Gun permit holders published (Page 8)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2012-12-26 7:54 PM in reply to: #4549074 |
Subject: RE: Gun permit holders published GomesBolt - 2012-12-26 8:47 PM I'll have to think about a good definition if I was required to do so in order to institute a ban. But you're not pushing for a ban. I'm asking those who agree with a ban on "Assault Weapons" what one is. Apparently it's something that is obvious or can be easily discerned so I'm asking what one is. Laws must be explicit or no one knows if they're breaking it. I just want a definition. |
|
2012-12-26 8:11 PM in reply to: #4549083 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Gun permit holders published DanielG - 2012-12-26 7:54 PM GomesBolt - 2012-12-26 8:47 PM I'll have to think about a good definition if I was required to do so in order to institute a ban. But you're not pushing for a ban. I'm asking those who agree with a ban on "Assault Weapons" what one is. Apparently it's something that is obvious or can be easily discerned so I'm asking what one is. Laws must be explicit or no one knows if they're breaking it. I just want a definition. `(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means-- `(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as-- `(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); `(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; `(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); `(iv) Colt AR-15; `(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; `(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; `(vii) Steyr AUG; `(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and `(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; `(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- `(i) a folding or telescoping stock; `(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; `(iii) a bayonet mount; `(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and `(v) a grenade launcher; `(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- `(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; `(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; `(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; `(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and `(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and `(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of-- `(i) a folding or telescoping stock; `(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; `(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and `(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'. |
2012-12-26 8:19 PM in reply to: #4549070 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Gun permit holders published mr2tony - 2012-12-26 6:44 PM DanielG - 2012-12-26 7:36 PM The old `I don't care what you think.' argument. Compelling ...mr2tony - 2012-12-26 8:31 PM Yes that's correct. You would be responsible for the death of the person who was shot. That's how the law would work. Just locking your house, to me, isn't good enough. You need to ensure those guns are in a safe. But again, just my opinion. Laws aside, why the resistance to locking your guns? Would you be willing to risk YOUR GUN being used in a mass murder because you don't want to spend the money for a safe or you think your guns are safe enough? What I believe or do not believe is irrelevant. If one is responsible for someone misusing something they stole from you, shouldn't that be across the board, as in all dangerous implements? If not then it should be for none. I lock my house, I really don't care if that's "good enough for you." What argument from anyone would be considered compelling to you? We all have our points, and nobody seems swayed one way or the other. |
2012-12-26 8:28 PM in reply to: #4549115 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Gun permit holders published powerman - 2012-12-26 8:19 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-26 6:44 PM DanielG - 2012-12-26 7:36 PM The old `I don't care what you think.' argument. Compelling ...mr2tony - 2012-12-26 8:31 PM Yes that's correct. You would be responsible for the death of the person who was shot. That's how the law would work. Just locking your house, to me, isn't good enough. You need to ensure those guns are in a safe. But again, just my opinion. Laws aside, why the resistance to locking your guns? Would you be willing to risk YOUR GUN being used in a mass murder because you don't want to spend the money for a safe or you think your guns are safe enough? What I believe or do not believe is irrelevant. If one is responsible for someone misusing something they stole from you, shouldn't that be across the board, as in all dangerous implements? If not then it should be for none. I lock my house, I really don't care if that's "good enough for you." What argument from anyone would be considered compelling to you? We all have our points, and nobody seems swayed one way or the other. Your arguments are often compelling. LeftBrain and Gomes' arguements are often compelling. Cruse and JFord and BradD I have had some great discussions. Heck even Scoob's arguments are compelling. We're not going to change each others' minds but that doesn't mean we can't have these discussions. Saying `I don't care what you think.' isn't civil, it's immature. And before you say it, I already know I'm immature. Anybody here can tell you that, especially my wife! But I also do my research and find data to back up my assertions. |
