Common Sense Gun items

mcsteven

Original poster
Member
Apr 18, 2012
6,584
First, I will tell you this: I am NOT anti-gun. I hope that encourages my friends on both sides of this argument to read my entire long post.

Imagine if you will:
Armed teachers. A student with a common semi-automatic handgun and ten 9 round clips, all conforming to current laws, enters a classroom where he is known. The teacher's back is turned. The student draws his weapon, aims carefully, and puts a bullet into the teacher's head. He then shoots 5 or 6 classmates with the remaining 8 bullets as he heads for the door before it takes him 4 or 5 seconds to drop the empty clip and reload. He walks into the hall. He shoots 3 more classmates and continues shooting classmates and faculty until he's on his last clip. He puts the gun to his temple, closes his eyes, and pulls the trigger. His rampage took him 12 minutes; the police arrive in 14 from the time someone pulled the fire alarm.

More guns is not the answer. On March 30, 1981, at least a dozen of the best trained armed guards in the world, known as the United States Secret Service, were in close proximity to President Ronald Reagan. There were others in the crowd as well as police officers and a few FBI agents. John Hinckley fired all 6 shots from a revolver in 1.7 seconds. This is not an automatic or semi-automatic, so read that again a little slower and a little louder:


Hinckley fired ALL 6 SHOTS from a revolver IN 1.7 SECONDS.
While the bullet is smaller, this looks like the gun you'd have seen Deputy Barney Fife carry in Mayberry. Hinckley was not a gun expert. He was neither trained or even practiced with the gun. The first bullet hit White House Press Secretary James Brady in the head. The second bullet hit District of Columbia police officer Thomas Delahanty in the back of his neck as he turned to protect Reagan. The third bullet hit the window of a building across the street. The fourth bullet hit Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy in the abdomen. The fifth bullet hit the bullet-resistant glass of the window on the open side door of the limousine. The sixth and final bullet ricocheted off the armored side of the limousine and hit the president in his left underarm, grazing a rib and lodging in his lung, stopping nearly 1 inch from his heart.

In 2014, this gun, used, sells for about $150. Pawn shops, used gun dealers, and "hey, did you want to buy this from me" sales. I can only guess what it sold for 33 years ago in the pawn shop where Hinckley bought it.

As I said at the top, I am not anti-gun. Many people are not anti-gun. A few people I know that are labeled anti-gun are gun owners. They have trigger locked handguns in their home that they and their spouses have learned and practiced on. You get someone trying to break into your house when there is a car in the driveway or they see one in your garage and those people won't care if you are home or not. You don't have time to wait for the police to get there. That's why you have a handgun you are familiar with ready to protect your family and home. Most of us don't want guns removed from law abiding citizens who should be able to own a firearm. What most of us want are universal, extensive background checks including mental health checks. Many of us also believe that private citizens have no need for RPGs, rocket launchers, mines, or fully automatic weapons. There should be no transfers at gun shows or other places outside of a licensed dealers place of business. You want to buy that gun at the show because it's a great price? Great. Buy it. The seller then ships it to the closest dealer who does the background check and mandatory wait period, and the seller pays them a small fee (which really you paid for when you bought it) to do the transfer paperwork. Guns given from parent to child or any other way also go through the same process if it removes the firearm from where the giver lives. You want to give a hunting rifle to your kid who lives with you? You'll be responsible we hope. You want to give it to your grandson? It has to go through the transfer process if your grandson doesn't live with you. We also want current laws enforced, and some more funding so that people who have passed a background check, or otherwise are thought to have guns, and who have temporarily or permanently lost the right to possess a firearm, such as a felony charge or a mental health issue, can have those weapons removed until their rights are restored. Are these really so intrusive that we put the safety of our children below it? While the Constitution can be changed (for those people who will argue the 2nd Amendment), the Declaration of Independence cannot be changed or amended. ". . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Whether your creator was simply two other humans you called Mom and Dad or you believe that someone you may have prayed to was your creator, we hold those words as truths that are self-evident. Tell us, Joe the plumber, how do your 2nd amendment rights top the right to life endowed by our Creator?


Now, imagine if you will:
Armed teachers. A student with a common semi-automatic handgun and ten 9 round clips, all conforming to current laws, enters your child's classroom where he is known.
 

HARDTRAILZ

Moderator
Nov 18, 2011
49,665
I quit reading when you called a magazine a clip. I would at least think proper terminology is needed for a valid argument.
 

