get along without a car.

As far as "dangerous wildlife" is concerned, don't make me laugh. If you leave it alone, it'll leave you alone. Call the NWS if you have a real problem.

that traced ONE IN EVERY SEVEN guns used in crime to just 120 crooked gun stores...only 24 of those stores had EVER been inspected by the BATF (and 18 of those had been caught with violations).

The Republican solution to the problem? They passed the Tiahrt amendment preventing the BATF from ever releasing figures like those again...In fact, gun dealers are no longer REQUIRED to keep written inventories.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=32949

by a 55 mph speed limit.
or, outlawing right turns on red?

for taking on this issue for a lot of like minded individuals. It is very difficult to find common ground where things like projectiles and explosives are concerned.

Because there are a few people who have a panic attack at the mere mention of guns, we just don't talk about it among strangers.

Wonder how often Pat Durkin has spoken up for tolerance on race, religion or sexual preference?

and gun nuts are sure not shy about telling the world how much they hate people who aren't white heterosexual Christians on their idiotic forums day in and day out.

I'm sure since Pat thinks tolerance for race, religion and sexual prefernce is so "predictable" he must have spoken out for them a million times.

I'm a gun nut and I love everybody - how can that be.

(and spare me the logomania about "my playmates")

Oshkosh b'gosh!!

two of those guys are gay, and just got married in Massachusetts...

Too bad they couldn't in Oshkosh...

...it's obvious because he's going for tall & thin's wallet.

I agree with you! I knew it was bound to happen some time!

:-)

...than Benchley is of ours.

And while I disagree with your stance, I have always respected your ability to keep things relatively civil.

<snicker>

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I laugh like hell at our "pro-gun democrats"...and I don't have to skulk through life clutching a popgun...

We have a lot in common!

I guess I'm the asshole here for thinking that I should be trusted to "clutch a popgun" to protect myself and my family. I suppose I should just pretend that there are no criminals out there who want to harm me.

I only wish I could live in a crimeless utopia like New Jersey...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Because your subject line implies that you don't, but the rest of your message implies that you do.

And "a crimeless utopia like New Jersey" is the kind of place real gun control could do the most good. Unfortunately, gun control has to be nationwide to work, because states and municipalities don't have border checks and customs.

Or am I the only one who interprets Benchley's angry, caustic rhetoric that way?

I own four guns...three pistols and a rifle. I have a Florida CFL, but rarely carry.

As for the type of gun control that could do good, what type do you propose?

are really stopping the flow of drugs into the country . . . .

We already have nationwide "drug control". Hows that working out I wonder...

I can just see it now...


"Jessica! we need to talk!" (Image of Mom holding daughters Insights magazine - "gun paraphenalia")

"Truth...the Anti-gun."

"Brought to you by the ONGCP and the Partnership for a Gun Free America."


I think its safe to say that there ARE those who would welcome it.

With such intolerant people in it.

Good thing there's none around the RKBA side...oh, wait...

"when did we become a nation of 'n****rs'?, or is everybody just fucked in the head?
1... every store/resturant you go into is playing 'ogga booga iggabigga i's a muddafugging niga ' type music at disgustingly loud volume...
2... the words on store names and 'advertizin' are gwine done be spelled n****r style , ie: dawgz , ho'z , yowza mofo, etc...
3... the n****s is gwine done beze in de adz fa outta dere numbaz in relation to the population as a whole ...WTF???!!!
4... people just act and carry on like gutterfilth, every other word is 'muthafucca' or beyatch , or (fill in the blank)...
5... all the clothes in the stores look like they belong on bubbles, or Mr chuckles , or clyde ...
6... give me your own examples... "

schumacker Posted: May 16 2004, 04:25 AM
N****r shoes really piss me off!
The last time I needed a new pair of tennis shoes I tried going to the mall. BIG MISTAKE. All I saw was racks and racks of fucking clown shoes!

Virtual Posted: May 16 2004, 06:24 AM
We should do one of those demonstrations along the line of the "affirmitive action bake sale."
Lets see... find a coupla white guys and have them play the bongo drum while wearing only a straw "skirt." I'm sure that'll get the ACLU on your ass quick enough. What? We're not sensitive to their culture?

BigC Posted: May 16 2004, 10:29 AM
I only shop in White stores. Sheplers,Kroger,Whataburger, Sears. I don't care how the Coons dress, But if I see one more 350 pound 5 foot tall Black female ape in a neon green spandex tube dress I'll puke. "

http://www.glocksunlocked.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8977

I'm sure you're going to rush right over there and tell them how wrong they are, sandman <snicker>. After all, as Pat Durkin says, tolerance for race, religion or sexual preference is "predictable" these days, especially among liberals.

BTW, I own no tactical tupperware.

But thanks for posting that racist drivel. Some people need to get out more.

you're soaking in it...

Wonder if anyone is really surprised at how accepting you are of real intolerance when faced with it....

gun control crowd? I don't think that not trolling an ignorant forum is acceptance. Doesn't the 1st amendment mean the speech of others is to be tolerated. Why don't you scurry on over and log on with that LeftofStalin moniker you throw around here and enlighten them?

as the membership of the Second Amendment Caucus graphically demonstrates.

"I don't think that not trolling an ignorant forum"
Gee, it's a gun owners' forum...guess that's synonymous with ignorance, hate and dishonesty nowadays.

To state that MA does not require registration.

on edit...There are bigots in most groups, sadly. Don't you see all the bigotry spouted toward gun owners on this very forum.

Try one of the gun owner's forums...where they rant about n*****s and f*****s and daydream about shooting this or that public figure they hate. Maybe they'd weep big hot wet salty tears with you about poor misunderstood gun owners...

Just like all anti-gunners aren't elitist and juvenile. Works both ways...some people just can't see gray, I guess.

enough to say "boo," are they?

"all anti-gunners aren't elitist"
Funny, that's what I used to hear from people who tried to prop up segregation....that those of us who believe in racial equality are "elitists."

Even funnier, it's still some of the very same pieces of shit. Scratch pro-gun Trent Lott...I bet he'd still spout that rubbish.

or fit $100,000 worth into a plastic bag you can swallow, I'll be prepared to say that the gun problem is pretty well licked in this country.

In the meantime, guns and drugs make a piss-poor analogy.

