Berkley you Costas...

fast_eddie_72 wrote: In reply to Anti-stance: Guys, I'm really trying to let this go. Now shut the berkeley up. I'll go back and delete my posts. But quit pickin' at it. I'm man enough to walk away. Stop being pricks. I'll delete this one too in about five minutes.

They won't. You poked their bear and currently their bear is aggitated. If you even in any way so much as associate yourself or your post with gun control they won't let up. I think I now am the next hotlink thread all because I questioned if grassroots motorsports intended to be a gun forum. I never said anything about supporting gun control or gun freedom but its apparently the thing for the gun people to do right now. It is awesome.

I have no idea what is going on in here, but I agree on the sentiments on costas in the first post.

At least we can all agree that Bob Costas is an anti-american, terrorist Bob Costas. Porn porn porn.

Can't we all just get along and agree Costas is a Bob Costas?

Flight Service wrote: The concept that guns are responsible for gun violence is the same concept that spoons are responsible for obesity, cars are responsible for my speeding tickets, and doughnuts are responsible for fat cops with glazed eyes. I remember when I was living in Nashville a while back and there was a story of a guy chased another guy across an abandoned lot in a bad part of town and beat him to death with a brick. Now by Costa's logic as presented here, we should have stricter brick control.

So what would David Carradine be responsible for Government control of?

At what do people take responsibility for their own actions?

in before the lock

the only problem with gun control/use education is that the only people that would
a: attend
b: that would listen and get anything out of the class, would be those converted already ... the anti-any guns folk would not only not be there, but if they were would be there for pretty much one reason only ... that be to disrupt the class .. someones who's mind is already made up isn't going to change just because of some safety classes

it's like others have posted about many other divisive subjects ... those on one side stay there, and those on the other side stay where they are ... like tying to get bipartisan consensus in the legislature ....

In reply to wbjones:

not entirely true. i've taken a few people to the range that were not familiar with guns and as a result were nervous or afraid of them. after a couple hours at the range starting with my little bolt action .22 and working up to a handgun, getting the feel for them and how they work. they ended up with a positive experience and where their unfamiliarity had previously brought fear, being more familiar made guns no longer this scary bad thing in their mind.

Strizzo wrote: In reply to wbjones: not entirely true. i've taken a few people to the range that were not familiar with guns and as a result were nervous or afraid of them. after a couple hours at the range starting with my little bolt action .22 and working up to a handgun, getting the feel for them and how they work. they ended up with a positive experience and where their unfamiliarity had previously brought fear, being more familiar made guns no longer this scary bad thing in their mind.

but they weren't gun haters to start with ... those are the ones that need (and would never accept) the education ...

Here's a thought.

You need a license to get married. You need a license to drive a car. You also need to do some kind of testing to do both.

One is fully backed by all of the churches, and the other is generally looked upon as a right of mobility.

So why can't we have real licenses for guns that require paperwork and tests? That does not eliminate them, but does go out of the way to stress the importance of owning a gun.

My background- i learned to shoot a bb gun at a very young age, had a .22 by 12, and a Ruger 270 at 14. I can shoot quite well. But don't currently posses a gun (all my stuff is back home in Idaho), and have not shot one for many years. I also totally don't belive that any non Officer will correctly use their conceled weapon, since virtually none of them have done REAL situation training, and can't honestly know what they will do in that kind of situation. I'm not scared of guns, I'm more worried of people who think they know how to properly use them in proper situations.

And that's why I think licenses would be a good first step.

In reply to alfadriver:

Because that would be unconstitutional. Neither driving or getting married is a right given to us in the Bill of Rights. For generations firearms safety was taught to young people by their parents and then later when the Scouts came along taught it as well. Now days everyone seems to think guns are these evil things and that is all you hear about it so even those that have no horse in the race become afraid of them. Heck in the scouts they don't even teach kids knife safety in school anymore and won't let kids carry a pocket knife.

I still support "Gun Safety, Care, and Marksmanship" as a required high school class......If anything, it should educate people and make the military's job easier when they have new recruits. Heck, the ROTC program could put this on for all I care. Next we'll get the "Well we shouldn't have the military in our schools showing people they have a choice in life" arguement.

As I can see has occurred already, people need to chill out before even posting on this topic.

aussiesmg wrote:

Flight Service wrote: The concept that guns are responsible for gun violence is the same concept that spoons are responsible for obesity, cars are responsible for my speeding tickets, and doughnuts are responsible for fat cops with glazed eyes. I remember when I was living in Nashville a while back and there was a story of a guy chased another guy across an abandoned lot in a bad part of town and beat him to death with a brick. Now by Costa's logic as presented here, we should have stricter brick control.

So what would David Carradine be responsible for Government control of? At what do people take responsibility for their own actions?

That is the point, people are responsible not the tools.

Kung Fu would be responsible for Creative Adaptation of Belts in Adopted Gratifying Enviroments.

We will call this CABAGE

In reply to alfadriver:

I have a license from Indiana......was I tested? Nope. Do I have training? Yes......the very same law enforcement does. About half the officers I know can barely hit the broad side of a barn with their sidearm, despite that they are taught "You must be able to account for every round fired and where it goes"

It is a right, but I treat it as a responsibility.

rebelgtp wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Because that would be unconstitutional. Neither driving or getting married is a right given to us in the Bill of Rights.

That's the common scuttlebut. Here's the actual Bill of Rights amendment-

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

that's it. It does say "well regulated Militia" which implies that gun control CAN be regulated. And requireing a license does not really infringe on the right to bear arms, since the Militia can be regulated, by the wording.