2012-12-26 8:32 PM in reply to: #4549125 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Gun permit holders published mr2tony - 2012-12-26 7:28 PM powerman - 2012-12-26 8:19 PM Your arguments are often compelling. LeftBrain and Gomes' arguements are often compelling. Cruse and JFord and BradD I have had some great discussions. Heck even Scoob's arguments are compelling. We're not going to change each others' minds but that doesn't mean we can't have these discussions. Saying `I don't care what you think.' isn't civil, it's immature. And before you say it, I already know I'm immature. Anybody here can tell you that, especially my wife! But I also do my research and find data to back up my assertions. mr2tony - 2012-12-26 6:44 PM DanielG - 2012-12-26 7:36 PM The old `I don't care what you think.' argument. Compelling ...mr2tony - 2012-12-26 8:31 PM Yes that's correct. You would be responsible for the death of the person who was shot. That's how the law would work. Just locking your house, to me, isn't good enough. You need to ensure those guns are in a safe. But again, just my opinion. Laws aside, why the resistance to locking your guns? Would you be willing to risk YOUR GUN being used in a mass murder because you don't want to spend the money for a safe or you think your guns are safe enough? What I believe or do not believe is irrelevant. If one is responsible for someone misusing something they stole from you, shouldn't that be across the board, as in all dangerous implements? If not then it should be for none. I lock my house, I really don't care if that's "good enough for you." What argument from anyone would be considered compelling to you? We all have our points, and nobody seems swayed one way or the other. I'm just OCD, don't take it personal. Daniel... well he's just blunt. But come on, a burning bus and chainsawing nuns... that's pretty compelling. |
2012-12-26 8:34 PM in reply to: #4549125 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Gun permit holders published mr2tony - 2012-12-26 9:28 PM powerman - 2012-12-26 8:19 PM Your arguments are often compelling. LeftBrain and Gomes' arguements are often compelling. Cruse and JFord and BradD I have had some great discussions. Heck even Scoob's arguments are compelling. We're not going to change each others' minds but that doesn't mean we can't have these discussions. Saying `I don't care what you think.' isn't civil, it's immature. And before you say it, I already know I'm immature. Anybody here can tell you that, especially my wife! But I also do my research and find data to back up my assertions. mr2tony - 2012-12-26 6:44 PM DanielG - 2012-12-26 7:36 PM The old `I don't care what you think.' argument. Compelling ...mr2tony - 2012-12-26 8:31 PM Yes that's correct. You would be responsible for the death of the person who was shot. That's how the law would work. Just locking your house, to me, isn't good enough. You need to ensure those guns are in a safe. But again, just my opinion. Laws aside, why the resistance to locking your guns? Would you be willing to risk YOUR GUN being used in a mass murder because you don't want to spend the money for a safe or you think your guns are safe enough? What I believe or do not believe is irrelevant. If one is responsible for someone misusing something they stole from you, shouldn't that be across the board, as in all dangerous implements? If not then it should be for none. I lock my house, I really don't care if that's "good enough for you." What argument from anyone would be considered compelling to you? We all have our points, and nobody seems swayed one way or the other. So if someone steals one of your baseball bats and beats someone to death with it you are willing to go to jail and be fined? |
|
2012-12-26 8:44 PM in reply to: #4549133 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Gun permit holders published trinnas - 2012-12-26 8:34 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-26 9:28 PM powerman - 2012-12-26 8:19 PM Your arguments are often compelling. LeftBrain and Gomes' arguements are often compelling. Cruse and JFord and BradD I have had some great discussions. Heck even Scoob's arguments are compelling. We're not going to change each others' minds but that doesn't mean we can't have these discussions. Saying `I don't care what you think.' isn't civil, it's immature. And before you say it, I already know I'm immature. Anybody here can tell you that, especially my wife! But I also do my research and find data to back up my assertions. mr2tony - 2012-12-26 6:44 PM DanielG - 2012-12-26 7:36 PM The old `I don't care what you think.' argument. Compelling ...mr2tony - 2012-12-26 8:31 PM Yes that's correct. You would be responsible for the death of the person who was shot. That's how the law would work. Just locking your house, to me, isn't good enough. You need to ensure those guns are in a safe. But again, just my opinion. Laws aside, why the resistance to locking your guns? Would you be willing to risk YOUR GUN being used in a mass murder because you don't want to spend the money for a safe or you think your guns are safe enough? What I believe or do not believe is irrelevant. If one is responsible for someone misusing something they stole from you, shouldn't that be across the board, as in all dangerous implements? If not then it should be for none. I lock my house, I really don't care if that's "good enough for you." What argument from anyone would be considered compelling to you? We all have our points, and nobody seems swayed one way or the other. So if someone steals one of your baseball bats and beats someone to death with it you are willing to go to jail and be fined? Hold up.....locking up baseball bats is un-American. |
2012-12-26 9:26 PM in reply to: #4547960 |
Master 2447 White Oak, Texas | Subject: RE: Gun permit holders published Ok back to the simple. If my name is posted that I have a gun a perp will try to steal it when im not home (I tie) A perp will try to steal it when I am home (I have more than one I think I will win) A perp will not come to my house as I have a gun or many guns (I win) Hmm I have no gun I am not on the list of gun owners Perp comes to rob, rape, kill. I have no gun I call 911. Cops arrive and begin report I lose. This paper is a threat to the very people they think they want to protect. |
2012-12-26 9:34 PM in reply to: #4547960 |