RayGumm

Member
Apr 16, 2014
630
HARDTRAILZ said:
I quit reading when you called a magazine a clip. I would at least think proper terminology is needed for a valid argument.
Hear, Hear.

This is real life, not COD Black Ops.

BTW, while we are at it, why not apply the same process to cars? No more CL car sales in parking lots or at personal residences, all vehicles must be taken to a licensed dealer whom you will have to pay to transfer ownership.

I mean, why not? Cars are used as weapons intentionally and they also are very dangerous 3000lb. + machines that are the cause of many, many accidental deaths each year, including drunk driving accidents. Would make sense to check DUI history and driver's license points before selling a car to someone 'potentially dangerous'.

Just sayin'.
 

RayVoy

Member
Nov 20, 2011
939
I'm not sure I understand where your going with this.

I don't see the need to arm teachers (but then, I'm Canadian....I'll say it now, so it's out in the open).

Our gun laws are more restrictive that those in the US (even those in CA) and last week, we had a senseless Killing of 3 RCMP officers in New Brunswick........a classic "bait and kill".

He shot each, in their squad cars, as they were responding to a report of an armed man walking around a subdivision.

Our gun laws didn't stop this atrocity, as far as I know, he was not carrying anything he could nor legally own. Our laws do say that when outside the dates of a legal hunting season, the owner requires a permit to transport...........this was the only law the shooter broke until he pull the trigger.

Unless your Clint Eastwood, most armed people can not react fast enough to stop a killer intent upon destruction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcsteven

mcsteven

Original poster
Member
Apr 18, 2012
6,584
When I asked 5 people (not a very scientific survey) what the piece of a handgun was that you put bullets into, 4 called it a clip, 1 called it a barrel. I know the terminology, but many people don't. I wanted people to be able to visualize this without having to ask what a magazine was.

While cars can be used as weapons, they were not designed as such. Guns were solely designed as tools to kill. Some people might find sport in target practice, but the automobile was designed to allow longer distance travel with speed and soon, comfort. And transfer of ownership occurs when the DMV sends you a new title. There is no such requirement to register guns as they are not real property the way land, buildings or automobiles are. in 2014, the United States is on target to have more handgun deaths, not including suicides, than automobile caused deaths. We don't require the gun shooter / owner to have a license except for concealed carry. A car requires a license and it the driver has too many points or an under the influence(s) charge, their legal right to drive that car may be revoked.

OK - let's treat cars like guns. If we treat guns like cars as well. Let's require insurance. Let's require training (many states require driver training if you are under 21 now). Let's require registration that has to be renewed every year or two. Let's require that if the item is used in an unlawful way that you can be held responsible for its use unless you've reported it missing or stolen. Let's require that it pass inspection every time or every other time it is registered. Let us require that any transfer of ownership be reported to the government. Let us require a tax on what goes into it (gas tax is used for highway funding) and that money is used for a public good.
 

TBLS

Member
Dec 29, 2013
1,075
Although there is a good argument here but Hardtrailz is right. Nobody will take it seriously if proper terminology is not used. The thought of extensive background checks and taking a mental exam to buy a firearm might sound great, but yet who is gunna convince anyone to do so? The 2nd amendment does not state that and it cannot be changed. So what happens then? Back to where everything started in the first place. I may not know a whole lot but that's my opinion (not a fact).
 

HARDTRAILZ

Moderator
Nov 18, 2011
49,665
mcsteven said:
When I asked 5 people (not a very scientific survey) what the piece of a handgun was that you put bullets into, 4 called it a clip, 1 called it a barrel. I know the terminology, but many people don't.

While cars can be used as weapons, they were not designed as such. Guns were solely designed as tools to kill. Some people might find sport in target practice, but the automobile was designed to allow longer distance travel with speed and soon, comfort. And transfer of ownership occurs when the DMV sends you a new title. There is no such requirement to register guns as they are not real property the way land, buildings or automobiles are. in 2014, the United States is on target to have more handgun deaths, not including suicides, than automobile caused deaths.
To start...perpetuating incorrect terminology is flat out ignorant. Correct them, teach them, and use proper terms.

Also, you do not have to register a vehicle or a deed to a property or a weapon. You choose to. All can be owned with no governmental knowledge.

You are coming across quite ill-informed and poking holes in your own trustworthiness and thus your argument.

