I'm all for gun control

[Crowlogic]

Crowlogic, clearly you're the most informed gun expert on the forums so I figure you're the one to ask:

Obviously when I carry (which I do everywhere) I sport more firepower, but since I'm trying to save money at the range I'm getting a .22 Friday. Should I go with...

[qimg]http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/walther_p22_3_4.jpg[/qimg]

The Walther P-22...


[qimg]http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/Mosquito.jpg[/qimg]

The Sig Mosquito, or...


[qimg]http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/sw22a.jpg[/qimg]

The Smith & Wesson 22A.

Personally I'm leaning towards the Sig since I already have a couple of Smiths and like the notion of owning many different brands (Glock, S&W, FNH, Marlin and Mossberg representin' so far), and Walthers are just so common. But on the other hand, maybe so many people have Walthers because they're so reliable. Then again, after thousands of rounds I've never had a S&W misfire.

Please Crowlogic, you're my only hope.

Hmmm buy what you like. Be sure to register it and don't point it at anybody.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm saying that shoes that fit have a way of being worn.

Yes they do. You wear yours quite well. The fact that you have yet to demonstrate any kind of reliable evidence for any of your claims so far is quite telling, I feel.

Hmmm buy what you like. Be sure to register it and don't point it at anybody.

Sure he isn't too stupid to handle it?

He might need your eminent wisdom to tell him what the trigger does...

 

[Drudgewire]

Hmmm buy what you like. Be sure to register it and don't point it at anybody.

When I bought my first firearm it was from a friend. Not yet being all that familiar with the laws, I went to Wal-Mart and asked the guy at the counter where you get hunting and fishing licenses "where do I go to register a gun?"

He laughed and laughed. MAN I love living in the south.

 

[Lonewulf]

When I bought my first firearm it was from a friend. Not yet being all that familiar with the laws, I went to Wal-Mart and asked the guy at the counter where you get hunting and fishing licenses "where do I go to register a gun?"

He laughed and laughed. MAN I love living in the south. [qimg]http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/clint.gif[/qimg]

Texas?

I might run into you, going to San Antonio shortly myself.

Still don't forgive you for calling me a fundamentalist though.

 

[Drudgewire]

Texas?

I might run into you, going to San Antonio shortly myself.

Still don't forgive you for calling me a fundamentalist though.

I called you a fundy? Wow, sorry. Can I blame drugs? Ever since I stopped smoking pot I've found it's a really convenient excuse for all kinds of past indiscretions.

ETA: South Carolina. But I'm supposed to go to San Antonio in March if the business conference we usually go to is cost-efficient enough (stupid economy).

 

[Yjacket]

Hmmm buy what you like. Be sure to register it. . . . .

What is that supposed to accomplish? He will have to complete a form 4473 and the dealer will have to do an NICS check before he can take possession of the pistol.

 

[Lonewulf]

I called you a fundy? Wow, sorry. Can I blame drugs? Ever since I stopped smoking pot I've found it's a really convenient excuse for all kinds of past indiscretions.

It was on the thread involving vegetarianism. I only recently took you off my ignore list after that. Mostly 'cause I'm done with being emo.

Off topic, anyways.

ETA: South Carolina. But I'm supposed to go to San Antonio in March if the business conference we usually go to is cost-efficient enough (stupid economy).

Pretty cool. I'll be up there in January to attend UTSA. Might be looking into a major in history with a minor in astronomy (or something of that nature... weird mix, but I'm looking for material for my writing more than anything, and I find an English major to be an overall waste).

 

[Drudgewire]

It was on the thread involving vegetarianism. I only recently took you off my ignore list after that. Mostly 'cause I'm done with being emo.

Ooooooh, that thread. Yeah, a few members took the vitriolic brunt of my recent break-up with a vegan. We're friends again so no reason to project anymore. My bad.

 

[Lonewulf]

Ooooooh, that thread. Yeah, a few members took the vitriolic brunt of my recent break-up with a vegan. We're friends again so no reason to project anymore. My bad.

Being as that I'm perfect and haven't ever cracked an emotional fit on the JREF, much less the internet at all, I'm afraid I can't forgive you.




...Who am I kidding? It's okay, I was getting emotional in that thread myself, as I often do when mired in a debate.

