gun control bills could effect warbirds and military buffs

[Mark Allen M]

Matt this is certainly nothing short of an emotional and intricate conversation with valid points both from the 'right' and from the left' and most who have chosen to involve themselves in this conversation are using a fair amount of restraint and respect for others opinions. One must be careful the manner they express personal thoughts over others opinions for fear of losing credibility over their own opinions. Just a thought.

[Matt Gunsch]

In my case it is emotional and very personal. I have had to use a gun twice, once to save my own life and once to save the life of my neighbor and his then 5yr old son, so I take it very personal when someone tries to tell me what I need and don't need to protect myself. Until you have stood where I have, NO ONE has a right to tell me what tools I can or cannot use.

[1bdvet]

Join the NRA, there fighting for your rights. I'm life member.

[Mark Allen M]

In my case it is emotional and very personal. I have had to use a gun twice, once to save my own life and once to save the life of my neighbor and his then 5yr old son, so I take it very personal when someone tries to tell me what I need and don't need to protect myself. Until you have stood where I have, NO ONE has a right to tell me what tools I can or cannot use.

I can't say I envy you for having to be exposed to the horrible reality of pulling a trigger towards another human being, it's unspeakably tragic, but I can assure you you're not the only one that has been in that situation in one way or another on this board alone. What I can say is there also should be no one who has the right to tell anyone what they should think about this debate. Like it or not, there's always going to be folks who will disagree with your views.

Just so you know where I'm coming from, to agree to disagree is one thing (and something I take very personal), but by no means am I an advocate for changing or altering the 2nd amendment ... but that also covers the 1st amendment as well.

You'll never see me try to take your guns away, but there really, really are ways to improve this terrible situation we have in this Country and I'd be happy to sit down with anyone who is willing to listen to some real logic any day of the week. I don't have all the answers but I do have the will to try to find answers and that's where we all need to start. There's much, much more to this problem than just the guns.

Having another one of these tragic school shootings occur is just not an option any longer. Both sides of the fence need to work together to solve the problem or once again we can throw the finger of blame in all directions and continue to debate this issue until no one's standing, or we all can collectively work together to solve this nightmare. It can be done and those who choose to legally have guns can keep their guns.

[muddyboots]

Well said, Mark. I know that there is a part of the Democratic party that believes in getting rid of guns, and they may be vocal at times, but honestly, it's a small minority. The anti gun crowd isn't nearly as big as the solve this problem crowd n the party. And they're never going to get our guns because the rest of the Democrats won't let them. There is, however, a genuine concern that tracking gun owners could be a very bad thing, especially with the level of technology we now have, and the power our government has been invested with, especially after 9/11.

And who decides who can own? Criminals I can get, but what kind of criminals? There are felons out there who are felons because they got caught shoplifting three times...And they can't own a gun. And what about people who deal with depression, and have had suicidal thoughts at one tie or another? Or have schizophrenia but have it under control? Or any of the other zillion mental disorders? Who decides?

I personally don't like handguns, and have no personal need for a semi automatic rifle of any kind, including an AR15. But that's just me. If you want or need one, knock yourself out. I myself happen to like long rifles with some reach to them- which means bolt action to me. And I like shotguns. Nothing like the sound of a pump clacking in the darkness to pucker you up. That's a choice I am alowed to make because I am an American. And I like it that way. And much of the Democratic party likes it that way as well. They're Americans too, despite what FOX wants people to think.

I think most of us are just looking for an honest solution to the problem of innocents dying in our schoolrooms that doesn't involve teachers carrying guns, or paying tax money to protect the right to own a gun by providing armed guards at every school entrance like the NRA suggests. I mean, they want us to support their industry by buying guns to protect our children from the guns they make? What the heck is that? Maybe a gun tax to provide for it? That would jack the price up drastically though...

Like always, it's about suggesting solutions, not cutting the guy across the isle off at the knees and accusing him of trying to sell our country to the communists. That got old with MCCarthy. And the idea that the Germans banned guns and that caused the holocaust is just silly. The Weimar republic banned them to calm down the fascist and communist parties because they were going nuts after WWI. And it obviously didn't work, did it? Give me some ideas, not agitprop.

[Mudge]

In my case it is emotional and very personal. I have had to use a gun twice, once to save my own life and once to save the life of my neighbor and his then 5yr old son, so I take it very personal when someone tries to tell me what I need and don't need to protect myself. Until you have stood where I have, NO ONE has a right to tell me what tools I can or cannot use.

Me too Matt but thankfully, only once. I hear people say, "Oh, I couldn't shoot someone." Trust me, if you're put in the situation that Matt and I have been in, you'll shoot.
And in case no one noticed, Aurora, Sandy Hook, and Virginia Tech all happened in "gun free zones".