When it can be shown that all (hell, I would settle for half) the currently illegal drugs brought into the USA are done so USING a briefcase or swallowable plastic bag,


I'll be prepared to say that you have a valid point.

"In the meantime, guns and drugs make a piss-poor analogy."

Guns and drugs in general maybe.

Guns and MJ?

Good analogy I think, in the context of "nationwide control".

All those border checks, crossings, etc, have not stopped the tons of MJ arriving at its destination from doing so. Neither would it stop guns.


People also can and do produce it themselves, just like guns.

A case about a homemade machinegun and the ninth circut comes to mind.

"When you can fit a million dollars worth of guns into a briefcase,
or fit $100,000 worth into a plastic bag you can swallow, I'll be prepared to say that the gun problem is pretty well licked in this country."

Am I to understand from that statement that you will consider the "gun problem" licked when the straps are so tight that ANY gun is worth 25 times its original retail price? Do you mean TOTAL prohibition?

or make them by combining easily-obtained pharmaceuticals in a garbage can, I'll be prepared to say that the gun/drug analogy might make an atom of sense.

Homemade guns are a complete non-problem. If you wish to assert the contrary, please provide homicide statistics committed with homemade guns. I'm not talking about assembled kits, there's no real difference between those and manufactured guns. I'm talking about guns made from scratch. They practically don't exist.

Just a few days ago an article was posted about "underground gunsmiths" who specialize in converting BB guns to firearms.

per capita. If we could knock off 80% of the gun crimes in this country, I wouldn't fuss much about a few modified BB guns.

"When you can plant and grow guns in your back yard...or make them by combining easily-obtained pharmaceuticals in a garbage can, I'll be prepared to say that the gun/drug analogy might make an atom of sense."

A little MJ info...

A sativa takes anywhere from 75 to over 100 days to grow, mature, and harvest.(thats cannabis sativa, common MJ)

An indica takes about half that.( thats cannabis indica, less common MJ)

I double damn guarantee you, that *IF* I had the inclination(which I do NOT), I could make FROM SCRATCH 1 or 2 guns from raw materials bought legally and locally, for every week a grower spent cultivating plants ( I have no knowledge about "combining easily-obtained pharmaceuticals in a garbage can" in the technical sense). Thats anywhere from 10 to 23 or so guns completed in the time it takes to cultivate 1 sativa plant. From just 1 person doing the making. And without the smell that often gives away those involved in domestic drug cultivation/MFG. I could make them, and NOONE would be the wiser. They might not be super quality firearms, but would be capable of repeated firing. Granted, I have skills in machining and MFG (non-firearm related), but anyone semi-mechanically-inclined could do it. There are plans on the internet. All one has to do is look to find them. Besides that, ever heard of a ZIP GUN? What happens if/when thousands, no, TENS OF THOUSANDS of people start making them because it suddenly becomes extremely profitable to do so? How many does that add up to?

"Homemade guns are a complete non-problem. If you wish to assert the contrary, please provide homicide statistics committed with homemade guns. I'm not talking about assembled kits, there's no real difference between those and manufactured guns. I'm talking about guns made from scratch. They practically don't exist."

I never said homemade guns were presently a problem, but in a prohibition scenario in the USA, they would be common enough to be a problem. Just as illegal MJ is now, and illegal alcohal was during prohibition.

You never did answer my question. Am I to understand from that statement that you will consider the "gun problem" licked when the straps are pulled so tight that ANY gun is worth 25 times its original retail price? Do you mean TOTAL prohibition?

(from the context of some things you have said, I believe the answer is yes, but I would rather you clarify it.)

You can't prove it or support it, but you're entitled to it anyway. Enjoy.

There are enough spare parts in the U.S. to build damn near whatever you want. There's no way that confiscation and prohibition would come anywhere close to taking guns out of the black market.

Think about how much the art of distilling grew during Prohibition. The art of gunsmithing would see a similar Renaissance.

"There are enough spare parts in the U.S. to build damn near whatever you want. There's no way that confiscation and prohibition would come anywhere close to taking guns out of the black market."

Well, whose fault is that? Those of us who have been pushing for gun controls for thirty years and more, or those of you who've been stonewalling?

"Think about how much the art of distilling grew during Prohibition. The art of gunsmithing would see a similar Renaissance."

Any idiot can make alcohol, if only by letting apple cider get too old. Any idiot can grow marijuana in a halfway decent climate. This is not true of gunsmithing.

The art of distilling didn't "grow" at all during prohibition...and some of the people who tried drinking what they cooked up went blind or poisoned themselves. The rest ended up with near-undrinkable busthead.

You've made one bad choice after another because you refuse to listen to anyonw who knows jack about firearms.

Guess we'll have to muddle along without the sort of "enthusiast" who chokes his chickenhawk over gun porn....or posts pictures of John Wayne Gacy....

I spelled out exactly how to ban firearms in the United States or get whatever level of gun control you decide you want. Did any of the gun grabbers care? Nope. Ten seconds later they're back crying about how the assault weapons ban needs to be renewed.

"I spelled out exactly how to ban firearms in the United States or get whatever level of gun control you decide you want."
Wow...and nobody paid any attention to you? That's hilarious a shame.

It is hilarious though, for me at least. I guess it's a shame for them.

What is this can't-miss gun control plan of yours? Wouldn't have anything to do with Orbital Mind Control Lasers, would it?

expanding the National Firearms Act to include more weapons. Then freezing civilian manufacture of those weapons, which is where machine guns are right now. Then stopping all civilian transfers of those weapons. At that point you don't even need to confiscate the guns, once the owner dies the government gets them. Of course, since the NFA involves registration, you could collect them whenever you wanted. You could end civilian gun ownership in a generation or less.


Here's a link where I go over it in more detail.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x57048#57076

And you - uh - uh - "supporters of the Second Amendment," you wouldn't have a problem with that plan? Wouldn't spend millions of dollars and extort hundreds of politicians to put a stop to it?

Are you sure you've cleared this with your buddies? Even the ones here on this string?

But I'm not particularly worried about it being implemented. Just read the rest of that thread. The only thing the gun grabbers care about is their stupid assault weapons ban. My plan would require them to have the slightest clue about guns and the current federal gun laws which is obviously too high a price to pay to ban guns.

and why gun control supporters are dummies for not following it. Because your side controls the party which controls the White House, both houses of Congress, and the judiciary. Hence the hilarity with which we greet your announcement that we could have any gun control we wanted if we'd just do it your way. It's like taking detour directions from somebody who is deliberately trying to keep you from getting where you need to go.

