Gun Rights Advocates Designate January 19th, 2013 as "Gun Appreciation Day"

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Not that this is much of a surprise. The more I see from the pro-gun crowd, the more anti-gun I become. So while you're out there appreciating guns, say hello to the white supremacists for me.

Gun Appreciation Day Is Sponsored By A White Nationalist Party

Whoa! Those people are insane.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by leekohler

Whoa! Those people are insane.

Nope, responsible gun owners.

[Spectrum Abuser]

Originally Posted by leekohler

And if you went to CFA Appreciation Day, you've lost my respect. That is truly the ugliest thing you could do.

It's all too funny. The air heads in the alternative lifestyle crowd demand acceptance and respect, yet they turn around and disrespect anyone who doesn't agree with them.

[MorphingDragon]

Originally Posted by Spectrum Abuser

It's all too funny. The air heads in the alternative lifestyle crowd demand acceptance and respect, yet they turn around and disrespect anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Well considering that eating CFA helped fund organizations that wish the "Alternative Lifestyle" crowd were not seen or heard in a hole somewhere...

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Spectrum Abuser

It's all too funny. The air heads in the alternative lifestyle crowd demand acceptance and respect, yet they turn around and disrespect anyone who doesn't agree with them.

We don't demand acceptance and respect - we demand the same rights that everyone else has.

I don't give a lick if you don't accept me or respect me - we do, however, refuse to tolerate the people and organizations who work to ensure we don't receive equal rights.

And since you're posting in a thread about a "gun appreciation" day, shall I assume you also believe that those fighting to save their 2nd Amendment rights are also "airheads"?

[Spectrum Abuser]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I don't give a lick if you don't accept me or respect me

Then you're not who I was talking about. There's nothing else to discuss.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Spectrum Abuser

Then you're not who I was talking about. There's nothing else to discuss.

Then I think you'd be surprised to find out that most of us in the "alternative lifestyle crowd" () feel this way.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by Spectrum Abuser

It's all too funny. The air heads in the alternative lifestyle crowd demand acceptance and respect, yet they turn around and disrespect anyone who doesn't agree with them.

So, is your thinking in line with this conversation:
Gay Guy: "I want to have the same rights as everyone else."
Jock Dude: "You're gay. You shouldn't have the same rights because you're not natural. I wish you didn't exist. In fact, I will support organizations that try to oppress you and strip you of any rights."
Gay Guy: "Why are you against my rights?"
Jock Dude: "Whoa there!! You're disrespecting me and my beliefs!!!"

I've seen plenty of people get angry with people for not tolerating their views of discrimination, and wondering why supporting equality and supporting discrimination aren't the same thing. They aren't the same thing.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by Spectrum Abuser

It's all too funny. The air heads in the alternative lifestyle crowd demand acceptance and respect, yet they turn around and disrespect anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Who are those people? I don't know any of them...

[skunk]

Originally Posted by Spectrum Abuser

It's all too funny. The air heads in the alternative lifestyle crowd demand acceptance and respect.

What is this "alternative lifestyle" of which you speak?

[Spectrum Abuser]

Originally Posted by samiwas

So, is your thinking in line with this conversation:
Gay Guy: "I want to have the same rights as everyone else."
Jock Dude: "You're gay. You shouldn't have the same rights because you're not natural. I wish you didn't exist. In fact, I will support organizations that try to oppress you and strip you of any rights."
Gay Guy: "Why are you against my rights?"
Jock Dude: "Whoa there!! You're disrespecting me and my beliefs!!!"

I've seen plenty of people get angry with people for not tolerating their views of discrimination, and wondering why supporting equality and supporting discrimination aren't the same thing. They aren't the same thing.

I don't care about what rocks someones socks. I simply don't want to hear one sided cries for help.

----------

Originally Posted by skunk

What is this "alternative lifestyle" of which you speak?

The politically correct term for Gays/Lesbians/Bi or so I've read.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by Spectrum Abuser

I don't care about what rocks someones socks. I simply don't want to hear one sided cries for help.

Translation: if someone wants me to respect their cries in support of equality, they had better respect my cries in support of discrimination.

[spork183]

Originally Posted by dinggus

I can afford one, and there's all this talk about second amendment, so I figured I might as well get the pistol of my choice before that choice gets taken away.

dinggus, nothing on you, just referencing the 2nd Ammendment-
Second Amendment was adopted in 1791. A good soldier (ie. trained, muscle memory, etc, for example, a dinggus of that era) could fire at a rate of a couple shots a minute. Guns had the following characteristics:
Single shot.
Rudimentary rifling.
Made by a gunsmith.
Loaded through the muzzle.
Fired by flintlock.

Consider when the Second Amendment was adopted, the following gun innovations hadn't happened:
Interchangeable parts.
Revolvers.
Breech loaded.
Smokeless powder
Percussion caps
Clips

It feels like insanity to imply that our founding fathers meant ANY gun, ANY capacity, ANY Cyclic rate, ANY Caliber. I believe there is a right to guns. I believe there is no right to Assault weapons. I believe the ability of any fool to walk into a gun store/gun show, etc. and purchase a gun without background check or wait period, is simply stupid.

Sorry, had to finish the rant...

[Spectrum Abuser]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Translation: if someone wants me to respect their cries in support of equality, they had better respect my cries in support of discrimination.

If you're going to resort to putting words into someone else's mouth than you're not worth the time it took to type this reply out.

For anyone else who is emotionally mature enough to engage in discussion with. I specifically stated I don't care about someones sexual preference. It amazed me that Samiwas could twist that into his/her fantasy, but he/she did.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by spork183

dinggus, nothing on you, just referencing the 2nd Ammendment-
Second Amendment was adopted in 1791. A good soldier (ie. trained, muscle memory, etc, for example, a dinggus of that era) could fire at a rate of a couple shots a minute. Guns had the following characteristics:
Single shot.
Rudimentary rifling.
Made by a gunsmith.
Loaded through the muzzle.
Fired by flintlock.

Consider when the Second Amendment was adopted, the following gun innovations hadn't happened:
Interchangeable parts.
Revolvers.
Breech loaded.
Smokeless powder
Percussion caps
Clips

It feels like insanity to imply that our founding fathers meant ANY gun, ANY capacity, ANY Cyclic rate, ANY Caliber. I believe there is a right to guns. I believe there is no right to Assault weapons. I believe the ability of any fool to walk into a gun store/gun show, etc. and purchase a gun without background check or wait period, is simply stupid.

Sorry, had to finish the rant...

I'll begin by saying that I totally agree with mandatory background checks for any firearm sale. I also strongly believe in qualification vetting, including firearms knowledge, firearms safety knowledge, firearms law knowledge, and actual firearm handling certification before an individual is even allowed to purchase a firearm.

However, I must take exception to one of your statements... "I believe there is no right to Assault weapons."

I have asked literally dozens of posters on this forum to define what they mean when they use the term "assault weapon". If you are referring to high capacity magazines then I have no argument with that limitation/regulation. If that is not, however, what you are describing, then please tell me what you wish to remove from a civilian purchaser's choice.

Before you mention some generic sounding things, please remember this. In order to write legislation which can actually be codified into law, there must be very specific criteria enumerated in order to attempt to ban the sale of "something".

So, keeping the need for absolute specifics in mind, tell me your definition of an "assault weapon". If you can't define it in sufficient quantifiable detail, how could you possibly expect our idiot Congress to be able to do so?

P.S. Since the 1st Amendment was written long before anyone could have possibly envisioned the internet, Twitter, etc., would you use the same justification to nullify/modify the 1st Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression?

[spork183]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

I'll begin by saying that I totally agree with mandatory background checks for any firearm sale. I also strongly believe in qualification vetting, including firearms knowledge, firearms safety knowledge, firearms law knowledge, and actual firearm handling certification before an individual is even allowed to purchase a firearm.

However, I must take exception to one of your statements... "I believe there is no right to Assault weapons."

I have asked literally dozens of posters on this forum to define what they mean when they use the term "assault weapon". If you are referring to high capacity magazines then I have no argument with that limitation/regulation. If that is not, however, what you are describing, then please tell me what you wish to remove from a civilian purchaser's choice.

Before you mention some generic sounding things, please remember this. In order to write legislation which can actually be codified into law, there must be very specific criteria enumerated in order to attempt to ban the sale of "something".

So, keeping the need for absolute specifics in mind, tell me your definition of an "assault weapon". If you can't define it in sufficient quantifiable detail, how could you possibly expect our idiot Congress to be able to do so?

P.S. Since the 1st Amendment was written long before anyone could have possibly envisioned the internet, Twitter, etc., would you use the same justification to nullify/modify the 1st Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression?

Regarding PS--Keeping in mind the need for absolute specifics, please give me a valid comparison. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Yes, I know the arguments of recreation, target practice, etc. Doesn't change the fact that when you distill it, the purpose of a gun is to kill. (whereas the purpose of Facebook is to annoy...) So the Second Amendment is addressing a need for citizens to be able to kill if necessary. Now we get to degree. (And this is completely excusing the differences in threat, politics, standing army, etc., between now and the 1790's) This is where I have my argument. Why ban anything? Because there is a need for rationality. Though I like big bangs, I can't keep grenades. Likewise, my stinger missile is out of bounds, though in truth, I might one day be attacked by an airplane.

To answer your burning question on Assault Weapon Definition, lets dump the inflammatory "Assault Weapons" terminology. Ban based on rational guidelines for the following:
1. cyclic rate.
2. magazine capacity
3. Ease of ability to be modified by layman to circumvent 1 and 2.

Also look at types of ammunition. Armor piercing rounds? Really? The likelihood of them being used on an armor wearing criminal are much less than on an armor wearing cop.

Finally, the inability of congress to get it right doesn't absolve us of the need to act.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by spork183

Regarding PS--Keeping in mind the need for absolute specifics, please give me a valid comparison. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Yes, I know the arguments of recreation, target practice, etc. Doesn't change the fact that when you distill it, the purpose of a gun is to kill. (whereas the purpose of Facebook is to annoy...) So the Second Amendment is addressing a need for citizens to be able to kill if necessary. Now we get to degree. (And this is completely excusing the differences in threat, politics, standing army, etc., between now and the 1790's) This is where I have my argument. Why ban anything? Because there is a need for rationality. Though I like big bangs, I can't keep grenades. Likewise, my stinger missile is out of bounds, though in truth, I might one day be attacked by an airplane.

To answer your burning question on Assault Weapon Definition, lets dump the inflammatory "Assault Weapons" terminology. Ban based on rational guidelines for the following:
1. cyclic rate.
2. magazine capacity
3. Ease of ability to be modified by layman to circumvent 1 and 2.

Also look at types of ammunition. Armor piercing rounds? Really? The likelihood of them being used on an armor wearing criminal are much less than on an armor wearing cop.

Finally, the inability to congress to get it right doesn't absolve us of the need to act.

In the same sequence that you answered...

1) online bullying which has resulted in many suicides
2) child pornography (no further explanation, I think, is required)
... and I'm sure many other "online" activities which can result in injury or death.

As for your three points about "assault weapons"...

The cyclic rate of any semi-automatic firearm is almost totally governed by the speed with which the shooter squeezes the trigger. My Browning Buckmark .22 target pistol has the same cyclic rate as an AR-15.

I already commented on magazine capacity. This does not specify any particular firearm, and as I said, I agree with civilian limitation on this.

Contrary to popular movie or TV depictions, it is no easy task to turn a semi-auto into a well-functioning full automatic weapon. As a side note, "sawed off shotguns" (below a minimum barrel length) have been illegal to own for quite a few years. Yet, all I need is a legal shotgun and a hacksaw to create one. Should we regulate the sale of hacksaw blades?

So, are you officially withdrawing your call for the ban of "assault weapons"?

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by Spectrum Abuser

If you're going to resort to putting words into someone else's mouth than you're not worth the time it took to type this reply out.

For anyone else who is emotionally mature enough to engage in discussion with. I specifically stated I don't care about someones sexual preference. It amazed me that Samiwas could twist that into his/her fantasy, but he/she did.

Perfect. Then I will assume your first post had no actual meaning. Thanks!

PS: Nice with the emotionally mature comment when you refer to those in the "alternative lifestyle" as "airheads". And you expect mature discussion?

And BTW...I'm not "alternative".