Common Sense Law or Zero Intelligence?

[WNYBuckHunter]

wny.  now you're boring me.  what's your point?

Im boring you? Because Im asking for clarification on something we are discussing? I see you are another one of the typical dancers that cant or wont back up their lip service.  :

[virgil]

i have no problem backing up my position.  you're just so brainwashed and paranoid, you can't imagine that someone can feel differently than you.  you guys are a joke.  quoting literature from two hundred years ago to back up your argument only shows how antiquated and backward your thinking is.  and real brave labeling anyone with a different position as a 'traitor' or non-patriot.  that's very american, mrs. palin.  i'm sure it works well on all the other small minded paranoids.  this ridiculous mindset is why hunters have a bad reputation.  as an example, i was at a DU dinner last night and saw a guy wearing a hat with the confederate flag on it and the words 'mighty whitey'.  made me nauseous. 

[nyantler]

nys regulates how many shells we can have in our shotguns for waterfowl hunting.  don't remember for sure, but i'd assume there are similar rules regarding big game.  so, i can't imagine any reason why we'd need any capacity greater than the hunting laws allow.

You seem to forget that not everybody uses their guns for hunting.. some guys just like to shoot at the range.. and maybe they don't like reloading their gun every 3 shots... others own a gun for protection.. so they might want a full clip just in case... what you call common sense is just your opinion makes no sense to me... I also notice that you're one of those guys that start the name calling and sarcasm as a defense mechanism when you run out ways to explain yourself... and I also noticed  you are the type that believes the "objective expert" has any more common sense than the average intelligent man wheen it comes to legislation.. so that would mean the legislators are objective experts? That in itself is not common sense!

[virgil]

i never said or implied that the legislators would serve as the 'experts'- again, knee-jerk paranoia.  it's common practice in business, medicine, law, etc., to bring in objective experts as consultants before decisions are made.  and, i understand that not everyone hunts and that many like to shoot at the range.  either way, it's not unreasonable for the law to limit ownership of weapons that are deemed to be too dangerous- same as they do for controlled substances.  i've never been to a range that allows more than a single shell at a time- maybe that's just a local thing here.  i've also never felt overburdened for having to reload between shots at the range.  my sarcasm is not a defense mechanism, it's sincere.  and, i've not been the first to start the name-calling.  as soon as i interrupted the anti-government, anti-'righty', anti-anti rants on this thread, i was attacked and labeled left-wing, liberal, non-patriot, etc.  so, try not to be so sensitive. 

[steve863]

i'm sure it works well on all the other small minded paranoids.  this ridiculous mindset is why hunters have a bad reputation.

Great point!  If you act and talk like you are a few cards short of a full deck, then society will come to the conclusion that you probably are.  Fanaticism, whether from the left or right is really NO different.  People who can't take a minute to try to understand what the other side might be saying are people that will never be taken seriously and forever be outcasts.  Many here obviously want to continue down the same worn out path, to the regret of the rest of us who CAN listen to other points of view and want to advance hunters and gunowners from old stereotypes, many which are obviously very true from what we vividly see from many members here.

[nyantler]

It's not about understanding your position.. I understand just fine.. I just don't agree with it...you want us to believe that we're the ones with our heads in the sand.. but i would rather err on the side of caution than move along thinking there is nobody trying to sabatage my gun rights... as anti gun legislations keeps making their way onto the table in Albany. I don't have to get burned more than once to realize the fire is hot

[2BRKnot2B]

And the government, PETA, animal rights groups, etc. have never done anything at all to give anyone pause that our hunting rights on public land may ever be in jeopardy!!!

:

Some people never see it coming.

I see death coming to you and me one day also.  You can be sure we won't escape it.  Should I spend every minute of the day worrying about it?  I sure won't.

Death is inevitable.. gun ownershiprights and hunting rightsdon't have to be.. thats the difference

Only way they won;t be if we have dolt infil'traitor's who don't understand that these are rights, and fight to keep them. You want to pack it in, because you don't believe they should be, you go right ahead. I'm gonna keep on fighting for my progeny to keep them, and myself, free.

[2BRKnot2B]

...real brave labeling anyone with a different position as a 'traitor' or non-patriot.  that's very american...