That's priceless. I mean really aside from blatantly calling me a Republican, which is obviously false, you make claim of the Republicans being pro-gun without any evidence to back it up. I've asked many a Republican why the pro-gun Republicans haven't repealed any gun laws now that they control the presidency and both houses of Congress. They don't like it when you remind them about all the gun control laws the Republicans have passed. They usually start whining about how it would be worse if the Democrats were in charge or how Bush really is pro-gun, he just has other priorities right now.

You don't have to take my word that my plan for banning guns will work. All you have to do is read the current federal gun laws and try to understand them and you will see that it will work. From 1934 until 1986 some serious gun control was passed at the federal level. Most of it involved the NFA or amendments to it in one way or another. After the '89 Import Ban, the gun grabbers apparently got brain damaged or something, because they completely gave up on the NFA and put all of their focus into the Assault Weapons Ban, where it's stayed for 15 years or so. Fifteen years work for a law that keeps flash suppressors and bayonet lugs off of new rifles. I'd pity them if they weren't a bunch of authoritarian jackasses.

You can believe what you like about my plan to ban guns, but it doesn't really matter. While it will work and could end civilian ownership of guns in 50 years or less, it won't happen. The gun grabber groups won't support my plan for the same reason the NRA won't push for a complete repeal of all federal gun laws. It would end them. If they ban all guns, there's no need to have a gun grabbing organization and no need for donations from members. The gun grabbers were more or less following my plan for 60 years before they gave up on it. If they had worked a little harder they could have banned all guns in that time.

The rank and file gun grabbers won't support my plan for a few reasons. As you said, you seem to think I'm trying to mislead you and I'm sure others would agree. Also, a lot of gun grabbers want results right now. They aren't content to spend 5 years passing laws let alone 50. They want one big law that will do it all at once and that is doomed to failure. Finally, the biggest reason most gun grabbers won't support my plan is that they would have to read the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act and Firearms Owners' Protection Act. They'd have to learn the difference between a machine gun and a semi-auto, the difference between a magazine and a clip, and the difference between a pistol grip and a magazine. They'd actually have to learn a little bit about guns and gun laws and most of them aren't willing to do that. How can you pass a ban on something you can't even define? The gun grabbers will certainly try and they will certainly fail.

"We defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and we affirm the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms."

From SelectSmart:

"Gun Policy: If the NRA could pick a candidate, it would undoubtedly be George W. Bush. He has been a strong ally of the organization in Texas. - The Economist, Issues 2000 special Sep 30, 2000."

Also, check out Open Secrets on NRA political contributions:

http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp2.asp?state=VA&txtName=National+Rifle+Assn&txtCycle=2002

Here's the meat of it:

To Democrats: $0 (0%)
To Republicans: $655,968 (100%)
Total: $655,968

is to complain that the Republicans aren't trigger-happy enough to suit him.

I do enjoy pointing out to people, especially Republicans, that the Republican party has passed an awful lot of gun control and repealed none. The reaction is usually disappointing though. It's always either "Bush is pro-gun!" or "The Democrats would be worse!"

I think I like my new hobby better, though. Telling gun grabbers exactly how to go about banning guns and then watching as they completely ignore it or cry about the Assault Weapons Ban or the NRA or something completely unrelated.

There are lots of people who believe everything the Republican party says despite the lack of action to back up their claims. They're called Republican voters. What's this about the NRA anyway? I thought we were discussing my plan for banning guns in the United States or did you lose interest in that?

What possible relevance could the NRA have to any discussion of gun control? It's not like they're spending millions of dollars trying to prevent it, or anything.

What possible relevance could the Republican National Platform have to the question of whether Republicans as such and Republicans in general are pro-gun or anti-gun?

What possible relevance could facts and reality have to this thread? Beats the hell out of me.

and the only mention of the Republicans was when you half-assedly accused me of being one. We were discussing my plan for banning guns in the United States. Apparently you're not interested in that plan since you started talking about Republicans and the NRA both of which are completely irrelevant to my plan.

If you'd like to discuss any specifics in my plan or have any questions about it, I'd be more than happy to answer. If you want to whine about Republicans and the NRA, well, that's fine too, I guess. I'm pretty used to gun control supporters not wanting to discuss the issues, so it won't hurt my feelings or anything. Don't expect very interesting or in-depth responses from me, though. It seems most every gun thread is at least 50% NRA whining and Republican smearing with the usual attempts at guilt by association. It gets old and boring and my heart just isn't in it.

Okay. I won't.

The author of the following lines (just on this string!):

"Hey it's not my fault the gun grabbers are incompetent."

"After the '89 Import Ban, the gun grabbers apparently got brain damaged or something, . . ."

"I'd pity them if they weren't a bunch of authoritarian jackasses."

:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

What is it I'm not taking? Half-assed attempts at labeling me a Republican? Even more half-assed attempts to drag the NRA into the discussion?

The quotes you've posted above are quite accurate I think. The one from the previous post was lame at best.

"Don't expect very interesting or in-depth responses from me, though."

Blatantly taken out of context and completely ignoring my offer to have a reasonable discussion on my plan for banning guns.

"Hey it's not my fault the gun grabbers are incompetent."

The gun grabbers are incompetent. They've wasted 15 years and who knows how much money on the Assault Weapons Ban. It's pathetic.

"After the '89 Import Ban, the gun grabbers apparently got brain damaged or something, . . ."

Up until the '89 Import Ban, the gun grabbers were more or less using my strategy to get more gun control although they were doing it slower than they probably needed to. After the '89 Import Ban they got hooked on the Assault Weapons Ban thing, which is sad and pathetic.

"I'd pity them if they weren't a bunch of authoritarian jackasses."

I would pity them if they weren't a bunch of authoritarian jackasses, their incompetence when it comes to guns and gun laws is truly sad and pathetic. But they are authoritarian jackasses, they want to strip people of their rights and I have no pity for them.

As the previous post illustrates, you're just the nicest people!

O8) O8) O8)
:loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya:

Relevance? Reread the thread title and opening post.

Other than my dislike for gun grabbers and authoritarians in general, of course.

Really though, it's not my fault the gun control movement is full of idiots. I even laid out exactly how they could get all the gun control they want. How nice is that? It's not my fault they aren't interested. I was just trying to be helpful.

