BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?

Subject: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 03:40 PM

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 03:53 PM

$$$$ talks and the NRA has plenty of it... If it were up to them they'd require that everyone own a gun... Why??? Where do ya'll think they get all that $$$$??? Well, from the gun dealers and manufacturers, that's where...

BTW, there is some historical precedence in that there was a time where men were required to own a gun and keep it in workin' order... Of course that was couple three hundred years ago but, hey???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:01 PM

I am a gun owner, in fact, I own several. I use to use them for hunting and target shooting. I haven't fire them in years. I keep them because they are mine. I am breaking no laws owning them. And it is my right to do so. If I break certain laws and commit certain crimes I will loose the right to keep them.

Do we need more restrictive gun laws? No. We need to enforce as written the laws we have.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: michaelr
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:06 PM

We most definitely need to restrict the availability of handguns. Anyone who disgrees needs their head examined.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:22 PM

We need both...

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 04:50 PM

Here in Canada, we have restrictive handgun laws and have had them for over 70 years. And, we also have restrictive gun laws that restrict people from defending themselves in their own homes.

Take yer pick. But, be careful. Home invasion is nasty and it has been on the rise in Canada ever since the new guns laws were legislated in the 80s.

I agree with Don.

Having said that, I shall direct all of you to the umteen past threads. I think I would rather shoot myself than read ANOTHER gun thread in which people who know nothing about guns and gun laws and hunting and sport shooting spout bullshit ad infinitum.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:25 PM

Canada's gun laws don't keep the drug gangs here from getting handguns and using them.
Home invasions (western Canada) have some people keeping their guns handy, although they are restricted to rifles and shotguns. They would rather act to protect their family and worry about the law later.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:25 PM

In fact, I shot my shotguns off at the beginning of the new year. And, I have a right to do so.

"Fuck the blackbirds", I say. That will teach them not to roost in my horse chestnut tree, caww, caww all day and shit all over my backyard.
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Amergin
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:29 PM

"Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?"

I'm trying to figure out why you feel the need for strict gnu laws....

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:30 PM

What's the rate of home invasions in Alberta, Q. Don't statistics actaully show that violent crime actually has been going down all over Canada, in all areas, where there are guns in homes or no guns?

What is the evidence that keeping "the guns handy" has had any impact at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: SINSULL
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 05:33 PM

I don't.
New York City has extremely restrictive gun laws and look at how well that works.
By the way I do not own a gun.
Enforce the laws we have. Punish those who break the laws severely.
And...insist that our legislatures take drugs, gangs, and cartels seriously. They all operate unchecked right within our prison systems. Go figure.
SINS

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:04 PM

The index of "gun laws in the US" published by the BATF in 1968 listed approximately 38,000 different laws already on the books.

The update published in 1980 listed about 38,684 different laws already on the books.

(Both numbers are the Treasury Dept estimates in the prefaces.)

The majority of those laws are still in effect.

So you think we need another few?

And that will help "something(?)" how?

The 1968 GCA law codified Federal Retrictions, with the result that it took precedence over local regulations that at the time hade limited legal ownership or possession of fully automatic weapons in the US to fewer than about 3,000, mostly held by police and military. With the "rules spelled out" the most recent reasonably accurate census of legally owned full-automatic guns ballooned within ten years to more than 38,000, with the majority now in the hands of "private citizens with enough money" to do the paperwork. (Fortunately, it appears that the majority of the new private owners are too fat and lazy, and too busy stealing from the rest of us by "legal" means, to actually shoot them - even for recreation.)

A similar "explosion" of legal ownership of "super-caliber" guns (do you plan to hunt gophers with a .50 cal or 20 mm modern rifle?) has paralleled the automatic gun registrations, simply because every new law creates new loopholes for the few, but generally restricts only the sane members of the general population of law-abiding citizens.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:15 PM

Can you get a handgun in England? Canada? Other places? Yes...if you are willing to pay for it you can get 'most anything anywhere.

Enforce what's on the books,c fer Gawd's sake, and stop playing like this isn't a social issue rooted in our society by our media and our history.

