Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       12-20-2012, 4:01 PM Reply   
In terms of statistics why do they not compare actual homocides with a subset for gun homocides, adjusted for population of course?
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       12-20-2012, 4:17 PM Reply   
Also, when you look at the FBI totals for murder in 2011 more people are killed with fists/feet than rifles (all types). Just saying...

Also, those numbers should exclude suicides. Lots of "gun free" countries have much higher suicide rates than the US.
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       12-20-2012, 4:37 PM Reply   
Quote:
I guess so that can hopefully apprehend the suspect. If not timely enough, I guess the other scenario would be for them to write up the report of me shooting the guy.
You can do that, Jeremy. Citizens arrests are perfectly legal.

Why call the police?
Old    Small Light (stephan)      Join Date: Nov 2002       12-20-2012, 4:51 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark197 View Post
Stephan why don't they restrict the first amendment so that you can only say certain words? We "the government" believe that you should not be able to use the word "beer" in a sentence because alcohol is evil and it can lead to bad things. Once you let your rights disappear there is no stopping. The men who wrote the constitution were brilliant and their ideals still hold true today.
I believe they do restrict the 1st Amendment. Any libel or slander on incitement to commit a crime is treated as varying levels of legality. It's not that words are illegal, its how they are used that can get one in trouble. Guns are exactly the same thing, guns are legal but how you use them can change that quickly. If you use them to violate others rights, you have issues.

My argument is that if you use it irresponsibly (and I consider allowing it to be stolen irresponsible) or allow it to be used improperly through negligence, then you should be held accountable. Wanting to have instant access should not be more important than taking measures to insure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. As I said, it would be about personal choice but the consequences would be severe.
Old    David (detonate69)      Join Date: Apr 2001       12-20-2012, 6:12 PM Reply   
How does anyone allow a gun to be stolen? Like they just open up the door and say here you go please steal my ****. That's asinine. That's like saying oh you allowed yourself to be raped, you allowed yourself to be mugged, you allowed yourself to be T boned by a drunk driver and killed. I guess all bad things that happen are your own fault because you allowed them to happen.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Old    David (detonate69)      Join Date: Apr 2001       12-20-2012, 6:14 PM Reply   
You know what they say, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       12-20-2012, 6:18 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
How do you know what goes on in my classroom? Do you know me Robert? You thinking you have someone figured out because of my posts on an internet forum shows that, if you were a teacher, you wouldn't abide by what you think makes one a good teacher. Because we disagree ideologically, that makes me a bad teacher in your opinion. But I guarantee if I was on here boasting about guns or slamming Obama, you would think I was the greatest teacher alive. It just shows you are close-minded and a hypocrite. I mean, am I qualified to say you aren't a good tool.................................... salesman because of what you post on freaking Wakeworld?

I'm done with this argument, because frankly, I don't give a sheet whether or not you think I am good teacher or a bad one.
If your teaching what your preaching,your kids will be doomed.You should teach them how to think and reason for themselves.You are the one who disputes everyones thoughts on WW.Ask my fellow WW's or look in the mirror once and you will see the problem.
Old    zakman (zacky)      Join Date: Apr 2003       12-20-2012, 7:18 PM Reply   
Although I do agree there has to be some sort of middle ground (of which I don't know what that could possibly be), I don't feel punishing those who "allow" their firearms to be stolen (by means of irresponsible storage in their homes) would be a plausible solution. How many of us lock our medicine cabinets where we keep our prescription drugs? How about our shelves where we keep our alcohol? How about our cars? All three can easily be stolen from somebody's home, and, when used irresponsibly, all three can have tragic consequences.

Interesting discussion though...
Old    Sean M (magic)      Join Date: Mar 2002       12-20-2012, 8:56 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by zacky View Post
Although I do agree there has to be some sort of middle ground (of which I don't know what that could possibly be), I don't feel punishing those who "allow" their firearms to be stolen (by means of irresponsible storage in their homes) would be a plausible solution. How many of us lock our medicine cabinets where we keep our prescription drugs? How about our shelves where we keep our alcohol? How about our cars? All three can easily be stolen from somebody's home, and, when used irresponsibly, all three can have tragic consequences.

Interesting discussion though...
We do. Our prescription drugs that could be additive or have street value are in one of our gun safes. Wife is a nurse and used to having a locked cabinet for any of 'the good stuff' meds. We lock our wine up, don't drink sprits so there none in the house, and only have a little beer on hand at any one time. Our guns are all locked up and our ammo is stored separately. Not following about locking cars, ours are locked all ways and there is nothing worth stealing in them.