Mudge

[muddyboots]

You're both right, Mudge. "Needs must," right? I too find the idea of gun free zones sort of silly. But not to long ago near where I live there was a big party where people brought theirs and ended up shhooting the party up. It seems like we've lost control of this thing. If we go with gun free zones people aren't going to be able to defend themselves, but if we can carry everywhere then the crazies and idiots can carry them there too...Which is better? Would we have less gun deaths if we could carry everywhere? The crazies and idiots won't be able to understand we're going to shoot hem, or care. So it seems like fear of being shot won't deter them any...All we can expect in that situation is someone is going to miss when they return fire and shoot a bystander...

Again, I'm not talking about politics. I'm talking about reality and a response to it. Should we even be worrying about this? Statistically is the death rate any different than it always has been? Will gun control lower it at all? Most gun deaths are suicides anyway. seems like they'd find a way no matter what tool they used. And I for one dont find suicide distasteful. I see it as a right--if the pain gets too hard, I for one like the right to end it. I would do everything I coulod think of to fix it first, but it's still going to be in my toolbox. So are we really worried about lowering the suicide rate using gun control? I doubt it.

I think better screening would help, and to me that means all guns sales have to go through a screening process of some sort. But then I don't have any data on non screened gun abuse by criminls and crazies. Anybody got data like that available?

[Mark Allen M]

As I continue to partake in what in all likelihood will certainly be my regret regarding this conversation, I wonder where some folks mentality takes them in thinking that even though the 2nd amendment clearly states a right to arm yourselves, where does one draw the line on 'right' and 'exploit'. I've never understood the mentality of some who think that the more weapons, the more powerful weapons, the larger weapons make you safer at home. It's one thing to own large arsenals of weapons for the enjoyment of collecting and displaying, even range exhibits, but the theory that 'bigger, faster, more powerful' somehow equates to 'safer'? I'll never buy into that philosophy and I'm not talking military strategy here as I understand the reasoning there. I own no weapons, never have and never will. I have no interest and no need for them, but I feel just fine as far as being safe and I have lived in some very big cities without a need to arm myself.

A good Dr. friend of mine is armed to the gills. He owns some of the most intense and expensive weapons I've ever seem. He has a gun readily available always at arms reach no matter where he is and I have never heard someone who seems to always find some excuse to use one. But that's him. I'm not like him, I still live by the old school approach of 'love thy neighbor' as best you can, but I'm certainly not nieve, I'm well aware of the big, bad world out there, but I refuse to live in fear of anything or anyone. I've made it this far just fine without the need to arm myself. I'll continue to do so. But that's just me.

Sound like I'm against guns and people who own them? Not on your gun toting life! To the contrary. I have no problem with folks who choose to arm themselves. Just don't ever try to convince me you feel safer with a bazooka over a logical caliber handgun or rifle. It'll never fly with me. You tell me you enjoy owning guns and collecting guns, fine with me, collect away, but don't tell me you need a cannon in your front yard for safety. Where do you draw the line on feeling safer according to your gun size? Almost sounds like an anatomy contest to some.

I'll tell you what, if you feel the need for more size, caliber, power, status, whatever in guns, I would think you certainly would prefer driving a tank to work instead of your car. Your chances are far greater of harm on the road than by guns wouldn't you think.

Oh and how rude of me .... Even though WIX is a not a democracy, if you want me to respect your 2nd amendment, respect my 1st amendment.

Commentary thus ended with no hard feelings but interesting and enjoyable never the less.

[Mudge]

Muddy and Mark...a couple of points if I may.

First...Muddy...I've got a small problem with universal background checks. To begin with, what transpires between a private buyer and seller of most anything is no business of the government. Not local, not state, not federal. Enabling any government agency to allow or disallow a private sale is a very slippery slope.

Second...Mark...I understand the point you're making but IMHO, the bazooka and cannon references are something the real gun grabbers use as scare tactics and, from your post, I believe you when you say you aren't one of them.

Regards to both,

Mudge the sincere

[Mark Allen M]

Second...Mark...I understand the point you're making

Outstanding!!! ... As with all good debates, it's not necessarily the need to agree with the content of a point being made, but to understand the concept of the point being made.

And as for being 'one of them'? I'm not even sure what one of them looks like, it's hard enough being just one of me, and sometimes one of me is one too many

I'll tell you what! with a subject that could very easily go south in a real big hurry, I'm very impressed with all of you who have taken the chance to partake in this conversation. Bravo!!! to you all. I no longer regret participating.

[muddyboots]

Muddy and Mark...a couple of points if I may.