"Those who know history are the real subversives." -- Utah Phillips

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Will Fly
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 06:40 PM

Here's a naive question from one in the UK:

Why do so many US citizens - unlike citizens in Europe - feel the need to own a handgun? Is there significantly more danger of being killed or wounded in the US by a criminal? Is the US inherently so more uncivilised and brutal than Europe that handgun ownership is deemed necessary? I don't get that impression, given the number of kindly and sociable and intelligent correspondents I have in the US. Perhaps I'm wrong. I can understand hunting for game (with rifles) as a sport, but why are handguns so essential?

And - let's be honest - why so many rifles? I have a sister in Tucson. She's been there many years. Three years ago, her son (my nephew), who was in his early thirties and who had been bipolar for most of life, went to the closet in his bedroom, took out a rifle left there by his father and killed himself. The odds are that, with his then state of mind, he would probably have found some means or other to take his life - but the rifle made it just that little bit easier for him.

I sometime wonder if the rifle had not been there he might have been alive today - but I'll never know.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 07:20 PM

packin for your death?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 07:26 PM

Every criminal I ever heard tell says we need more restrictive gun laws ...
it helps them in the career. More restrictive the better the odds of robbing that house and getting out without a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 07:36 PM

by the way, it is a felony to carry a hand gun without a license, so why are so many criminals and so many handguns on the street? easy answer we don't enforce the zillion laws we already have. So why would even more laws change anything. How about enforcing what we already have first.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: michaelr
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:12 PM

How about a ban on sales?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:21 PM

Banning sales of guns to honest citizens is inane. Banning ownership and use of guns by criminals is sane and it has beed decreed but not enforced. There is no way to argue against this logic. It has been said MANY times... ENFORCE THE LAWS. If the laws are enforced, no problem... except for the nuts. If you have a way to exclude nuts from the general populace, please edify the rest of society.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:21 PM

"We need to enforce as written the laws we have." said every day in various ways.

Sure... as soon as someone does something illegal or stupid, we can "enforce a law" and arrest them or take away their 'freedom' to possess guns....if we can find them. Kinda hard to explain to their victims and their families why fools and incompetents were allowed to have guns in the first place, though.

There are 'out there' many, many people who have as their basic notion "I don't like being told what to do, and I don't trust ANY government, and I have 'moral rules' about what is 'right' and I will damn well decide for myself who needs to be shot and when!"
And as long as those people haven't done anything specifically illegal...yet, or that we can prove... they are 'allowed' to accumulate firearms of astounding power & variety. But if they go out and shoot an abortion doctor, or a politician they don't like, we'll durn sure take their guns away, and may even prosecute them--and may put them in jail..if they can't afford an expensive lawyer. Yessir... I sure feel better knowing those "laws on the books" are gonna be enforced!

Those "laws on the books" right now 'restrict' certain weapons from being modified in certain ways...but any serious person can easily learn HOW to modify them. Those laws have 'waiting periods' to buy multiple weapons...except in certain states and at certain gun shows.
   Those laws don't explain how to prevent LEGAL weapons from being sold ILLEGALLY to stupid, dangerous people, or how to prevent weapons acquired 'legally' in one state from being moved to a state where they are not legal...but boy, if we find them doing it, we'll sure 'enforce' a law or two!
In most states, it is not even a requirement to take a course in gun safety to legally buy (most) guns....and we read every day about 'accidents' to owners or their families who were NOT planning to do something 'illegal'.

The kid in Arizona yesterday had no criminal record.... he owned that gun legally.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:24 PM

Ask ANY police department about "enforcing the laws". They will tell you that it is nearly impossible under the circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Mike in Brunswick
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:28 PM

Does "enforce existing laws" include adequate funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which has been demonized as a bunch of "jackbooted thugs" and had its budget cut by gun rights members of Congress?

Also, what about gun shows? Most states place few or no restrictions on unlicensed private sellers who can sell to whoever they want with no background investigation required. The guns involved in these transactions often cross state lines to be used for criminal activity in states with more restrictive laws.

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:35 PM

I'm sorry ...all you folks who own guns and keep them in a safe & responsible manner-- but "enforce existing laws" is simply shorthand for "don't do ANYTHING that will interfere with MY current situation", no matter how the current laws enable violence to proliferate.

