quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: I've oft wondered why that "slippery slope" canard only gets applied to something one supports. If it's something one is holding opposition to, the slope goes by and large ignored.

I apply is to the U.S. Constitution, which I swore an oath to defend. There is no slippery slope, that which violates the United States Constitution is unlawful. Do you have other slippery slope examples you are interested in?

Such as asset seizure/forfeiture without trial or prosecution of the owner?

Perhaps the attack on the Christian faith despite a freedom of religion?

I loathe any encroachment of our Constitution, but you cant just pick a few parts you like to support.

quote Originally posted by CommanderKeen: I apply is to the U.S. Constitution, which I swore an oath to defend. There is no slippery slope, that which violates the United States Constitution is unlawful. Do you have other slippery slope examples you are interested in? Such as asset seizure/forfeiture without trial or prosecution of the owner? Perhaps the attack on the Christian faith despite a freedom of religion? I loathe any encroachment of our Constitution, but you cant just pick a few parts you like to support.

I'd like to hear more about this one.

quote Originally posted by mptighe: Sorry, but you lost me when you said the word invalid. When you seek to discredit an entire viewpoint based on debatable points, then it's not going to be a productive conversation.

Debatable points? The kid did not purchase any of the weapons used, he was old enough (18) to buy the rifle/shotguns and old enough to purchase a handgun from an individual. Thats a fact. He killed his mother for hers. Thats a fact. Is there some legislation I have not seen that doesn't include a future ban on weapons or weapon acessories? If you had read farther than my disagreement with one of your points you would see that my issue is that logical solutions to these problems are NOT brought to the table after these types of tragedies. Logic would have someone bring something to the table such as a nationwide standardized FOID card. I know gun people HATE the IL firearms laws, but a national STANDARD for a system could eradicate these problems. States that have CCW could merely use this system for the same thing. Renew upon changed adress require that people have one to buy firearms or ammunition from gun shops, gun shows, or people. This way selling to someone without a card would equate to significant jail time. Arrested for a felony, surrender the card. You could even drop a CC type chip in it so that it could get scanned at gun shops to find out if its been flagged or something.

I didn't seek to discredit your entire veiwpoint, I agree with parts of it. I think a huge part of the problem was letting each individual state make their own laws, rules and regulations. At the end of the day though, we're blaming inanimate objects for people problems.

quote Originally posted by CommanderKeen: I think a huge part of the problem was letting each individual state make their own laws, rules and regulations. At the end of the day though, we're blaming inanimate objects for people problems.

You do realize that a large part of the outcry for background checks is because its a States Rights issue, as the States still hold firearms sales laws.
The Federal government would love to take more authority from the States, any time, any issue, any way possible.

Remember, the Federal government is granted its powers only from the States. The Constitution is a document that limits the power of the Federal government.

Notice how no one is talking about it, though?

quote Originally posted by CommanderKeen: ...logical solutions to these problems are NOT brought to the table after these types of tragedies.

I agree. Timing is everything.

quote Originally posted by CommanderKeen: Logic would have someone bring something to the table such as a nationwide standardized FOID card. I know gun people HATE the IL firearms laws, but a national STANDARD for a system could eradicate these problems. States that have CCW could merely use this system for the same thing. Renew upon changed adress require that people have one to buy firearms or ammunition from gun shops, gun shows, or people. SNIP I think a huge part of the problem was letting each individual state make their own laws, rules and regulations. At the end of the day though, we're blaming inanimate objects for people problems.

Hmm, since you suggested this, I wonder how you view "states rights". Should such a standard exist, would it require a Constitutional amendment in your opinion? I surmise it woud have to be a fairly low standard with each state having the ability or right to upgrade to their own standards?

I do agree, it's a people problem, not a tool problem. When Timothy McVeigh blew up the fed building in Okla City, all of a sudden I couldn't buy fertilizer. Dumb, just dumb.

------------------
Ron
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero , 55 BC. So, evidently we've learned nothing in the past 2,000+ years.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Hmm, since you suggested this, I wonder how you view "states rights". Should such a standard exist, would it require a Constitutional amendment in your opinion? I surmise it woud have to be a fairly low standard with each state having the ability or right to upgrade to their own standards? I do agree, it's a people problem, not a tool problem. When Timothy McVeigh blew up the fed building in Okla City, all of a sudden I couldn't buy fertilizer. Dumb, just dumb.

