PROPOSED GUN REGISTRATION

[tomgamber]

JP...I'm a "dem" and I don't want your freaking guns...try and refrain from lumping all as one in any manor. It tends to show of your narrow view of everything.

The other reason this will never pass is that three guys from Philly and three guys from the Burgh don't trump the rest of Alabama.

 

[RLeeP]

>>The best thing we can do as gun owners and sportsmen is to stick together>

Sometimes... And sometimes, maybe not...

One of the conundrums of the gun owner-sportsman connection is the fact that sometimes when we vote our 2nd Amendment preferences, we are, IMO, actually voting against our sport and it's future well being. Now, I realize this is an old complaint. But I'm on the front edge of becoming an old guy. So, it suits me well..

In my view, Rick Santorum was an excellent example of this. Very pro-gun, but also pretty anti-resource. It is arguable, given his electoral weakness even as an incumbent in 2000, that pro-gun or so-called "sportsmen" votes provided a significant portion of his margin of victory both in 2000 and in 94, when he ran on the corpse of John Heinz.

Was this in the best interest of all sportsmen? I'd say no.

Now, of course, all voting decisons are personal and are made, hopefully after having weighed all the issues and pros and cons of all candidates. Still, the question is real and worthwhile, IMO.

In my view, gun owners and "sportsmen" are 2 separate interest groups whose interests coincide now and then. But the commonality of interests is certainly not a given. Not for me, at least.

 

[RLeeP]

Ah, I see Tom and were thinking along somewhat similar lines. I'm just inclined to be more gassy about it...

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
The second paragraph isn't stupid at all. But I can understand your wanting to think so because it blows away the slippery slope falsehood that I suspect you have found yourself persuaded by.

Now on to "why won't it happen." My belief is that it won't happen for the reasons I already mentioned-- first, it goes too far and places too big a burden on gun ownership; second, it won't happen because Bubba and Bubbette will be inflamed by the rhetoric about Big Brother coming to get your guns and few legislators who want to be re-elected (and that's nearly all of them) will touch it with a ten foot pole. Unfortunately, few will even want to get close to a more reasonable gun control measure for the second reason.

Suspect what you want, but that one was wrong. I felt you second paragraph was stupid because there is no correlation between the right to own a gun, and the other ones. It is just rhetorical bull crap. I was surprised you even went there [color=CC0000](again)[/color], and now you chose to defend it? Come on. you are much better than that. Here is another one. Shouldn’t all pro life people be against the death penalty?

The why won't it happen part? Wake up Jack, You didn't need to be answered again. Afterall, I followed it up with "We both know it will happen"? i had agreed with you before. But I "suspect" I know whay you went after that again. It was so you don't have to achnowledge my earlier point. You have dodged it a few times now.

Every argument like this has two extremes. If one side lays down and takes a nap, what happens.

Jack, let me use another sensitive subject, and maybe you will relate. Abortion. why do you suppose that the Pro Choice side has continuously fought regulation agains partial birth abortion? It is the same freakin argument Jack!!! Is one OK, and not the other???

It is just the way it is. That is the way rights are taken away. they are usually not taken away all at once. Instead, they are taken away piece by piece. that is not a big brother statement at all. It is reality.

I'd like to take this time to say thank you to the Bubbas and Bubbettes out there. Without you, the current balance would be upset and the guys at the other end of the spectrum would surely gain ground.

I am a law abiding citicen (never committed a serious crime), and have no criminal record; absolutely nothing outside of traffic violations. Yes, I get tired of protecting my rights to keep my firearms, but I will never give up and say, "here, take them." I'm not even a member of the NRA and never was because I don't agree with everything they say. Just because I am a moderate on this issue, doesn't mean you can recruit me to the left. in fact, you are slowly convincing me that i should join the NRA. When smart people like you go this far to try and convince me I don't need that right, then maybe it is time I sent them a check.

