virgil

Some of these reply's are cruel and unusual punishment to say the least. No matter what laws are passed the criminals will bypass them that's why they are called criminals. So any laws passed will only affect law biding citizens. ...and some of them are a waste of space. So, then, what's the solution? Should we have no laws whatesoever? Do we apply this logic, or lack thereof, to other issues- like drugs, speeding, etc? Should we legalize heroin and speeding since some people are going to drive too fast or use drugs anyway?

I need someone to explain to me, because I obviously am very dense, how any of these laws are keeping the guns out of the hands of the criminals. Micro stamping-----how? 9 month wait on a pistol permit-----How? High capacity clips-----How? I can agree with back ground checks as I have said before and I can see how that would work towards the goal we are talking about but not the majority of the other laws. If you think we have way too many guns in this country, why not just shut the manufacturers down or take teh route they did with the tabacco companies and tax them out of the average mans ability to afford them. Do you honestly think even thse measures would remove the guns from the criminals hands? I don't ...they would for you and me though. As far as the death penality goes....it has never been done right. It isn't swift enough and the prisons are no deterrant either. Make the cells a box and not perks. food goes in and a drain in the middle. They want to act like animals....they can be housed like animals Cigarettes are/were one of, if not the, biggest threat/scourge on our society. Was it by accident or some kind of Freudian slip that you used it as a comparison to the gun problem. By the way, cigarette use has gone down significantly over the past few years. So, this method may actually be working. It's an interesting comparison- a dangerous product protected by a giant lobby. Also, as far as your idea for the prison system- I agree on principle. But, for all of you who like to use the Consititution to make your argument against gun control, isn't there something in there about cruel and unusual punishment?

effective......effective....effective at doing what is the question. Do you see it reducing gun violence? I can't imagine it doing that at all. Control measures you speak of......any ideas on those. I can't see the value of these types of controls in reducing the illegal guns in the hands of the criminals. They only impact law abiding folks. Is the revolver any less deadly or harder to use that the semi's are singled out? When you say solution to the "problem" I assume you mean gun violence. the problem is nad never has been the guns. It is the criminals using them. Unfortunately the types that want more of these gun laws are the same ones that want to hold hands and think their good thoughts will rehabilitate these criminals. The solultion to this "problem" is thougher laws....and I mean tougher...ones that are a true deterrant...like death By 'effective', I mean reducing gun violence and gun-related crime. It doesn't seem like such a stretch to assume that less guns in circulation would ultimately lead to lower gun-related crime and gun violence. As far as control measures, I'll leave that up to the gun experts. I've never made believe I have the answer to the problem- I just feel strongly that the solution is not to ignore the problem simply because I own guns and enjoy using them. I agree with you that punishments for crime in general need to be stiffer. But, since the fact remains that even the death penalty(and I'm a firm supporter of the death penalty) has already been proven to be wholly ineffective as a deterrant to violent crime, that comparison doesn't hold any water as a means of dealing with the issue.

You mean "if the end result is less guns anywhere the desired result will have been achieved" don't you? I mean that is the usual mentality when it comes to gun law fanatics. That really is the purpose and motives behind the gun control advocates ...... simply get rid of those evil guns by any means possible. And if it requires ridiculous, costly, mandated technology to get to that end, then so be it. Whatever it takes. And this latest example points that motivation out perfectly. No, I wrote what I meant, thanks. Not sure who you're referring to when you use the term 'gun law fanatics'. If the existing technology is not good enough to make the proposed law effective, then the technology needs to be advanced; and other control measures need to be enacted. Either way, the solution to the problem is not to just keep our heads in the sand and make believe that there are no problems with guns in this country. Plenty of people get busted for speeding- nobody has proposed doing away with traffic laws, have they?

Perhaps the technology can evolve so that the law can't be so easily thwarted. If the end result is less guns on the street, then it seems like the desired result will have been achieved.

OK, got it. Thanks guys.

I put a link to it in the second post of this thread OK, thanks. Is this idea still in the proposal stage, or is it a done deal? I didn't see anything on the DEC website.

G-man- are you saying that there is going to be an early ML season? If so, where can I find the info? thanks.

maybe the point is that there are differences between the 'shooting world', the 'hunting fraternity', and the 2nd ammendment crowd. the fact that i'm a hunter should not automatically obligate me to follow lockstep whatever the nra pushes.

i think steve makes a good point. it's not necessarily the messenger that's the problem- in this case, it's the message. it's hard to deliver a foolish message without sounding crazy.

I don't think it needs to be a celebrity. In general, i'm not a fan of the nra because i don't agree with their extreme opposition to any gun control measures. but, i agree with doc- i think that a guy like ted nugent would never be able to sway people who are on the fence with these issues. he comes off as a loose cannon and is more likely to turn the general public off to hunters.

Well said, Doc.

