Sport Bikes banner

21 - 40 of 52 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,434 Posts
Discussion Starter #21
You keep pressing the NRA cool-aid "once the take our assault weapons they'll take the rest of our guns, too."

Look we took assault weapons away already and no one came for your guns, right? So, let go of that argument. Be rational!

Frankly, why do we need semi-auto ANYTHING? Kip Kinkel, a local kid right in my own backyard here in Oregon killed both his parents, two kids, and injured 26 at school with a 9mm Glock and a bunch of other handguns, I think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,048 Posts
The NRA stokes the paranoia of fearful people for its own ends. I don't cower under the bed like so many gun "enthusiasts" seem to do. Plus, I don't need a big Dodge truck that belches black smoke or a gun to compensate for anything. Shooting can be fun, but there's not much point in carrying a gun around or having it next to the bed all the time. The odds that it will do more harm than good are pretty high when you worship a weapon like the paranoid, fearful people do. Ah, well. Jesus says kill a commie for Christ, or maybe it's an immigrant now. I have lost track.

The NRA was part of the push to eliminate fully automatic weapons in general circulation. That doesn't seem to have set off any kind of "gun grabbing" routine. So much for the rhetoric. It's bullshit, but paranoid wimps drink up the bullshit if it stokes their paranoid Rambette fantasies.

I do actually know a guy who spends tens of thousands of dollars on guns and ammo. He is actually incredibly responsible about it. Most of the money goes on ammo for tournament shooting. He does that on a whole lot of weekends as his hobby. His guns are all kept in bolted down safes, ammo separate, and he's careful not to leave anything out, ever. Guys like him don't worry me a bit. He's also pretty savvy when it comes to the kool-ade. He mentioned that there's lots of money to be made buying AK-47s, even lousy ones, for cheap when the GOP is in power and the NRA is relatively quiet. Then, when the Democrats gain power and the NRA goes into full paranoid frenzy mode, reselling those guns to the idiots who will pay six times what they are worth because they need a basement full of 'em to shoot Democrats who are coming to take their guns.

Maybe we should change the rhetoric to diesel pickups. The diesel pickup grabbers are coming! You better buy 'em up while you can!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,177 Posts
You keep pressing the NRA cool-aid "once the take our assault weapons they'll take the rest of our guns, too."

Look we took assault weapons away already and no one came for your guns, right? So, let go of that argument. Be rational!

Frankly, why do we need semi-auto ANYTHING? Kip Kinkel, a local kid right in my own backyard here in Oregon killed both his parents, two kids, and injured 26 at school with a 9mm Glock and a bunch of other handguns, I think.
The majority of guns around are semi-auto. Honestly even a revolver is semi-auto as each pull of the tr***** it will shoot till you are out of rounds and have to reload.

The point that I was and am getting at is that if you do ban those assault weapons and the school shootings continue to happen but instead of assault weapons they start using pistols because they are available then do we at that point try to ban pistols? If not then is it written into the assault weapon ban that pistols and rifles that are not identified in the ban will never be banned?

A ban could be put on all firearms and it would do very little to me personally. I haven't even been hunting in a very long time so I wouldn't shed a tear over the loss of firearms. I don't think it would do much for a very very long time to stem shootings and such but maybe in a couple hundred years it would change things some. As for the idea of protecting ourselves from the government ... well if it got to the point of a fight against the government then most likely the military would also be split and so the weapons needed for that fight would be available one way or the other. So yea I don't think the idea that people protecting themselves from the government is an issue really.

My big issue is the government getting more and more into telling a person what they can or can not have or do. I get that if it is something you don't care about you are willing to simply remove it..... that is the way most things are. What about motorcycles? There is no real need for motorcycles and they are more dangerous than cars. If it will save thousands of lives a year why not just make the illegal and remove them from the roads? Some might try to argue that they are better on gas and so offer savings for the owner that way but if you look at the whole picture (tires, chains, maintenance, etc.) I am sure we would all agree that using a bike daily is more expensive overall than using a car. All in all is there a real reason to allow motorcycles to continue to take thousands of lives a year?