We have baby sitters over several times a month, we feel that we know the sitters well but rather not give them the chance to snag a bottle, play with a gun, get at some meds... not to mention miniMagic staying out of trouble. We have also started down the path to be a foster child respite provider and having booze, meds, and fire arms locked up are all required criteria.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-21-2012, 5:17 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by barry View Post
You can do that, Jeremy. Citizens arrests are perfectly legal.

Why call the police?
Barry, I know citizen arrests are legal. But what am I supposed to do with the guy if I apprehend him; lock him up in a closet for 20 years? I believe you let the police do their job whenever possible.

So again, I don't follow what you are saying. What is the magic phrase you want me to say so you can proclaim that you are right and I am wrong.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-21-2012, 5:24 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwb4me View Post
If your teaching what your preaching,your kids will be doomed.You should teach them how to think and reason for themselves.You are the one who disputes everyones thoughts on WW.Ask my fellow WW's or look in the mirror once and you will see the problem.
Why, because it doesn't line up with how you believe? That totally contradicts your whole "think and reason" line. Plus, you sound like you are simply echoing Limbaugh and Hannity talking points. And one more time Robert, since you seem to have a super hard time of comprehending, I TEACH MATH, THERE ARE NO POLITICS, BELIEFS, RELIGION, ETC. associated with any of my curriculum (unless you want to count the discussion we had talking about election polling and how they are able to call races before all of the ballots are counted, it tied in nicely to a lesson we were doing in statistics). And who made you the authority on teaching anyways? And what you mean is ask "your fellow WW's" that agree with your line of thinking. I think if you say something, be prepared to defend it. Don't get little man syndrome and try to attack someone on things of which you have zero knowledge.

Last edited by wake77; 12-21-2012 at 5:29 AM.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       12-21-2012, 5:25 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwb4me View Post
If your teaching what your preaching,your kids will be doomed.You should teach them how to think and reason for themselves.You are the one who disputes everyones thoughts on WW.Ask my fellow WW's or look in the mirror once and you will see the problem.
Robert your post would be a great example of irony, if wake77 were an English teacher.

You set the scene with "your teaching," instead of "you're teaching" (you
Mean "you are teaching," right?). I wouldn't generally be a grammar cop, but you are criticizing a teacher's abilities, so I think you've opened the door.

Then you say that wake77 should teach kids to "think and reason for themselves." We'll set aside that he's said he's a math teacher for a moment. You go on to complain that Wake77 argues and disputes everyone's thoughts on WW. Is that not the very definition of thinking and reasoning for himself?

Essentially you've said "think and reason for yourself... I can tell you don't because you disagree with me."

Irony can be so ironic sometimes.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       12-21-2012, 5:42 AM Reply   
There is nothing on earth that you can posess that cannot be stolen from behind a lock. Then the argument will be passed down to "how big a lock" is considered reasonable effort.

It is foolish to legislate restrictions on a free private society in an attempt to mitigate the behavior of those who arent participating in said society (following the rules).

The answer is for the punishment of simple gun crime (armed robbery\poss of stolen gun) to be so severe that its not worth the risk, and for the public to defend themselves from potential nuts.

A free society is going to have tragedies every now and then. They cannot be eliminated preemptively. Those who dont follow the rules cannot be stopped by creating rules for those that do.

Ever wonder why you never hear of anyone holding up a gunstore? Is it because criminals dont feel like gun stores have any money? The gun stores register sits on the counter. A convienence store register sits behind glass, yet they still choose to rob the convienence store where there is less money and its harder to get to. Why do you think that is?
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       12-21-2012, 6:09 AM Reply   
Quote:
A free society is going to have tragedies every now and then. They cannot be eliminated preemptively.
Bingo.
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       12-21-2012, 6:11 AM Reply   
Quote:
Ever wonder why you never hear of anyone holding up a gunstore? Is it because criminals dont feel like gun stores have any money? The gun stores register sits on the counter. A convienence store register sits behind glass, yet they still choose to rob the convienence store where there is less money and its harder to get to. Why do you think that is?
Perfect example from the Darwin Awards Book series (given this criminal seems extra stupid):
3 February 1990, Washington

The following mind-boggling attempt at a crime spree appeared to be the robber's first, due to his lack of a previous record of violence, and his terminally stupid choices:

1. His target was H&J Leather & Firearms. A gun shop.

2. The shop was full of customers - firearms customers.

3. To enter the shop, the robber had to step around a marked police patrol car parked at the front door.

4. A uniformed officer was standing at the counter, having coffee before work.

Upon seeing the officer, the would-be robber announced a holdup, and fired a few wild shots. The officer and a clerk promptly returned fire, covered by several customers who also drew their guns, thereby removing the confused criminal from the gene pool.