On edit: So I guess you still aren't interested in discussing my plan for banning guns in the United States.

Not interested in discussing Bush's plan for establishing an independent democracy in Iraq, either. And for much the same reason.

you don't have to take my word that it will work you just have to read the relevant laws and make an effort to understand them. By all means, if you want more gun control support the useless gun control groups while they waste piles of money trying to renew the assault weapons ban. The pro-gun side would prefer it and we thank you.

You really crack me up!

"By all means, if you want more gun control support the useless gun control groups while they waste piles of money trying to renew the assault weapons ban. The pro-gun side would prefer it and we thank you."

Priceless. :toast:

I haven't even mentioned in this thread that while the useless gun control groups have been wasting all that money on the AWB, a bunch of pro-gun groups that aren't the NRA have helped get shall issue concealed carry laws passed in most of the country not to mention the removal of the permit requirement in Alaska.

I find myself doing the same thing, looking at an issue from the other side and trying to figure out what they want and why.

I think your analysis is spot-on. Anti-gun activists want to ban guns. That's fine, they can have their goals. But where they stumble is their inability to understand exactly what it is they are talking about.

And that (now famous) Dianne Feinstein photo is absolutely relevant:



Here we have the most vocal anti-gun politician in America, who doesn't even know the safe way to handle a rifle.

That's not leadership. A leader learns everything they can about an issue before they tackle it. People like Feinstein say things like, "If it were up to me, I'd say, 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.'" without understanding the ramifications (political or otherwise) of such ignorance.

the constant use of terms like "half-assed," "incompetent," "sad and pathetic," "brain damaged," and "authoritarian jackasses" to describe the people who don't agree with you. That's leadership, that is.

And hey, right, no fair having an opinion about guns if you don't know how to shoot one! And no fair having an opinion about health care if you can't perform a heart transplant! And no fair having an opinion about criminal justice if you've never been convicted of a crime! And no fair having an opinion about outsourcing if you've never been a CEO! And no fair having an opinion about education if you're an RKBAer!

I don't call the gun control groups half-assed, incompetent, sad, pathetic, brain damaged, or authoritarian jackasses because they disagree with me. I call them half-assed, incompetent, sad, pathetic, brain damaged, authoritarian jackasses because that's what they prove themselves to be time and time again.

National Firearms Act BAM $200 tax on $10 shotguns and $3 silencers. That's gun control. Gun Control Act 1968 BAM no guns mail order. That's gun control. Firearms Owners' Protection Act 1986 BAM no new civilian machine guns ever. That's gun control. Assault Weapons Ban 1994: no bayonet lugs or flash suppressors on new AR-15s. It's shameful to even call it gun control compared to the rest of the laws. If the gun control groups don't want to be seen as brain dead and incompetent passing sad half-assed laws, maybe they should take my advice when it comes to getting more gun control passed. Then I'll only be able to call then authoritarian jackasses.

Glad you cleared that up for us. Because otherwise someone might think that you couldn't tell the difference between argumentation and name-calling.

I said it wasn't because I disagreed with them.

You could hardly make the claim that this is a legitimate discussion anyway. You asked me to describe my gun control plan and stuck in some crap about orbital mind control lasers. Then after I laid out my plan you started whining about the NRA and my side (Republicans) being in charge of the government. Then after a few more posts about the NRA you apparently took offense at my calling gun control groups incompetent among other things and that's what we've been going over ever since. It's quite simple. If the gun control groups don't want to be seen as incompetent, then they should get some meaningful gun control passed or at the very least stop whining about their useless AWB and start arguing for one with some teeth.

Frankly, I wonder if you even read my gun control proposal.

...the latest proposal regulates magazine location in addition to flash suppressors and bayonet lugs.

That's forward progress! The slings are next, I tell you. Anything to make assault rifles less portable and lethal.

Your poor girlfriend . . .

She'll be delayed.

But I've still got that pizza to knock out.

Again, same reason. Because they're Potemkin Villages. Bush doesn't want democracy in Iraq and you don't want meaningful gun contol. And before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, let me remind you that you've said exactly that several times on this very thread.

But let's get the verbal abuse thing straight. You didn't call gun control advocates names because they don't agree with you. You called them names because they didn't do what you say you would have done in their position. Because they don't agree with you. Yes, I see it now, that is a huge freakin' difference.

Taking your advice about getting gun control legislation passed would be like Kerry taking Nader's advice about getting elected, or like Tom Ridge taking Osama Bin Laden's advice about preventing future terrorist attacks. Somehow, it seems difficult to trust the motivation . . .

I've said it many times now. You don't have to take my word for it. All you have to do is read the federal gun laws and understand them. Reading my proposal might be a good start though. :eyes:

"But let's get the verbal abuse thing straight. You didn't call gun control advocates names because they don't agree with you. You called them names because they didn't do what you say you would have done in their position. Because they don't agree with you. Yes, I see it now, that is a huge freakin' difference."

Right. Thanks for your opinion. I'm going to take someone seriously who spends 20 posts arguing about something he hasn't even read without actually addressing what he's arguing about since he never read it in the first place.



This how to ban guns thing is way better than hassling Republicans about all the Republican gun grabbing ever was. I hope it doesn't get old too quickly.

I think you've stumbled upon why those of us who actually support gun control aren't paying much attention to your plan...

You just have to read the current federal gun laws.

Uh-HUH...

Feel free to link where I said that I knew nothing about him. Of course what I actually said was I didn't know much about him, what with him not being my senator and all. You should stick with your Jackney Sneeb material, it's more entertaining.

Of course you're only proving my point on the whole ignorance of the current federal gun laws issue. Maybe you should go read them.

"Of course what I actually said was I didn't know much about him"
He was Senate majority leader and is perhaps America's most famous symbol of racism....nice going.

of course when I looked into it, it turned out that while pro-gun Trent Lott is an authoritarian dickhead, if I remember how I refereed to him correctly, he didn't seem very interested in repealing any federal firearms laws despite being so pro-gun.

Much like his "OpSomBlood" file contains "Stentorian" and "Pete Coors" and "Jesse Jackson."

He thinks he has some kind of J. Edgar Hoover "gotcha" info on all of us. Let him live out his exciting little fantasy.

And now you're crying because nobody wants to take advice about politics from somebody who doesn;t seem to know dick about politics....Go figure.