--Edit... finally tried to read the whole first post and it makes no sense. What is your point?
He is known in both scenarios and neither had an armed teacher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rogue92 and RayGumm

mcsteven

Original poster
Member
Apr 18, 2012
6,584
RayVoy said:
I'm not sure I understand where your going with this.

I don't see the need to arm teachers (but then, I'm Canadian....I'll say it now, so it's out in the open).

Our gun laws are more restrictive that those in the US (even those in CA) and last week, we had a senseless Killing of 3 RCMP officers in New Brunswick........a classic "bait and kill".

He shot each, in their squad cars, as they were responding to a report of an armed man walking around a subdivision.

Our gun laws didn't stop this atrocity, as far as I know, he was not carrying anything he could nor legally own. Our laws do say that when outside the dates of a legal hunting season, the owner requires a permit to transport...........this was the only law the shooter broke until he pull the trigger.

Unless your Clint Eastwood, most armed people can not react fast enough to stop a killer intent upon destruction.
Where I was going with this was hopefully some common sense legislation. We talk about gangbangers and such. Gangbangers aren't the ones going into schools killing classmates. Yes, there have been drive by shootings and some issues in the parking lots, but mostly these are children, usually, or very young adults who are not able to deal with life. I do not advocate removing guns from those who are legally entitled to own them. I heard of the shooting of the 3 RMP officers, though I only saw a minute and didn't see who the shooter(s) was or their motive. But this wasn't someone in the middle of a crime who shot at law enforcement officers and killed them. This was a disturbed person who may or may not have been aided with mental help. I do believe that MORE guns is not the answer. I do believe that we may have stopped some of the killings such as the recent one near the University of California, Santa Barbara; the one in Seattle, the one in Newtown, Connecticut (Sandy Hook), and though not a school, the recent killing of 2 police officers and a civilian in Las Vegas.
 

Rogue92

Member
Apr 19, 2014
83
I work in a sporting goods gun store and am the person in charge of all our paperwork and compliance with BATFE and FBI rules/regulations.

Background checks are universal and are extensive...the problem one runs into VERY often is that mental institutions are terrified to share any mental health with the FBI NICS (national instant check system, this country's background check at the federal level for firearms purchases) due to HIPPA laws and other privacy concerns. The BATFE regulations only allow for sales of firearms between individuals within the same state of residence without a Federal Firearms License dealer. Otherwise, sales across state lines MUST go through a federally licensed dealer.

I for one am not in favor of more "extensive background checks", which is often code for adding more prohibitors to the list that are not relevant to disqualifying an individual form their 2nd Amendment right. What's next, you can't own a firearm if you ever got a speeding ticket or got in a elementary school fight? Currently, one cannot posses a firearm if they are a under indictment for a felony, have ever been convicted of a felony, are a fugitive from justice, have ever been convicted of felony OR MISDEMEANOR crime of domestic violence, have an injunction or restraining order against them for stalking, harassing, etc. a partner or spouse (or anyone they have ever lived with, depending on what state law), or if one has ever been held in a mental institution for more than 72 hours, or a judge has ruled them mentally incompetent. These are all the current federal prohibitors.

Let's look at the cities with tough gun laws....Chicago, New York, who both have EXTREMELY high crime rates. Look at places elsewhere in the country that have a similar population size, and their crime rates are lower and have do not have BS gun control laws.

Criminals DO NOT follow gun laws. Period. That is why you see these massacres happen in gun free zones, such as schools, places that prohibit legal concealed carry, and others. If anyone really expects "common sense" gun laws to encourage criminals to follow them or an individual bent on destruction, they need to rethink the argument. The only individuals who will follow gun laws are those who are law abiding citizens, the criminals will continue to violate them.

The biggest problem is our society is that parents take their kids at young ages and put them in front of video games (such as Grand Theft Auto) that kills cops and innocents and does horrible things to women. That's only one example, however we are creating a generation of psychopaths.