No one else was hurt.
Old    Small Light (stephan)      Join Date: Nov 2002       12-21-2012, 10:27 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by detonate69 View Post
How does anyone allow a gun to be stolen? Like they just open up the door and say here you go please steal my ****. That's asinine. That's like saying oh you allowed yourself to be raped, you allowed yourself to be mugged, you allowed yourself to be T boned by a drunk driver and killed. I guess all bad things that happen are your own fault because you allowed them to happen.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
I agree, it is asinine. To the point that a responsible gun owner should never allow it to happen by securing their firearms. Just like you secure your car and don't hand the keys to a drunk driver, you should lock up your gun and not allow it to be accessible to perps.

The woman in Connecticut allowed her guns to be stolen by her son and he murdered 26 people. The fact that its asinine doesn't excuse it from being the cause of the school shooting, the mall shooting and many many other acts of violence.
Old    David (detonate69)      Join Date: Apr 2001       12-21-2012, 11:45 AM Reply   
So i guess if someone breaks into my house, steals my keys, takes my car, and kills someone it's my fault because I "allowed" them to steal my car? I still find that a ridiculous argument.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       12-21-2012, 12:07 PM Reply   
Quote:
The woman in Connecticut allowed her guns to be stolen by her son and he murdered 26 people. The fact that its asinine doesn't excuse it from being the cause of the school shooting, the mall shooting and many many other acts of violence.

And here is the problem with half of America. People actually think that gun storage caused a shooting spree, and not some derranged lunatic. Blame anyone except the guy who did it. If he would have ran them all over with a car on the playground, we wouldnt be looking for heavier car restrictions, nor would we blame the person from whom he stole the car. It would be just as tragic and all the blame would be on the idiot, not the car, nor who it was stolen from.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       12-21-2012, 12:14 PM Reply   
I think the idea (and it was not put well) is that if you have a mentally ill son, maybe it isn't the best idea to drum up an interest in guns and shooting, hmm? If your neighbor didn't properly fence in their dog and it ran into the yard and mauled or killed your toddler, I'm sure you'd be focusing your blame solely on the dog.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       12-21-2012, 12:41 PM Reply   
Agreed Wes.
Old    Small Light (stephan)      Join Date: Nov 2002       12-21-2012, 4:23 PM Reply   
Thank you Wes, that is a very good analogy.

detonate69, its about gross negligence. What many of you folks are missing is what I said in my initial statement, "The idea is that there aren't a lot of fines, just the threat of the fine leading to a lot more secured guns." And again, I never said its perfect. I'm trying to find a middle ground that is somewhat acceptable for both sides of a deeply divided issues.

Jason, there is no doubt that this was the work of a sick individual, first and foremost. However, things would have gone vastly different if guns were not accessible. Yeah he could have caused harm with any weapon but instead he had access to an incredibly powerful array of guns. What might be common sense to some apparently isn't all that common.

The other thing, to say that the other half of America is wrong is sadly insular. We as Americans, need to stop claiming to be right and work towards compromise on all issues. People feel very strongly on either side of the argument, one side will not win. I thought what I was saying was a compromise worth discussing.
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       12-21-2012, 5:06 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Why, because it doesn't line up with how you believe? That totally contradicts your whole "think and reason" line. Plus, you sound like you are simply echoing Limbaugh and Hannity talking points. And one more time Robert, since you seem to have a super hard time of comprehending, I TEACH MATH, THERE ARE NO POLITICS, BELIEFS, RELIGION, ETC. associated with any of my curriculum (unless you want to count the discussion we had talking about election polling and how they are able to call races before all of the ballots are counted, it tied in nicely to a lesson we were doing in statistics). And who made you the authority on teaching anyways? And what you mean is ask "your fellow WW's" that agree with your line of thinking. I think if you say something, be prepared to defend it. Don't get little man syndrome and try to attack someone on things of which you have zero knowledge.
Jeremy how does your beloved President protect himself? With a armed and trained Secret Service team. How is the USA protected ? By trained and armed soldiers.This is logical thinking.How many Presidents have been assassinated? Two with a third attempt.People learned from these events and armed and trained themselves better.How can you protect kids if you have no protection.A lunatic could have come in the school with a baseball bat and killed the same number of people.Why because the police are slow to respond.So then are you going to ban the game of Baseball and all baseball bats.Evil hearts are what makes people kill others for no reason.You can only protect yourself or others with equal or greater force than your opponent.As for Limbaugh he's a drug addict and i never listen to him.I have heard of Hannity but have never heard him speak.I think with the same kind of reasoning as our forefathers thought with as they drew up the constitution
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       12-21-2012, 5:24 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Robert your post would be a great example of irony, if wake77 were an English teacher.

You set the scene with "your teaching," instead of "you're teaching" (you
Mean "you are teaching," right?). I wouldn't generally be a grammar cop, but you are criticizing a teacher's abilities, so I think you've opened the door.