Yes, I realized they are not exactly the same thing but argument is or could be similar. You say that a semi-automatic weapon has only one reason and the same can be said about a modern SS motorcycle. So if not remove all motorcycles how about just sport bikes as they can only be used to break the law on the public roads.

Maybe the same ideas should be put to Alcohol again.... I mean 88k a year die from alcohol related deaths... that's more than guns. Shouldn't we be trying to stop such needless death. For that matter if we just make tobacco illegal then we would save about 480k lives a year in the US.

Again I did try to be sure not to directly attack anyone or call anyone names because I desire an adult conversation and not name calling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,048 Posts
Motorcycles are licensed. You are liable for the consequences of using your motorcycle in the wrong way. Likewise, guns should be licensed. Gun owners should be liable for the consequences of their use or misuse. It's a decent analogy, even though a weapon has no underlying use other than killing things, while motorcycles can be used for transportation. It's also a good analogy in that motorcycle riders are an odd minority that a whole lot of the population doesn't like or understand. Being allowed to continue to ride, even though it doesn't make me the most popular guy in traffic is good. Likewise, my colleague who likes to shoot in tournaments should not be denied the ability to do what he likes to do. Same goes with hunters. I even think that people who eat meat should kill an animal, dress the carcass and butcher up the meat at least once just so it means more than a foam tray and saran wrap.

Banning all guns isn't the answer, for lots of reasons. Restricting some and licensing them is a good start. If you leave your gun lying around, and your 8 year old finds it and shoots somebody, you should be headed up the river for a long time. If you leave your gun lying around and it gets stolen and used in a crime, then you just abetted the crime. No problems - just make gun owners strictly responsible for their guns. The GOP, which preaches personal responsibility all the time, should be all for it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,239 Posts
I don't know anyone that spends tens of thousands of dollars on guns .... but then I don't know anyone preparing for the end of days.
I've been working on the ammo side of the guns/ammo industry for nearly 3 years now. Oh believe me, there's plenty of non-preppers that spend as much money on their hobby as some of us do on our motorcycles. Of course there's a lot of guys that have 2 or 3 guns and go out shooting a few times a year, and maybe spend a weekend doing a local deer or goose hunt. That doesn't usually add up to much.

But then you have the enthusiasts who might have a dozen...two dozen guns...(and high-end guns). Guys that shoot at the range 2k-5k, even up to 10k rounds per year is not unheard of. Even if these guys build/reload their own ammo in their basement, that's still a substantial chunk of change. There's all sorts of sport shooting competitions, weekly skeet shooting leagues...even for highschool and college. I know guys that take multi-day out of state guided hunting expeditions...those aren't cheap. Some guys spend thousands just for hunting rights on some peoples' property, or buy property of their own that they only use to hunt on. Believe me, it's the enthusiasts/hobbyests that keep the industry going. I've grown up/lived in the middle of nowhere, rural US where +90% of homes not inside the city limits all have guns in them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,690 Posts
Motorcycles are licensed. You are liable for the consequences of using your motorcycle in the wrong way. Likewise, guns should be licensed. Gun owners should be liable for the consequences of their use or misuse.
Tell me how they are not. You can't.

If you leave your gun lying around, and your 8 year old finds it and shoots somebody, you should be headed up the river for a long time.
Already Federal law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,177 Posts
Motorcycles are licensed. You are liable for the consequences of using your motorcycle in the wrong way. Likewise, guns should be licensed. Gun owners should be liable for the consequences of their use or misuse. It's a decent analogy, even though a weapon has no underlying use other than killing things, while motorcycles can be used for transportation. It's also a good analogy in that motorcycle riders are an odd minority that a whole lot of the population doesn't like or understand. Being allowed to continue to ride, even though it doesn't make me the most popular guy in traffic is good. Likewise, my colleague who likes to shoot in tournaments should not be denied the ability to do what he likes to do. Same goes with hunters. I even think that people who eat meat should kill an animal, dress the carcass and butcher up the meat at least once just so it means more than a foam tray and saran wrap.