I wish it were not this way....and I DO realize there are too many guns already out there to change much.... and I do NOT see your 'freedoms' likely to be altered any time soon. I just hope you don't become a victim of the very situation you advocate.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:36 PM

Not true, I can go right now into any city, see the gangs on the street and many are carrying. I can spot it a mile away. Maybe cause I am trained to don't know but I suspect all the police can also. Now they have the law that requires them to produce your license. Hence no laws are enforced. you could take a team of police, raid a street corner and put away 50 people on weapons charges ... it isn't done, ever .. you could follow them home and get them individually, nope never done. We simply don't enforce them .. I agree tighten up insane gun show laws, which is insanity -if you are talking about changing those laws I am with ya for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:51 PM

Bill D... I'm sorry ...all you folks who own guns and keep them in a safe & responsible manner-- but "enforce existing laws" is simply shorthand for "don't do ANYTHING that will interfere with MY current situation",

Sorry, Bill... that is bullshit. I live within the law and the laws in Canada are strict when it comes to guns. They suck when it comes to criminals. I can spend more time in jail if a criminal steals a gun from me and commits a crime with that gun... no shit, Bill.

It has nothing to do with me. It has to do with the FACT that criminals are getting away with MURDER because the exisiting laws are not being enforced. Period. Plain and simple. If you are keen, go after the politicians and make them enforce the laws on the books.

Again, this has been done to death on many other threads so... gnightgnu... have fun with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 08:57 PM

I'm a gun owner, but I find the popularity among civilians of weapons intended for military or police use to be very disturbing. Civilians do not need handguns with 20 round capacities. Such weapons are not meant for defense against home invaders. They're meant for combat and police situations where avoiding the need to stop and reload can be the difference between life and death. In civilian hands, they do nothing but multiply the damage when some idiot goes on a rampage. If the guy in Arizona had used a 5-shot revolver he'd never have gotten off 31 shots. And any homeowner who thinks he needs anything more than that 5-shot revolver to protect his home needs to spend more time at the firing range learning to aim, not more money for a higher capacity gun so he can spray bullets indiscriminately.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: saulgoldie
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 09:04 PM

"New York City has extremely restrictive gun laws and look at how well that works."

NYC discovered that a significant number of their guns came from a handful of shops in Virginia. They set up their own sting operations at said guns shops and confirmed this. Virginia said, "Stop interfering in our affairs." and put an end to the stings. Is that really NYC's fault?

If drug laws were more civilized, mental health care available for all, and the economy more fair and evenly distributed, gun crimes would diminish significantly.


Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 09:05 PM

From UK , where holding even a small bore shot gun or a .22 rifle is Not easy , I can NOT understand why possesion of an Automatic Weapon of ANY kind is permitted outside the Armed Forces or Police !!

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 09:17 PM

read this

"If the guy in Arizona had used a 5-shot revolver he'd never have gotten off 31 shots."
right! He'd ONLY have shot the congresswoman, and her aide...and perhaps the judge...and the 9 year old girl. That would have been MUCH better...

gnu... you tell me how to recognize a criminal before he shoots someone! Every generation will produce new criminals...that has been true for thousands of years. We can't reasonably control tendencies toward bad behavior...but we COULD, if we cared to, control many of the ways they inflict violence. I can at least, dodge and outrun many forms of violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: GUEST,DonMeixner
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 09:34 PM

The end result of much suggested here is I who have broken no laws would become at least a pariah and at most a criminal because I own a gun or two that I have never used against another human being in any fashion.

But it is heartening to notice that about 1/2 of the forum is for personal rights as stated in the constitution. Some people are sure it is clearly stated and some see the 2nd amendment as ambiguous. I am a country kid from upstate New York. I'll hang onto my shot guns thanks. Maybe I'll start hunting again as is my right. I suppose that eventually they will be taken away by a bunch of well intended social experimenters. This will happen because it is easier than learning the constitution and what it means.

D

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 09:51 PM

Pretty much everyone here is right. No legit gun owner should be compromised in his or her right to own and legally carry. Obey the Constitution and our states laws. Likewise, things like gun shows and this insane go to another state and a gun show and bring back weapons is nuts also. Both sides are correct here. Legit restriction is fine, but it has to be done within the rights of the honest gun owner also. New restrictions on legal ownership or carry will do nothing at all. Enforce those laws we have now and we will see a difference. No criminal is allowed to carry a weapon. Every officer has the right to stop, search and arrest anyone carrying without permit. It is a felony in most (not all) states.. we need to do that also I also know some states have much less or no restrictions ... that is up to their representatives to do something or not. The federal government leaves it up to the states to decide. Interesting enough I read the states with the most lacks rules have the lowest crime rate. I don't know how true that is, gotta look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 09:51 PM

Let's get real here for one minute...

