The Gun Control Challenge

Post Reply New Topic

Uh oh, it seems I was guilty of commenting on something out of context. I do that sometimes. Usually in 20 page threads I don't have time to read all of. Sorry about that.

Carry on.

They also tried to falsely claim that Bush started the program, when it started in 2009, and also lied to Congress repeatedly, looks more like the DoJ is trying to use the ATF as a scapegoat.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you about something that is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The fact that the ATF started this program isn't being disputed by anybody, nor does it contradict the norm. The DoJ and AG's office don't initiate things - they just make sure they're legal (or, at least, they're supposed to).

Regardless, the ATF has proven time and time again that they simply don't know what they're doing.

I have to bow out of PPR (and most of WP) for a while. I'll catch you guys on one of the next go-arounds.

Sliqua

It is ok, I still like to read your posts.

As I told you before. You make a mistake talking about heroin addict as "law-abiding citizen because he has never been found guilty" yet you see him sticking his vein right there on the sidewalk. But I understand, you want to risk and sacrifice. I do not. That's all.
Now, I do not understand why is it so important to patch some old hut when you can build a shiny new one. But if you are a tradicionalist, I makes sense. I am not, definitely not in case of faulty legislation.
The legislation is not faulty only in paradise. Do you live in paradise?

exactly These people are the "best of the best" - yet they have choosen this advantage. Because they all know it is more worthy than open carry. And therefore geneva conventions forbid concealed weapons


Ancalagon - my point was, that whole world is ahead in this, has "updated" their constitutions "for some reason". Do you think their reason was "age, yellow paper, new is automatically better"? No sir. Performance is all that counts. Dramatically changing world needs dynamically changing minds. Over 99,9% of all species have disappeared throughout the history. Because they didn't adapt to the new conditions. That's all.
So, what is your performance in crime fighting?

Ancalagon Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:41 am - Great post

DW_a_mom - no you carry on, it was good. They are just teasing you

They particularly kill me when they refuse to present clear definitions and guidelines at to what constitutes what as far as some of the NFA and GCA regulated items go. It's par for the course to run a design by them, get the ok, then have the thing literally in production when they change their minds and declare it an NFA item, making it virtually commercially worthless. They've done massive damage to the domestic firearms industry in this way, and that's probably a good chunk of the reason why our own military is using so many foreign designed weapons; there's no reason for the Belgians and Germans to be better at this than us.
No other agency is allowed to run in this manner, and they should have been dissolved years ago, preferably when many of the abuses addressed by the FOPA were uncovered. It's the classic bureaucratic busywork problem, they don't have enough to do so they "make work" by entrapping people and over-reading their own mandates to enforce "laws" in ways they were never intended. I'm not much of an FBI fan either, particularly in light of how they've been conducting the "war on terror" sting operations where their guys infiltrate mosques and basically talk gullible young people into making foolish statements about terrorism and then arrest them, but I still think they'd be preferable to the ATF.

No sweat, the pile on was a bit egregious.

So the cultural/geographical problems that contribute to the U.S. Murder rates are being not only a huge trafficking country, but a huge source country and huge buyer as well and sharing a border with another large source/trafficking country to boot, a proliferation (and glorification of) criminal gangs, and violence between said gangs and others due to residual hatred caused by a history of racism.

These all make more sense to me as the source of the USA's murder problems, not gun control laws. Look at mexico: it is a drug source/trafficking country with very strict gun control laws, but that doesn't matter because cartel members can acquire powerful weapons illegally while law-abiding citizens can only obtain small firearms. Thus cartel members have little to fear from attacking law-abiding citizens because they know they will always have superior firepower. Since even if stricter gun control laws where enacted the cultural problems that contribute to United States murder rates would still exist, all you would be doing is empowering American drug gangs who can acquire weapons illegally not to fear law-abiding citizens. If stricter gun control laws where enforced in the USA, things would become more like Mexico, not the EU IMHO.

