Once more into the breach

[arnofarrell]

Sawed off shotguns are not that scary. I don't personally have one or know of anyone that does since they are illegal. They are "made" for security and very impractical unless you are a criminal but I believe if you want one you should have one.

Now to hand guns. I agree with you that all semi auto hand guns should be legal. Technically a sawed off shotgun would be considered a pistol. I have a friend who has an AK47 that is a "pistol" which is legal. And yes there are auto pistols, mainly compitition pistols but they are out there. Kind of a waste of ammo if you ask me.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Crispin]

Crispin Sir, if I may? Have you ever read Dune? If you don't know anything about something why would it scare you?

By the way, I love ruffles.

Umm, ruffles have ridges.
Fear of the unknown is terrifying. Used to torture POWs. Might be a zen question...we need Rebel or PTC to chime in on this one. They are the experts.

 

[arnofarrell]

I guess I was late on this answer

 

[GrizLeeBear]

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages! Is a pleasure to perform to such a great and admirable audience. I have known half of you half as well as I would like, and I like less then half as you half as well as you deserve. On to the main event:

After abstaining from serious conversation in the 2nd amendment I have been politely asked to re-enter the debate. How can I refuse such a polite request? The topic of this thread, is...you guessed it...compromising on gun control. I think I read something about the NRA was willing to discuss negotiations on some of the 23 points but I might be making that up. Rebel, did you tell me that in a dream state or did I read it off of CNN? Regardless, I continue to believe in compromise. However, it is hard to compromise with somebody who does not want to bend even the slightest bit. Thus, I would like to use the remainder of this post as psychoanalysis of how some posts can be interpretated when their author goes into the conversation refusing to even consider changing their view. My friend, Griz, has been ever so kind to start us off with his thoughts (copied from Spart's thread.) (I'm sorry Onfire, I tried to let it go. He wouldn't let me.) We are talking about Max Planck's law of generations, keep that in mind.

"I am referencing it to explain the differences between you and I."
Lordy. If you don't know one whit about me, how can you even know what the differences are? Your perception of such differences as they may be are a meaningless concept to me, as is the law you mentioned. Why is it a law? Because some "intellectuals" buy into it? Is there any disagreement from other intellectuals?
1. When people accuse others that "you don't know me" it is usually a sign of deep seeded insecurity.

The really big problem here is that as you sit and read this you are trying to look at my picture while you read my words and come to some conclusions about what I write. Any such assumptions must be wrong because you do not know the tone in which I write. Am I banging the table with my fist? Am I laughing out loud? Am I half lit up on some good fifteen year old single malt? Do I farm your missives out to one of my friends to answer? The truth here is that I sit and sort of shake my head in a bemused and dismissive way. 2. More insecurity, preemptive counterattack on inevitable interpretations to follow.

The same goes both ways. I know very little of you. My first impressions was from your dog's picture. I think you are some kind of psychologist or psychiatrist. I have preconseptions about those fields that may or may not be valid. You seem to be a talker, or, as said eariler, a sophist. I, on the other hand, am a doer. Talk is easy and cheap, but it does not put beans on the table. After my last post I went out and chopped some wood for a fire tonight. Good exercise. You said statistics can be twisted. This tells me you are not much at math. You don't trust numbers. I would respond that words too can be twisted.
3. One states the obvious, anybody not know I'm in the medical field at this point in time? Now one can claim the opposite of what one really is before Spart can call one out on it. More random interpretations, this one wayyyy offff! Do you know what the kinds of math we have to learn to be doctors. Try acid-base balancing with metabolic vs respiratory alkalosis. When you are done with that try the Kreb's cycle and biochemistry. If you are still not convinced doctors are good at math then go take the MCAT (prereqs include organic chem, inorganic chem, physicis I and II, calc I and II, and just a smidgen of biology.)