Larry Bell is not exactly known for letting facts get in the way of good propaganda- his rants about climate change were debunked also.

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to: How can you take this article seriously when a few lines the author admits that he doesn't have any of the details. And, exactly what power does the UN have to enact laws in the US?

No. There's no mention of being an illegal alien and using drugs in the constitution. Exactly the point- time to wake up and acknowledge that times have changed.

In my view the current laws....(in my county anyway) don't seem to even approach reasonable. 8-9 months for a permit yet I can get my security clearance for admission to a classified FBI facility in 4 weeks. prints, background checks and all. is there any chance that the long waiting period is intentional- to minimize the possibility that someone might be impulsively looking to buy a gun with dangerous intentions. i'm asking honestly, not being a wiseguy.

It is unrealestic to think more regulations mean anything to these criminals and gang members. Simply put they don't buy guns legally and will never be able to. So, by this logic should we do away with immigration laws and drug laws also? The existing laws don't seem to stop illegal immigration or the drug trade- so, should we just open the borders and legalize narcotics? From what i've read on other threads on this forum, i don't think too many of the gun advocates (or anyone else) believes that would be a good idea.

I'm curious whether Steve or virgil support any hunting or gun related organizations... maybe they're just waiting for their new poster boy Mark Zuckerberg to start up a "kill what you eat" club that they can join.. [img alt=:]http://huntingny.com/forums/Smileys/akyhne/rolleyes.gif[/img] i do/have supported DU, NAHC, !% for the Planet, Montana Trout Foundation, Yellowstone Park Foundation. not getting the Zuckerberg reference- i'm sure someone else on this forum will understand this witty reference. who exactly are 'they' and why would you think that zuckerberg is 'their posterboy'.

As in life there are people who lead and those who follow so maybe, the people who don't put their money where their mouth is are riding on the coat tails of those who do. Or, maybe they just don't believe that their rights are in as much danger as others on this forum- or that concessions on gun rights will lead to the downfall of the country. Or, maybe they believe that compromising some of their rights will make for a better and safer society for everyone.

I guess you considered your parents to be bullies as well, when they tried to keep you from doing someting stupid and dangerous as a child. isn't this the same rationale that the Westboro Baptist Church uses for protesting at the funerals of soldiers? they feel that their beliefs are the only ones that matter and that they are justified in their attempts to further their cause by any means.

I don't think the term "bully" is called for either. I guess you considered your parents to be bullies as well, when they tried to keep you from doing someting stupid and dangerous as a child. Again, your ego and fanatacism lead you to the most absurd statements and comparisons. Your main problem is that you clearly are incapable of having any respect for any opinion that is not the same as your own. A parent's job is to keep their kids safe and prevent them from doing foolish things- you are noone's parent on this forum and we are all more than capable of forming our own opinions and taking responsibility for our own actions. You are under the misconception that your opinion is more valid than anyone else's and that anyone whose opinion you disagree with is childish, immature, stupid, etc.

If somone posts erroneous information as fact and then gets upset when they are proven wrong, they should check their facts. No gun owner expects all gun owners to think like they do, but they should be able to expect them to be on the side of the 2nd Amendment, self defense and the right of every law abiding individual to own a gun, without unjust and oppressive regulation from the government. If one is against such gun ownership, they either have an unwarranted fear of guns in general, or do not understand the role guns play in the hands of responsible American citizens. And through the right of American freedom of association, any gun owner can choose not to associate with anyone, for any reason. You're all ganging up on Steve for having a different opinion. many of us are gun owners who don't live in fear of the government and are still quite capable of understanding the 'role that guns play' in society. it's exactly this 'role' that concerns us. i think it's funny how you use the term 'facts' so loosely. most, if not all, of the 'facts' that you quote are laughable. elmer's link to 'justfacts.com'? please, this is a well-known right wing propaganda machine with an obvious and clear agenda- not a reliable source for objective information. 'facts' can be agreed upon by both sides in an argument- they are not anecdotes and statistics that can be twisted according to one's personal agenda. vjp- you're a bully who uses biased opinions and misrepresentations to support your own beliefs and are quick to attack anyone who has a different opinion. being a gun owner does not require sharing the same antiquated thought processes and beliefs and the lunatic fringe.

are there any articles or stats about legal gun owners actually using their weapons to fend off a crime? i can't recall seeing any. not sure how you can deduce that more legally owned guns are the reason for lower crime rates. also, isn't it a commonly known fact that guns in the home are statistically more likely to be used in a fatal accident than in stopping a home invasion or violent crime?

hi greybeard. i live near mt. sinai harbor and would love to try fishing from the kayak. do you know anything about that area?

Ted should let his guitar do his talking. I'm curious to know how the gun-lobby group on this forum feels about him. My impression is that he gets trotted out on these shows only because he's such a loose cannon and makes the gun crowd look like a bunch of yahoos. it'll be interesting to see people's comments.