If you are interested in reading what is truly wrong with our society and why there seems to be these school massacres, look up Lt. Colonel David Grossman, a West Point psychologist, and he has some very intriguing articles on the subject.
 

mcsteven

Original poster
Member
Apr 18, 2012
6,584
TBLS said:
Although there is a good argument here but Hardtrailz is right. Nobody will take it seriously if proper terminology is not used. The thought of extensive background checks and taking a mental exam to buy a firearm might sound great, but yet who is gunna convince anyone to do so? The 2nd amendment does not state that and it cannot be changed. So what happens then? Back to where everything started in the first place. I may not know a whole lot but that's my opinion (not a fact).
People will not visualize a synchro in the transmission. But if you put it in terms they understand, they will. The few people I spoke with recognized the term clip, not magazine. I'm not writing a technical paper but an editorial. I want people to visualize this 16 or 18 year old kid. I want them to visualize Reagan surrounded by at least 12 US-SS agents. I want them to visualize Jim Brady, Tom Delahanty, and Tim McCarthy. I want them to visualize the small revolver and remember how even with a toy, they never got six pulls of the trigger that fast.

The 2nd amendment doesn't state that an ordinary citizen can have a gun at all. The 2nd amendment doesn't state that we can carry guns openly, or concealed, that there is a 5 day waiting period. And, the 2nd amendment is just about the most disagreed upon wording in the amendments to the Constitution. The text that was ratified (which is different than what the states ratified), reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It can certainly be changed. The process is simple. But it is not the Constitution that would need to be changed.
 

RayGumm

Member
Apr 16, 2014
630
mcsteven said:
When I asked 5 people (not a very scientific survey) what the piece of a handgun was that you put bullets into, 4 called it a clip, 1 called it a barrel. I know the terminology, but many people don't. I wanted people to be able to visualize this without having to ask what a magazine was.

While cars can be used as weapons, they were not designed as such. Guns were solely designed as tools to kill. Some people might find sport in target practice, but the automobile was designed to allow longer distance travel with speed and soon, comfort. And transfer of ownership occurs when the DMV sends you a new title. There is no such requirement to register guns as they are not real property the way land, buildings or automobiles are. in 2014, the United States is on target to have more handgun deaths, not including suicides, than automobile caused deaths. We don't require the gun shooter / owner to have a license except for concealed carry. A car requires a license and it the driver has too many points or an under the influence(s) charge, their legal right to drive that car may be revoked.

OK - let's treat cars like guns. If we treat guns like cars as well. Let's require insurance. Let's require training (many states require driver training if you are under 21 now). Let's require registration that has to be renewed every year or two. Let's require that if the item is used in an unlawful way that you can be held responsible for its use unless you've reported it missing or stolen. Let's require that it pass inspection every time or every other time it is registered. Let us require that any transfer of ownership be reported to the government. Let us require a tax on what goes into it (gas tax is used for highway funding) and that money is used for a public good.
You know what? You're right.

Why stop there? Knife Control!! Register them all, and ban swords. all knife sales must be done at a licensed dealer.

Didn't you see the story about the school attack wherein 20 kids got STABBED by a knife wielding MANIAC in PA?

Knife control, we needs it!
 

Rogue92

Member
Apr 19, 2014
83
mcsteven said:
People will not visualize a synchro in the transmission. But if you put it in terms they understand, they will. The few people I spoke with recognized the term clip, not magazine. I'm not writing a technical paper but an editorial. I want people to visualize this 16 or 18 year old kid. I want them to visualize Reagan surrounded by at least 12 US-SS agents. I want them to visualize Jim Brady, Tom Delahanty, and Tim McCarthy. I want them to visualize the small revolver and remember how even with a toy, they never got six pulls of the trigger that fast.

The 2nd amendment doesn't state that an ordinary citizen can have a gun at all. The 2nd amendment doesn't state that we can carry guns openly, or concealed, that there is a 5 day waiting period. And, the 2nd amendment is just about the most disagreed upon wording in the amendments to the Constitution. The text that was ratified (which is different than what the states ratified), reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It can certainly be changed. The process is simple. But it is not the Constitution that would need to be changed.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and that citizens CAN own and carry firearms for self defense. I would encourage you to read up on McDonald v. Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller, two cases in the past decade that have clarified the Second Amendment.

In the late 1700s, the terms used in the 2nd Amendment are quite clear. Militia was the general populace, and well regulated referred to a well armed and supplied militia. James Madison touches on this in several of his Federalist Papers prior to the ratification of the Bill of Rights and in particular, the 2nd Amendment in 1791.
 

mcsteven

Original poster
Member
Apr 18, 2012
6,584
HARDTRAILZ said:
An armed society is a polite society.

Until everyone owns a gun we will not have the limited crime of Switzerland.
Switzerland and the US are very different. We do not have free public health. We do not value workers and mandate paid time off of work. We are also a much more diverse (ethnically) society who do not get to know each other. Makes me think of a joke a friend told me.