Banning all guns isn't the answer, for lots of reasons. Restricting some and licensing them is a good start. If you leave your gun lying around, and your 8 year old finds it and shoots somebody, you should be headed up the river for a long time. If you leave your gun lying around and it gets stolen and used in a crime, then you just abetted the crime. No problems - just make gun owners strictly responsible for their guns. The GOP, which preaches personal responsibility all the time, should be all for it.
This is what I am talking about. Finding something that will work for everyone involved and build from that. I would be willing to get behind something like this.

I also believe that if someone could go through the current laws and remove the crap that has been around forever and is never used leaving the important things that we want enforced it would be a big help. I am not sure what all laws are out there but we don't need to make new laws that cover something already covered under another law and is simply not enforced. Kind of like the cell phone and driving laws when distracted driving is already illegal. I know its just a pipe dream though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,434 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
The problems really the 2nd amend. No one has really agreed on the relationship between the two clauses, one requiring militias and other the right to bear arms.

The absolute "right" to own guns is a fraud. The Supreme has since turned down at least 6 cases on the 2nd. The court will not parse the amendment and refining Heller.

If nine people can stare at the same 27 words and come to different conclusions, it's time to clear the thing up and especially in the light of 40,000 gun related deaths a year. What is the relationship between a late 18th century militia and the open sale of military assault weapons? OR even with semi-auto pistols.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,048 Posts
Tell me how they are not. You can't.



Already Federal law.
Guns have a serial number, but to the best of my knowledge, there's no title that ties that serial number to an individual. There's no chain of custody of any kind, like there is for a motorcycle. So, not licensed or traceable in any meaningful way. Federal law doesn't do shit for some reason. There have been a number of small children shooting others around here lately. Nobody has been prosecuted. So much for the law you seem to think exists. If it does exist, then those people should have been up on federal charges. Full stop. Start making gun owners strictly liable for what happens with guns, make sure those guns can be traced to an individual owner, and life is good. It won't stop everything, but it sure will make a whole lot of people a whole lot more careful about who they sell to, how they store guns, and what happens. That would make a big difference in what happens without any need for banning anything.

You are a self-proclaimed conservative. You ought to be all over any solution that is about personal responsibility. If not, then it's all just a bunch of self-serving rhetoric that means certain people should be responsible and others get a free pass. You can't have it both ways and expect to have any credibility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,048 Posts
This is what I am talking about. Finding something that will work for everyone involved and build from that. I would be willing to get behind something like this.

I also believe that if someone could go through the current laws and remove the crap that has been around forever and is never used leaving the important things that we want enforced it would be a big help. I am not sure what all laws are out there but we don't need to make new laws that cover something already covered under another law and is simply not enforced. Kind of like the cell phone and driving laws when distracted driving is already illegal. I know its just a pipe dream though.
It's worth a try. What we are doing now isn't too bright.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,690 Posts
I was wrong about it being federal law, it looks like the states (only some) have laws in place to prosecute those responsible for allowing children to have access to guns.

"Just 14 states have negligent firearm storage laws, or statutes that mandate adults take precautions to secure their guns in such a way that children cannot access them. But of those, only four states (Florida, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut), along with the District of Columbia, allow for felony charges."

CNN

You are a self-proclaimed conservative.
Nope.


You ought to be all over any solution that is about personal responsibility. If not, then it's all just a bunch of self-serving rhetoric that means certain people should be responsible and others get a free pass. You can't have it both ways and expect to have any credibility.
I am all about personal responsibility. Where did I say I am not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,177 Posts
What is the relationship between a late 18th century militia and the open sale of military assault weapons? OR even with semi-auto pistols.
Seeing as we are trying to be clear and have a good discussion on this which I enjoy I wanted to point out that military assault weapons are not for sale to the public. A very select few people have the proper licenses to purchase military assault weapons.