My measure of a person is what they do, what they accomplish. Not knowing exactly what you do I can only guess that you use words to try and help people who have some sort of mental problem. Me, I help people in a different way. I was never a professor. I am a teacher, or like to think I am. But I learned what I teach the hard way. Yes, I am college educated. College taught me some new words and concepts, few of which turned out to be relevant in the real world. Yes, I have taught in college. But always in an adjunct role. I have run businesses, hired, fired, promoted and taught many people a craft. I am by nature a numbers person, but I do love words. My best fights were always with lawyers. I loved to beat them down. For example, so few people really understand the difference between "I'm sorry," and "I apologize". "I am sorry your cat is dead. I apologize for running over it." So yes, while I am a numbers person, I can use words too. They can be fun to play with.
4. One hasn't really said what one does because one likes being vague. One bashes intellectuals again and brags about how one beats down lawyers. Now one is going to explain an obvious difference to somebody one thinks is in the psychiatric field. That will make one look smart.

"More: I am so much more for knowing you, but less, by far, for not knowing you, more." Words can be fun. I wrote that to a girl I was sweet on many years ago. She wanted to know how much I earned. Smart girl!
5. Oops, need to take ones aricept and namenda.

I have people ask me sometimes, "Why don't you like me?" They never understand the answer. Respect is far more important to me. You can only lie to me once. You can only steal once. You can only be a bully once.
6. One is upset at what onfire inferred and making a veiled challenge.

So, I don't need any intellectual word game explanations from you or anyone else. I've heard all the psycho-babble. I know Maslowe and most of the others. I've read Kant, Durant, Stiglitz, Laffer and a few others. I've also read Heinlein, a truly great philospher.
7. One quotes a bunch of people one knows very little about to look smart and then cites a science-fiction writer as a truly great philospher. What happened to that Air Tax thread?

So the final question is, do I like or dislike you? As I don't know you, except through this site, I have no idea. I doubt we will ever find out. Could you ever like me? Who knows? Who cares?
8. One really forgot what one was talking about, but ones rhetorically rant needs a finale.

Remember this, "It is what it is." Deal with it and move on. Next?
9. Time for my afternoon nap.

Well, that was fun. Anybody want to discuss compromise on the 2nd amendment? I'm up for it.

Crispin

Well, you certainly proved my point. You don't know me at all. Crispin, if that's your name, I feel sorry for you.

 

[Dave44]

Yes sir Crispin, You should go and try to buy a weapon legally, like the rest of us, they are already too hard to get.

No limits on ammo. This poor lady must have missed once, she only had 6 shots, the guy was finally scared off and left,, what if there was 2 or more of them(bad guys I mean)?
Georgia Mom Shoots Home Invader, Hides With Kids - Yahoo! News

 

[diggummup]

Okay, I agree with the sawed off shotgun thing. I'm okay with semi-auto rifles in general. Lets nail done some specifics:
1. Do we limit ammo?
2. Do we make semi-auto harder to obtain then the previously mentioned weapons?

Dave or anybody else, feel free to jump in, this is where the wicket gets sticky.

1. What will it solve?

2. See above ^

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Crispin, you know me, we have met and hunted together..................

How far are you willing to compromise on the other rights in the Constitution...........

1st amendment.... Do we say, allow free speech as long as it is not negative toward the government, is that a good compromise?

3rd Quartering soldiers in our homes in time of peace, do we compromise and say it is okay on weekends, is that a good compromise?

4th Seize and search, do we compromise and say they can search our homes with out a warrant on weekends, is that a good compromise?

5th Double jeopardy, lets say you can be tried twice for the same crime, is that a good compromise for you? How about you can not claim the 5th amendment, make it easier... Is that good for you?

6th Speedy trial, lets take the pesky word speedy out of it. Is that a good compromise for you?

7th Tried by a jury, how about we get rid of the jury and just trial before a judge, save the cost of feeding and lodging a jury, is that a good compromise?

8th Excessive bail, lets make all bail a round number say 1 million dollars, is that a good compromise?

9th and 10th, just get rid of, they are a pain to the government any way, they say people retain all rights not reserved for the government or denied to the people in the constitution .. Is tha a fair compromise.....