My plan is a strategy for banning guns in the United States. The politics are up to the people trying to pass the laws. What do you need to know about politics to see how gun control passed and progressed throughout the 20th century?

in plain view again...

How's getting the AWB renewed coming?

And the next president, John Kerry, is going to push for it...while gun nuts and the gun lobby lie their stinking asses off, as usual.

Maybe they can add muzzle breaks to the list of offending features.

"These ballistic nylon slings make the highly lethal semi-automatic bullet hoses even more portable and lethal."

To fit in better with the old ban.

damn few will care what you have to say about it.

but if they really wanted an assault weapons ban that would do something, they'd take my advice.

n/t

I'm perfectly happy with the gun grabbers wasting all of their time and money on a useless attempt to ban whatever it is they think they're banning.

and suggesting that more firemarshals ought to be arsonists.

Great post.

Google says otherwise.

Theres more than a few links to making ZIP GUNS.

Heres the link to the "homemade gun" search.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=%22homemade+gun%22&btnG=Search

And heres one to a homemade MACHINEGUN



http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/introduction.html


And heres a short warning from the NY post...

"'BOLT'-ACTION PISTOL PUTS NYPD UNDER GUN
PHILIP MESSING. New York Post. New York, N.Y.: Mar 20, 2004. pg. 008"

Section: News
Text Word Count 188

Abstract (Article Summary)
The device looks harmless enough - it's a 4-inch bolt, with a nut screwed onto its thread.

"Uniformed members are reminded to exercise extreme caution when conducting searches of a subject's person or property," Kelly notes in the memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Post."

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/588957401.html?did=588957401&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Mar+20%2C+2004&author=PHILIP+MESSING&desc=%27BOLT%27-ACTION+PISTOL+PUTS+NYPD+UNDER+GUN

And this...

"Current Warning:

SCREWDRIVER FIREARM"


"We all know that anything can be used as a weapon - especially a screwdriver. It can obviously be used to stab someone or can even be used as a blunt object to knock somebody in the head. But how many of you have been shot at by a subject wielding a screwdriver?"


"In November, officers from King County Sheriff's Department in Seattle responded to a domestic violence call where the subject was believed to be emotionally disturbed and had a history of carrying concealed weapons."


"A voluntary search of the suspect yielded several items including a homemade firearm made from a screwdriver. The 'screwdriver' contains a small caliber shotgun round (.38 cal) that is fired by striking the shaft against a wall or object. A round fires out the end of the handle. If this guy can create such a weapon, anyone can. Stay alert - the more creative criminals become, the more creative you have to be in order to stay one step ahead of them!"

http://www.calibrepress.com/newsline/warningdetail.html?serial=63



Heres a link to a google search for "homemade firearm"...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=%22homemade+firearm%22&btnG=Search


Now, if you bothered to read any of those links AT ALL, you would see theres no fantasy about homemade firearms. Anyone with even the smallest amount of skill, and the inclination, could make one. Someone with trade level skill or better AND the inclination to do so, could make firearms with little to any trouble. And I am not talking about a zip gun either, I'm talking about repeating arms. You need to do a bit of research about the subject before dismissing it as "fantasy".

And...

You never did answer my question. Am I to understand from that statement that you will consider the "gun problem" licked when the straps are pulled so tight that ANY gun is worth 25 times its original retail price? Do you mean TOTAL prohibition?

Edited to add a pic of homemade machinegun (gun porn details ya know)

Now, as for those statistics on homicides perpetrated with homemade guns . . . ?

First you asserted that homemade guns couldn't be easily made.

Calling it fantasy...

This for example...

"Any idiot can make alcohol, if only by letting apple cider get too old. Any idiot can grow marijuana in a halfway decent climate. This is not true of gunsmithing."


The proof that guns CAN be made by almost anyone is here, all you have to do is read and understand it.

"Now, as for those statistics on homicides perpetrated with homemade guns"

What part of *noone ever said (in this thread) that home made guns were used heavily in crime currently in the US* don't you understand?

The point was to show you that crude to not so crude firearms CAN be homemade. I think I have proven that point.



Like I said last post, and you did not address...


I never said homemade guns were presently a problem, but in a prohibition scenario in the USA, they would be common enough to be a problem. Just as illegal MJ is now, and illegal alcohal was during prohibition. People want them, for whatever thier individual reasons. If you ban it, it being <insert item here>, and people strongly desire to possess it, SOMEONE (or in the case of alcohal, drugs, guns, MANY SOMEONES) will make it. History proves this to be true, time and time again. Are you going to assert that under a "prohibition of firearms" nobody would make them themselves?

You never did answer my question. Am I to understand from that statement that you will consider the "gun problem" licked when the straps are pulled so tight that ANY gun is worth 25 times its original retail price? (for a non prohibition example of price skyrocketing, see legal machinegun prices and what happened to them, after the quantity in the US became frozen for civilians)

Do you mean TOTAL prohibition?

(from the context of some things you have said, I believe the answer is yes, but I would rather you clarify it.)

This time, will you answer the question? Alternately, can I just take a lack of response as an afirmation supporting total prohibition??

Heh, crack-brained.

Do you DENY that guns can easily be homemade? Even after all the evidence that they indeed can?

On edit...This subject deserves its own thread. One will be forthcoming.

It's instructive to see the RKBA crowd wobble from silliness to silliness....as the wind blows.

According to one, assault weapons pose no threat because it is almost impossible to convert them to automatic weapons; while another claims it is easy to whip up entire guns from scratch in the privacy of your own home.

2) Make it out of nothing but common hardware and raw materials. Nothing that was designed to be any part of a gun.

3) Make sure it shoots accurately and reliably.

4) Then get back to us.

Don't give me Google. I could find evidence that Bat Baby exists or that aliens have landed on Google.

Let me say it clearly so that you and everyone else can understand it:

Nobody here takes orders.

some reports in post #39? Yup, OpSomBlood, that's you, post #39. And I went and got you a report. Haven't heard back from you on that yet, by the way. So, bullsh*t about nobody giving or taking orders.

Asking for a citation that supports your claims is a little different from telling people to go build a gun for the sake of proving one could build one (which isn't at all in doubt).

And it damn well is in doubt. You asked me to support my claim, and I'm asking him to support his claim. If it's so easy, what's the problem?

never has anything useful to back what he says up...