Well this also applies to the poster above who mentioned states rights. Part of what makes the regulation of firearms so convoluted is that only certain regulatory right were delegated to the states once the Clinton era laws were enacted. There are federal definitions of classes of weapons and types, but states retain the right to "add to" federal policies, rather than subtract from. This makes any sort of national databasing or regulation difficult as there are so many different standards of laws from FTF sales to somewhat standardized FFL sales.

I appreciate the Federal Definition of firearms types and classes, albeit frustrating to deal with. NFA stuff is cool, but I don't nessesarily dissagree with its increased regulation (I don't support all out bans on things such as MG's, Supressors, DD's and such) but increased hoops/expense keeps less stable folks from things that are significantly more destructive. I like that the NFA gives STATES somewhat definititve types of firearms to write laws about. Imagine if each state had its own definition of what type of barrell equaled what (and I think a few do actually) If the Feds want to define NFA thats fine by me, but state by state weapon sales and regulation should be determined by the state. I dont even have a problem with the Feds requiring NICS checks to buy a firearm. I think that states should come up with responsible way to maximize the overall safety of personal sales of weapons (valid ccw card, FOID card, whatever) I don't think any states should be allowed to keep anyone from protecting themselves in their own homes. I guess you could say that I'm almost fine with how it is right now, if states want to increase regulation I dont think it will fix anything, but it is their right. Its also the responsibility of anyone living there to contact their reps, vote accordingly or move.

I have no problems, I'm a law abiding taxpayer who has a small safe that holds a few long arms and a few pistols. I've even got some nfa stuff in there too.
I don't feel that CCW is some kind of "right to bear arms." But I do feel that any state that says I can't doesn't have the right to my tax money, and thus I will live and work elsewhere. Which is weird for me, considering that I don't carry a gun - I stick to good SA and known safe areas to go about my life.

Back to the original point I think I was trying to make, additional federal regulation will only cripple the ability to get anything done. Even Senator Feinsteins Proposal specifically includes that it will require "all the funding needed to expand the ATF to enforce these new regulations." That was the part that showed me that its not about guns, its an excuse to increase big government control and up wasteful spending. I see this kind of crap all the time in the military.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Oh, there are completely restricted, if not full-on banned books in the US. I believe The Turner Diaries is, and i'm not sure if The Anarcists Cookbook is or not. You have no "right" to kiddie pron books.

Pretty sure I can legally purchase and own both Turner Diaries and Anarchist's Cookbook.
Not sure that written word depictions of underage sex is specifically illegal (as distasteful and disagreeable I may find it personally). Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita (I've not read it, so I don't actually know how far it goes, but it's the best example I could come up with off the cuff).

I would argue pictorial (specifically photographic and or film) fall under other laws regarding legal age of majority and/or consent. Through that kind of example you poke very good holes in my example - though maybe that would be an argument of a limitation similar to regulating nuclear arms?

But generally speaking, there are very few books banned at the federal level (can't say to state and or more specific localities).

Another one you wont hear on your news.

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/...-robbery-ar-1303869/

quote According to police documents, as the suspect was fleeing, he continued to point the gun back at Smith and his son. Smith, who is a carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) permit holder, pulled his firearm and shot the suspect while defending is son and himself.

That statement will be key.
Running away while pointing the gun backwards at the guy.
It's the only way the victim can use the "fear for my life from a fleeing suspect" defense.

But all that aside, if the crook was robbing someone at gunpoint, the crook got what was comming to him.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 01-08-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: That statement will be key. Running away while pointing the gun backwards at the guy. It's the only way the victim can use the "fear for my life from a fleeing suspect" defense. But all that aside, if the crook was robbing someone at gunpoint, the crook got what was comming to him.

Yet also very plausible, I just hope he wasn’t eating skittles and drinking ice tea.

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: You do realize that a large part of the outcry for background checks is because its a States Rights issue, as the States still hold firearms sales laws. The Federal government would love to take more authority from the States, any time, any issue, any way possible. Remember, the Federal government is granted its powers only from the States. The Constitution is a document that limits the power of the Federal government. Notice how no one is talking about it, though?

Really it shouldn't be a states right issue either. They agreed to the Federal constitution when they signed on to the union. Regardless of ones viewpoint on the 2nd, everyone agrees the states are unable to restrict speech due to the Constitutional protections ( or other rights ), why do they feel it magically gives it to the states right to restrict the 2nd?