 

[RandFan]

...Who am I kidding? It's okay, I was getting emotional in that thread myself, as I often do when mired in a debate.

Been there done that.

Lonewulf, you are willing to acknowledge arguments even if you don't necessarily agree with the conclusions. That goes a long way in my book.

 

[jj]

Well, I apologize at this point for even speaking up.

I think that there is absolutely a need for some minimal sort of gun control, things like felons, people factually incapable of telling right from wrong, etc.

That is, if you consider what I said in the OP, all I ask for. I chose to say it in a particular way to show kneejerking, and you know, you all kneejerked right on cue, darn near the entire lot of you (and kudos to those who stayed to the middle). In particular the knee-jerk, verbally violent "over my dead body" types stand out to me as devoted gun owners who have just put evidence forward that not everyone should own guns.

 

[Yjacket]

Well, I apologize at this point for even speaking up.

I think that there is absolutely a need for some minimal sort of gun control, things like felons, people factually incapable of telling right from wrong, etc.

That is, if you consider what I said in the OP, all I ask for. I chose to say it in a particular way to show kneejerking, and you know, you all kneejerked right on cue, darn near the entire lot of you (and kudos to those who stayed to the middle). In particular the knee-jerk, verbally violent "over my dead body" types stand out to me as devoted gun owners who have just put evidence forward that not everyone should own guns.

Actually the minimal that I believe you to be asking for are covered in the 1968 GCA, and as amended in the 1990's to do away with the honor system that had existed for 25 years or so. Granted there were some firearm buyers who disregarded the honor system so the background check is not all that bad an addition. Here is a boiled down reading of the act. There is also the 1934 National Firearms Act but at this point in the discussion I don't believe we need to bring that one too deeply into the discussion. Then too there are the various state laws such as the waiting period in the State of California and the state forms for the dealer to fill out over and above the 1968GCA paperwork.

Information compiled from the 1968 Gun Control Act

- - It is against the law for those under 21 to purchase or possess a handgun. (There are some exemptions listed for possession such as under the supervision of a qualified adult.)
- - It is against the law for those under 18 to purchase a long barreled firearm.
- - It is against the law for someone with a felony record to purchase or possess a firearm. (Actually this has been amended to include some misdemeanor crimes also.)
- - It is against the law for someone dishonorably discharged from the military service to purchase or possess a firearm.
- - It is against the law for someone with mental problems to purchase or possess a firearm.
- - It is against the law for an illegal alien to purchase or possess a firearm.
- - It is against the law for someone who has denounced his/her US Citizenship to purchase or possess a firearm.
- - It is against the law for a substance abuser to purchase or possess a firearm.
- - It is against the law for someone not holding an FFL to purchase a firearm in state A for resale in state B.
- - It is against the law for someone to purchase for or deliver a firearm to anyone who does not have the qualifications to make the purchase themselves.
- - And of course there are the forms to fill out and proving that you are a resident of the state in which you are making the purchase and topping it all off there is the FBI background check thus giving the dealer government approval to make the sale.

 

[jj]

Actually the minimal that I believe you to be asking for are covered in the 1968 GCA, and as amended in the 1990's to do away with the honor system that had existed for 25 years or so.

As I am well aware, you are absolutely correct. This is why the responses, expecially of some of the pro-gun (but also of a few anti-gun) folks are so preposterous.

Yes, I was aware of that from the start. It's interesting that not a single person thought to point this out before now, at least any person who did so in a clear, cogent fashion (barring my having missed something, of course).

And that, Yellowjacket, is my real point, as you may have guessed by now.

 

[Drudgewire]

As I am well aware, you are absolutely correct. This is why the responses, expecially of some of the pro-gun (but also of a few anti-gun) folks are so preposterous.

Yes, I was aware of that from the start. It's interesting that not a single person thought to point this out before now, at least any person who did so in a clear, cogent fashion (barring my having missed something, of course).

And that, Yellowjacket, is my real point, as you may have guessed by now.

Oh, so it was a test all along and not just a hideously ill-conceived thread that was filled with answers which lived up to the ridiculousness of the OP?

Gotcha.

 

[Yjacket]

As I am well aware, you are absolutely correct. This is why the responses, expecially of some of the pro-gun (but also of a few anti-gun) folks are so preposterous.