"Guns found in Mtn. Institution"

"By Darren McDonald"

"Homemade guns forced a lock down and thorough search of Agassiz's Mountain Institution this week."

"The weapons and several bullets were discovered by staff in one of the medium security prison's buildings Wednesday. Prisoners were immediately held in their cells and all visitation has since been put on hold."

"Investigators were still combing the institution as of Thursday's press deadline. According to prison spokesman Greg Fortnum, knives are more commonly found, but guns are certainly a concern."

"All a prisoner needs to make their own gun is metal tubing and a spring to strike the end of a bullet. Fortnum said homemade gun tubes are sometimes as short as three centimetres or as long as a regular gun's barrel. Springs come in all shapes and sizes, with mousetraps acting as a common trigger device."

http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/issues04/043204/news/043204nn2.html

Yep...PRISONERS can make them IN PRISONS, but those of us on the outside...well, we just aren't capable. :eyes:


"1) Go make a gun yourself, then"

Aparently, you missed this part...

"*IF* I had the inclination(which I do NOT)," (posted by me)
Not to mention, it would probably be against current law.

Its not enoough for you, that so many people have already done it, even in prisons where raw materials, time, and actions are closely watched, and HIGHLY regulated?

"2) Make it out of nothing but common hardware and raw materials. Nothing that was designed to be any part of a gun."


See the prison article above. And, heres the parts list for that homemade machinegun, max. All of which CAN be purchased without background check or I.D. no more than 10 minutes from where I reside, and in most towns.

TUBE SIZES

The tube sizes shown below are those required to construct the major component parts for the expedient machine pistol, i.e. receivers, barrel, magazine and breech block etc.

Construction materials - Tube, Collars, Nuts and Bolts
Material availability - Good
Tools required - Hand only
(read again)
*Tools required - Hand only*

1. 30x30x2mm UPPER RECEIVER
2. 30x30x1.6mm LOWER RECEIVER
3. 25.40x12.70x1.6mm + 12.70x0.91mm MAGAZINE
4. 14.29x3.25mm BARREL
5. 12.70x2.03mm BREECH BLOCK
6. 15.88x34.93x1.6mm MAGAZINE WELL
7. 40x20x1.6mm GRIP
8. 50.80x1.6mm TRIGGER GUARD





The ERW (Electric Resistance Welded) tubing is very useful for the construction of receivers and magazine, or as sleeving to reinforce or increase the diameter of another tube. It should not be used as gun barrelling - unless nothing else is available - due to its welded-seam construction. The SMT (Seemless Mechanical Tube) is ideal for improvised gun barrels. Because of the many different tube sizes available, it is possible to construct a barrel to suit almost any calibre of firearm. Where possible, heavy-gauge tube should be used for barrel or a lighter gauge suitably reinforced with a second tube or steel collars. While many tubes will be of perfectly adequate strength on their own, it is only common sense to make the tube as strong as possible, providing the design of the gun will allow it.

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/introduction.html

3) Make sure it shoots accurately and reliably.

Right. Like gun grabbers care about that. If it could shoot semi-accurately, or semi reliably, that would be enough for them. How about, would it be potentially lethal? Would it be potentially dangerous if left where a child could access it? Those seem common criteria in gun control "discussion". Maybe you would just volunteer to stand "there" while someone aimed a homemade firearm at you, and question its accuracy or reliability? I have my doubts.

"Beevul said making homemade guns is easy."
"And it damn well is in doubt. You asked me to support my claim, and I'm asking him to support his claim. If it's so easy, what's the problem?"

It is only in doubt to you, Max. Those of us who have who have graduated past "wow, a technical thing, it must be difficult to make" and have actually been involved in the making OF technical things know that theres nothing "voodoo witch-doctorish" about making a technical thing. Those of us who are used to dealing with "ten thousandths of an inch" or "half a ten thousandth" (50 millionths) of an inch , or microns - on a daily basis, realize fully that making a crude but functional firearm while semi-time consuming, it no great feat, even for those with only the most rudimentary skills or knowledge, assuming they have the intent. See, as I have proven, the materials are out there, easily purchased, and cheap. The knowledge is out there, for anyone with even a dial-up. That just leaves intent.
Now tell me that if guns were banned tomorrow, there would be no intent.

You are right, I did say ...well, I said easily. I should have said relatively easily, since thats what I meant. My bad.

See, a firearm, while complex IF you are looking at a commercially MFG firearm, is a very basic concept. You have a projectile, pushed by expanding gasses out of a tube. That tube can be smooth or rifled.
Those expanding gasses are from burning propellant power, which is ignited by a primer, which is struck by a firing pin. It IS a simple concept.

So, basically, you need a firing pin/FP mechanism, a chamber to secure the cartridge containing the primer ,powder, and projectile, and a barrel for the burning gasses and projectile to exit.

Those are the most basic elements of a firearm, and all you need to constitute lethality, assuming functionality.

If the firing pin will strike the primer enough to ignite it, and IF the barrel is strong enough (both considerations that would be made PRIOR to assembly and during parts purchasing) you would have a functioning LETHAL firearm. The rest, like a safety, adjustable sights, nice wooden stock, blueing, sling, etc, are in the context of homemade firearms, all fluffy extras that go beyond the initial lethality.

If you are still a non-believer at this point, max, I'm really not sure your capable of being otherwise.

Denial would be the operative word, if I were to characterize it, but I am not going to do that.

And an actual anecdote. And you only had to go as far as Canada to get it. Wow, that sure is "proof" that homemade guns would be ubiquitous in the US if civilian ownership were banned. My apologies. How ever could I have doubted you?

The argument I am making, is that IF guns were banned tomorrow, there exists the CAPABILITY for guns to be home made, making it a possibility that they would be.

I have shown several examples. I do not see you or anyone else discrediting/disproving those examples. I believe its relatively safe to say, that if they can be made in a prison environment, they most definitely can be made in a free environment, with full access to materials and tools, and time limited only by the choosing of the person spending it.

If you accept that they CAN be made, you have to admit that it is a possibility that they would be under a prohibition scenario.

Whether or not they WOULD be made, is an entirely different discussion. On that note, we DO have historical evidence that individuals who want that which is prohibited - badly enough and for whatever reason - will either purchase it unlawfully, or make it themselves. History shows this to be fact. Whether or not people would want guns badly enough to do so, cuts right to the heart of the matter, and would most certainly be better discussed as a topic of its own.