How do you feel about this one. first of all, we both know that people commit crimes. sometimes it is with guns, but usually not. Instead of treating the symptom, lets treat the cause. Everyone age 6 and up should be fingerprinted, and provide a DNA sample to be kept on record by the government. none of thiis voluntary crap. Every couple years, they should be required to get a new photo ID. Make it mandatory. That way, when someone commits a crime, we can identify the criminal and the victim a whole lot easier.(unless they are OJ). It should work. I mean, if you aren't a criminal, you shouldn't have a problem with that. It is for the good of the people, right???

 

[JackM]

Dave you can accuse me of burying my head in the sand and I can accuse you and we can do that 'til the cows come home or until Big Brother comes to get your guns. The truth, however, as I see it, is that any time we regulate an activity, we can choose how far to go and where to stop. If the reasons for regulation are valid, we shouldn't fear doing so because someone thinks it makes it easier to go further later. It is a false argument and I don't buy it.

 

[FarmerDave]

Good points RLP.

 

[flyman]

Tom,
I am sure JP can speak for himself, but none the less your response has prompted me to respond.
1. I am glad you don't want my "freaking guns".
2. The Democratic party politicians, in majority with some liberal minded Republicans have repeatedly supported gun law reforms(a nice name for control) despite the objections from their constituants.
3. Rural Pennsylvania is not "Alabama". Was that an insult to those of us living outside of the metropolitan areas of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia? Narrow indeed, even us Bubba's can see that, right Jack?
Flyman

 

[JackM]

I didn't know you were a Bubba. My condolences. I don't use that term for rural folk, I use it for people whose political positions are manipulated by fallacious rhetorical devices, such as the "slippery slope" argument. I guess it is unfortunate that rural folk are more likely to name their children Bubba and Bubbette, rather than Biff or Buffy. I was trying to communicate, not be politically correct. Except my apology.

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
Dave you can accuse me of burying my head in the sand and I can accuse you and we can do that 'til the cows come home or until Big Brother comes to get your guns.

Jack, you were one one who first accused me of burrying my head in the sand. We were actually in agreement at one point. then you started firing that rhetorical stuff at me.

The truth, however, as I see it, is that any time we regulate an activity, we can choose how far to go and where to stop.

I absolutely agree with that. 100 percent!!!! did you get it this time???

If the reasons for regulation are valid, we shouldn't fear doing so because someone thinks it makes it easier to go further later. It is a false argument and I don't buy it.

You are entitled to that opinion, except it is not a false argument. It is an opinion. for that matter, who decides if the reason for the regulations are valid? no need to answer that.

I never said that was my reason or opinion. I only said that people have a right to that opinion even if you or I disagree with it. there is always two extremes on arguments like this. If you feel that only the one side is extreme, you must be looking at it from the other extreme. I see two extremes. Every time an extreme bill comes out, it further polarizes the argument.

 

[JackM]

Who shot first? Here is my evidence:

"Jack, your second paragraph is just plain stupid."

Your turn.

If you agree with this: "The truth, however, as I see it, is that any time we regulate an activity, we can choose how far to go and where to stop. "

Then how could you have stated that? :-?

 

[flyman]

No Jack,
You were trying to insult those who disagree with your point of view. Not very tasteful, but it sure stirs the pot. Apolegee axecepted.
Oh darn, I believe I slipped on the slope. Nope, just the 2nd amendment someone trampled on.
:-D
Flyman

 

[tomgamber]

I hardly consider my self a city slicker. I have always lived on the more rural part of the burbs and never in the heart of either. But I call them as I see them. Watch on election night as the early returns that come from the more urban areas of PGH and PHL come in strongly democratic and the late returns come from that they call the conservative "T". Up the middle and across the top. Its just how it is. The Alabama reference actually comes from a guy I used to work with who moved here from Alabama and was ( I though) an interesting but somewhat accurate observation on his part. But I wouldn't be as insulted as those from Alabama must believe, after your response, that you think of them negatively. What I said though is a good thing for those living in rural PA. Would you rather have it that those two urban population centers make all the policy for the rest of us?