BTW, getting married is generally covered my amendment #1. I'm sure if someone wanted to prevent marriage, it would be a big constitutional rights battle.

alfadriver wrote: So why can't we have real licenses for guns that require paperwork and tests? That does not eliminate them, but does go out of the way to stress the importance of owning a gun.

I certainly think it is silly to let people demonstrate proficient shooting with a .22 and then use a .45 as their daily carry weapon. I also think a written test with an emphasis on the four laws would be reasonable.

alfadriver wrote: I also totally don't belive that any non Officer will correctly use their conceled weapon,

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/tag/dgu/

rebelgtp wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Because that would be unconstitutional. Neither driving or getting married is a right given to us in the Bill of Rights.

Does that really seem right? We require a license to operate a car because if we don't verify that you have some idea what you're doing, you're likely to hurt someone. But we cannot have any check for competency for a device whose specific reason for existence is to be dangerous? I mean, cars are dangerous, but their reason for existence is transportation. Guns are dangerous because the need to bring down dinner or stop an attacker called for a device which was very dangerous to have pointed at you.

I think there are many, many people for whom owning a gun is only sensible (if nothing else, I wouldn't want to live in rural nowhere without one, if only in case of [regional large predator here]). But I think society continues to move away from arrangements where guns need to be prevalent. I don't like them, but I don't think there's a great way to determine who really needs one and who doesn't (and the crux of the right-to-bear-arms arg is that we all have a need). In lieu of that, making sure that you have the knowledge to own one while posing the least possible threat to yourself, your family, and innocent bystanders is a rational idea.

My two cents. I'm not omniscient. I hope this is taken as it's intended, as a civil and respectful question about some aspects of the way we deal with guns.

The facts as I see them:

• Bob Costas knows a lot about baseball.
• If firearms are available to everyone, people will get shot.
• If firearms are illegal for everyone people will still get shot.
• I don't like people telling me what I should and should not do, especially at halftime so I press the mute button.

In reply to ransom:

They anticipate people to be intelligent, rational, and responsible.........thats where their arguement has gone wrong. I still believe my idea with high school level courses would make complete sense.

Also, any talk of tests/safety courses isn't applicable to me..........My license never expires.

wbjones wrote:

Strizzo wrote: In reply to wbjones: not entirely true. i've taken a few people to the range that were not familiar with guns and as a result were nervous or afraid of them. after a couple hours at the range starting with my little bolt action .22 and working up to a handgun, getting the feel for them and how they work. they ended up with a positive experience and where their unfamiliarity had previously brought fear, being more familiar made guns no longer this scary bad thing in their mind.

but they weren't gun haters to start with ... those are the ones that need (and would never accept) the education ...

my fiance was totally against guns when we first met, until i took her to the range one day and she learned that a gun is only as dangerous as the person holding it.

In reply to DukeOfUndersteer:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: The facts as I see them: - Bob Costas knows a lot about baseball. - If firearms are available to everyone, people will get shot. - If firearms are illegal for everyone people will still get shot. - I don't like people telling me what I should and should not do, especially at halftime so I press the mute button.

I am in agreement with GPS....

yamaha made a good point as well I expect people to be intelligent and responsible. I keep forgetting that just because I am does not mean everyone else is and this is a lesson I should have learned while slaving away doing tech support for some of these mouth breathers.

That being said I just noticed what a foul mood I am in this morning so I think I will avoid this topic the rest of the day. wanders off grumbling about working double shifts all week

alfadriver wrote:

rebelgtp wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Because that would be unconstitutional. Neither driving or getting married is a right given to us in the Bill of Rights.

That's the common scuttlebut. Here's the actual Bill of Rights amendment-

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

that's it. It does say "well regulated Militia" which implies that gun control CAN be regulated. And requireing a license does not really infringe on the right to bear arms, since the Militia can be regulated, by the wording. BTW, getting married is generally covered my amendment #1. I'm sure if someone wanted to prevent marriage, it would be a big constitutional rights battle.

takes deep breath

The definition of "regulated", in context with the era (late 1700's), meant "practiced" or "trained". Also, with the term "Militia", by paraphraing the Milita Act of 1792, was citizens 18 to 45 (albeit male and white, which we have correctly advanced beyond, but I digress), the point being the citizenry and not the federal or state government - which brings me to my final point; The term "State", as used in the Second Ammendment does not refer to the colonies or commonweath but to "existance", i.e. "a free existance". As for any requirements for firearm training in order to carry or possess any firearms, who is to deem that I am properly trained? The federal government? What part of the term "shall not be infringed" is so confusing?

takes another deep breath to recover

do I hear a cement mixer?

In reply to phaze1todd:

If you need to explain the context, then why not put the entire amendment into context? Why is the amedment there in the first place? To prevent the government from doing too much, yes? Realistically, do you really think that the US could have a citizen based revolution, if needed? Vs. the most powerful military in the world by a rather wide margin?

So if you need to time context the words like that, then we should be able to debate whether the amedment is needed at all, then.

Then again, I don't buy your "definitions" any more than mine. You should take a deeper breath. If you need to define that much, then why not limit guns to the well trained milition between 18 and 45? That's what it applied to.

No- me, being a reasonable person, who understands that guns are a necessity, think that you can use the word "regulate" to actually regulate, but not ban, arms. Which will go some distance to making them be taken more seriously for more folk. Again, I've been through training, and shoot a gun quite well- and am thankful that I have done that- most just get gun and go. Let's not "should" the training, and make it happen.

JoeyM wrote: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/tag/dgu/

Are those supposed to be examples of guns being used well? Don't really see a lot of "self defence" shootings actually being anywhere near where the law would put the actual punishment had they been caught.

Breaking and Entering generally isn't considered a capitol offense.....

(then again, people here think that bad car modifications are a capitol offense....)