First...Muddy...I've got a small problem with universal background checks. To begin with, what transpires between a private buyer and seller of most anything is no business of the government. Not local, not state, not federal. Enabling any government agency to allow or disallow a private sale is a very slippery slope.

Second...Mark...I understand the point you're making but IMHO, the bazooka and cannon references are something the real gun grabbers use as scare tactics and, from your post, I believe you when you say you aren't one of them.

Regards to both,

Mudge the sincere

I have the same problem Mudge. Although it can be argued that background checks fall under the same reasoning that heroin and crack cocaine transactions are outlawed, and presription drugs require government regulation. There's not much difference between my pharmacy selling me codiene and my local gundealer sellng me a .357, in most respects. So we've opened that barn door. Heck, it was open way back in Washington's day.

My real worry, as I said, is that more and more people will be regulated out of the right to own them, and that the gun grabbers will go at it by the back door. But really, I don't think this is gong to go any where. They have literally no traction with it at this point. Anything the Senate passes is just going to go down in flames in theHouse, so I'm not very worried lol!

[shrike]

I don't often get into the debate, but when pressed I like to use automotive analogies.

"You don't need a gun, that's what the police are for"
You don't need a car, that's what buses are for. Inconvenient, overcrowded and never there when you actually need one.

"You don't need a semi-sutomatic gun"
You don't need a car that goes more than 75mph under any circumstances. Ever

"You don't need a high capacity magazine"
You don't need a car that seats more than two. Fewer seats = fewer causalties = safer, right?

"You don't need an "assault style weapon" (and I love that it's style now)
You don't need alloy wheels, a performance package, stripes or even chrome. In fact, since red cars are statitically more likely to get a ticket because they look fast, lets ban them completely.

"They meant muskets in the Constitution"
So...it's a horse and buggy then?

I worry any time a politician uses the phrase "Common Sense", whether on the right or left. It usually means that they have either given the issue at hand no more than cursory review, or that they realize that they are relying solely on an emotional reaction, rather than rational thought.

Asking for rational legislation from the anti-gun lobby is like asking the Amish to promogulate traffic regulations for the interstate highway system.

[Mudge]

Then there's the "We need to make sure gun sales by private individuals at gun shows have background checks." On paper, that sounds really effective. It's not the least bit effective. If two private parties want to make a transaction at a gun show without having to go through a background check. The operation is quite simple. Don't be at a gun show to make the sale. By "don't be at a gun show" I mean, merely leave the premises of the gun show and make the transaction outside of the parameters of the gun show location. Walk across the street and do the deal. It's not illegal, just a loophole. Of course you can still have a NICS check done. If you want to pay a FFL dealer to do it for you. What if, as so many times happens, NICS says, "Our system is overloaded and we'll have to call you back in 2 or 3 days." The gun show will be over tomorrow at the latest. I guess you just cancel the sale. (Or walk across the street. ) But the FFL holder is still gonna' charge you for making the call. And they can (and will) charge you anything they like.

And then there's "We need make sure all online sales of firearms go through the NICS background check." That makes those who are uneducated in the online process think one can purchase a firearm online and not go through a NICS check.

I have frequented every gun auction site on the internet and EVERY ONE OF THEM require that every transaction go through a FFL dealer in the buyers state and that dealer is required to do a NICS background check. But it sounds good doesn't it? "Look at us. We're protecting the people." They're protecting us from a non-existent problem.

Mudge

[Mark Allen M]

Oh how I was so looking forward to a 'solution' based debate as opposed to a 'complaint' based debate. Another missed opportunity.

[shrike]

Oh how I was so looking forward to a 'solution' based debate as opposed to a 'complaint' based debate. Another missed opportunity.

And I think therein lies the problem. Too many people looking for a 'solution' when there isn't a truly a problem. There are aberrations, but always will be as long as humans are human. The current 'debate' is simply an opportunistic attention grab by parties that have, and have had for a long time, an agenda driven by emotion and irration. Until Sandy Hook, states had been easing existing restrictions on gun ownership and use, the Supreme Court had overturned some onerous laws, and the FBI crime stats had been trending an across the board reduction in violent crime throughout the nation. Those are hard to reconcile with a belief (not knowledge, but belief) that guns and gun owners are evil.

Many states are barely to reach a consensus on banning texting and driving, even though that has been shown to be worse than drunk driving. How many people have died this year in collisions related to that? While I don't have the figures, I'm willing to bet it's more than have been killed in the US with "assault weapons" in the last five years. If the object were truly public safety there are many other causes that would have a higher return on investment than pursuing gun regulation driven by the emotional cry of 'think of the children!'.