What do you call a person who speaks two languages? Bi-lingual.
What do you call a person who speaks more than two languages? multi-lingual.
What do you call a person who speaks one language? American.
 

mcsteven

Original poster
Member
Apr 18, 2012
6,584
Rogue92 said:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and that citizens CAN own and carry firearms for self defense. I would encourage you to read up on McDonald v. Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller, two cases in the past decade that have clarified the Second Amendment.

In the late 1700s, the terms used in the 2nd Amendment are quite clear. Militia was the general populace, and well regulated referred to a well armed and supplied militia. James Madison touches on this in several of his Federalist Papers prior to the ratification of the Bill of Rights and in particular, the 2nd Amendment in 1791.
They didn't clarify the 2nd amendment. They changed it's interpretation to the current jurists, altering laws that were based upon the previous interpretations. In 30 years it will be fought again and changed again. There were laws that passed constitutional muster regarding corporate entities contributing to political parties, causes, and politicians. The current crop of jurists overturned the previous jurists interpretation of the first amendment and gave credence to Citizens United.
 

mcsteven

Original poster
Member
Apr 18, 2012
6,584
RayGumm said:
You know what? You're right.

Why stop there? Knife Control!! Register them all, and ban swords. all knife sales must be done at a licensed dealer.

Didn't you see the story about the school attack wherein 20 kids got STABBED by a knife wielding MANIAC in PA?

Knife control, we needs it!
As I noted about automobiles, knives were not designed solely to kill. Swords may have been, but I haven't seen too many ninjas attacking schools in the last 200 years. Yes - there are records of school killings going back that far.
 

Rogue92

Member
Apr 19, 2014
83
mcsteven said:
They didn't clarify the 2nd amendment. They changed it's interpretation to the current jurists, altering laws that were based upon the previous interpretations. In 30 years it will be fought again and changed again. There were laws that passed constitutional muster regarding corporate entities contributing to political parties, causes, and politicians. The current crop of jurists overturned the previous jurists interpretation of the first amendment and gave credence to Citizens United.
I would be inclined to argue that DC v Heller did clarify it to an extent. The justices held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to service in a militia/military/etc and also protects the right to use it for lawful purposes, such as self defense in the home, etc. (they only addressed the home in this particular case). The rest of this particular case addressed the particulars of DC's handgun laws and also cited that the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited, holding that certain bans on concealed carry in certain locations by state level governments and the federal government are not unconstitutional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcsteven

HARDTRAILZ

Moderator
Nov 18, 2011
49,665
mcsteven said:
Switzerland and the US are very different. We do not have free public health. We do not value workers and mandate paid time off of work. We are also a much more diverse (ethnically) society who do not get to know each other. Makes me think of a joke a friend told me.

What do you call a person who speaks two languages? Bi-lingual.
What do you call a person who speaks more than two languages? multi-lingual.
What do you call a person who speaks one language? American.
We are very different. They all own guns and have no gun crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: triz

RayGumm

Member
Apr 16, 2014
630
mcsteven said:
As I noted about automobiles, knives were not designed solely to kill. Swords may have been, but I haven't seen too many ninjas attacking schools in the last 200 years. Yes - there are records of school killings going back that far.
All guns are not designed solely to kill humans. There are some designed solely for competition, like the biathalon. Many, many guns are designed solely for hunting.

It is merely a side effect that all guns have the capability to kill people. Just like knives. Or cars. Or monkey wrenches. Or pillows.

BTW, not in America, but still. Relatively recent, certainly not 200 years ago.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=tfSYU5D7N9SksQSJ1YC4DA&url=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nic_Diederichs_Technical_High_School_slashing&cd=2&ved=0CCMQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNF8QZncmpGOhAzkqh4m9zrQ10UGKA
 

mcsteven

Original poster
Member
Apr 18, 2012
6,584
RayGumm said:
All guns are not designed solely to kill humans. There are some designed solely for competition, like the biathalon. Many, many guns are designed solely for hunting.

It is merely a side effect that all guns have the capability to kill people. Just like knives. Or cars. Or monkey wrenches. Or pillows.