Actually, what's unAmerican, what's traitorous is trying to change the constitution by law rather than by amendment. That's treasonous, and wrong. And, unpatriotic. So yes, I say what it is, and if you don't like that, big bippy. As to the guy wearing a confederate flag, he has a right to speak his mind in whatever fashion he wishes here in America. if you have a problem with that, I hear Germany has laws against such freedom. You might consider moving.

[WNYBuckHunter]

i have no problem backing up my position.  you're just so brainwashed and paranoid, you can't imagine that someone can feel differently than you.  you guys are a joke.  quoting literature from two hundred years ago to back up your argument only shows how antiquated and backward your thinking is.  and real brave labeling anyone with a different position as a 'traitor' or non-patriot.  that's very american, mrs. palin.  i'm sure it works well on all the other small minded paranoids.  this ridiculous mindset is why hunters have a bad reputation.  as an example, i was at a DU dinner last night and saw a guy wearing a hat with the confederate flag on it and the words 'mighty whitey'.  made me nauseous.

See, this is a prime example of your problem. I did nothing more than ask you a simple question, and automatically now I am brainwashed and paranoid? Are you serious? I quoted nothing or labeled none. You dont know my thoughts on Palin, I have never expressed them on this site. You sir, are the joke with your assumptions and pretenses. You cant even answer a question with anything but the most vague of answers. Somehow I dont believe your hat story, typical anti-gun slanderous nonsense, and to use that to compare or associate anyone on this site or the pro gun stance to racism is just plain ignorant.

[virgil]

i don't care whether you believe the 'hat story' or not- it happened.  and, i wasn't trying in any way to imply that that guy's beliefs are anyone else's.  the point was that this is the impression that the general public will take away and associate with everyone else at that event.  as steve said, these types of things, along with anti-government rants and clinging to antisocial 'gun rights' are why we as hunters are perceived as a bunch of dangerous crackpots by the public. 

[virgil]

i'd be the first the defend a moron's right to speak his mind.  and, sorry, i'm not gonna pack up and leave.  you're just gonna have to get used to the fact that the world is evolving- and the laws need to as well.  the point is, again, it's just sad and disappointing that people still have such antiquated and antisocial beliefs.  and, as far as the laws in germany- i believe they do have limits againts speech intended to threaten or defame any particular ethnic groups.  that actually seems pretty enlightened to me.  seems like a good example of laws reflecting the current needs of society.  can't have that now can we? 

[WNYBuckHunter]

i'd be the first the defend a moron's right to speak his mind.  and, sorry, i'm not gonna pack up and leave.  you're just gonna have to get used to the fact that the world is evolving- and the laws need to as well.  the point is, again, it's just sad and disappointing that people still have such antiquated and antisocial beliefs.  and, as far as the laws in germany- i believe they do have limits againts speech intended to threaten or defame any particular ethnic groups.  that actually seems pretty enlightened to me.  seems like a good example of laws reflecting the current needs of society.  can't have that now can we?

Thanks for showing your leaning toward socialist beliefs and limits to our first and second amendment rights. 

[virgil]

you're a joke.  anyone whose beliefs are different from yours is a traitor or a socialist.  and bravo, 'america, like it or leave it'- that's profound.

[nyantler]

It actually is very profound... and if you are anti constitution... then you are anti american... just like the politicians that took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States that would rather change it to suit there own agenda towards a more global america... that way of thinking only pushes us farther away from americanism and what this country has stood for , for over 200 years... last I knew the majority of people in the US are still in favor of the constitution as written... so that would mean that any push for a change would be by a minority for a minority.. and that my friend is totally unamerican and if it walks and talks like a socialist .. it' probably a socialist. Sorry you don't like the label... but if the shoe fits.

[DTG3k]

I cant read stories like these. They make me want to beat myself with my computer mouse.

[WNYBuckHunter]

you're a joke.  anyone whose beliefs are different from yours is a traitor or a socialist.  and bravo, 'america, like it or leave it'- that's profound.

I never called you either one.

[Mr VJP]

What bothers me is people that want to impose restrictions on others, because they feel they should be imposed on others.  How can anyone not see the problem with that? 

