Guns

[LeMansAid]

BobK, you're doing better than me if you have even the faintest idea of where that's coming from. That said, the preceding post was also pointless drivel. As is this one, but at least I know it.

 

[Keef]

...and with that you've destroyed what little credibility (if any) you may have had.


Cue the "just kidding/joking" response...

Pretty sure that was some sort of sarcasm. He summarized "the pursuit of happiness" as a right to property which means he's definitely not an idiot. A bit misguided on where these rights come from but he's certainly headed the right direction.

As for his comments about furriners, I'm not going to defend them but I won't denounce them either. I've been to the Britain thread. It's a madhouse.

 

[LeMansAid]

Canada, Australia, most of Western Europe, and many other places have many of the same liberties we do. Sure, some don't allow private gun ownership, free speech, or have a more socialist economy structure, but if you didn't own a gun and lived in some places you would never notice a difference.

Well said, and quite true.

Free speech is not in written law in Australia, but most certainly is expected pretty much across the board. In addition though: with the way modern societies function, is free speech in law more or less powerful than free speech in societal attitude? Look up Harry Connick Junior on Hey Hey It's Saturday Reunion to get an idea of how the concept of free speech can be more stymied by attitude than law. In short: massively offended by what he thought of as racist, or possibly more likely believed he needed to show that he thought was racist. Parties involved felt they had to apologise profusely. I'm guessing that the performance in question would not have aired if it was conceived in America. The difference between can and can't, will and won't. Is free speech in law sometimes effectively only for the incredibly strong or ignorant?

So, can and can't, will and won't with guns.... We certainly can own guns, and I know people that do. Thing is, I've never seen these guns, and have no desire to see and touch them. It's just of no interest to me.

Laws may establish rights, but with the power of the way a given society functions in real life, which is the more powerful force? What is choice and freedom? Is it what is written in law or what happens in real life?

I don't think that the lack of guns in Australia has much to do with it's laws. I wonder if what I see as a proliferation of guns in America is down to freedom and free will, or the sustaining of freedom in law and the removal of free will at a functions of society and expectation level. When gtplanet member RC45 gave his 12 year old daughter a gun for Christmas, was that due to a pure want on her part? I don't have any issue with him giving the gun to her, I just wonder how much he wanted her to want it.

Not trying to start a war. Just pondering.

 

[FoolKiller]

This is apparently annoying some gun activists right now.

The New AR-15 Design is Compliant with “SAFE Act” and Has Gun Control Activists in a Tizzy
February 7, 2014 by Jonathan S. · 120 Comments
Follow Guns 'n' Freedom on Twitter and stay informed!
Prototypes for the newly designed AR-15 are hitting gun shops across New York, as gun shops and machinists have designed a rifle that complies with the anti-gun law.

At least one gun shop has received a letter from state police saying that the new AR-15 style rifles should be legal in the state as long as they don’t have some of the features that the law prohibits.

The new gun law bans all kinds of semi-automatic rifles that have been labeled with the “assault” term even though these are very common rifles and are no more powerful than the average hunting rifle.

Features like adjustable stocks, pistols grips, and flash suppressors has been deemed to be unlawful on these rifles, mainly because it makes them LOOK mean. And we all know how little these anti-gun lawmakers really know about guns, as the “Ghost gun” video illustrated.

The new AR-15 design did away with the pistol grip which gives the gun an odd paintball gun look. The stock is fixed as well, but at least New Yorkers now have a legal way to own an AR-15, a fact which is still driving some gun control activists mad.

Leave it to good old American ingenuity to drive anti-gunners up the wall while allowing gun owners to still own this classic firearm which shoots the same exact rounds in the same exact way as the rifles that have been banned.

Take it with a grain of salt, as it is obviously a biased site.





@LeMansAid You know what societal pressure is? Free market. That said, I hate the politically correct nannies. Ironically, they are often the same type of people to want guns banned in the US. As for Harry Connick Jr, like most famous people, he probably didn't actually care. But because whiney, uptight folks who throw out race every chance they get would make his life a PR hell. You're right that it wouldn't have aired in the US, because the lawyers for the TV network would have stopped it to avoid being accused of racism.

That said, listen to the Adam Carolla Show podcast sometime. He gets called out for saying stuff all the time. His response is to tell them to go 🤬 themselves because he owns his own production company and studio. No one is going to fire him from his own company. And that is where we are headed in the US. The Adam Carolla Show holds the Guinness World Record for most downloaded podcast. He makes over a million a year off a podcast. When the lawyers are out of control the whiners lose their power.