Then you say that wake77 should teach kids to "think and reason for themselves." We'll set aside that he's said he's a math teacher for a moment. You go on to complain that Wake77 argues and disputes everyone's thoughts on WW. Is that not the very definition of thinking and reasoning for himself?

Essentially you've said "think and reason for yourself... I can tell you don't because you disagree with me."

Irony can be so ironic sometimes.
Are you Jeremy's brother? By teaching what your preaching i mean Schools shouldn't have guns allowed.By argues and disputes i mean if someone doesn't agree with Jeremy he takes it personal and calls them out.Then he tries to act like he's smarter than everyone else.I think he is a very unhappy man who is miserable all the time.The only thing that makes him feel worthwhile is belittling others.I didn't say he was a bad teacher,He ASSUMED thats what i meant just like you.I don't care if i spell correctly or have proper grammar.I'm a salesman not a Writer.Irony is a citizen of the USA saying" Guns are dangerous we should ban them" at the same time soldiers of the United States of America are carrying automatic weapons to protect them. Think about that for a minute?
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       12-21-2012, 5:41 PM Reply   
Quote:
If your neighbor didn't properly fence in their dog and it ran into the yard and mauled or killed your toddler, I'm sure you'd be focusing your blame solely on the dog.
Great analogy! So in this scenario, who is to blame:

A. Dog owner
B. Dog
C. Teeth
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       12-21-2012, 5:42 PM Reply   
If its easier, which of the three is least to blame?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-21-2012, 5:59 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwb4me View Post
Are you Jeremy's brother? By teaching what your preaching i mean Schools shouldn't have guns allowed.By argues and disputes i mean if someone doesn't agree with Jeremy he takes it personal and calls them out.Then he tries to act like he's smarter than everyone else.I think he is a very unhappy man who is miserable all the time.The only thing that makes him feel worthwhile is belittling others.I didn't say he was a bad teacher,He ASSUMED thats what i meant just like you.I don't care if i spell correctly or have proper grammar.I'm a salesman not a Writer.Irony is a citizen of the USA saying" Guns are dangerous we should ban them" at the same time soldiers of the United States of America are carrying automatic weapons to protect them. Think about that for a minute?
Soldiers also carry hand grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, C4, etc. What exactly are we supposed to be thinking about?
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       12-21-2012, 6:30 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Soldiers also carry hand grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, C4, etc. What exactly are we supposed to be thinking about?
They have equal or greater force than their foes. You really didn't need that hint did you?
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       12-22-2012, 5:24 AM Reply   
So the framers intended the second amendment for you stop you foes? Is that what you are trying to say?
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       12-22-2012, 8:18 AM Reply   
The framers believed that in order for a state to remain truly free, its citizenship must retain the right to own the weaponry that would allow them to band together and defend their land from foreign invaders as well as a corrupt government. They knew the history of what invaders can do to an unarmed\underarmed society, and they lived through a corrupt government that they were defenseless against. They simply did not want their new republic to repeat any of these mistakes.

Lets face it, we've already failed somewhat as the weapons we are allowed to own to defend ourselves against a corrupt government pale in comparison to what the government allows themselves. In that respect, we are already subjects rather than citizens.
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       12-22-2012, 9:10 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
So the framers intended the second amendment for you stop you foes? Is that what you are trying to say?
Just look at the Native American Indian.They had spears ,bow and arrows as well as knives.But when the white man came with guns the indians were no match.The white man took what he wanted because he had a superior army and more powerful force with his guns.It's happened all throughout history the weak are taken over by the strong.You have a choice in America,choose to be a Victim or Choose to be Prepared.
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       12-22-2012, 9:12 AM Reply   
Jason again...Always clouding the thread with facts and ideas that matter.

You don't get it, how I perceive things and how I feel dictate reality.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-22-2012, 9:49 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_ssr View Post
Lets face it, we've already failed somewhat as the weapons we are allowed to own to defend ourselves against a corrupt government pale in comparison to what the government allows themselves. In that respect, we are already subjects rather than citizens.
So let me get this straight, you are advocating for citizens the ability to own the same weapons as our military? We should be able to buy hand grenades and chemical weapons at our local gun store? It has to be that or you want our military to only be able to use rifles, shotguns, and handguns. It sounds like a flawed argument.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       12-22-2012, 9:49 AM Reply   
Have you guys READ the second amendment?

"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."

Where does it say anything about overthrowing government, even a corrupt one?

Where does it say anything about the weak and the strong?