That isn't common sense legislation, that is totalitarianism.  What you're saying is,  "I don't indulge in that, so if it's made illegal, I don't care.  It won't affect me.  I even support it because it will enhance my own status and reputation."  Standing up for the rights of others, even when you don't exercise that right, is what freedom is all about.

Seems to me some people are very concerned with the image of hunters and shooters and feel the best way to improve the image is to subjugate them to their critics.  I think that would be a big mistake.  Law abiding hunters, gun owners and shooters have no reason to be ashamed, nor should they be apologizing for anything.  What we do is legal, enjoyable and healthy.

Up until anti-gun politicians and animal rights activists started fabricating that negative image, it did not exist.  We didn't earn that image, it was forced upon us with propaganda!

We have laws to prosecute crimes.  Why would anyone think it a good idea to pass laws that infringe on the possession of objects that might be used in a crime?  Especially when those objects are already a man's personal property?  What about just compensation for the financial loss one takes when his property is outlawed?

There are many legal issues that are involved with society's push to control gun owners.  And make no mistake, that's what it is about.  It's not about controlling guns.  It's about controlling gun owners.  It extends to controlling all citizens in the long run.

Imagine if the Brit's had done that in 1776.  We would still be a British commonwealth. 

What if Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao did it.

Wait a minute, they did do it!!! 

I rest my case.

[virgil]

my feelings on this issue are not due to apathy.  i honestly do not believe that we should have the right to own weapons that are not intended for sporting purposes.  i do not make believe that i have all the answers on the issue- what defines 'hunting weapon versus assault weapon, etc.'.  i just feel that there should be restrictions for the greater good of society in general, even if that means imposing on the 'rights' of some responsible people who either own these types of guns or would like to.  i really don't think it's such a slippery slope.  i compare it to controlled substances.  we have laws against those for good reason.  why one and not the other.  last thing, i know it's great for dramatic effect to mention hitler.  but, it's really a silly comparison.  and, as far as i recall, it was the french who armed the colonists, not a stockpile from back home.

[Mr VJP]

Do you own any handguns?  They won't be legal much longer either, if people keep taking this crap.

[nyantler]

my feelings on this issue are not due to apathy.  i honestly do not believe that we should have the right to own weapons that are not intended for sporting purposes.  i do not make believe that i have all the answers on the issue- what defines 'hunting weapon versus assault weapon, etc.'.  i just feel that there should be restrictions for the greater good of society in general, even if that means imposing on the 'rights' of some responsible people who either own these types of guns or would like to.  i really don't think it's such a slippery slope.  i compare it to controlled substances.  we have laws against those for good reason.  why one and not the other.  last thing, i know it's great for dramatic effect to mention hitler.  but, it's really a silly comparison.  and, as far as i recall, it was the french who armed the colonists, not a stockpile from back home.

That would mean you're against owning weapons for self protection... and how is taking away any law abiding citizens right to own a particular firearm good for society in general?... we already know that laws don't keep those weapons out of the hands of criminals.. so now the criminals have the weapons and the law abiding citizen doesn't and is unable to protect himself from the criminal.. how is that for the better good of society??

I don't can't and don't own an uzi... yet I know that criminals such as gang members use them all the time... so where has the ban on an uzi protected society? I can assure you that if I owned an uzi nobody would have to feel threatened that I might kill them.. i'm pretty sure that isn't true of a the gang members that use auto weapons to kill people every day in america..

[Mr VJP]

I believe the idea here is that in order to take the guns from the criminals, you have to take them from everyone.  The big problem with this idea is, criminals don't hand them in.  Would you worry about a gun possession charge if you were out there killing people with it?

Besides, they plea bargain that part of the charges away every time anyway.

What does a ban on anything create?  A Black Market!  Why do criminals like gun bans?  It gives them something else they can sell to make big money!

Can anyone give me any examples of any gun or magazine ban that has ever worked to lower the crime rate?  Lat's hear from someone who lived in Washington, D.C. in the 80's and 90's.

[Mr VJP]

last thing, i know it's great for dramatic effect to mention hitler.  but, it's really a silly comparison.