That said an edit to the 2nd once the wording is agreed upon would be another thing I could get behind.

It's worth a try. What we are doing now isn't too bright.
I agree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,048 Posts
I was wrong about it being federal law, it looks like the states (only some) have laws in place to prosecute those responsible for allowing children to have access to guns.

"Just 14 states have negligent firearm storage laws, or statutes that mandate adults take precautions to secure their guns in such a way that children cannot access them. But of those, only four states (Florida, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut), along with the District of Columbia, allow for felony charges."

CNN



Nope.




I am all about personal responsibility. Where did I say I am not?
Perhaps you are. I was mostly commenting about the bizarre juxtaposition of second amendment "enthusiasts" who seem to think that more and more guns everywhere without any kind of accountability is a good idea with the "conservative" mindset that pushes personal responsibility.

If you aren't a doctrinaire "conservative," or reactionary in more accurate terms, then good. Reasonable people can figure out where the common ground is. The far right has been hollowing out the reasonable right. We need the reasonable right very badly these days.

Oh, one more thing. time for some more fucking thoughts and fucking prayers.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,434 Posts
Discussion Starter #35
Seeing as we are trying to be clear and have a good discussion on this which I enjoy I wanted to point out that military assault weapons are not for sale to the public. A very select few people have the proper licenses to purchase military assault weapons.
There you go again. Buy a bumpstock. Buy a couple of parts and you have an fully auto assault weapon. You're argument is like saying a Bugatti is a family car. The goddam things (AR-15s) are the frikkin' gun of choice for mass murderers. What the hell about the design of the damned things makes you think it's something you plink away at beer cans with? The AR-15 is a f'ing "detuned" military assault weapon.


That said an edit to the 2nd once the wording is agreed upon would be another thing I could get behind.
There is no rational way it can be argued that any citizen can buy any firearm. Once again, the militia clause is outdated. Civilized societies don't need guns. And, based on the number of people killed with guns every year, from homicides, to hunting accidents, to suicides, we're hardly a paradigm of civility.

UK: Gun Deaths per 100K population: 0.23
USA Gun deaths per 100K population: 10.45

UK Homicides with Guns per 100K pop. = 0.06
USA Homicides with Guns per 100K pop. = 3.45

UK gun ownership per 100 inhabitants = 2.8 guns
USA gun ownership per 100 inhabitants = 101.05

F'ing India and Kyrgystan have better numbers than the United States.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,177 Posts
There you go again. Buy a bumpstock. Buy a couple of parts and you have an fully auto assault weapon. You're argument is like saying a Bugatti is a family car. The goddam things (AR-15s) are the frikkin' gun of choice for mass murderers. What the hell about the design of the damned things makes you think it's something you plink away at beer can with? It's a f'ing "detuned" military assault weapon.
I am also good with making bumpstock's illegal. I get how you feel about "AR-15s" but let me ask ... are you ok with hunting rifles? I will attach one such rifle to this post if I can figure it out. Many of these are around and are used commonly for hunting.




There is no rational way it can be argued that any citizen can buy any firearm. Once again, the militia clause is outdated. Civilized societies don't need guns. And, based on the number of people killed with guns every year, from homicides, to hunting accidents, to suicides, we're hardly a paradigm of civility.