Handguns are designed to kill people... The US has the most number of handguns owned by any country in the history of mankind... The US has the highest homicide (not genocide) rate of any country in the history of mankind...

Summation??? I don't care if we have 30 gazillion laws on the books... They ain't workin'... Maybe we need about half a dozen sensible laws???

1. No guns for loonies... Hey, Bubba, real sorry they threw you in Eastern State Hospital but...

2. No guns for folks buying them at gun shows without the same background checks as everyone else...

3. No bundling purchases... That means you can't go into Bill's Guns and order up 200 AK 47s...

4. No guns carried around as if you were Wyatt Erpp... Leave 'um at home, Bubba... No one wants to see yer sorry ass walkin' around the the local Pizza Hut with yer stenkin' ass hangin' out the back of yer Walmarkz jeans and a gun strapped around that 60 inch middle of yers...

5. Registration of all firearms and...

...6. No nu ownership without first having passed a certified firearms safety course...

There... Six laws take care of purdy much all of it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 09:52 PM

No, I doubt very much any "social experimenters" will take away your shotguns, Don. It would take votes, and for the foreseeable future, you have the votes. Yes, you can hunt... it will not even worry me.

As to the Constitution, it is a bit ambiguous. But even if we could call up the framers and ask them what they meant, and IF they agreed with you, I'd sure be interested in what they'd say if we explained to them how the country & the world has changed in 250 years.
Both the need for a "militia" in the 1789 sense, and the type and power of weapons has changed. The Constitution needs amending to account for changes in the world....but not even you sane, honest gun owners will vote for allowing any changes.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 10:10 PM

...and Bobert makes a whole lot of sense. That would be about the best we could do seeing as how there are "30 gazillion' guns hidden away out there.

I would add one more law about manufacture and possession of various types of ammo....

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: michaelr
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 10:14 PM

"The Constitution needs amending to account for changes in the world".

EXACTLY. The 2nd Amendment allows for gun ownership in the context of "a well-regulated militia". It does not guarantee every trigger-happy cowboy the right to blaze away willy-nilly.

The idea the founding fathers had was to make it possible for free men to oppose a tyrannical government, should one arise. Well, it can be said that one has indeed arisen.

But today's government cannot possibly opposed by force anymore, because it undoubtedly has vastly superior firepower. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism and needs to be repealed in toto.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 09 Jan 11 - 10:58 PM

Not everyone that owns and carries a gun is a nut, nor are they rednecks, nor are they simple minded either. Most of us are pretty smart and pretty careful and respectful people who choose not to be a victim of a violent crime ..nothing more. Yes the laws need changed in many areas, yes the laws we do have that make sense are not enforced but you cannot change the mind of a homicidal criminal to not do these things by removing the ability of people to protect themselves. Carrying a handgun saved my life and those I was with, both times I never needed to fire a shot. One other time when I was attacked and did not have a firearm, I had to disarm him by hand and did stop him but I would rather not take that chance again thank you. If he had a gun and not a knife, I would be dead in that instance. Some people refuse to be victims and until this wild west society we live in changes, I will not stand down

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 09:42 AM

Now, C'mon, gang- the Great State of Arizona - where any disturbed lunatic like the one that shot Giffords can walk in off the street and purchase a semi-automatic handgun, 30 round magazine & unlimited supply of ammo - is just protecting our Second Ammendment rights. And they're proud of it, as they should be.

Tjhey deserve our support and thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Will Fly
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 09:49 AM

Some people refuse to be victims and until this wild west society we live in changes, I will not stand down.

Dan - and others - why is the US a "wild west society"? By your account, it seems like every civilised person in the US can't go about their normal business without running the risk of being attacked in the streets or in their home. And therefore, goes the logic, everyone must be armed in just in case it happens to them. So - does everyone in the US carry a gun all the time to be safe? If you don't, what are the chances of you being mugged/attacked/injured/killed?

What kind of society can that be - and how can it be changed?

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 10:19 AM

Greg, some states do not make any sense in how they control handguns. I agree with you, that specific states laws disturb me. However in NY we have the tightest restrictive gun laws, and our violent crime rate is far higher. Nothing makes sense.