It's a more appropriate tactic for them to employ to do their jobs. However, that doesn't make it universally better. Concealed carry has some drawbacks - it takes longer to break concealment and draw your weapon, you have to worry about printing, etc. If there are reasons you don't want to have a gun visible, then concealed carry is a better option.

However, open carry has some very distinct advantages over concealed carry - you have the deterrent factor, you have a faster draw. On the other hand, it's nearly impossible to open carry in a suit, dress, or nearly any formal attire (the outfit just doesn't make it work), you have to worry about the possibility that someone will make a grab for your weapon, and the extra inch on the waist makes a lot of things uncomfortable (my gun gets caught on stuff all. the. time.)

The choice depends on the circumstances, and the mission. There's no clear "better" option - both have their places.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. One of the huge problems with Law Enforcement in the US is the stupid jurisdictional turf-wars that keep happening. In a perfect world, there would only be one federal law enforcement agency - the US Marshalls. However, I'd be fine with 3 - Marshalls, FBI, and DHS.

Let the Marshalls handle Fugitives, Wit Sec, etc. Roll the Secret Service into the Marshalls. Roll the ATF, DEA, and all the other specialist agencies into the FBI. Anything terrorism related have DHS handle. And do something with the TSA - but I don't even know how to go about fixing something that broken.

I think paradise could be defined as the place where no legislation is needed.


Americans have also updated their constitution, and have a process for doing so - amendments.

I can't read your mind, I can only respond to your actual words. Your actual words criticized it for being old and written on yellow paper. This time you said it wasn't 'ahead', whatever that means. Neither of them is a valid and reasonable criticism.

I am so very sick and ill of this debate and the fact it never ends, and that people will hate no matter what side you agree on, or hate if you agree a little on both sides. It's like having a mild headache that doesn't throb or come and go, just a steady, dull pain and fatigue that never goes away, and you can function but never feel healthy. But one thing I'll say is that I don't get why so many people think the only way to protect themselves is with a gun. Aren't there other ways to defend yourself without ending another human's life? I always thought that if you killed your attacker than you are no better than they are. I was told violence never solves problems or it's not the only way at least, and yet here is a war that will go on until no one is left because of racism and religious intolerance.

It’s the bottom line way to protect yourself.

Remember, your attacker came out of his lane and attacked YOU. What’s good for him is way low on the priority list.

Racism and religious intolerance have nothing to do with it.

Remember there were those USAS-12 and Striker shotguns that when purchased new were as legal as any other shotgun. One day our beloved ATF ruled them to be destructive devices and the owners, if they even heard about the ruling, had a deadline in which to register them or face 10 years in the slammer. It was that "legitimate sporting purpose" BS that they used for justification.
We'd be better off with the KGB than the BATF. At least the KGB was probably more professional.

How do you protect yourself from a bad man with a gun if you don't have a gun?

I don't think there is that much hate between pro gun and anti gun, its more fear, not that there is no hate at all.
From the anti gun people it is fear of guns in general let alone the people who have them.
From the pro gun people it is fear that their right to own a gun will be taken away or that they will be put into a situation because of stupid laws where they are left defenseless because they were not allowed to use or have their gun.

For instance, what if you were a licensed concealed carrier in the aurora theater or any of the school shootings that was forced to leave their gun in their car or at home.
Would you not as that person have felt like the government had figuratively bound your hands?

I think personally, that once a person shows intent to harm or end your life with violence you are within every right as a living being to use anything at your disposal to make them stop.
This person chose to come after you, chose to try and hurt you, you did not choose for any of this to happen, you are simply defending your life and that puts you on top.
That's my opinion.


The problem is, violence does solve everything, even if there are other options it is the easiest and bad people both know and are willing to take advantage of this.

You know that old expression “Let us win your hearts and minds or we’ll burn your damn huts down” ?
I’m more of the skip the hearts and minds thing and go straight to the flame thrower kinda guy.