Gun Legislation

[Roland Deschain]

Well Roland, for one thing there's your temper. Should a person as temperamental as you be allowed a firearm? There's also your deception? Should someone who can't be trusted to be truthful be allowed to own a firearm? There's also some psychiatric concerns. For instance, your anger over being caught at your deception, instead of shame, as a normal person would feel, indicates possible psychopathic tendencies.

But I do like that you offered some conditions as to why you should be allowed firearms. This indicates that you acknowledge that there are reasons a person shouldn't be allowed to own guns. So you do agree that gun control is necessary. So where do you draw the line? What should prevent someone from owning a tool designed to kill?

I don't have a temper....Just because I can trade insults with juveniles like you does not mean I have a temper. I find it rather comical actually and have yet to post a word in anger. If words posted indicate a temper you are a prime candidate for anger management classes. I have not used any deception either. Just because you think your internet detective skills are so sharp does not make it so. Likewise, it also does not verify your many assumptions.

Yes I feel there are exceptions to who should be allowed to own firearms. Funny thing is there are already numerous laws on the books to do just that...prevent certain people, such as convicted felons and the mentally ill, from owning guns. I support better enforcement and application of current law...not additional law that does nothing to prevent the actual problem.

[Roland Deschain]

[What about Chicago? We all know some areas of Chicago have among the highest crime and violent crime rate in the country - almost as high as Spartanburg.

So even with the strictest gun control regulations in the country Chicago has "among the highest crime and violent crime rate in the country". By using liberal logic Chicago should be the safest place in the country, not one of the most dangerous. Like I said, even with evidence such as that you liberal idiots will still preach that "gun control" is the answer.

[O Really]

I'm sure you wish it were that simple. Must be nice to have the solutions to everything tucked into a slogan file. Certainly Chicago has some really bad neighborhoods, which bring up its overall average in violent crime. But there are many more factors involved than a simple "gun laws should make it the safest place." Using the definition provided for the data "violent crime" includes "murder, forcible rape, armed robbery, and aggravated assault." So some of those crimes undoubtedly aren't committed with guns, but a lot of them are. Looking first at dangerous neighborhoods, we find that the City of Chicago contributes four to the list of 25 most dangerous. Looking on a map of those areas, however, we find a concentration in the (surprise) area of highest poverty. http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighb ... hborhoods/

Now let's look at cities as a whole, the top 100 most dangerous. One might expect to find Chicago at the top, based on your opinion, but no - Chicago is at number 79 - way below Spartanburg, which is number 12.
Same definition of violent crime, same statistical comparison (per 1,000) apples to apples across the board.
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighb ... dangerous/

[Ombudsman]

I don't have a temper....Just because I can trade insults with juveniles like you does not mean I have a temper. I find it rather comical actually and have yet to post a word in anger. If words posted indicate a temper you are a prime candidate for anger management classes. I have not used any deception either. Just because you think your internet detective skills are so sharp does not make it so. Likewise, it also does not verify your many assumptions.

Child what color is the sky in your world? Why do you keep doubling down on your idiocy? Wouldn't you prefer to have some credibility?

Yes I feel there are exceptions to who should be allowed to own firearms. Funny thing is there are already numerous laws on the books to do just that...prevent certain people, such as convicted felons and the mentally ill, from owning guns. I support better enforcement and application of current law...not additional law that does nothing to prevent the actual problem.

So what kind of better enforcement would you support?

[Ombudsman]

[What about Chicago? We all know some areas of Chicago have among the highest crime and violent crime rate in the country - almost as high as Spartanburg.

So even with the strictest gun control regulations in the country Chicago has "among the highest crime and violent crime rate in the country". By using liberal logic Chicago should be the safest place in the country, not one of the most dangerous. Like I said, even with evidence such as that you liberal idiots will still preach that "gun control" is the answer.

No dumb ass, that isn't liberal logic. That's screwball wing nut logic. Chicago is not a walled city. Chicago created stricter laws after the problem had already occurred. When you spit out these AM radio talking points, do they actually make sense in your head? Why should someone who can't think any more clearly than you be allowed guns?

[O Really]

So, Roland, if you want to talk about Chi-town, show us the historical violent crime rate going back as far as you like (even to the 30's if you want to, when practically everybody had a gun) and run a continuum from before the gun laws became more restrictive and after.

[neoplacebo]

[What about Chicago? We all know some areas of Chicago have among the highest crime and violent crime rate in the country - almost as high as Spartanburg.

So even with the strictest gun control regulations in the country Chicago has "among the highest crime and violent crime rate in the country". By using liberal logic Chicago should be the safest place in the country, not one of the most dangerous. Like I said, even with evidence such as that you liberal idiots will still preach that "gun control" is the answer.

No dumb ass, that isn't liberal logic. That's screwball wing nut logic. Chicago is not a walled city. Chicago created stricter laws after the problem had already occurred. When you spit out these AM radio talking points, do they actually make sense in your head? Why should someone who can't think any more clearly than you be allowed guns?

It could be that Roland is, in actuality, Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner that Warren Zevon wrote a song about. Just sayin....