In fact, where does it say anything about hunting?
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       12-23-2012, 4:59 AM Reply   
Quote:
So let me get this straight, you are advocating for citizens the ability to own the same weapons as our military? We should be able to buy hand grenades and chemical weapons at our local gun store? It has to be that or you want our military to only be able to use rifles, shotguns, and handguns. It sounds like a flawed argument.
I think we should have the right to them, but honestly, the latest tech military stuff isn't all that necessary. Lets face it, when the USSR had the most powerful military in the world, Afghanistan held them off with AKs and slingshots. Lets face, with the rules in place, who has access to US military grade weapons? The US military, drug cartels, common criminals, gangs, private security, law enforcement, etc. Basically everyone but the law abiding citizen. You think rocket grenades are hard to get? Anyone with money and a seedy connection can have one within the week. I saw one shot into a brush pile by a hillbilly on a ranch about 4 years ago.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       12-23-2012, 5:32 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_ssr View Post
I think we should have the right to them, but honestly, the latest tech military stuff isn't all that necessary. Lets face it, when the USSR had the most powerful military in the world, Afghanistan held them off with AKs and slingshots. Lets face, with the rules in place, who has access to US military grade weapons? The US military, drug cartels, common criminals, gangs, private security, law enforcement, etc. Basically everyone but the law abiding citizen. You think rocket grenades are hard to get? Anyone with money and a seedy connection can have one within the week. I saw one shot into a brush pile by a hillbilly on a ranch about 4 years ago.
Because the USSR never had the "most powerful military in the world". When they were displaying the nukes and other military weapons to the world in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's, it was a dog and pony show. A lot of the stuff didn't work. It was propaganda. Kind of like the NRA convincing you if you don't own guns you aren't safe in the US.
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       12-23-2012, 3:50 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Because the USSR never had the "most powerful military in the world". When they were displaying the nukes and other military weapons to the world in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's, it was a dog and pony show. A lot of the stuff didn't work. It was propaganda. Kind of like the NRA convincing you if you don't own guns you aren't safe in the US.
Actually you are safe most of the time,but are you prepared? By owning and carrying a gun you are prepared at all times in case you experience imminent danger. I may have spelled imminent wrong as it is also spelled eminent.I'm not a teacher.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       12-24-2012, 6:59 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwb4me View Post
Actually you are safe most of the time,but are you prepared? By owning and carrying a gun you are prepared at all times in case you experience imminent danger. I may have spelled imminent wrong as it is also spelled eminent.I'm not a teacher.
Robert using that logic if I buy and drive a Porsche I'm ready to race at all times. Or if I buy and carry an electric guitar, I'll be ready to fill in for Cobain when Nirvana gets back together.

Carrying doesn't mean you are prepared at all. A gun is a tool and carrying it doesn't make you better at using it, anymore than I can learn the guitar by carrying one around.
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       12-24-2012, 7:44 AM Reply   
Surely you know by prepared i mean trained and proficient with a gun your going to carry.
Old    Sean M (magic)      Join Date: Mar 2002       12-24-2012, 8:02 AM Reply   
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/...-ill-tell-you/

Good read gun control, specifically "assault" and high capacity magazines.

Regarding carrying, I only carry what I practice with at the range. Picked up a Glock 27 last week and its locked up till the wife and I go get comfortable with it.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       12-24-2012, 8:41 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwb4me View Post
Surely you know by prepared i mean trained and proficient with a gun your going to carry.
What does trained and proficient mean?

(Hint: This is one of the many areas where there can be common ground)
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       12-25-2012, 2:56 PM Reply   
None of this is even up for debate. You live in the USA. If you don't like the 2A, don't buy a gun. If you want to take mine... good luck. You always have the option to move to a country where like minded people live. Do you ever wonder why the US gets called on everytime there is conflict in the world? We are the "Land of the free. Home of the brave" for a reason. We fought (with firearms) for our freedom.

If you have to ask why anybody needs a "assault rifle" then you don't understand the 2A. It was not written to allow us to have hunting rifles. It was written to prevent citizens from being disarmed by tyranny. Please read the history books about assaults on citizens rights to arm themselves.

As for the whole "assault rifle" argument: What is an "assault rifle"? Would a baseball bat used in a crime be termed a "assault bat"? Is it because it's painted black or doesn't have a wood stock? There are plenty of semi-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns. How are they any different functionallly from a so-callled "assault rifle"?

.... And if you think our rifles would prove ineffective against our government during some type of civil war I think that you are sorely wrong. Why are we having such a hard time fighting the wars in Afghanistan?

