KD in CA Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Yep. No trial at taxpayer expense. I hope they had the NRA "If you shoot a scumbag in self defense" insurance. 219599[/snapback] Do they have that??? That's a GREAT idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Do they have that??? That's a GREAT idea! 219607[/snapback] Yeah, it's about $300 or so for an entire year. I think it covers up to $250K worth of legal expenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Not all liberals are democrats. Not all conservatives are republicans. I consider myself conservative, but I am not nor never will be a member of the republican party. I vote for the best candidate. It is however very much one of the main "liberal" causes to get rid of guns. BTW what's a PARY? 219301[/snapback] By all means, if you can't find even a tiny hole in my tight as a drum arguments, go after my typing skills. I am a liberal and it is by no means a cause of mine to "get rid of guns". Do I think there are some reasonable restrictions worth imposing? Sure. Reducing that position to a blanket "get rid of guns" is worse than overstatement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 By all means, if you can't find even a tiny hole in my tight as a drum arguments, go after my typing skills. I am a liberal and it is by no means a cause of mine to "get rid of guns". Do I think there are some reasonable restrictions worth imposing? Sure. Reducing that position to a blanket "get rid of guns" is worse than overstatement. 219893[/snapback] Yeah, because 20K laws already on the books are working spectacularly well. We won't even get into the fact that the "assault weapons" ban was a sham (which I've explained ad nauseum) and that there is no gun show loophole (see previous statement in parenthesis). Believe it's because your argument is "tight as a drum" if you need to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted January 27, 2005 Author Share Posted January 27, 2005 By all means, if you can't find even a tiny hole in my tight as a drum arguments, go after my typing skills. I am a liberal and it is by no means a cause of mine to "get rid of guns". Do I think there are some reasonable restrictions worth imposing? Sure. Reducing that position to a blanket "get rid of guns" is worse than overstatement. 219893[/snapback] Mickey, believe or not, I too am for some restrictions. I also don't have a problem with the background check. The only allowed to purchase 1 gun every 30 days. I have no problems with them. I also don't see a need for someone to have full auto weapons. But to eliminate a gun just because someone deems it to be an assault weapon is stupid. I can do a lot of damage with an off the shelf .308. Trust me if it is a good solid weapon and I was to sight it in. I could do a lot more damage plinking from a distance than a normal idiot from 50 yards away. I also will be far enough away, that I wouldn't be caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Mickey, believe or not, I too am for some restrictions. I also don't have a problem with the background check. The only allowed to purchase 1 gun every 30 days. I have no problems with them. 219940[/snapback] Liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Liberal. 219956[/snapback] Too funny! You guys must eat your young? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Too funny! You guys must eat your young? 219958[/snapback] It's called consistancy. I'm consistantly for individual liberty. They want to do background checks? Fine, as long as they're instant. The technology is available to make that happen. I'm not for any limitation on number, nor should anyone else be - that's the ultimate slippery slope argument and there have been a number of times I've bought more than one weapon at a gun show because I found a deal on something I could give as a gift or for a buddy who's a collector. Legal guns ain't the friggin' problem and criminals don't obey any of the laws as they stand now. That really shouldn't be hard to understand. It's virtually impossible already to legally own an automatic weapon and has been for nearly 80 years. Only people who can get the proper license (expensive/time consuming/bureaucratic) and can afford the weapons themselves (even more expensive) qualify. Hence the reason you rarely hear of some suburbanite opening fire in their neighborhood with a legally purchased automatic weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Fine, as long as they're instant. The technology is available to make that happen. 219969[/snapback] Not to start an argument, but. Why do they have to be Instant? I think you know how I feel about the 2nd. Technology wasnt there years ago, so a few days is ok with me. Why the rub D? sh-- they cant even get voting straight, what makes you think they can do backround right. With all do respect D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Not to start an argument, but. Why do they have to be Instant? I think you know how I feel about the 2nd. Technology wasnt there years ago, so a few days is ok with me. Why the rub D? sh-- they cant even get voting straight, what makes you think they can do backround right. With all do respect D. 219980[/snapback] Oh, if they're fuggin' you over it's instant. They can pull your life history from any number of government databases run by agencies known by acronyms. There's no reason for it not to be instant other than because the government wants to control the law abiding populous. The technology has been around for nearly a decade and there are working pilot programs in a couple of states. Shoot, in Alaska all you have to do is show your concealed carry permit and away you go with whatever the heck you want after a couple of keystrokes. One girl I was stationed with was killed by a guy who had a restraining order against him where he couldn't be within 1000 feet of her. She tried to buy a gun to protect herself but the waiting period law in