 

[a6m5]

This is apparently annoying some gun activists right now.

Ridiculous rifle, but I just read little bit about this NY SAFE Act on Wikipedia, and it's either a short bus circus, or this is some genius plan to ban just the little things they could get away with banning today, hoping that they'd have effectively banned every parts needed to build a gun in a decade or two.

 

[Beeker1972]

...and with that you've destroyed what little credibility (if any) you may have had.


Cue the "just kidding/joking" response...

I have, how? I was born in Arizona, and currently live in Mesa ... Those Google Maps pics don't do it justice how many trees Arizona has through the Mogollon Rim, and White Mountains part of the lower Rocky Mountain Range. My family has a cabin located in Pinetop Arizona ... Some people have no value in sarcasm!

BobK, you're doing better than me if you have even the faintest idea of where that's coming from. That said, the preceding post was also pointless drivel. As is this one, but at least I know it.

I think very idea of restricting civil liberties is pointless drivel, but the useful idiots of some political groups will follow blindly like a bunch of lemmings scampering in a hot furnace.

Ridiculous rifle, but I just read little bit about this NY SAFE Act on Wikipedia, and it's either a short bus circus, or this is some genius plan to ban just the little things they could get away with banning today, hoping that they'd have effectively banned every parts needed to build a gun in a decade or two.

Then they better start banning CNC machines, 3D printers, and other machinist tools. Lock up anyone who knows how to operate them.

 

[LeMansAid]

Pretty sure that was some sort of sarcasm. He summarized "the pursuit of happiness" as a right to property which means he's definitely not an idiot. A bit misguided on where these rights come from but he's certainly headed the right direction.

As for his comments about furriners, I'm not going to defend them but I won't denounce them either. I've been to the Britain thread. It's a madhouse.

I think Beeker1972 hates you, and wants to make you look a fool. The triple post might be cleaned up, but sadly the words will likely remain. Come on.... standards, man!!

You know what societal pressure is? Free market.

Interested.... would you be comfortable with the idea of 99.9% of Americans choosing not to have any guns?

 

[FoolKiller]

Interested.... would you be comfortable with the idea of 99.9% of Americans choosing not to have any guns?

As in they chose to not own a gun without any laws forcing the issue?

Sure. It's their choice, just like I choose to not own a gun right now. And since 99.9% would also include a large number of criminals,bI'm fine with that. Now if we could get the murdering cops to stop carrying guns too.

Did you think I wouldn't be comfortable with 99.9% of Americans making a choice that affects only them?

 

[LeMansAid]

As in they chose to not own a gun without any laws forcing the issue?

Sure. It's their choice, just like I choose to not own a gun right now. And since 99.9% would also include a large number of criminals,bI'm fine with that. Now if we could get the murdering cops to stop carrying guns too.

Did you think I wouldn't be comfortable with 99.9% of Americans making a choice that affects only them?

Plenty of people seem disturbed by the idea of leaving the civilian population unprotected from the government, or whatever that paranoia is. Didn't know if you were one of them.

 

[FoolKiller]

Plenty of people seem disturbed by the idea of leaving the civilian population unprotected from the government, or whatever that paranoia is. Didn't know if you were one of them.

I think we would be better off armed, hence the comment about murdering cops, but I don't believe forced military service, or guard duty, is any more right than forced disarming. If everyone did decide to get rid of their guns I'd probably buy them up at a good price...just in case.

As for paranoia: I was accused of that two years ago when I accused the government of violating our rights to monitor us all. Suddenly "sane" people were coming to me this past summer asking me all kinds of questions. Is this different? Police killing unarmed citizens is on the rise, cops are getting caught violating rights a lot more because of the rise in cameras on our persons, and a grand jury ruled a man shooting and killing a cop in a no-knock, no-announce raid was justified.

 

[a6m5]

Plenty of people seem disturbed by the idea of leaving the civilian population unprotected from the government, or whatever that paranoia is. Didn't know if you were one of them.

I don't know if I'd call it a paranoia. I'm not an American, nor am I qualified to say that civilians needs armed protection from their government or not, but I'm sure the point can be argued going by most history books.

 

[Beeker1972]

I don't hate anyone ... I may strongly disagree of their opinions, but hate nope, it's against my Christian up bringing, and my general nature. I'm sorry if I come off an @$$H0!3, but I say things how I see them, and I don't care who I offend, or upset. My friends know not to ask me what I think, because I won't sugar coat it to make them feel better.