Just how far are you willing to compromise on the rights that are guaranteed to the people in the Constitution, I know how far I am......NONE

 

[Crispin]

Yes sir Crispin, You should go and try to buy a weapon legally, like the rest of us, they are already too hard to get.

No limits on ammo. This poor lady must have missed once, she only had 6 shots, the guy was finally scared off and left,, what if there was 2 or more of them(bad guys I mean)?
Georgia Mom Shoots Home Invader, Hides With Kids - Yahoo! News

Dave,
Thanks for the serious reply. I did read that story. Dangerous to cite yahoo around here...too main stream.
1. Okay we agree that limits must be placed. Lets start at the bottom and work our way up. Should felons have access to guns?
2. Unlimited ammo, hmmm, I don't like the idea. Is it possible for a magazine to hold 100 rounds? If so, I think we need to limit them, what say you? On this one we can start at the top and work our way down.

Crispin

 

[Crispin]

Crispin, you know me, we have met and hunted together..................

How far are you willing to compromise on the other rights in the Constitution...........

1st amendment.... Do we say, allow free speech as long as it is not negative towards the government, is that a good compromise?

3rd Quartering soldiers in our homes in time of peace, do we compromise and say it is okay on weekends, is that a good compromise?

4th Seize and search, do we compromise and say they can search our homes with out a warrent on weekends, is that a good compromise?

5th Double jeopardy, lets say you can be tried twice for the same crime, is that a good compromise for you? How about you can not claim the 5th amendment, make it easier... Is that good for you?

6th Speedy trial, lets take the pesky word speedy out of it. Is that a good compromise for you?

7th Tried by a jury, how about we get rid of the jury and just trial before a judge, save the cost of feeding and lodging a jury, is that a good compromise?

8th Excessive bail, lets make all bail a round number say 1 million dollars, is that a good compromise?

9th and 10th, just get rid of, they are a nueanses to the government any way, they say people retain all rights not reserved for the government or denied to the people in the constitution .. Is tha a fair compromise.....

Just how far are you willing to compromise on the rights that are guaranteed to the people in the Constitution, I know how far I am......NONE

Treasure Hunter,

I know you, I like you, and I respect you. This is a serious question. Is Tnet opening up discussion to all the amendments or are we limited to just the second?

Crispin

 

[Crispin]

1. What will it solve?

2. See above ^

Diggummup: Not sure exactly what you mean. I'm not talking about solving problems yet...we are just talking about compromising. When we get to a point where we can't compromise then we get into solving; plus, Dave is dying to give us lots of examples.

Crispin

 

[bill from lachine]

arno,

Glad to see you chime in...good to see a broad spectrum of views and ages......kind of adds a bit of variety to the mix.

Regards + HH

Bill

Sawed off shotguns are not that scary. I don't personally have one or know of anyone that does since they are illegal. They are "made" for security and very impractical unless you are a criminal but I believe if you want one you should have one.

Now to hand guns. I agree with you that all semi auto hand guns should be legal. Technically a sawed off shotgun would be considered a pistol. I have a friend who has an AK47 that is a "pistol" which is legal. And yes there are auto pistols, mainly compitition pistols but they are out there. Kind of a waste of ammo if you ask me.

 

[bill from lachine]

BosnMate,

The scary thing about his opening post is I actually understood it......I guess I'm not quite as daft as I thought.....I can't speak for Crispin but my take is at some point what is a reasonable limit on the amount of firepower that should be available to the general public.....without infringing the 2nd amendment at some point it becomes over the top, ie; automatic machine guns, rocket launchers, etc....

Appears he's trying to find an upper limit to where there's a chance that all parties can say enough is enough..if I'm off the mark I'm sure Crispin will correct me or clear things up.....not rocket science.....just an open discussion in a civil fashion.