[Ombudsman]

Welcome to the Wild West

COLUMBIA — People with concealed weapon permits could soon be able to carry their guns into South Carolina’s restaurants and bars.

The 100-12 vote in the House on Tuesday would allow the measure to become law before this year’s legislative session ends.

The bill would allow permit holders to keep their weapon with them when they go out to dinner or enter a bar, but makes it illegal to consume alcohol when they do so. It would also give business owners the right to ban concealed carry on their property by posting signs against it.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/viewart ... -guns-bars

[neoplacebo]

Welcome to the Wild West

COLUMBIA — People with concealed weapon permits could soon be able to carry their guns into South Carolina’s restaurants and bars.

The 100-12 vote in the House on Tuesday would allow the measure to become law before this year’s legislative session ends.

The bill would allow permit holders to keep their weapon with them when they go out to dinner or enter a bar, but makes it illegal to consume alcohol when they do so. It would also give business owners the right to ban concealed carry on their property by posting signs against it.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/viewart ... -guns-bars

Jeez.....that all reminds me of the opening scene of the diner in the movie "Natural Born Killers." Very exciting.

[Ombudsman]

...now find the data regrading the actual topic....New York City vs Spartanburg...try to keep up!

Then, having failed to make a sensible or accurate point re either New York City or State:

...Chicago...look it up.

I don't think there's any mystery as to why Mad American changed his name to a fictional gunslinger in a sci-fi series. The guy obviously prefers fantasy over real life. But even though he once called himself Mad American and throws temper tantrums left and right, he's not really mad or temperamental.

[O Really]

Yes I feel there are exceptions to who should be allowed to own firearms. Funny thing is there are already numerous laws on the books to do just that...prevent certain people, such as convicted felons and the mentally ill, from owning guns. I support better enforcement and application of current law...not additional law that does nothing to prevent the actual problem.

I also support better enforcement and application of current law. But in the case of James Holmes, it would appear the guy who is now pleading insanity bought his arsenal legally.

"On May 22, 2012, Holmes purchased a Glock 22 pistol at a Gander Mountain shop in Aurora, and six days later bought a Remington Model 870 shotgun at a Bass Pro Shops in Denver. On June 7, just hours after failing his oral exam at the university, he purchased a Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle, with a second Glock 22 pistol following on July 6. All the weapons were bought legally. In the four months prior to the shooting, Holmes also bought 3000 rounds of ammunition for the pistols, 3000 rounds for the M&P15, and 350 shells for the shotgun over the Internet. On July 2, he placed an order for a Blackhawk Urban Assault Vest, two magazine holders and a knife at an online retailer."

So in theory, he shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm because he's "mentally ill," but there was nothing in place that would allow any enforcement of that law. What steps of "better enforcement and application" would you like to see? Be specific.

[O Really]

I had a thought - the gun, ummm, "enthusiasts" oppose registration of firearms because that would facilitate "confiscation" by Obama and his jackboots. But these guys happily go down and get hunting licenses and concealed carry permits. Do you suppose they actually think that Obama and the jackboots couldn't figure out that most holders of hunting licenses and concealed carry permits might just possibly own guns? Wouldn't that be a good place to start confiscating? And yet, with almost five years access to hunting license and concealed carry permits, no jackboots have knocked at any door. Idiots.

And while I'm at it, the "enthusiasts" oppose any mandatory training prior to purchase of a firearm, but seem to have no problem with the requirement to take a hunting safety course before getting a hunting license.

[Stinger]

I had a thought - the gun, ummm, "enthusiasts" oppose registration of firearms because that would facilitate "confiscation" by Obama and his jackboots. But these guys happily go down and get hunting licenses and concealed carry permits. Do you suppose they actually think that Obama and the jackboots couldn't figure out that most holders of hunting licenses and concealed carry permits might just possibly own guns? Wouldn't that be a good place to start confiscating? And yet, with almost five years access to hunting license and concealed carry permits, no jackboots have knocked at any door. Idiots.

And while I'm at it, the "enthusiasts" oppose any mandatory training prior to purchase of a firearm, but seem to have no problem with the requirement to take a hunting safety course before getting a hunting license.

I think half of is just the anti-Obama meme repeating itself. They're just automatically against whatever he's for. I know people who don't even own guns who are bashing background checks simply because Obama is for them. Maybe if he came out for no background checks on any gun sale, anywhere, anytime . . . .

[Stinger]

Oh, yeah. They're shouting "Tyranny" at every opportunity.

Dumbfucks don't have any better concept of tyranny than they did of socialism, Marxism, facism, communism, or just plain common sense.

[Roland Deschain]

I had a thought - the gun, ummm, "enthusiasts" oppose registration of firearms because that would facilitate "confiscation" by Obama and his jackboots. But these guys happily go down and get hunting licenses and concealed carry permits. Do you suppose they actually think that Obama and the jackboots couldn't figure out that most holders of hunting licenses and concealed carry permits might just possibly own guns? Wouldn't that be a good place to start confiscating? And yet, with almost five years access to hunting license and concealed carry permits, no jackboots have knocked at any door. Idiots.

And while I'm at it, the "enthusiasts" oppose any mandatory training prior to purchase of a firearm, but seem to have no problem with the requirement to take a hunting safety course before getting a hunting license.