BTW, not I America, but still.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=tfSYU5D7N9SksQSJ1YC4DA&url=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nic_Diederichs_Technical_High_School_slashing&cd=2&ved=0CCMQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNF8QZncmpGOhAzkqh4m9zrQ10UGKA
The gun was invented to kill. There may have been other designs that people have used in the last few hundred years for other purposes, but the gun was pretty much invented in China about 1,000 years ago. Using gun powder they invented almost 100 years prior, it used a tube to shoot flames and shrapnel at the target. This wasn't invented to hunt food. The side effect is using guns for hunting or sport.

Cars, knives, monkey wrenches and pillows were all invented for other purposes.

While the death is regrettable, I see the sword wielder killed one person. How do you compare that to the numbers from Sandy Hook, UCSB or even Seattle last week?
 

The_Roadie

Lifetime VIP Donor
Member
Nov 19, 2011
9,957
Portland, OR
It is impossible the stop a deranged nutcase from arming themself with any sort of weapon and killing people at random or with premeditation. Murders happen. The choice of weapons is irrelevant. Firearms today, 3D printed rail guns tomorrow. Cure the nut bags and solve the problem. Of course the cure is currently impossible. So the problem will continue.
 

RayGumm

Member
Apr 16, 2014
630
mcsteven said:
The gun was invented to kill. There may have been other designs that people have used in the last few hundred years for other purposes, but the gun was pretty much invented in China about 1,000 years ago. Using gun powder they invented almost 100 years prior, it used a tube to shoot flames and shrapnel at the target. This wasn't invented to hunt food. The side effect is using guns for hunting or sport.

Cars, knives, monkey wrenches and pillows were all invented for other purposes.

While the death is regrettable, I see the sword wielder killed one person. How do you compare that to the numbers from Sandy Hook, UCSB or even Seattle last week?
So let me get this straight:

You are saying that regardless of a CURRENT implement's intended use (not your original argument, by the way), it's original incarnation's (1000 year old chinese cannons) intended use transcends it's current intended use (hunting rifle)?

That would be like saying that because the automobile was created for human transport, a tank is NOT a weapon of war, because, hey, the first car was JUST a car?

Ridiculous. I call BS.

Also: The attack in South Africa may have only killed one person, but it seems a trifle insensitive to devalue that one person's life because it was only one person. That attitude is insensitive AND ignorant. What if that one person was YOUR kid? Bet you would feel differently about it 'only being one person'.

Qauntity over quality, I suppose, eh? Gotta have a downright massacre on your hands before it makes the breaking news ticker on CNN.

Shame. Damn shame.
 

HARDTRAILZ

Moderator
Nov 18, 2011
49,665
Its heated due to selective blindness. Some will never look at the other side of the coin.

The answer is more guns. Its also more responsibility and more respect. Better moral compasses and increased compassion.

Truthfully guns are not the issue, but when in certain situations.... they are the answer.
 

RayVoy

Member
Nov 20, 2011
939
HARDTRAILZ said:
An armed society is a polite society.

Until everyone owns a gun we will not have the limited crime of Switzerland.
Just to keep the facts straight, one of the reasons the "gun at home" rate is high in Switzerland, is because they still have compulsory military service, these personnel are required to keep their service weapons with them at home. They are also able to keep the weapons after their service is over. Needless to say, these people all have military training.

Switzerland's civilian purchase laws (at a quick glance) appear to be a lot like Canada's.

And BTW, just to keep the record straight; in 2005, 29% of Swiss household had firearms of some type, this compares to 43% in the US during 2005.
 

HARDTRAILZ

Moderator
Nov 18, 2011
49,665
Not opposed to compulsory military service here...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Einst-Hawk

Sparky

Member
Dec 4, 2011
12,927
HARDTRAILZ said:
Not opposed to compulsory military service here...
I am just because I'm a self-admitted wimp :tongue:
 

HARDTRAILZ

Moderator
Nov 18, 2011
49,665
Be a good thing for ya then [emoji6]
 

High Voltage

Member
Nov 18, 2011
462
mcsteven said:
What do you call a person who speaks two languages? Bi-lingual.
What do you call a person who speaks more than two languages? multi-lingual.
What do you call a person who speaks one language? American.
Are you an American?
 

HARDTRAILZ

Moderator
Nov 18, 2011
49,665
Saw him post Oakland...so kinda???
[emoji6][emoji106][emoji13]
 
  • Like
Reactions: High Voltage

High Voltage

Member
Nov 18, 2011
462
Well it seems to me he was making fun of us Americans for only speaking OUR language! We're in AMERICA!!! Why in the hell would I need to know another language?
 