How so?  Have you studied the history of gun control and confiscation in Germany in the late 30's?  Tell me how their gun control plan is any different from the idea of taking them from Americans today?

and, as far as i recall, it was the french who armed the colonists, not a stockpile from back home.

Not sure what this has to do with the American government trying to disarm it's own people in order to control them.  The point was if the Brit's did that we wouldn't have had any arms to resist with.  Smellin' my breeze here?

[nyantler]

Not sure what this has to do with the American government trying to disarm it's own people in order to control them.  The point was if the Brit's did that we wouldn't have had any arms to resist with.  Smellin' my breeze here?

Exactly.. we'd all have british accents and we wouldn't be needing to have this discussion right now.. well actually we would have been in a boat load of trouble just trying to defend this country over the last 200 years...

Because of the freedom we gained and capitalism.. things like the industrial revolution, the automobile, electricity, the TV, the telephone, the home computer and many other inovations may never have come about.. or at least not as quickly as they did... the rest of the world has been riding on the back of America and its progress forward for many many years.. all starting with the second amendment and the ability to fight for our freedom that some now want to take away so we can slow back down to the speed of the rest of the world.. I don't get it

[virgil]

the rest of the world has been riding on the back of America and its progress forward for many many years.. all starting with the second amendment and the ability to fight for our freedom that some now want to take away so we can slow back down to the speed of the rest of the world.. I don't get it

you're right, you don't get it.  again, antiquated thought processes.    this is how an intelligent debate can be ruined by a crackpot, and why the rest get lumped together as crackpots by the public.  to imply that the second ammendment was responsible for this country's progress is absurd. let's be honest, we are no longer the world leader in all things.  we're the ones that need to catch up with much of the rest of the world.

and, no, i don't own handguns.  can't imagine why i would NEED one.  i understand your point about gun laws not deterring criminals.  but, i don't think that the answer is not to have laws.  we have drug laws that don't eliminate the drug trade.  it doesn't mean we should just legalize it, should we?  if there are bans on ownership, there'd be bans on the manufacturing and sales.  again, i never said i've got the whole thing figured out.  but, i'm sure that it can be done.  they don't seem to have these problems in England- there are plenty of hunters there, and the police don't even carry guns.

[nyantler]

the rest of the world has been riding on the back of America and its progress forward for many many years.. all starting with the second amendment and the ability to fight for our freedom that some now want to take away so we can slow back down to the speed of the rest of the world.. I don't get it

you're right, you don't get it.  again, antiquated thought processes.    this is how an intelligent debate can be ruined by a crackpot, and why the rest get lumped together as crackpots by the public.  to imply that the second ammendment was responsible for this country's progress is absurd. let's be honest, we are no longer the world leader in all things.  we're the ones that need to catch up with much of the rest of the world.

and, no, i don't own handguns.  can't imagine why i would NEED one.  i understand your point about gun laws not deterring criminals.  but, i don't think that the answer is not to have laws.  we have drug laws that don't eliminate the drug trade.  it doesn't mean we should just legalize it, should we?  if there are bans on ownership, there'd be bans on the manufacturing and sales.  again, i never said i've got the whole thing figured out.  but, i'm sure that it can be done.  they don't seem to have these problems in England- there are plenty of hunters there, and the police don't even carry guns.

Ok "Mr Intelligent Debate".. Show me the ban on the manufacturing and sales of auto weapons in the world...they are still being manufactured and sold all over the world and here in the US... Even if you stopped manufacturing them there are enough already in circulation to arm all the criminals that want them ...

my definition of a crackpot would someone that has to starts his post with an attack instead of a logical response. Then make a statement like "I don't have all the answers" and then put your trust in someone else to figure it out for you..

Let me help you here... the answer is to stop legislating more gun laws that don't work, just like the gun laws before them aren't working... if all these gun laws were doing what they intended, which is to stop gun crimes..you and I wouldn't be having this conversation

How many times do you need to be hit in the head with facts before you start believing... maybe you can give one example where restricting or banning a gun has stopped crimes from being prevented. You can't.. But I can give you thousands of examples where private ownership a gun has stopped a crime from occuring