If you still don't believe guns can be homemade, and don't trust what I am saying, do yourself a favor, and research it yourself. See what you can find out doing your own search. Don't take my word for it.

Right now, the US is overrun with high-capacity, autofire-capable, silencer-capable, high-speed, high-accuracy, high-penetration, armor-piercing, cop-killer guns and ammunition. If all of those were replaced tomorrow by amateur-hour, single-shot, five-yards-if-you're-lucky, as-likely-to-blow-up-in-your-face-as-not zip guns, I for one would be a happy guy.

Moonshine and PCP are bad because they are more dangerous than the corresponding legal substances are or would be. Zip guns are less dangerous, at least to the person they're being shot at (and, therefore, to society at large).

Auto-fire capable? Do you mean semi-auto or machine gun. Do you even know the difference?

Silencer-capable? As if that means anything. How many criminals use silencers?

High-speed? Isn't that covered by auto-fire capable, whatever that means?

High-accuracy? So?

High-penetration? So?

Armor-piercing? So? Most any rifle will pierce most any body armor without any special ammunition required.

"If all of those were replaced tomorrow by amateur-hour, single-shot, five-yards-if-you're-lucky, as-likely-to-blow-up-in-your-face-as-not zip guns, I for one would be a happy guy."

There you go again not reading anything anyone links for you.


"Moonshine and PCP are bad because they are more dangerous than the corresponding legal substances are or would be. Zip guns are less dangerous, at least to the person they're being shot at (and, therefore, to society at large)."

You're simply wrong about the guns being less dangerous and if you'd actually read what people are linking and saying instead of covering your eyes and pretending not to see, you'd understand that.

Alcohol and drug prohibition aren't bad because the corresponding legal substances would be safer, although that's part of it. They're bad because gangs sell them in an unregulated market and are more than happy to kill each other along with innocent bystanders to make a profit.

Beevul, if you can do better, I'll be happy to hear from you.

Or do want to pretend like you did for 20 more?

... in the bathtub.

When you can plant and grow guns in your back yard,
or make them by combining easily-obtained pharmaceuticals in a garbage can, I'll be prepared to say that the gun/drug analogy might make an atom of sense.

Or, as I've repeatedly noted, to no response, when we have evidence that there is a pathology involved in the urge to acquire firearms, and that once hooked, people *need* to have them and must replenish their supply on a daily basis.

An analogy constructed in total disregard of the principal features of one half of it isn't really much of an analogy. I don't even see an apple and an orange in this particular one; at least they're both fruit. I see no similarity whatsoever between firearms and drugs/alcohol, in fact.

In case you're wondering about the UK airgun story, the guns in question were a very particular type, one that in fact is easily converted to real-gun equivalence ... and that's precisely why they are now having to be registered in one area. The answers are so simple, aren't they?

.

it.

My bad. I knew about the thread already, of course, but coming down here and poking around I saw that and thought, :wtf: that don't sound like something beevul would post...

Oh, and now that I have posted this I want you to behave - and you know who you are... :evilfrown:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I asked google images for intelligent gun owner, just to see what entertainment value there might be, and I got one pic, of this guy:



at this page:

http://kataragama.org/sages/yogaswami_sam.htm

Trying for intelligent gun owners, I got one guy again:



here:

http://hotwired.wired.com/movies/96/25/index3a.html

The oracle at google speaks in mysterious ways, and I don't know what it's trying to tell us this time.

So I tried the oracle at http://www.jabberwacky.com

I am going for a pizza.
Are you an intelligent gun owner?
Uhm, perhaps.
How does one tell?
I really don't know.
Does the swami know?
I don't use undefined words.
Is the intelligence of gun owners a nation-wide problem?
There is a problem with that. Don't you prefer to be
understood?

Jabberwacky said it, not me.

.

If you want to taste intolerance, let it be known you not only own guns, you like them.

Well, you could also try letting it be known that you spit on the sidewalk, or advocate that abortion be outlawed. At least, you could try it in my vicinity.

I've never had any beef with "intolerance", myself. That's largely because I don't engage in the kind of equivocation that attempts to portray what is usually meant by "tolerance" as something else altogether, which is necessary if the statement quoted is to make any sense.

What is usually meant by "tolerance" is a benign attitude toward things that other people think and do that are none of one's business.

Being "tolerant" doesn't mean zipping one's lip when one sees someone beating a child or an animal, after all. And it doesn't mean being nice to people who spit on sidewalks, or advocate that abortion be outlawed. No matter what excuse or justification or rationalization they might offer for it.

Intolerance can be a very excellent thing. Intolerance of child abuse is good, intolerance of people who do things contrary to the public interest is good, intolerance of people who advocate that other people's rights be violated is good.

The fact that a particular action or attitude is "intolerant" says nothing at all about whether it is good or bad. Sorry.

anti-gun bigotry? Hell, I'm an anti-sidewalk spitting bigot, I guess. (Although I'm damned if I know how anyone can be "bigoted" against a thing or action.) Once again -- the fact that someone uses a word really doesn't mean that s/he has used it accurately or meaningfully or honestly.

They don’t see the irony that their otherwise “tolerant” views don’t extend beyond the predictable venues of race, religion or sexual preference."

"Irony"??

What would perhaps be ironic would be if I extended my "tolerance" to racists or religious bigots or homophobes, I'd think. Tolerance of intolerance; quite a notion, that.

Of course, me, I'm not intolerant of firearms owners.

I *am* intolerant of people who think that public policy should be based on their own personal interests to the detriment of the public's and other people's. Where I'm at, not a whole lot of firearms owners actually fall into that category. I gather that the same is reasonably true south of the border.

I've not infrequently said things to people whose children were not safely secured in cars, for instance. I campaigned for years to persuade my neighbour to keep her preschoolers off our busy road. I'm intolerant of the endangerment of children.

A child in a household where there are firearms is a child at greater risk than a child in a household where there are no firearms, on average. While I doubt that I would, myself, make a point of mentioning this to someone in an airport (although I would indeed be somewhat displeased to see firearms circulating around the airport, not least of all because things get stolen in that situation), I don't see the sense in calling someone who did "intolerant".

.

When people speak of the intolerance against gun owners, they are referring to the ignorant, prejudicial fear and hatred that are exhibited by many who quite honestly know little about what they talk of.