Regards + HH

Bill

I read your opening post, and I can't believe I read the whole thing. Is it or was it supposed to be about the second amendment and guns? If so you are playing about 3 bars above my comprehension level, but I think perhaps you want me to compromise my beliefs, the ones that were granted by God and enumerated in both the US and state constitutions, and I'm not much on compromising those principals, so I don't reckon I'll get in your game.

 

[Dave44]

Dave,
Thanks for the serious reply. I did read that story. Dangerous to cite yahoo around here...too main stream.
1. Okay we agree that limits must be placed. Lets start at the bottom and work our way up. Should felons have access to guns?
2. Unlimited ammo, hmmm, I don't like the idea. Is it possible for a magazine to hold 100 rounds? If so, I think we need to limit them, what say you? On this one we can start at the top and work our way down.

Crispin

Let's start here. Felons do not have access to guns, But since they do not mind breaking the law, and any restriction you place on them, they would have the upper hand any and everyday if there were limits, regulations, or laws.

By the way there are laws for all of this already. Do you know how many weapons you can carry in Chicago? The death toll there is bigger than the middle east.

No limits,, I want the same freedoms to protect myself that a bad guy would break a law without a care in the world to harm me and you.

By the way,, I have never had to use mine in an angry or frightened way. And if I had a tank I still would not use it for malice.

 

[austin]

Gentlemen, it really matters not what you think. You can have an opinion, but it will be the people you voted for and put into office as U.S. House members or Senators that will decide the future of everything from slingshots to cannons. I doubt that any of us will receive a phone call asking for our opinions or desires. Sorry to be so frank and brutal, but that's just life in these United States...

 

[Crispin]

Gentlemen, it really matters not what you think. You can have an opinion, but it will be the people you voted for and put into office as U.S. House members or Senators that will decide the future of everything from slingshots to cannons. I doubt that any of us will receive a phone call asking for our opinions or desires. Sorry to be so frank and brutal, but that's just life in these United States...

Stop raining on our parade! This is just an exercise. We all know congress can't compromise. Maybe a legislator will wander onto this site and learn something from us.

 

[GrizLeeBear]

You have once again missed the whole point. Who said anyone needs to compromise? Liberals always talk about compromise. They get a little and then come back later and ask for another compromise. It is called accretion. I do not wish to surrender any more of my rights to make liberals feel better. You want compromise? First you have to prove any of the "little" "reasonable" things you want will actually solve any problem. Limiting magazines to six shots will do nothing. Just carry more magazines. It takes just a few seconds to change one. With a speed loader I can reload a revolver with six new rounds in five seconds or less. Nothing gained. Then why should anyone compromise?

No bayonet lug. "You don't need a bayonet to hunt". (1) who said anything about hunting? (2) When is the last time somebody took a fully loaded rifle into a place and started bayonetting people? Once again, no problem solved. How about no flash supressor? The theory being that the flash suppressor makes it harder for the FBI, Cops or whoever to shoot back if they can't see you. Oops, wrong again. A flash supressor does not hide you from anyone. It is used at night to prevent the flash from the rifle from momentarily blinding the shooter. It helps a little. So, wrong again. Next? How about black rifles? Okay, should we make them all pink? Are they then less leathal?

Finally you want Registration. There are only three problems with that. (1) You will have to hire a whole new cadre of people across the country to do this and the records will soon be hacked and there will be fees for registration. (2) Most honest folks are never going to abide by such a silly rule, thus creating a nation of felons. (3) Do you honestly believe any criminal in possession of a gun is going to register it? Yeah, and right on the line where it asks your occupation, and they will, you put down, "Bank Robber". Even suppose for one second that everyone in the country does go and register. How in the world will this stop anyone from using the guns they have?

Next, I know, let's limit how much ammunition a person can buy and register that too. Do you know how easy it is to reload your own ammo? Busted again. Most reloaders make better rounds than you can buy and cheaper too.

It has never been proven by any standard that any form of gun control will stop violence.