I think the very thought of gun control laws is pure evil, because throughout history disarming a populous for safety has always ended in mass death.

I think Beeker1972 hates you, and wants to make you look a fool. The triple post might be cleaned up, but sadly the words will likely remain. Come on.... standards, man!!



Interested.... would you be comfortable with the idea of 99.9% of Americans choosing not to have any guns?

No I wouldn't that scares the crap out of me ....

 

[LeMansAid]

Ah, you're not seeing the joke then. I wouldn't dare accuse you of hatred, just.....

 

[Beeker1972]

Ah, you're not seeing the joke then. I wouldn't dare accuse you of hatred, just.....

oh ok clueless as usual ... I look up stuff in my names on Google seeing the forums I use to visit ... thinking wow what you say in the Internet sticks with you ... some of those posts are here on Gt Planet ...

 

[FoolKiller]

This is interesting.

Officials in Connecticut Stunned by What Could Be a Massive, State-Wide Act of ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Gun Owners

On Jan. 1, 2014, tens of thousands of defiant gun owners seemingly made the choice not to register their semi-automatic rifles with the state of Connecticut as required by a hastily-passed gun control law. By possessing unregistered so-called “assault rifles,” they all technically became guilty of committing Class D felonies overnight.

Police had received 47,916 applications for “assault weapons certificates” and 21,000 incomplete applications as of Dec. 31, Lt. Paul Vance told The Courant.

At roughly 50,000 applications, officials estimate that as little as 15 percent of the covered semi-automatic rifles have actually been registered with the state. “No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000,” the report states.

Needless to say, officials and some lawmakers are stunned.


Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Due to the new gun control bill passed in April, likely at least 20,000 individual people — possibly as many as 100,000 — are now in direct violation of the law for refusing to register their guns. As we noted above, that act is now a Class D Felony.

Mike Lawlor, “the state’s top official in criminal justice,” suggested maybe the firearms unit in Connecticut could “sent them a letter.” However, he said an aggressive push to prosecute gun owners in the state is not going to happen at this point.

Lawlor, the undersecretary for criminal justice policy in the state Office of Policy and Management, also suggested that the legislature should reopen the registration period to encourage more gun owners to register their firearms.

You may recall the viral photo of Connecticut gun owners waiting in line to register their guns in December, which one person said reminded them of the “Weimar Germany.”



Photo credit: George Roelofson/WTNH.

Republican state Sen. Tony Guglielmo told The Courant he recently spoke to a constituent at a meeting in Ashford, who informed him that some of his friends with semi-automatic rifles are intentionally taking a stand.

“He made the analogy to prohibition,” the lawmaker recalled. “I said, ‘You’re talking about civil disobedience, and he said ‘Yes.’”

Guglielmo said he really thought the “vast majority would register.”

Other officials think the low registration numbers are due to ignorance on behalf of gun owners who aren’t aware of the new law. It’s impossible to know the main reason why gun owners aren’t showing up to register their guns without hearing from them directly, though Guglielmo’s constituent indicates at least some are practicing “civil disobedience.”

“Sorting out the number of potential new felons is a guessing game. State police have not added up the total number of people who registered the 50,000 firearms, Vance said. So even if we knew the number of illegal guns in the state, we’d have a hard time knowing how many owners they had,” the report concludes.

I love how the lawmakers are just stunned people didn't obey a law they felt was unjust and wrong. I mean, if you make a law people should just obey it, right? It's even better seeing some just assuming that the people are just ignorant. Stating that you believe that your constituents are ignorant is a guaranteed way to lose an election.

Oh well, Connecticut now has thousands of new criminals to round up and justify militarized police forces using deadly force to stop. A quick review of Connecticut penal code shows these people are now seen as bad as people who commit incest, unlawful detainment, and some forms of sexual assault.

See how quickly an out-of-control government can turn you into a horrible criminal? One day these people were peaceful churchgoers, parents, neighbors, and people you pass on the street every day. The next they were as bad as a guy who sneaks into his daughter's room late at night.

If you can't control those who oppose your desired status quo, make them criminals.

 

[Zenith]

Class D Felony. Wow.

 

[Beeker1972]

The funny thing about oppressive governments, and people who run them if they totally take the small arms away from their citizens if the citizen still have the idea of liberty the citizens will use other objects to fight the oppressive government, and the people who run them. That's only if the citizens are willing to die for their cause of liberty.

 

[Tornado]

This is apparently annoying some gun activists right now.