What I'm saying is; Your opinion is up to you. That's the beauty of living in this country. But, that's it.... It's your opinion. The 2A is our right as dictated by our constitution. It shall not be perverted because of politial agenda or fearful perception. Sorry, it's just not on the table.
Old    Pound (snyder)      Join Date: Feb 2006       12-27-2012, 8:16 AM Reply   
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

Hot off the presses.
Old    Sean M (magic)      Join Date: Mar 2002       12-27-2012, 8:22 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by snyder View Post
been seeing that. still seems focused on what looks scary and not changing anything with users. guns don't go bang on their own. she is fishing for votes and politicking.
Old    David Langston (rdlangston13)      Join Date: Feb 2011       12-27-2012, 8:40 AM Reply   
Sax thing is this will probably be passed


Sent from my iPhone newtys droid killer using Tapatalk
Old    DC (durty_curt)      Join Date: Apr 2008       12-27-2012, 8:57 AM Reply   
Fook me! I knew i should have purchased the FN Scar when i had the chance!
Old    RileyBangerter (steezyshots)      Join Date: Feb 2008       12-27-2012, 9:15 AM Reply   
Here are some interesting statistics
http://rense.com/general95/gun-history.html
Old    Sean M (magic)      Join Date: Mar 2002       12-27-2012, 9:33 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by durty_curt View Post
Fook me! I knew i should have purchased the FN Scar when i had the chance!
I picked up a Kel Tec PMR30 used towards the end of the summer. Like new with a bunch of ammo and extra magazines, $400.

http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx...s=keltec+pmr30

They are going for more than double that now. Glad I bought a case of ammo a few weeks back too, even .22WMR is going up and getting hard to find (no where bad as .223)
Old    sperbet            12-27-2012, 10:39 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by snyder View Post
So who knows how long this process takes and what she needs to get it passed?
Old    Sean M (magic)      Join Date: Mar 2002       12-27-2012, 1:01 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by sperbet View Post
So who knows how long this process takes and what she needs to get it passed?
Isn't VP Biden supposed to be do this?
Old    Nick Schrein (wakeboardern1)      Join Date: Aug 2007       12-31-2012, 1:30 PM Reply   
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/...-ill-tell-you/

That article was written by a Democrat (or leftist as he calls himself), and I beg the anti-gun people in this topic to please read it. It was posted up in one of the Assault Weapons ban posts, but since there is literally zero liberal activity in there, I am posting it here.

No slandering, no arguing about intelligence, just the cold hard facts relating to assault weapons, high capacity magazines and the crimes committed with such weaponry.

Feinstein is trying to pass a bill that will force all existing gun owners to register their firearm, pay huge tax penalties (because let's be honest, having to pay taxes for owning a firearm is a penalty) and to register your photo ID and fingerprint with the weapon's serial number. That will create what is essentially a national database of who has what weapons, what magazines and what not. Which has been proven time and time again to be the first step behind taking firearms from the citizens.

Anyone who turns this debate into some insult war like all of you have need to stop, breathe, grow up and try to be mature about the topic. This isn't about who's right and wrong, or about who is smarter or less brainwashed, it's about a free America. Statistics have shown that the weapons that will be banned actually prevent more crime than they'll stop, and it will not stop "mass shootings."

And if anyone feels the need to insult me, bring it on, because I'm one and doneing with this post. I won't respond to attacks, questions or even continue posting. I have tried to stay out of political discussions on this board for quite a while (job hunting and all), especially since all that anyone has ever done is attempted to belittle and infuriate me. I don't have the time or the tolerance for it.

Happy New Years everyone!
Old    Jay Simmo (JayManAR)      Join Date: Dec 2012       12-31-2012, 3:29 PM Reply   
Wow, that's actually a really good article. I'm not sure how anyone could honestly and seriously argue against it after reading.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       12-31-2012, 3:57 PM Reply   
Good article. And I liked this link from it, holy crap:

Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-01-2013, 7:47 AM Reply   
I think it was a good article, but I don't think just because something happens with less frequency should mean that we shouldn't address the problem. I mean, I am sure I could come up with comparable numbers of the number of Americans killed in terrorist attacks as opposed to say, automobile deaths. That didn't stop us from waging two full scale wars with the price tag of thousands of US servicemen and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-01-2013, 8:07 AM Reply   
To further elaborate, as the author attempts to argue, why not devote all the resources to eliminating automobile deaths before waging war against the Taliban and Saddam?
Old    Jon (jon4pres)      Join Date: May 2004       01-01-2013, 8:04 PM Reply   
This is crazier than I ever thought. This week I wanted to buy an ar 15 upper and upon a little research it appears that every single ar 15 item is sold out. I expected complete guns and lowers but not all of the parts that are not part of the "registered gun"
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       01-02-2013, 3:29 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
To further elaborate, as the author attempts to argue, why not devote all the resources to eliminating automobile deaths before waging war against the Taliban and Saddam?
The Government has done quite a bit to mandate how safe cars are to travel in. Examples being Air bags,Anti lock brakes,traction control and crumple zones front and rear.As well as shoulder belts for all occupants of the vehicle.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-02-2013, 5:30 AM Reply   
Quote:
I think it was a good article, but I don't think just because something happens with less frequency should mean that we shouldn't address the problem.
Nobody says the problem shouldnt be addressed. However, the problem is not barrel shrouds, folding stocks, threaded barrels, high cap mags, mean appearance, or guns in general. The problem is weirdos, and the media attn they get. How about we focus on handling them instead of hassling law abiding citizens with rules that only they follow?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-02-2013, 6:37 AM Reply   
^And how do you go about that? The shooter at the school had no criminal record, wouldn't that make him a "law abiding citizen"? That's the problem with these guys. Most of them have no criminal background until they go on their shooting spree. And if you are perhaps advocating psychological testing to buy firearms, wouldn't that fit your definition of "hassling law abiding citizens"? So I am just curious of what should be done because so far we haven't heard many viable solutions. One side wants to ban certain weapons while another side wants nothing done except putting more arms in the public.
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       01-02-2013, 7:24 AM Reply   
Quote:
^And how do you go about that?

