virgil

Is there much hunting pressure from the adjacent properties?

I think its great, that people are now posting all the personal information of all of the Journal News employees including stuff about their kids, where they go to school, etc. This is going to get crazy! Why do you think it's good that information about their kids is made public? How will that improve the image of gun owners?

Why is this such an issue? I'm missing the point.

I've been out a few times. But, the days that I've been out have been warm, foggy, and windless. So, the hunting has been only fair. We've gotten brant and mergansers. Going out for black ducks tomorrow, hopefully.

That news conference will not be good for the NRA. He would have been better off not saying anything. Will only further the public's anger with the NRA.

I thought Grouse quit the site?

what i meant was no we are not the ones that should start the fight so to speak but if the gov tries to oppress us like many communist govs have done we should have the means to DEFEND ourselves, we are not going to ATTACK the gov only we should be able to defend against such an attack... there is a BIG diff between attacking someone and defending yourself from such an attack, that was my point.... no offence You're right. There is a big difference between self defense and an armed revolution. But, the earlier posts on this thread were defending 2A rights to accumulate arms in case the poster feels that the government has become 'oppressive'. Your statements in defending that post were that we should be armed for a potential revolution in case we disagree with the government.

no i think he is saying that if the gov tries to force us to comply to rules that violate our God given rights or our personal belives we should have the power to say no and have them respect our desision. and if they dont possibly the 2nd american revolution would happen as people resist and the gov trys to force them, cause we are AMERICANS and we DONT like being told what to do, its in our blood and a brief study of american history will show that americans are a VERY free spirited people.... (in fact thats prob the only reason we still have guns at all...) OK, your first word in this response was 'no'. But, the rest of the entire post basically states that, yes, you believe that you should be able to take up arms against the government if at any point you don't like the rules/laws of the lands.

The gun picture from Culver is a trap. He's trying to point out that you can't always tell the difference between an AR and a hunting rifle simply by the appearance. Right Culver?

RE: Waco , We're not talking about a small group of people over throwing the governement or ceceding, we're talking about the ability for national revolution. But, you have posted that you want the citizenry to be armed to the teeth in case they decide that the government has become oppressive and needs to be resisted/attacked, right?

Irish, by your interpretation of the 2A, it seems like you're implying that there should be no restrictions on any weapons whatsoever. Is that what you're saying- that the general public should be allowed access to the same weaponry that the government has?

Please Ohhh...PLEASE tell me I am reading that statement ALL WRONG! Are you blaming the pilots for 911???? I guess you misunderstood. Or maybe I didn't explain it well. My point was that the terrorists who hijacked those planes were mostly trained in this country at private flight schools.

Ruger 10/22 22 LR. and alike ok? I think rim fires get a pass. doesn't matter the stock configuration. All Rim fires max 20 round since some tube feds are around 15? You're already over my head. That's why I'd leave the lawmaking to experts on both guns and the law. Not just lawmakers and not just gun nuts. Gotta run. Late for a meeting.

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The above is the first line in your own Wiki definition intended to prove that AR's are not WMD. So, I'm not sure what part you're debating now. Is it the 'large number of humans' part? Is 27 not large enough to qualify?

Muchas gracias (I was being sarcastic. Was that not obvious?) The only thing is, an AR isnt a WMD. (Really? It was on Friday)

Ok...now semi automatics. Do you think the hang ups here are caliber, capacity, looks? I would say that the 'hangups' would be all of those things depending on whose hangups you're talking about. Personally, I think capacity and caliber should be part of the conversation.

No, but can you say they wouldnt be if he didnt have access to those guns? Ok, you got me. No, I can't say for sure that they would still be alive. You're right- their bus could have crashed, there could have been a typhoon, an earthquake, an apocolypse, etc. Or, the shooter could have picked a different form of WMD like a bomb, instead of the AR. Great point.

Can we agree that single shots, bolt actions, lever actions and pump shotguns and rifles should be allowed into citizens hands (given what ever action has to take place like the background checks) Sounds reasonable so far.

I answered your question thoroughly. As far as the wise crack, get over it. You're very quick to take cheap shots. So, try not having such a thin skin when one comes your way.

I don't have particular guns in mind- I'm not a gun expert. So what? What I want is an intelligent discussion (sorry WNY, you'll have to sit this one out) that leads to a definition of non-sporting or assault rifles that should only be in the hands of law enforcement personnel. From there, I'd like to see a plan that involves better accountability for gun owners- maybe some form of a registration system as well as competency requirements prior to purchase. Of course, I am also in favor a banning private undocumented sales.

So virgil...all those poor 911 souls would be here today had they not had easy access to a jumbo jet? We should ban jumbo jets?...rocket launchers...or another Tim McVeigh plan wouldn't have ever happened ? We didn't need to ban jumbo jets. My recollection is that what happened after 911 was that security at airports, flight training schools, etc. became much stricter, thus limiting access to jumbo jets to people who were vetted and qualified to fly them.

Well, the best I can do is the truth. If you dont like it, tough cookies my man. You define the truth according to your own agenda. That much has always been obvious. As far as 'tough cookies', we'll see. My guess is that you'll be the one crying in your milk when this thing runs it's course.

No, but can you say they wouldnt be if he didnt have access to those guns? Of course you cant. Give me a break. That's the best you can do? That's exactly why I think you can expect some serious changes in the laws as they pertain to certain types of weapons and ammo.

And your argument ignores the fact that when you remove one tool , another one steps up to take its place No, I have definitely noticed how you guys stick together. Just kidding.

If someone wants to kill, they will. Thats the bottom line. Doesnt matter if they burn people up in a fire, crash a car into them, use explosives, shoot them, stab them, etc. So, you can say with absolute certainty that all those kids would be dead today even if he hadn't had easy access to a closet full of assault rifles and ammo?