My feeling about the gun control lobby is that no one really knows what to do about the problems we have with guns in this country. And there is a problem. And while I don't think that registration or confiscation or regulation will solve much of I understand some of their need to try to do SOMETHING. Unfortunately, it isn't always the right thing. People always say that the laws are there and we just need to enforce them. Well, if that were the easy answer, it would have been done by now. Clinton put more cops on the street then any other president in the last 20 years. Many of those policing programs were cut or previously didn't exist under the last 3 republican presidents. So, In a way, conservatives haven't done much to solve the problem either.

And there has only, until recently, been a democratic majority, so you might look for another place to lay blame occasionally.

 

[JackM]

flyman wrote:
No Jack,
You were trying to insult those who disagree with your point of view.

If by "those who disagree with your point of view" you mean people who buy the argument that any regulation of gun ownership must be opposed because it will eventually lead to confiscation, then I plead guilty to that because those are exactly the people I was trying to insult.

 

[flyman]

Tom,
I was not referring to the Dems recent majority as in the control of congress, but they compared to the Repulicans have in the majority of instances and in number supported gun reform legislation. All this more than likely due to lobbyists than to Joe citizen like yourself.
I am absolutely not negative about anyone from Alabama. I am a transplant from the south myself,born in Georgia raised in S.Carolina and Arkansas, and have heard numerous slams about them, "good ole' Bubba's" since I moved to Pa., so I naturally thought it was another, please excuse me.
No harm, no foul
:lol:
Flyman

 

[flyman]

Jack,
As I said, that is pretty tasteless, shame on you. Hurling insults beats debate anytime.
Flyman

 

[tomgamber]

flyman wrote:
All this more than likely due to lobbyists than to Joe citizen like yourself.

Lobbying?

According to its own figures, the NRA devoted an estimated $4m to direct campaign donations in the 1998 elections, including what it described as "the most aggressive grassroots operation in NRA history".

Observers estimated its 1995 lobbying budget at around $30m.

That figure was bettered in 1998 when the NRA succeeded in seeing 247 preferred candidates elected out of 310 races.

In 1998 the NRA endorsed more than 2750 state house candidates and claimed an 83% electoral success rate. A further 22 out of 28 NRA-backed governors took office.

On Capitol Hill itself there are seven full-time lobbyists targeting any legislation that may infringe on the rights of the gun lobby.


Now thats some lobbying! Its also why I think "regular Joes" needn't be quite so paranoid about gun control. Looks like they have a little help.

 

[tomgamber]

We may have to ban this discussion at the Jam...guns and alcohol don't mix. We should stick to something less heated like religion or stocking over wild fish.

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
Who shot first? Here is my evidence:

"Jack, your second paragraph is just plain stupid."

Your turn.

That was a response to your second attempt at very bad rhetoric which I found insulting ... and it was directed at me. Your turn.

If you agree with this: "The truth, however, as I see it, is that any time we regulate an activity, we can choose how far to go and where to stop. "

Then how could you have stated that? :-?

Stated what? I still agree with the statement you quoted.

 

[FarmerDave]

tomgamber wrote:
I hardly consider my self a city slicker. I have always lived on the more rural part of the burbs and never in the heart of either. But I call them as I see them. Watch on election night as the early returns that come from the more urban areas of PGH and PHL come in strongly democratic and the late returns come from that they call the conservative "T".

that just goes to show you that people who have jobs are more likely to be conservative. :lol:

 

[JackM]

tomgamber wrote:
We may have to ban this discussion at the Jam...guns and alcohol don't mix. We should stick to something less heated like religion or stocking over wild fish.

As long as we are all packing heat, it should be okie-dokie since that is the key to stopping gun violence.