Nobody knows! You can't accurately predict human behavior. The best you can do is predict future behavior by past behavior, but that's not always accurate. Once you find a way to predict it, how do you control it?
Essentially the gun ban crowd's position is " We don't know how to fix the problem, but we must do something at any cost". That's not a solution! Doing 'something' is sometimes worse than doing nothing as collateral damage becomes a bigger issue.The ONLY way a gun ban will work is if it were a complete ban- all firearms gone with one fell swoop and that can't happen. If it were possible the weapon of choice would simply be the next effective tool. You're chasing your tail.

Limiting firearms will not change the heart of a human being set on harming other human beings.
Come talk to me once you've figured out how to control and then predict the heart of man. Anything less and you're back to just 'something'.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-02-2013, 8:43 AM Reply   
Great question! Now your creating dialogue in the right direction. First, these people are not normal people who just flip out. This kid was known to be disturbed. Just because he hasnt commited a crime does not mean he should not be a concern. Second, back in the 60's and 70's, the NFL (and other sports) had problems with streakers. They wanted their 15 seconds of fame and wanted to get a chuckle out of the audience. The NFL stopped showing them in the broadcast. Those who did it stopped getting the attention that such an action was looking to attract. Eventually it stopped happening for the most part. There is no reason we should even know this kids name. The media has to stop breaking down these individuals after these events. These people are messed up and they see that mass shooters names go down in history and become legend. For someone messed up who feels the world is ignoring them, this kind of action is just what they need, and our media fuels their belief that they will get the attention of the world for weeks on end. Third, we need to defend ourselves against these nutjobs. Schools all over the nation need to take a page from the California book.

IMO, as soon as these nuts know we are on to them, they see that we dont care who these nuts are, and they know they will probably fail against a ready defense, mass shootings will simply stop being a proven method for the nutjob to get what he wants.
Old    Jon Hunter (hunter660)      Join Date: Aug 2007       01-02-2013, 8:55 AM Reply   
The media should report that there was a shooting, mention no names, and move on. There is no reason that there should be 24/7 coverage promoting the criminal.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       01-02-2013, 9:04 AM Reply   
Unfortunatley that won't happen in the information age.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-02-2013, 11:48 AM Reply   
Jason nailed it. Interesting the people who want to regulate the most are typically the people who end up giving power to those who commit the crime. They are legends. Show after show on cable channels dedicated to them. They should be dead to society.
Old    Hayes (hayes)      Join Date: Aug 2007       01-02-2013, 4:53 PM Reply   
I think you guys hit the nail on the head. All you hear about are the crazies committing crimes. How many people heard about this a few days after the killings in CT?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...tonio-theater/

Probably not many because the media failed to report this issue nationally. In my opinion, because it showed the value of owning guns for self-defense, it was not reported. The media is so liberal it is ridiculous.