Will, I can only wish that the street gangs, drug addicts and criminals in this country were not as it is today. Something very defective in our country and society today. Back in our fathers day, it was as easy as getting a drivers license for anyone who wished a carry permit. Yet the crime rate and murder rates, well you just didn't hear it happening. Maybe it did and today we have more large scale news coverage but I think the society has changed. Not for the good either.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 10:28 AM

Excellent first link.


The money behind the extreme right media has a motive far beyond the second ammendment.

The handfull of families that own the few banks left standing asked their think tanks about what would happen if they seized all the money in the country. The paper said that there would be significant blow back but new police powers, agencies and crowd control technology would take care of threats from mobs. Those acting alone would pose a significant threat.
If the public sentiment was steered to distrust and revile the goverment, its regulations and the left leaning politicians that call for restrictions of the finance community, the main thrust of the blowback would be away from the banks and aimed at the current administration and supporters.

Somtimes a gun is just a gun. Today the gun issue is bent to preserve Wall St power as the rest of the little people are divided and neutralized. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book of power. Certainly you know the Medici family

.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 10:36 AM

Despite all their murders the Medicis still get good press.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 10:44 AM

EXACTLY. The 2nd Amendment allows for gun ownership in the context of "a well-regulated militia". It does not guarantee every trigger-happy cowboy the right to blaze away willy-nilly.

I agree with your interpretation, but unfortunately the Extreme Court (and the gun lobby) doesn't. I believe I remember that that ruling was by 5 to 4, so it could be reversed. But, given the age of the right wing Justices and the continuing political pressures, as well as the stare decisis principle, I don't look for that ruling being reversed any time soon.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 10:51 AM

Donuel alleged:

The handfull of families that own the few banks left standing asked their think tanks about what would happen if they seized all the money in the country. The paper said that there would be significant blow back but new police powers, agencies and crowd control technology would take care of threats from mobs. Those acting alone would pose a significant threat.
If the public sentiment was steered to distrust and revile the goverment, its regulations and the left leaning politicians that call for restrictions of the finance community, the main thrust of the blowback would be away from the banks and aimed at the current administration and supporters.

Some sort of citation, please? Sounds like speculative paranoid fantasy to me.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 11:35 AM

by the way, carrying a vintage pocket watch is a hell of a lot more fun than slugging around with a firearm. I carried my firearm about 3 times in the last 6 years and only when I had to work in the seeder side of the city :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 11:50 AM

However in NY we have the tightest restrictive gun laws, and our violent crime rate is far higher.

I know, Oldster- I'm a NYS resident myself; a hunter & target shooter & own rifles, pistols, shotguns & various antique black powder firearms, both cartridge & mussle-loading. Was also an NRA Life Member, but quit same time Geo. Bush the First did, after the NRA gor crimilally stupid.

Problem is the jackass states - as mentioned above, VA as an example - where the NY thugs - or those that SUPPLY the NY thuigh can get firearms no questions asked.

If ALL the states had regs like New York's, I think you'd find there'd be a dramatic drop in the crime rate -after a while, that is, since the guns on the street NOW would have to be removed & that would take a while.

AND I agree about the pocket watch - can't remember the last time I felt compelled to carry, other than when going to the range.

Best,

Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 11:59 AM

Since guns are so easily available in almost any state, if one is willing to skirt the rules, it just might be that violence & crime has only a limited relation to local laws, and more relation to the local culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 12:53 PM

IF JUDGE SCALIA HAD HIS WAY

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 01:07 PM

an originalist would have to allow guns to the people and not infringe upon this right in any way whatsoever. Well regulated militias would be allowed only for the security of a free state.

If the security of the free state of Pennsylvania was not threatened by Iraq, they could not be allowed to send the National Guard to Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: olddude
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 01:24 PM

NRA Greg, don't get me started, their agenda went off base with me also a long time ago. At one time when I was growing up they were about the sportsman. Now, they are part of the problem for sure. I went to one gun show and saw the AK-47's with a 5 buck booklet next to them reading "how to convert your AK-47 into a full auto" For the love of God, insanity

Subject: RE: BS: Stl thnk we dn't nd mre restrct gn laws?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jan 11 - 01:53 PM

Few banks left standing- nonsense!
There are 9400 separately controlled banks and lending institutions in (2010) the U. S.

140 failed or were taken over by the FDIC in 2009.

Government figures quoted in Wikipedia.