  • Like
Reactions: yodaddy4200

RayGumm

Member
Apr 16, 2014
630
Haha I just thought of something..

'common sense' would dictate NOT posting a thread that is thinly disguised anti-2nd amendment rhetoric on an American-made SUV forum which happens to have a thriving thread called 'firearms' and expect really anyone to agree with you.

Just sayin'.
 

The_Roadie

Lifetime VIP Donor
Member
Nov 19, 2011
9,957
Portland, OR
High Voltage said:
Well it seems to me he was making fun of us Americans for only speaking OUR language! We're in AMERICA!!! Why in the hell would I need to know another language?
In case you find yourself, as I have a hundred times in 40 years of travel, in a foreign country with competent engineers who know my language far better than I know theirs. I know a smattering of words in a dozen languages, but can really only barely converse in French. I should have learned German or Mandarin or Japanese, but I came from a tiny town with a crappy high school. I'm constantly embarrassed I spent so little time learning languages, because I thought engineers never traveled. Was I wrong.

For folks not as lucky as I was to embrace a career that demanded world travel, I can see your point of view. But even inside the USA, travel has its benefits:



“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”

Mark Twain, Mark Twain: The Innocents Abroad/Roughing It
 
  • Like
Reactions: hdodd1

High Voltage

Member
Nov 18, 2011
462
That's understood for people that work or travel out side of the USA. But for those that don't...... No reason to have to speak a foreign language. I know plenty German. X wife 3rd generation for Germany.
 

The_Roadie

Lifetime VIP Donor
Member
Nov 19, 2011
9,957
Portland, OR
I know some folks who learned languages for fun in their spare time, or took language electives in college without any compelling reason to, The reason can be for the love of learning rather than a mandatory requirement like it is in many, many foreign countries.

My wife and I have had a fantastic time offering up our home to over a dozen groups (1-3 at a time) of foreign exchange students, from two week familiarization tours to 2 month summer excursions. The students went to classes during the day and we had them in the evenings and most weekends. I've taken almost all of them offroading and offer (even the 14 year olds) some driving time. My wife learned a LOT of Japanese from one pair of kids. ANd they went home to tell their friends we weren't all "ugly Americans".

Sort of off topic in this thread, however. Sorry.
 

triz

Member
Apr 22, 2013
746
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
James Madison, The Constitution of the United States of America




“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Alexander Hamilton


I am against universal Background checks. The gun show rule you speak about is overplayed. Here is Florida (depending on county) a sale at a gun show by a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL must still undergo a background check. Any sales by a Gun Shop regardless must go through a background check.

I pay a fee for right to carry. I have heard some people say its a priviledge. Its a damn right for me to defend myself or those around me. I do not need the goverment to tell me otherwise, nor anyone else.

I do not need the goverment in every aspect of my life, I am no criminal.Perhaps people have there own meaning of Freedom. Freedom to me is being allowed to live my life without the goverment in everything I do or in my pocket. So the hell with a tax! For what? So they can line their pockets? So they can give themselves ridiculous raises and be allowed to exclude themselves from their own laws?

If I want to give my firearm to my son or daughter I do not need the goverment to give me the okay, As a parent, I would think you should know whether or not your kid is a nutjob. If you dont, check your parenting skills. I would also think it would be common sense if you lost your firearm or it was stolen, you reported it. Common sense dictates this. The repercussions I am sure you'll feel if you don't. There are a million lawyers out there waiting for you to screw up.

Last California led the Nation in homicides by firearm in 2012. Last I checked California has some of the tighest gun control, car modification laws, no toy with your Happy Meal laws there are.

Its non-sense. You know what creates psycopaths. Liberals. With their bully bs, with their dont make guns out of your grilled cheese, with your dont play cops and robbers. We create a nation of wussies who when dealt with real life cant handle it!



End Rant.
 

triz

Member
Apr 22, 2013
746
“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
Alan M. Dershowitz

“I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters.”
Frank Lloyd Wright

That last one must be re-quoted with a keyboard or a TV camera.
 

Hatchet

Member
Nov 21, 2011
2,405
I stopped reading after this

First, I will tell you this: I am NOT anti-gun.
Every time this is said, that person is a raving anti 2A person. Just not worth reading or responding to. That author will only take the position of the anti because that is what they are.

IBTL
 

Forum Statistics

Threads
23,388
Posts
638,718
Members
18,596
Latest member
david herman

Members Online