Great point O Really with just a few little problems....First, it does no good to confiscate anything if it can be readily replaced in a few hours. With that in mind it would do no good to confiscate guns until they are very difficult to get. Lets see what have all the latest "gun control" pushes been? Making guns harder to get. Second, hunters can use several other things to hunt other than guns like bows, crossbows, muzzleloaders which are not subject to FFL and 4473 regulation, and even spears. Not a very reliable "source" to find guns and even less reliable when you have extreme distrust in the government. Finally, hunting is not guranteed in The Constitution, gun ownership is and mandatory training is infringement on the right of ownership. In addition the hunter safety course teaches a great deal about woodsmanship and other topics than just shooting. Really, O really, I'd learn a little bit about the topic before calling others idiots.

[O Really]

Great point O Really with just a few little problems....First, it does no good to confiscate anything if it can be readily replaced in a few hours. With that in mind it would do no good to confiscate guns until they are very difficult to get. Lets see what have all the latest "gun control" pushes been? Making guns harder to get. Second, hunters can use several other things to hunt other than guns like bows, crossbows, muzzleloaders which are not subject to FFL and 4473 regulation, and even spears. Not a very reliable "source" to find guns and even less reliable when you have extreme distrust in the government. Finally, hunting is not guranteed in The Constitution, gun ownership is and mandatory training is infringement on the right of ownership. In addition the hunter safety course teaches a great deal about woodsmanship and other topics than just shooting. Really, O really, I'd learn a little bit about the topic before calling others idiots.

My reference to "idiots" is directed at those who think Obama and his jackboots are going to confiscate their guns. That's all about that particular topic I need to know, and I'll stand behind my characterization.

But what relevance is it that one could hunt with a sharpened stick? What percentage of people with hunting licenses do you suppose own guns? I didn't suggest that the government actually would use hunting or CCW licenses to come take your guns out of your cold dead hands. To the contrary - I said there is a lot of information out there that could be used to find some guns, but nobody is doing it.

I doubt it, but let's say there is a possibility that mandatory training as a condition of owning a firearm is unconstitutional. I'd still like to see it tried, and actually resolved by the Supreme Court. Pass the law. Take the challenge. Get a real ruling. Not that there are enough members of Congress that aren't owned by the NRA or that have the balls to vote for it.

[Roland Deschain]

But what relevance is it that one could hunt with a sharpened stick? What percentage of people with hunting licenses do you suppose own guns? I didn't suggest that the government actually would use hunting or CCW licenses to come take your guns out of your cold dead hands. To the contrary - I said there is a lot of information out there that could be used to find some guns, but nobody is doing it.

I doubt it, but let's say there is a possibility that mandatory training as a condition of owning a firearm is unconstitutional. I'd still like to see it tried, and actually resolved by the Supreme Court. Pass the law. Take the challenge. Get a real ruling. Not that there are enough members of Congress that aren't owned by the NRA or that have the balls to vote for it.

Sure there is information that could be used but why use it before the market is stifled?? It would be a moot point to come take my shotgun if I could have another one in an hour wouldn't it?

Your disdain for the NRA is evident through out your posts, as is your disregard for the 2nd Amendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult for people like you to understand? Placing a mandatory requirement on purchasing a gun is "infringement" and The Constitution prohibits that.

[O Really]

Your disdain for the NRA is evident through out your posts, as is your disregard for the 2nd Amendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult for people like you to understand? Placing a mandatory requirement on purchasing a gun is "infringement" and The Constitution prohibits that.

My disdain for the NRA knows no boundaries. Did you think I was trying to hide it? Regarding the 2nd Amendment, however, I know not only what it says but how it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and including recent decisions that strengthened individual ownership. And I think I'll go along with what they say as compared to what the NRA thinks they should or should have said or wants them to say. And what the Supreme Court says is that rights to own firearms are not unlimited and that reasonable regulation is not unconstitutional. Fortunately, their opinion counts more than the NRA's, even if the NRA has more money and owns more members of Congress.

[Roland Deschain]

Your disdain for the NRA is evident through out your posts, as is your disregard for the 2nd Amendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult for people like you to understand? Placing a mandatory requirement on purchasing a gun is "infringement" and The Constitution prohibits that.

My disdain for the NRA knows no boundaries. Did you think I was trying to hide it? Regarding the 2nd Amendment, however, I know not only what it says but how it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and including recent decisions that strengthened individual ownership. And I think I'll go along with what they say as compared to what the NRA thinks they should or should have said or wants them to say. And what the Supreme Court says is that rights to own firearms are not unlimited and that reasonable regulation is not unconstitutional. Fortunately, their opinion counts more than the NRA's, even if the NRA has more money and owns more members of Congress.

Yes, "reasonable regulation" and so far that seems to apply to prohibition of "military grade" weapons, full auto's, portable rockets etc. I have no problem with those prohibitions. However, I beleive the "reasonable" line is crossed when you begin discussing prohibitions and/or conditions on average, run of the mill, sporting firearms.

[Ombudsman]

Does Mad Roland ever think about anything other than guns?