Expert 1002 Wind Lake WI | Subject: RE: Gun permit holders published Tony, Come cross the border some Saturday and I'll take you to the range where you can shoot all types of evil rifles. Let me know if you;re interested. Warning: AmyJo may chick you at the range |
2012-12-26 9:35 PM in reply to: #4549195 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Gun permit holders published CBarnes - 2012-12-26 9:26 PM Ok back to the simple. If my name is posted that I have a gun a perp will try to steal it when im not home (I tie) A perp will try to steal it when I am home (I have more than one I think I will win) A perp will not come to my house as I have a gun or many guns (I win) Hmm I have no gun I am not on the list of gun owners Perp comes to rob, rape, kill. I have no gun I call 911. Cops arrive and begin report I lose. This paper is a threat to the very people they think they want to protect. Eh....the truth is....most burglars are drug addicts who don't read anything. Still, it's fun to act like it's a big deal that they published some names. The horror!! |
2012-12-27 6:45 AM in reply to: #4547960 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Gun permit holders published A blogger created and published an interactive map showing the names and addresses of all of the Journal News employees. http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/12/26/blogger-create... |
|
2012-12-27 7:00 AM in reply to: #4549363 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Gun permit holders published jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-27 6:45 AM A blogger created and published an interactive map showing the names and addresses of all of the Journal News employees. http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/12/26/blogger-creates-interactive-map-employees-paper-which-published-names-an[/QUOTE] HA!!! You gotta love it. Edited by Left Brain 2012-12-27 7:00 AM |
2012-12-27 12:20 PM in reply to: #4548241 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Gun permit holders published mr2tony - 2012-12-26 10:36 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-26 9:18 AM When did I say it was black and white? I am asking a serious question. All the gun owners on here are proud to announce what kind of gun they have in a very public forum and on facebook my friends keep posting things like `That door was locked for YOUR protection, not mine.' with a picture of a big gun. Yet when someone actually knows they have a gun, it's `Don't tell anybody!' Why? Because you're afraid someone is going to steal your gun? So you're saying that owning a gun isn't a deterrent to crime, it's just a deterrent to a certain type of crime and instead makes you more vulnerable to another type of crime? mr2tony - 2012-12-26 9:05 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-26 8:58 AM Exactly! So why are gun owners up in arms about this? Ohhhh pun intended. Seriously, though, why are gun owners upset about this? I thought they'd want everybody to know they have a gun so the bad guys won't come to their houses because everybody knows if a bad guy knows you have a gun, he won't mess with you,which, of course, is why police officers never get messed with. And if owning a gun is so cool and awesome and you're such a badass for having one, why would anybody care? Isn't it a deterrent to crime? Hey, if I'm a burglar, I'm happy to see that list posted!!! You can't fix stupid. Actually, if I was a burglar I'd be sitting around waiting for them to leave.......so I could go get their guns. If you are a permit holder chances are you have more guns too. Guns are easy to get rid of and bring good money for heroin junkies where I am. I realize I look at things a bit differently than you, Tony, I just know what I deal with every day...it's never as black and white as you'd like to think. Your argument is based upon the false assumption that there is only one choice for gun ownership and that's deterent. It's a false choice. If you were correct that the only reason people own guns is to deter crimes and they post all sorts of warnings on their property about owning guns, then you would be correct that publishing the list shouldn't be offensive to those individuals. However, deterence isn't the only reason to have a gun. Sport is one, some people own guns because they enjoy the sport of shooting and hunting. Another reason is protection. These are the two reasons I own firearms. I enjoy target and combat style shooting. I also work in a job that puts me at risk, thus I own firearms and I commonly carry a firearm. Thus I don't advertise that I own guns. Thus, the publishing of the names and addresses of these individuals, let's call them "the quiet gun owners", is problematic. It does infringe upon my privacy. Additionally there is a certain segment of the population that actually seeks out to steal firearms, and this publication is nothing more than a shopping list. So, you're wrong because you've set up a false choice asserting that gun owners own guns to be "bada$$" or for deterence. There is another choice that you have totally ignored...protection. I know, I know, you've said over and over that you don't need protection of a firearm. But, there are some individuals, me for instance, who work in an industry where, as a direct result of their work they have been the target of threats. Threats that were serious. As such both myself and my wife are typically armed. I unlike our congress people do not have professional security force, as such it is up to me and me alone to protect myself and my family. How I chose to do that is no concern of yours. Especially since I have the right to do what I'm doing. (Oh and by the way, if the paper had published my name and address, regardless of how they got the information, they would have committed a crime. Because to disclose my name and address is a crime, as I am exempted from publication under a Public Information request. And you can bet your life I'd be filling a police report requesting that charges be brought.) |
|