Incidentally, the unconverted Saiga-M series rifles are by a wide margin the best selling gun they have at work (they usually come in 4 or 5 at a time, and they are gone within a week).

*obviously two completely different guns*

 

[Swagger897]

Incidentally, the unconverted Saiga-M series rifles are by a wide margin the best selling gun they have at work (they usually come in 4 or 5 at a time, and they are gone within a week).

*obviously two completely different guns*

I know a lot of SWAT who uses these (the people above our state troopers, below FBI) and love them..

 

[Beeker1972]

SWAT doesn't use AK variants unless they want plausible deniable-ability ... I know U.S. special forces uses them, but not U.S. law enforcement.

I know a lot of SWAT who uses these (the people above our state troopers, below FBI) and love them..

 

[RC45]

'Laws' don't beget their freedom, their very freedom is what makes men free. Laws are written to assist in discouraging other men from infringing on these freedoms.

So when I choose to buy my daughter a 1911 for her 12th Christmas or an AK the next year or a Browning .22 the next year or a MAC11 Carbine this last year - motivation is no different to the diamond and amethyst necklace her mother and I gave he for Valentine's Day - we do it because we can and and because she appeciates the gesture and gift. Neither the 'law' nor our freedom (or Freedom) forced our decision - it was our free will.

I truly pity folks that simply don't get what it means to be free.

SWAT doesn't use AK variants unless they want plausible deniable-ability ... I know U.S. special forces uses them, but not U.S. law enforcement.

SWAT (or in fact any local law enforcement) may, can and do use any weapons platform their leadership approves.

 

[Vagabond]

@RC45 - It is possible to disagree and post your opinion without being insulting. Please try and adopt a less confrontational approach. And don't double post. 👍

 

[R.S]

The real world difference between granting a right and acknowledging a right is nil.

 

[Beeker1972]

Yes that's true, but most law enforcement uses common standards such as .40SW, or 45ACP for their side arms, .223 Remington for short range, and .308 NATO for medium range.

SWAT (or in fact any local law enforcement) may, can and do use any weapons platform their leadership approves.

Yeah, but if more people think civil liberties are a "God" given rights then more people will be willing to die for those liberties, rather than becoming subjects under a repressive group, or government.

The real world difference between granting a right and acknowledging a right is nil.

There's nothing wrong being confrontational, or insulting, in the end words don't hurt, and even hate speech is free speech. The poster may look like an @$$h0!e for posting offending material, but people just need to thicken their skin, and stop being such wimps at times.

@RC45 - It is possible to disagree and post your opinion without being insulting. Please try and adopt a less confrontational approach. And don't double post. 👍

 

[RC45]

@RC45 - It is possible to disagree and post your opinion without being insulting. Please try and adopt a less confrontational approach. And don't double post.

Telling a man he is intellectually juvenile and naive regarding the nature or rights, the law and freedom is the truth - it is not an insult.

And honestly, what is insulting is to have ones posts edited in an OFF topic forum.

The actual crux of my post is what was gutted.

Any man that thinks his right and freedoms are granted to him by other men has acknowldged that he is a subject and not a citizen

The real world difference between granting a right and acknowledging a right is nil.

Rights are not granted.

There is a huge difference between 'granting' and enumerating the accepted right under discussion.

 

[R.S]

Well who is to say that a right is a natural right (birthright, ie right to breathe) or just a right that a police man gave you (ie right to fair trial)? Was it god?

Either way a 'right' is something devised by man - and that includes the right to be free - the idea of freedom or not freedom is something devised by man.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well who is to say that a right is a natural right (birthright, ie right to breathe) or just a right that a police man gave you (ie right to fair trial)? Was it god?

Either way a 'right' is something devised by man - and that includes the right to be free - the idea of freedom or not freedom is something devised by man.

See the Human Rights thread.

 

[R.S]

See the Human Rights thread.

This page has been all about rights and liberties, regarding guns obviously.

 

[FoolKiller]

This page has been all about rights and liberties, regarding guns obviously.

And the direction it is taking is fully covered in the Human Rights thread. This kind of thing getting threads off topic and on rights discussions is why the thread was started.

Want to discuss if we have a right to own a gun, here it is. Want to debate the existence of inalienable rights, there's a thread for that.

 

[R.S]

And the direction it is taking is fully covered in the Human Rights thread. This kind of thing getting threads off topic and on rights discussions is why the thread was started.

Want to discuss if we have a right to own a gun, here it is. Want to debate the existence of inalienable rights, there's a thread for that.

Yes however some users consider that owning a gun is an inalienable right