Denny Crane and the Second Amendment

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

If I was a gun enthusiast I would not worry about anyone taking them away. If it ever does happen it will not be in our lifetime.

Obie has too much on the table and most anti gun types (myself included) have it to far down the list of things the government needs to address to ever make any real noise about it. Heck, if I weren't fillin' time I would not have even jumped into this thread.

Noonereal, I believe you've put it in a nutshell.

That's what we're all doin', fillin' time, killin' time, poppin' off at the mouth, gettin' it off our chests, like anyone really cares.

All this damn internet is, is a CB with unlimited range. Only instead of the 10 code, you use, I want to call it formatting, but I'm wrong...someone help me out.

Now I've got a CB in my boat, but I've never used one. I'll have to admit, after listening to the traffic on it, you meet more interesting people on the internet.

I can pretty much tell that we are 180 out politically, but I like ya.

You take care, and have a good day, we'll see if we can't come to loggerheads over some political moot point in the near future.

Gotta go grill some burgers,
Chas

[Ozmoid]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I am not buying what you are selling.

What I'm selling is that there are many weapons out there besides guns, and many of them aren't marketed as weapons. Think a nut with a Paslode Nail Gun is any less of a threat than a nut with a .22 pistol? Might have a shorter lethal range, but you would still be dead.

We need to outlaw crowbars, tire irons, hammers, adjustable wrenches... basically anything made out of more than an ounce or two of metal. Any piece of lumber longer than a foot. Pocket knives, box cutters, steak knives... ball point pens are kind of stabby too, aren't they? Better take those out of play. Pencils also while I'm thinking about it. IMO, this is the path that opens up with the removal of firearms from the general public.

I know it is cliché, but if guns are outlawed you better believe that only criminals and LEA/military will have them. Not nearly enough checks and balances in that equation.

I have never aimed a firearm in the direction of another human, and hope I am never called upon to do so. My firearm fills my freezer with food and contributes to controlling the wild animal population within Dept. of Fish and Game regulations. (This alone is a valid reason for firearms... if you don't think so, stop all types of hunting for a few years. )

District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting Parker once in the head, but went too far when he shot Parker five more times while Parker lay unconscious on the floor.

And there you have it - stupidity in play. I had to change the regulators on all my gas cylinders a few years back, because some idiot that didn't know what he was doing blew himself up. Same thing here - sanity seems to have flown right out the window.

[Charles]

Oz, you WERE wearing safety glasses when you changed those regulators, weren't you?

I'd to be the one who had to turn you over to an alphabet agency for endangering your own welfare, but since it's in your best interest....

Chas

[Ozmoid]

Originally Posted by Charles

Oz, you WERE wearing safety glasses when you changed those regulators, weren't you?

Well OF COURSE I WAS, Charles. Used a rubber-coated wrench too. Just in case.

[wajobu]

Monkey wrench: I still don't understand how and why assault weapons are needed for hunting.

[cabinover]

Originally Posted by wajobu

Monkey wrench: I still don't understand how and why assault weapons are needed for hunting.

Walker you have to look real closely at the wording. There are many rifles out there that fit the assault category.

From the Wikipedia description on the Assault Weapon Ban:
"There was no legal definition of "assault weapons" prior to its enactment, but assault rifle is a technical term referring to rifles capable of semi-automatic and full-automatic fire."

That means any rifle capable of firing more than one shell is technically an assault rifle. Just because there may be five or fifty bullets in the gun doesn't make a difference if you still have to pull the trigger each time to fire one.

As for hunting in Vermont I believe you can only have five in the cartridge. That means I would physically need to block off five bullets spaces to use my SKS for hunting as it holds ten.

I guess in the end the whole assault weapon thing is just media fodder to whip people into a frenzy. We don't have time to understand anything beyond the 10 second sound bites today unfortunately.

Bob

[Sandy G]

They aren't. Those of us who have them do because we just have a "thing" for them, I guess. Functionally, "assault weapons" are NO different than any other semi-automatic gun. I kinda get into the historical aspects of the ones I have-f'r instance, I have several examples of FAL rifles-the 7.62 Nato firing gun that was called "The Free World's Right Arm", as it was eventually used by 94 countries thruout the world. America was one of the few countries that DIDN't use them. Or the Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947- the AK-47- the Combloc's answer to the FAL, & eventually our M-16. Or my Uzi- the only REAL "Assault Weapon" I have, as its fully automatic-It was developed in the late 1940s by an Isreali, Maj. Uziel Gal. He was a quiet, self-effacing man, who really didn't want the gun named after him, but it just kinda stuck. Nobody really NEEDs any of these things, I guess, but nobody NEEDS a car that goes 150, or nobody really needs a Mac Kilowatt system, either-But they sure are a lot of fun for their aficianados to have.

[Grumpy]

I love how you tie gun ownership discussions to drunks should not have guns...

They should not have cars either !

[whoaru99]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

I love how you tie gun ownership discussions to drunks should not have guns...

They should not have cars either !

And those with mention of mental illness.

I believe both groups (those with drug/alcohol problems and mental illness) are already prohibited from guns under current law.

Perhaps those laws already on the books should be enforced, not more new dysfunctional laws stacked on top of old dysfunctional laws.

This is in response to the "ban guns" theme, not at you Grumpy. The quote was merely a lead-in.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

I love how you tie gun ownership discussions to drunks should not have guns...

They should not have cars either !

We agree then.

Good stuff!


(I think my argument was much fuller than you suggest)