I wonder if you ever sit back and read what you write. You set up little rules to make sure you can control the direction of the conversation. I hate to upset yoyur applecart, but there is no compromise. Go solve the real problems in this country, the problems created by fifty years of liberal thinking, and the horrible violence will end. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. They do it with knives, baseball bats, cars, and oh yes, abortion. I think the count on that score is up to 55,000,000 now.

Kill a man in a car and it is called vehicular manslaughter
Kill a man in a bar fight and it is called manslaughter
Hunt a man down and kill him and it is premeditated murder
Kill ten people in one event and it is called a spree killing
Kill fifty people over twenty years and it is called a serial killer
Kill six million people and it is called a holocaust.

Kill 55,000,000 babies and it is called ...Choice?

How about some compromise there?

 

[bill from lachine]

austin,

Very good point sir.....we're just flexing the few gray cells we have left to keep from mentally atrophying....this is getting scary I'm starting to sound like I'm in the medical profession....lol.

Regards + HH

Bill

Gentlemen, it really matters not what you think. You can have an opinion, but it will be the people you voted for and put into office as U.S. House members or Senators that will decide the future of everything from slingshots to cannons. I doubt that any of us will receive a phone call asking for our opinions or desires. Sorry to be so frank and brutal, but that's just life in these United States...

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Treasure Hunter,

I know you, I like you, and I respect you. This is a serious question. Is Tnet opening up discussion to all the amendments or are we limited to just the second?

Crispin

My answer is directed at the 2nd my friend......When someone asks to compromise a right in the BoR they are opening all the rights and freedoms up to a compromise, that is the point...... Remember WWII, how far did appeasement getl.....

Short and sweet, they can keep their hands off 2nd amendment period.... Our rights, all of our rights are non-negotiable.....The 2nd amendment is what guarantees the others will always be there, you gut the 2nd you may as well throw the others out the window and be ready to be a peasent......The writting is already on the wall for many of us, not about to give away our only means of defending our rights....

 

[Crispin]

Let's start here. Felons do not have access to guns, But since they do not mind breaking the law, and any restriction you place on them, they would have the upper hand any and everyday if there were limits, regulations, or laws.

By the way there are laws for all of this already. Do you know how many weapons you can carry in Chicago? The death toll there is bigger than the middle east.

No limits,, I want the same freedoms to protect myself that a bad guy would break a law without a care in the world to harm me and you.

By the way,, I have never had to use mine in an angry or frightened way. And if I had a tank I still would not use it for malice.

Of course I know there are laws in place. let us pretend that none of that exists and we get to make the laws. I'm trying to find common ground. Hence we started with slingshots and are working our way up, right now we are at the semi-AR rifle stage. I would like to move on past these but I think we need to discuss ammo and restrictions before we do that.
Here is what we got so far: all slingshots, all shotgungs, all hand-guns but fully automatic, see what I am doing?
Next:
1. Restrictions: felons should not have guns. Should we stop restrictions here are make more?
2. Ammo: proposed no restrictions vs. starting with limits on 100 round magazines, what say you?

If you prefer we can go from the top down instead. I propose civilians should not have access to nuclear weapons. Any challengers? No, okay, lets go from there.

Either way is fine with me.

 

[Crispin]

My answer is directed at the 2nd my friend......When someone asks to compromise a right in the BoR they are opening all the rights and freedoms up to a compromise, that is the point...... Remember WWII, how far did appeasement getl.....

Short and sweet, they can keep their hands off 2nd amendment period.... Our rights, all of our rights are non-negotiable.....The 2nd amendment is what guarantees the others will always be there, you gut the 2nd you may as well throw the others out the window and be ready to be a peasent......The writting is already on the wall for many of us, not about to give away our only means of defending our rights....

Okay, just wanted to make sure I could talk about the BoR in general. Our we limited to the original ten or can we talk about amendments as well?

I'm not trying to gut the constitution or take away anybody's guns, this is just an exercise. You want to go from top to bottom. Do you think civilians should have access to nuclear weapons? I remember a friend telling me some scary stories about nuclear weapons.

Crispin