Yes, I was aware of that from the start. It's interesting that not a single person thought to point this out before now, at least any person who did so in a clear, cogent fashion (barring my having missed something, of course).

And that, Yellowjacket, is my real point, as you may have guessed by now.

Well jj I am going to have to confess that I did not read your opening post as you say you intended it to be. I certainly didn't see anything in this,

I think everyone who wants to get a gun should have to watch a half-hour film on what guns do to people, and I mean up close, including the big exit holes, the blood, the crying relatives, etc.

And anyone who salivates excessively or has their plesmethogram show a strong reaction should not get a gun.

that was advocating purchase requirements and qualifications somewhere near those that have existed for 30 years. But then what the heck this has been fun and I must admit that never before have I been told that educated professional people have no interest in firearms. That was a completely new one and most assuredly I know for fact that it is incorrect.

However I am still waiting for answers to my questions about what could be added to the list of buyer qualifications that is not already covered by the provisions of the 1934NFA and the 1968GCA without encroaching into the rights of the law abiding. Especially so now that the USSC has come out with a ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right and not a state right.

 

[jj]

Oh, so it was a test all along

Not a test, rather an exhibition of people showing knee-jerk reactions when their favorite ox isn't stroked.

 

[RandFan]

Not a test, rather an exhibition of people showing knee-jerk reactions when their favorite ox isn't stroked.

I like you jj but we have a word for this.

Trolling - deliberately provoking arguments on newsgroups [forums] or bulletin boards, with no other intent than to gain attention for the sake of attention. Originally: fishing by dragging a line fitted with one or more hooks behind the boat.

 

[jj]

I like you jj but we have a word for this.

Trolling - deliberately provoking arguments on newsgroups [forums] or bulletin boards, with no other intent than to gain attention for the sake of attention. Originally: fishing by dragging a line fitted with one or more hooks behind the boat.

It's a simple case of going into the guts of the issue, describing some of the real things that need to be watched for, although doubt we'll see plesmythographs in action :0, and then watching while people I've effectively supported beat up on me for agreeing with them. I was a bit amused at the first few replies, but a few attempts to push things back on track didn't work, so I sat back and watched. Hence my failure to discuss much of anything for a week or so. No point

What I did, practically speaking, was support a liberalization of the present gun laws. And look what happened. Pathetic.

Now, since I didn't call attention to me, here, well, until you butted in, you've refuted yourself, eh? I discussed the POSITION, well, until I gave up and stopped discussing at all...

 

[Lonewulf]

Your "position" was full of laughable ideas and divisive language.

When you state things like "Perhaps your rush to defend your right to murder and maim got ahead of you there.", as you did in Post #7, you no longer have any ability to pretend like it's the fault of all of those eeeeevil gun right proponents, that they reacted as they did. To imply the right to own firearms automatically assumes "the right to murder and maim" is to ignore target shooting, hunting, and self defense (which does not fall under murder); a point that you never retracted.

Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if some joke posts, you actually took seriously, such as Oliver's post #10.

Furthermore, you continued to post one-liners that did not attempt to rectify the situation or show respect, such as your post #19:

"You guys are funny. "right to do 'x'" does not imply 'desire to do "X"'

Get real."

Which was completely false (but not retracted); I feel that people should have the right to be able to buy the tools with which they can defend themselves... but I haven't bought a gun in my entire life, and have only once been on the range (for guns, at least; archery is a different issue!)

Furthermore, reading through your posts in general, I see most of the vitriol spewed from you, ff; there are a handful of posters that came off a little harshly, but from what I read, if you had made the attempt to make your point more clear and clarify your position more while avoiding vitriolic language, more than likely you could have brought the debate onto a more rational track. Furthermore, I see that 95% of those supporting gun rights are actually very rational throughout this thread. However, those like Crowlogic and yourself worked quite hard to make it divisive and judgmental.

Either way, since you lay most of the blame at the feet of gun rights proponents, while lessening the vitriol spewed by people such as Crowlogic, I can only assume that you are cherry picking your observations to fit into the conclusion you wanted to draw all along.

 

[RandFan]

What I did, practically speaking, was support a liberalization of the present gun laws.

That's how you charachterize but it was trolling pure and simple. I think you need to stop patting yourself on the back. You are the only one who is impressed with you on this matter.