Bottom line... With freedom, there are many possibilities. I am wondering when all cars will be governed to 70 mph by the government??? Same ridiculous concept.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-03-2013, 9:41 AM Reply   
I hear you on the car issue except cars are an object of desire and drives a huge chunk of our society and economy. The facts do hold true that excessive speed on the roads causes many deaths, it will not change because of previous sentence. Guns on the other hand are not. They are considered by many to be a threat to society even though the facts do not hold true. Matter of fact, many professional politicians know the history of the gun and know guns are a threat to dictators.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-03-2013, 10:25 AM Reply   
Old    andy zarlengo (colorider)      Join Date: Jun 2001       01-03-2013, 10:43 AM Reply   
The media is driving this crap. Look at the first responders reports at the school shooting. Handguns found in the school. NO Ar-15. Ar-15 was found in the trunk of the car. There is absolute proof of this in a police helicopter video showing the cops taking the gun out of the car, unloading it and securing it. The vid is all over the internet for people to see. The doctor's report about bullet holes in the victims being 223 caliber is complete bull****. How can they be when the gun is clearly shown being taken out of the shooter's car. There is an egenda with this shooting and the press is leading it. May be the govt telling them to do so, or could be that the media is so liberal sided.
The media decides what we hear and see. The media wants a gun ban. This is what makes them interesting and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       01-03-2013, 3:31 PM Reply   
"Bottom line... With freedom, there are many possibilities. I am wondering when all cars will be governed to 70 mph by the government??? Same ridiculous concept."
Like when all cars are automatically driven and there are zero accidents?
The people that think they are going to be attacked by the government do not have a valid argument because we can change the government with a vote, so nobody is going to revolt against our government when they can simply vote them out of office. we could even get rid of the president mid office if we wanted to. If we had No guns would crime go down? probably not, like alot of people have already said guns don't kill people, mental, unstable people kill people!
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-03-2013, 4:26 PM Reply   
Sure we can vote them out, as long as the government doesn't change the rules or interpret the rules in a way that keeps us from doing so. But they can't do that, right? Oh wait... They are doing it to the 2nd amendment now.
Old    Hayes (hayes)      Join Date: Aug 2007       01-03-2013, 5:38 PM Reply   
Joe - The Nazi party rose to power in a democratic state... They were voted into absolute power with the party taking advantage of the system.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       01-03-2013, 9:57 PM Reply   
Hayes, bad example, Hitler was not elected chancellor of germany, he was appointed. Germany ceased to be a monarchy in 1918, when it became a republic, so it had very week democratic principles and was easy for hitler to convert to a Dictatorship once he was appointed. Also, he was born in Austria. He could never have been elected in USA. Do you think hitler was peaceful and non-antisematic when he was growing the nazi party? He joined the party because they were a militant group and antisematic. He was serving a prison term when he started writing mein-kopf.
Nobody is going to touch the 2A, that is a vote that will have to go to the people, so even if the government instituted martial law the people could vote them out and reintate it, no reason to go to war.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-04-2013, 1:29 PM Reply   
SO... Anyone know where I can get a mini 14, m1a, or m1 carbine on a budget? Any preferred websites or stores that I could order from?
Old    Hayes (hayes)      Join Date: Aug 2007       01-04-2013, 4:37 PM Reply   
Joe - I said the Nazi party, not Hitler. Similar to our Congress / Senate. They slowly took over and gained absolute power.

Parliamentary elections were held in Germany (including recently-annexed Austria) on 10 April 1938.[1] They were the final elections to the Reichstag during Nazi rule and took the form of a single-question referendum asking whether voters approved of a single Nazi-party list for the 813-member Reichstag as well as the recent annexation of Austria (the Anschluss). Turnout in the election was officially 99.5% with 98.9% voting "yes".[1] In the case of Austria, Hitler's native soil, 99.71% of an electorate of 4,484,475 officially went to the ballots, with a positive tally of 99.73%.
Old    Hayes (hayes)      Join Date: Aug 2007       01-04-2013, 5:25 PM Reply   
Also, both Germany and the U.S. are democratic republics. Germany was transformed to a dictatorship.
Old    Adam (blindmnkee3)      Join Date: Aug 2001       01-05-2013, 1:13 PM Reply   
I thought my little corner of the world was slightly sheltered from the craziness but boy was I wrong. Just got back from the Spokane gun show and prices have doubled from a month ago. DPMS complete upper for $1200 and lowers selling for 400-500. Wtf!?! Any complete AR with any type of optic was $2000-3000 all throughout the show. I couldn't believe it. Best PMAG price was 40 but most were priced 60-70. Sure am glad I snuck in my purchases last month. People watching at these things is definately one of my favorite ways to kill time

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       01-05-2013, 6:00 PM Reply   
Hayes still a BAD example, I said Germany had only been a Republic for 12 years! You cannot compare their situation with our democracy which has been in existence for over 235 years!
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-06-2013, 12:27 PM Reply   
You''re right, Pound, but over regulation is just as effective by making gun ownership unaffordable for the majority of people. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/whi...ves-2013-01-06
Old    Brearly Mason (Brearly_Mason)      Join Date: Nov 2012       01-07-2013, 9:51 AM Reply   
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-07-2013, 1:06 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brearly_Mason View Post
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." (Edward Abbey, "The Right to Arms," Abbey's Road [New York, 1979])
Am I the only one who finds quoting Abbey in a boating forum (especially one with lots of Powell threads) somewhat ironic?

//thread drift over, carry on.
Old    Matt (duramat)      Join Date: Feb 2008       01-07-2013, 9:07 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Am I the only one who finds quoting Abbey in a boating forum (especially one with lots of Powell threads) somewhat ironic?

//thread drift over, carry on.
LMAO!

The bigger question is do most know who he is

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:19 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us