California prevented it. She was killed in her own apartment. The government who isn't legally bound and won't protect you ought not prevent you from taking that fundamental right for yourself. I would rather they err on the side of giving a scumbag a gun (because they're going to get one anyway) than deny someone that basic right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Oh, if they're fuggin' you over it's instant. They can pull your life history from any number of government databases run by agencies known by acronyms. There's no reason for it not to be instant other than because the government wants to control the law abiding populous. The technology has been around for nearly a decade and there are working pilot programs in a couple of states. Shoot, in Alaska all you have to do is show your concealed carry permit and away you go with whatever the heck you want after a couple of keystrokes. One girl I was stationed with was killed by a guy who had a restraining order against him where he couldn't be within 1000 feet of her. She tried to buy a gun to protect herself but the waiting period law in California prevented it. She was killed in her own apartment. The government who isn't legally bound and won't protect you ought not prevent you from taking that fundamental right for yourself. I would rather they err on the side of giving a scumbag a gun (because they're going to get one anyway) than deny someone that basic right. 219982[/snapback] Good points, I think its still a catch 22, when it comes to instant or waiting. There are stories on both sides. I've got mine. She waited and she didnt know that she might want to express her right, which resulted in her dimise. Regardless. Sad story, I hope they caught him, and tied his nuts in a meat grinder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Yeah, because 20K laws already on the books are working spectacularly well. We won't even get into the fact that the "assault weapons" ban was a sham (which I've explained ad nauseum) and that there is no gun show loophole (see previous statement in parenthesis). Believe it's because your argument is "tight as a drum" if you need to. 219898[/snapback] My argument in this context is that the democrats are not out to "ban all guns". Disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Mickey, believe or not, I too am for some restrictions. I also don't have a problem with the background check. The only allowed to purchase 1 gun every 30 days. I have no problems with them. I also don't see a need for someone to have full auto weapons. But to eliminate a gun just because someone deems it to be an assault weapon is stupid. I can do a lot of damage with an off the shelf .308. Trust me if it is a good solid weapon and I was to sight it in. I could do a lot more damage plinking from a distance than a normal idiot from 50 yards away. I also will be far enough away, that I wouldn't be caught. 219940[/snapback] I'm not arguing any specific gun control legislation. I'm simply arguing that to pin the democrats with the charge that they are out to ban all guns is not accurate. In fact, "liberals", as a subset of democrats, if you want to make that distinction, aren't out to "ban all guns" either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Yeah, because 20K laws already on the books are working spectacularly well. 219898[/snapback] They work better when they're actually used. If you remember there was a guy who kidnapped, raped and murdered a girl in Florida a couple of years ago. The one with the videotape clear as day that he dragged her off. That guy was convicted for a mandatory five-year prison sentence in addition to the other charges. Somehow, he was on that security camera three years later (and he wasn't a fugitive escapee) with his hand around the girl's neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickJames Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 All I know is the when the Brits come over and try and reclaim the colonies I'll be ready. From my cold dead hand you english bastards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 My argument in this context is that the democrats are not out to "ban all guns". Disagree? 220069[/snapback] I'm sure the Australians and Brits thought the same things as their rights were gradually stripped from them over the past 100 years. Now they have none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 They work better when they're actually used. If you remember there was a guy who kidnapped, raped and murdered a girl in Florida a couple of years ago. The one with the videotape clear as day that he dragged her off. That guy was convicted for a mandatory five-year prison sentence in addition to the other charges. Somehow, he was on that security camera three years later (and he wasn't a fugitive escapee) with his hand around the girl's neck. 220095[/snapback] Thanks for making my point. The government doesn't enforce the current laws, so there is little reason to pass any more in this particular arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Thanks for making my point. The government doesn't enforce the current laws, so there is little reason to pass any more in this particular arena. 220473[/snapback] why bother enforcing the current laws? just pass new ones so we all feel good about ourselves please darin. think of the children! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 why bother enforcing the current laws? just pass new ones so we all feel good about ourselves please darin. think of the children! 220489[/snapback] I can't. I'm still trying to digest how much smarter and more informed UConn James is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 I can't. I'm still trying to digest how much smarter and more informed UConn James is. 220490[/snapback] Is this another one of those "he has forgotten more about the subject than you will ever know" thingies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts