S k a t e L o g     F o r u m
Inline Skating and Quad Roller Skating
Forum Hosts: Jessica Wright | Kathie Fry

FOLLOW US: Our Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Email    


Home - Forum Index - Africa Skating - Asia Skating - Europe Skating - Oceania Skating - Pan America Skating - Roller_Rinks - Friend the SkateLog Forum in Facebook - SkateLog Forum on Facebook

Forum Administrators: Jessica Wright and Kathie Fry | Email Us
Access code for buying and selling subforums: "skates"
How To Get a User Account and Posting Privileges in the SkateLog Forum
Use Google to Search the SkateLog Forum

Go Back   SkateLog Forum > Other Forums > Off-Topic Discussions
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Off-Topic Discussions You can use this forum to talk about any non-skating topic you want.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 16th, 2019, 03:55 PM   #1
fierocious1
Senior Member
 
fierocious1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,480
Default I see the dims cranking up on gun and ammo confiscation again...

We probaly have 10 more years to perp since Trump is Pres. BTW, my guns still haven't got up and shot anyone....
__________________
"Liberal Logic", a phrase in conflict with itself.... dims = it's OK to kill babies.. real logic there..
fierocious1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2019, 07:56 PM   #2
rufusprime99
Ninja Naked Mole Rat
 
rufusprime99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Antonio Tx
Posts: 6,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fierocious1 View Post
We probaly have 10 more years to perp since Trump is Pres. BTW, my guns still haven't got up and shot anyone....
The just can't sit still can they. Or do something worthwhile.
__________________
Don't let people live in your head rent free. ~princessfluffhead~ BontQRL/InvaderDA45: Seba-FRX: Alkali CA9
rufusprime99 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2019, 03:04 PM   #3
wired
Member
 
wired's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: KY USA
Posts: 2,420
Default

There will be changes to gun laws in the US.

Just as it took Nixon to open "Red" China don't think Mr "stable genius" Trump might not flip on guns to get his numbers up. All DJT cares about is DJT after all!

As a person that grew up in the NRA I can say the current agenda has strayed far from the sportsman focus of traditional gun ownership.

So as one that has had to focus on defining what one does not want to happen when change is inevitable it would behoove people that want to preserve gun rights to begin to shape the conversation. Simply saying Second Amendment and cold dead hands won't work. If you cede the conversation to the emotional "assault weapons" voices then in the end you will loose.

There are three areas of general agreement in the population that if implemented would likely take the edge off the conversation and reduce the carnage.

1. Qualified buyers. Crazy people, felons, terrorists, wife beaters, sadists, animal abusers and the like should not be able to legally buy a firearm. Anywhere. Period.

2. No automatic weapons or accessories that make a semiautomatic behave like a automatic.

3. Limited magazine size. 10 rounds could be a good compromise for ALL non-military weapons. This would reduce the lethality of all firearms that can fire more than 10 rounds and therefore reduce body counts in mass shootings. It would also blunt he drive to ban "assault weapons" as a AR or AK with a short magazine isn't as easy to demonize. Have a trade in and buy back period and see how it works. My guess is it won't cause any problems for a reasonable gun owner and would present a good opportunity to educate the difference between what a weapon looks like and what it actually does.

Violation of any of these and you loose your right to possess a firearm for life.

Gun laws are going to change. Unless you are part of a reasonable conversation the decisions will be made by the loudest voices. Don't continue to count on the NRA as they are imploding by the second. Gone are the nice digs they had in DC when I was a kid. Now they funnel Russian money and are in internal lawsuits.

.
__________________
Common wisdom is anything but...
wired is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2019, 03:45 PM   #4
Mcostello
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Lancaster,Ohio
Posts: 169
Default

Drunk driving and drug laws are SO effective. Let's persecute law abiding citizens now.
Mcostello is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2019, 04:30 PM   #5
wired
Member
 
wired's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: KY USA
Posts: 2,420
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mcostello View Post
Drunk driving and drug laws are SO effective. Let's persecute law abiding citizens now.
So are murder laws...

For the three items above the plus sides are fulfilling a political goal and defining unacceptable ownership. Such laws give a law enforcement official a legal peg to hang a likely offender on. Unfortunately most of our drug laws were used for this purpose, hassling and incarcerating people of color. It's time for that to change. As I walk around I notice KY smelling more like CO and CA by the day. Who will be the last person thrown in jail for pot? OTOH many with trigger cranks are considerably more dangerous.

All laws can be misused and cannot stop people that want to break the law. To argue otherwise is silly.

.
__________________
Common wisdom is anything but...
wired is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2019, 06:56 PM   #6
rufusprime99
Ninja Naked Mole Rat
 
rufusprime99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Antonio Tx
Posts: 6,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mcostello View Post
Drunk driving and drug laws are SO effective. Let's persecute law abiding citizens now.
Well, I don't know about drug laws, but here is a funny tidbit. My sister likes to go out, and is a member of a few social groups. Typically, the groups go out and drink. Many refuse to go to a venue more than a few miles from home. So, it seems folks don't want to go out, essentially get drunk, and have a long drive home. So, I guess one could say drunk driving laws are having a positive effect on behavior.

In another example, the city installed traffic cams on a street notorious for speeding. In one month, the system issued 100,000 tickets. Speeding has gone down dramatically since.
__________________
Don't let people live in your head rent free. ~princessfluffhead~ BontQRL/InvaderDA45: Seba-FRX: Alkali CA9
rufusprime99 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2019, 01:03 AM   #7
fierocious1
Senior Member
 
fierocious1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rufusprime99 View Post
Well, I don't know about drug laws, but here is a funny tidbit. My sister likes to go out, and is a member of a few social groups. Typically, the groups go out and drink. Many refuse to go to a venue more than a few miles from home. So, it seems folks don't want to go out, essentially get drunk, and have a long drive home. So, I guess one could say drunk driving laws are having a positive effect on behavior.

In another example, the city installed traffic cams on a street notorious for speeding. In one month, the system issued 100,000 tickets. Speeding has gone down dramatically since.
It seems like the police pretty much catch the shooters, as they leave evidence behind.... I don't see traffic cops/police taking away innocent people's cars at this time....
So the time is not right to inform them that cars kill, is it?
__________________
"Liberal Logic", a phrase in conflict with itself.... dims = it's OK to kill babies.. real logic there..
fierocious1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2019, 01:29 AM   #8
Dec8rSk8r
Senior Member
 
Dec8rSk8r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,475
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wired View Post
There are three areas of general agreement in the population that if implemented would likely take the edge off the conversation and reduce the carnage.

1. Qualified buyers. Crazy people, felons, terrorists, wife beaters, sadists, animal abusers and the like should not be able to legally buy a firearm. Anywhere. Period.

2. No automatic weapons or accessories that make a semiautomatic behave like a automatic.

3. Limited magazine size. 10 rounds could be a good compromise for ALL non-military weapons. This would reduce the lethality of all firearms that can fire more than 10 rounds and therefore reduce body counts in mass shootings. It would also blunt he drive to ban "assault weapons" as a AR or AK with a short magazine isn't as easy to demonize. Have a trade in and buy back period and see how it works. My guess is it won't cause any problems for a reasonable gun owner and would present a good opportunity to educate the difference between what a weapon looks like and what it actually does.

Violation of any of these and you loose your right to possess a firearm for life.
This would be reasonable in my book. I have never thought we need high capacity semi automatic assault rifles and violent or mentally ill people shouldn't have guns at all. I have a friend who spent time in a psych ward, and she said she would never be allowed to own guns as a result.
Dec8rSk8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2019, 02:01 PM   #9
wired
Member
 
wired's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: KY USA
Posts: 2,420
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dec8rSk8r View Post
This would be reasonable in my book.
Exactly!

My feeling is the NRA of the 60s would support all three measures. But all that began to change as they saw the dollar signs of being culture warriors. An early inflection point was NRA support of racially animated laws:

The Mulford Act, which prohibited anyone outside of law enforcement officers (and others explicitly authorized to do so) from carrying loaded firearms in public, was enacted largely in response to the militant activities of the Black Panther Party. It’s also true that the bill was written by a Republican legislator, California Assemblyman Don Mulford of Oakland, and was passed with the full backing of Republican governor Ronald Reagan and the National Rifle Association." - Did the NRA Support a 1967 ‘Open Carry’ Ban in California?

So in 1967 the NRA supported a restriction that would be unthinkable today, a citizen possessing a loaded firearm in public. Would the NRA of the 50s or 60s accept money from Russia to try and influence a US election? While changing with the times is necessary I'd say these changes seriously undermine what the NRA says they are all about and exposes their racist nature.

.
__________________
Common wisdom is anything but...
wired is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2019, 04:42 PM   #10
fierocious1
Senior Member
 
fierocious1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dec8rSk8r View Post
This would be reasonable in my book. I have never thought we need high capacity semi automatic assault rifles and violent or mentally ill people shouldn't have guns at all. I have a friend who spent time in a psych ward, and she said she would never be allowed to own guns as a result.
Capacity and looks has nothing to do with a gun killing. The gun has no intent, the shooter does though. I have 30 cal weapons that both blow holes easily through half inch steel plate, the guns look nothing alike, they hold the same exact bullet.
__________________
"Liberal Logic", a phrase in conflict with itself.... dims = it's OK to kill babies.. real logic there..
fierocious1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2019, 08:55 PM   #11
Dec8rSk8r
Senior Member
 
Dec8rSk8r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,475
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wired View Post
Exactly!

My feeling is the NRA of the 60s would support all three measures. But all that began to change as they saw the dollar signs of being culture warriors. An early inflection point was NRA support of racially animated laws:

The Mulford Act, which prohibited anyone outside of law enforcement officers (and others explicitly authorized to do so) from carrying loaded firearms in public, was enacted largely in response to the militant activities of the Black Panther Party. It’s also true that the bill was written by a Republican legislator, California Assemblyman Don Mulford of Oakland, and was passed with the full backing of Republican governor Ronald Reagan and the National Rifle Association." - Did the NRA Support a 1967 ‘Open Carry’ Ban in California?

So in 1967 the NRA supported a restriction that would be unthinkable today, a citizen possessing a loaded firearm in public. Would the NRA of the 50s or 60s accept money from Russia to try and influence a US election? While changing with the times is necessary I'd say these changes seriously undermine what the NRA says they are all about and exposes their racist nature.

.
Are you for or against concealed carry? I am for it personally, and I have my concealed carry, but I definitely think we need to be careful who we give that responsibility to. Too many people who shouldn't have guns at all are getting them. I also think licensed gun owners who let someone who shouldn't have possession of their gun get a hold of it, should be held more responsible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fierocious1 View Post
Capacity and looks has nothing to do with a gun killing. The gun has no intent, the shooter does though. I have 30 cal weapons that both blow holes easily through half inch steel plate, the guns look nothing alike, they hold the same exact bullet.
I know, you could easily kill someone with a box-cutter from the Dollar Tree if you were so inclined, but submachine guns make the job of killing many people at once a lot easier if the nut in question isn't going the bomb route. The average person doesn't need that type of firepower. Sure, they are fun to play with but we don't need them for self defense.
Dec8rSk8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2019, 01:34 AM   #12
fierocious1
Senior Member
 
fierocious1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dec8rSk8r View Post
Are you for or against concealed carry? I am for it personally, and I have my concealed carry, but I definitely think we need to be careful who we give that responsibility to. Too many people who shouldn't have guns at all are getting them. I also think licensed gun owners who let someone who shouldn't have possession of their gun get a hold of it, should be held more responsible.



I know, you could easily kill someone with a box-cutter from the Dollar Tree if you were so inclined, but submachine guns make the job of killing many people at once a lot easier if the nut in question isn't going the bomb route. The average person doesn't need that type of firepower. Sure, they are fun to play with but we don't need them for self defense.
And that license is very hard to get. I have no need for an automatic weapon. One is a bolt action, the other a semi automatic.
__________________
"Liberal Logic", a phrase in conflict with itself.... dims = it's OK to kill babies.. real logic there..
fierocious1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2019, 03:51 AM   #13
wired
Member
 
wired's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: KY USA
Posts: 2,420
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dec8rSk8r View Post
Are you for or against concealed carry? I am for it personally, and I have my concealed carry, but I definitely think we need to be careful who we give that responsibility to. Too many people who shouldn't have guns at all are getting them. I also think licensed gun owners who let someone who shouldn't have possession of their gun get a hold of it, should be held more responsible.
I have never thought of concealed carry as a for or against proposition.

I do think we are seeing more people dying and being injured by firearms as their prevalence "in the wild" increases. I look at a firearm as a tool. Just as I wouldn't carry around a power saw unless I thought I'd need one I certainly don't carry around a firearm unless the situation warrants. I still haven't found a situation that would cause me to make that choice. I'm not in the habit of carrying around $300 clipped to my belt.

I live in KY and we are now what is described as a "Constitutional Carry" state. So come July let the insanity begin...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dec8rSk8r View Post
I know, you could easily kill someone with a box-cutter from the Dollar Tree if you were so inclined, but submachine guns make the job of killing many people at once a lot easier if the nut in question isn't going the bomb route. The average person doesn't need that type of firepower. Sure, they are fun to play with but we don't need them for self defense.
Exactly. One doesn't need to know much to cause a lot of havoc when magazines have 30+ rounds in them.

.
__________________
Common wisdom is anything but...
wired is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.