UK: Gun Deaths per 100K population: 0.23
USA Gun deaths per 100K population: 10.45

UK Homicides with Guns per 100K pop. = 0.06
USA Homicides with Guns per 100K pop. = 3.45

UK gun ownership per 100 inhabitants = 2.8 guns
USA gun ownership per 100 inhabitants = 101.05

F'ing India and Kyrgystan have better number than the United States.
In this you are saying that your more of get rid of all guns kinda guy. I agree completely that if you could find a way to remove all guns from everyone in the US then it would greatly reduce the number of gun deaths. It would have to reduce the number of murders per year but probably not as much as one might think and it probably wouldn't do much to suicide numbers. I don't think it is something that will ever happen peacefully to say the least. I could be wrong though. Personally any hunting I do could be done with a bow. The picture of that rifle I was talking about is below.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,048 Posts
It I had the urge to hunt, bow hunting sounds like a good way to go. The minimal challenge of shooting an animal a large distance away doesn't interest me. You have to stalk the animal, be clever, skillful, and be persistent with a bow. It's a little like catching and passing an evenly matched rider on the track. That's a whole lot more satisfying than ripping past a nervous rookie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,177 Posts
It I had the urge to hunt, bow hunting sounds like a good way to go. The minimal challenge of shooting an animal a large distance away doesn't interest me. You have to stalk the animal, be clever, skillful, and be persistent with a bow. It's a little like catching and passing an evenly matched rider on the track. That's a whole lot more satisfying than ripping past a nervous rookie.
This is very true but sometimes when I do hunt (and its been a long while) I am not looking for the sport, I simply want the meat. Of course I am also no the guy that mounts antlers or heads on my walls or take any trophy at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,048 Posts
This is very true but sometimes when I do hunt (and its been a long while) I am not looking for the sport, I simply want the meat. Of course I am also no the guy that mounts antlers or heads on my walls or take any trophy at all.
And that's reasonable, too. When I have hunted, it was the hunt that mattered, not actually killing an animal. I don't actually need the meat, and I don't enjoy field dressing a carcass. And, like you, I have absolutely no interest in some kind of trophy to commemorate a kill. If you don't eat what you kill hunting, you are a jackass. The cow has to die for us to eat meat from a supermarket, which means I have no moral objection to killing an animal in the woods and dragging it out to eat it. People who prefer that kind of meat and are willing to hunt for it will get no objections from me. Chances are that they will choose an efficient hunting rifle that's designed to drop whatever it is they are hunting with a minimal expenditure of ammunition. I can't imagine using a rifle with a bump stock for hunting purposes. That would just destroy the meat for no good reason.

Hunting rifles can be used to murder people, but they aren't the easiest way to do that. Handguns are an easier murder weapon. So are guns that spit out lots of bullets quickly. Hunting rifles are compromised more toward accuracy and less toward being concealable or toward high firing rates.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,177 Posts
Personally I like a bolt action hunting rifle because it is hard to beat the accuracy of it. Leaver action do a good job as well. I also rather open sights but have used scopes before. Some people these days swear by the semi-automatic hunting rifle (no bump stock) saying it is just as accurate as the bolt action and instead of dropping 1 deer out of a group of 5 or 6 they say they can drop 2 or 3 out that same group (using 2 or 3 shots). I haven't put my hands on one of the semi-automatic hunting rifles but I remember how accurate I was with my M16 in the Marines so its reasonable to think that they are accurate as well.

Bump stocks serve no purpose at all IMHO and take away accuracy of shots. I really think the most logical first step is some type of license to purchase a gun and even a registration of firearms as well as allowing all non personal information to be tracked. That would allow us to have good solid studies on shootings and such. Also holding owners responsible when they are negligent. A ban simply wont work.

I was reading today that some town near Chicago banned assault weapons in that town with a $1000 fine for every day a person has one of those banned weapons in that town. My question is how do they plan to enforce that? Do they expect anyone owning one of the banned weapons to turn it in or move? Do they think people will come forward and say "yea I have had that gun for the last 2 weeks so here is your $14000."? How do they really see this working out? Not one person in my neighborhood knows what I do or don't have in my house and even if there was some type of registration already then I would simply say that I have it stored in my friends house a town over or whatever.
 
21 - 40 of 52 Posts
Top