Case in point, why do you think Michael Moore was given7 so much attention by the NRA and other gun-rights groups? It is because he, unlike many posters on this forum who resort to name calling (won't say names), actually knew a few things about gun culture, and as a result was able to take a hurtful jab at us.

But contrast that with the majority of Americans who know little if anything about firearms or firearm laws. They believe what the media tells them about guns, and rarely find the information out for themselves. This is where the ignorance and prejudice come into play. They see gun violence on television, and suddenly cannot contemplate a non-violent use of a firearm. And this ignorance creates fear. Suddenly they read more and more from Gun Control Inc, about the perils of firearms, and how their children are going to die tomorrow unless there are no guns within 100km of their house.

And this fear breeds hatred. The "gun nuts" down the block holding their "Neighbors for Safer Gun Ownership" meetings become a sworn enemy. And soon they group up with others and they march on Washington. Their minds never open, and they never consider the other side of the argument.

We see prejudicial and ignorant intolerance toward gun owners every day. Even on this website, we see moderators delete posts of people who post intelligently against gun control. But those who post abusive, offensive things against gun ownership go on untouched.

By the way, you would be very surprised at how people who oppose gun ownership are handled on pro-gun websites. They aren't censored, and they certainly are not humiliated. They are treated like human beings.

And there in lies what tolerance is all about. It is not about being emotionless about a subject that has nothing to do with you. It is about treating people with differing opinions in the same manner as you would expect others to treat you.

"why do you think Michael Moore was given7 so much attention by the NRA and other gun-rights groups? It is because he, unlike many posters on this forum who resort to name calling (won't say names), actually knew a few things about gun culture, and as a result was able to take a hurtful jab at us."
Is THAT why the RKBA crowd keeps insisting he's either lying or doesn't know what he's talking about?

"contrast that with the majority of Americans who know little if anything about firearms or firearm laws."
The "had they but known..." gambit... Jeeze, one of our "enthusiasts" who wanted to argue the AWB was unnecessary not only didn't know the text of the proposed Senate and House bills, but didn't know how or where to find it.

"We see prejudicial and ignorant intolerance toward gun owners every day."
Hell, we see REAL prejudicial and ignorant intolerance from "gun rights" politicians. Most have built their politican career on it.

Is THAT why the RKBA crowd keeps insisting he's either lying or doesn't know what he's talking about?

Lying. He's quite good at it.

I finally watched "Bowling For Columbine" a few months ago -- after it came to non-PPV cable, so I wouldn't be putting any money in his pocket. Sheesh. I didn't think that much bullshit could be edited together in one film!

For the record, Moore didn't lie, and the NRA does.

Thanks for jumping in, though, and proving MY point.

But contrast that with the majority of Americans who know little if anything about firearms or firearm laws. They believe what the media tells them about guns, and rarely find the information out for themselves. This is where the ignorance and prejudice come into play. They see gun violence on television, and suddenly cannot contemplate a non-violent use of a firearm. And this ignorance creates fear. Suddenly they read more and more from Gun Control Inc, about the perils of firearms, and how their children are going to die tomorrow unless there are no guns within 100km of their house.

And this fear breeds hatred. The "gun nuts" down the block holding their "Neighbors for Safer Gun Ownership" meetings become a sworn enemy. And soon they group up with others and they march on Washington. Their minds never open, and they never consider the other side of the argument.

You should try getting to know some advocates of effective firearms control. Then maybe you wouldn't have these strange notions, which appear to arise out of hatred, bred of fear, created by ignorance.

I can't think of any other explanation for anyone saying such bizarre and incredibly foolish and rude things, myself.


We see prejudicial and ignorant intolerance toward gun owners every day. Even on this website, we see moderators delete posts of people who post intelligently against gun control.

Ah, what an interestingly careful construction.

They may delete "posts of people who post intelligently against gun control" ... but are the posts they delete intelligent posts against gun control?


By the way, you would be very surprised at how people who oppose gun ownership are handled on pro-gun websites. They aren't censored, and they certainly are not humiliated. They are treated like human beings.

Fascinating! And I think you're right -- I would be very surprised at that.

Now, I don't oppose gun ownership, but I do know how I've been "handled" on "pro-gun" websites. I quoted some of it right here just the other day:

There are three; ..., Iverglas, who's an Anti-American bitch contstantly on the rag, and ..., ...

Iverglas is permentantly on the rag; she's an anti-American frustrated f'ing c*nt, and I don't use that epithat lightly.

I think the only true liberals posting in the Gungeon are Benchley, COLiberal, and that bitch Iverglas.

I think iverglas is just a militant feminist with some phallic issues.

(I couldn't find the bit about how much I drink, which someone had on "good authority", when I did the quick job of collecting those.)

Maybe if I actually opposed gun ownership, I'd be treated nicer?


And there in lies what tolerance is all about. It is not about being emotionless about a subject that has nothing to do with you. It is about treating people with differing opinions in the same manner as you would expect others to treat you.

And here we go, inventing our own definitions again. It is, as I said, pure equivocation to say that this is what the word means in its usual social context.

I certainly have no intention of treating people with "differing opinions", when those opinions are contrary to values that I hold and to the interests of with my community, ... well, actually, I *do* intend to treat them "in the same manner as I would expect others to treat me" if I held such opinions.

Which is to say: I will treat a racist exactly the way I would expect others to treat me if I were a racist, I will treat a misogynist exactly the way I would expect others to treat me if I were a misogynist, and I will treat anyone who advocates public policies that advance his/her own interests at the expense of the public interest and the legitimately protected interests of other individuals exactly the way I would expect others to treat me if I advocated such things.

So there you are; I'm the very model of tolerance.

And I have never once said anything that would be interpreted by any sincere, honest person of good will as "opposing gun ownership" in the sense either of advocating that firearms ownership be outlawed or of advocating that no one own firearms.


When people speak of the intolerance against gun owners, they are referring to the ignorant, prejudicial fear and hatred that are exhibited by many who quite honestly know little about what they talk of.

So obviously it has nothing to do with our discussions here. But thanks for that good talking-to; I sure needed it.

.

Didn't we have an entire thread the other day that consisted of our "people who post intelligently against gun control <snicker>" reposting various insults and slurs against gun control advocates on gun nut forums? And weren't they insults and slurs against gun control advocates who had not even bothered to post on those forums?