State's rights start where the Federal's ends.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: ( edit: The cookbook is a joke anyway.. 1/3 of it is plain stupid, 1/3/ wrong, and another 1/3 can get you hurt .. years later even Powell said it was a waste )

But let's remember, before the internet, the information that was in that book was very hard to come by.
Fact or fiction, it was interesting to us highschool stoners.
Then again........

I have a few of those still. Classics

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: I have a few of those still. Classics

Yup, I had them all, and THEN some.
Fat Freddys Cat, Zap, Snatch, etc.

Watch the documentary "Crumb".
It's about the master of that genre!

quote Originally posted by CommanderKeen: Well this also applies to the poster above who mentioned states rights. Part of what makes the regulation of firearms so convoluted is that only certain regulatory right were delegated to the states once the Clinton era laws were enacted. There are federal definitions of classes of weapons and types, but states retain the right to "add to" federal policies, rather than subtract from. This makes any sort of national databasing or regulation difficult as there are so many different standards of laws from FTF sales to somewhat standardized FFL sales. I appreciate the Federal Definition of firearms types and classes, albeit frustrating to deal with. NFA stuff is cool, but I don't nessesarily dissagree with its increased regulation (I don't support all out bans on things such as MG's, Supressors, DD's and such) but increased hoops/expense keeps less stable folks from things that are significantly more destructive. I like that the NFA gives STATES somewhat definititve types of firearms to write laws about. Imagine if each state had its own definition of what type of barrell equaled what (and I think a few do actually) If the Feds want to define NFA thats fine by me, but state by state weapon sales and regulation should be determined by the state. I dont even have a problem with the Feds requiring NICS checks to buy a firearm. I think that states should come up with responsible way to maximize the overall safety of personal sales of weapons (valid ccw card, FOID card, whatever) I don't think any states should be allowed to keep anyone from protecting themselves in their own homes. I guess you could say that I'm almost fine with how it is right now, if states want to increase regulation I dont think it will fix anything, but it is their right. Its also the responsibility of anyone living there to contact their reps, vote accordingly or move. I have no problems, I'm a law abiding taxpayer who has a small safe that holds a few long arms and a few pistols. I've even got some nfa stuff in there too. I don't feel that CCW is some kind of "right to bear arms." But I do feel that any state that says I can't doesn't have the right to my tax money, and thus I will live and work elsewhere. Which is weird for me, considering that I don't carry a gun - I stick to good SA and known safe areas to go about my life. Back to the original point I think I was trying to make, additional federal regulation will only cripple the ability to get anything done. Even Senator Feinsteins Proposal specifically includes that it will require "all the funding needed to expand the ATF to enforce these new regulations." That was the part that showed me that its not about guns, its an excuse to increase big government control and up wasteful spending. I see this kind of crap all the time in the military.

Thanks for the response, I'm going to take a little time to study it and think about it. Very refreshing thought process though. Don't be disappointed in the time that might take, just saw your response and it's time to call it a night. Working the long shift tomorrw also but, I'll put some thought into it. Thanks again.

------------------
Ron
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero , 55 BC. So, evidently we've learned nothing in the past 2,000+ years.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Heres some more stats. Note no weapon at all is used other than bare hands. Its a winner hands down.... http://www.nationmaster.com...tality-strangulation

Well, at least we're in second place.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: Well, at least we're in second place.

well we only need to triple the rates , so if we take guns away that the number will rise for sure maybe in a few years

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Yes, technically they are not banned. However, there have been cases where the federal government has 'influenced' publishers to no longer stock items. The best documented case i have is Paladin Press and their line of explosive books. Often times the companies just quietly go away. They felt they were in the right due to freedom of speech/press, but the pressure and cost to fight would have been prohibitive. So freedom lost. ( edit: The cookbook is a joke anyway.. 1/3 of it is plain stupid, 1/3/ wrong, and another 1/3 can get you hurt .. years later even Powell said it was a waste )

This reminds me of when the right to freedom of speech versus shouting fire in a theatre was discussed at SCOTUS. Working from memory but, as I remember, one justice discussed the freedoms of speech and the responsibiliites that go along with it. Yes, there is freedom of speech but retaining that also means being responsible for one's own actions which in my opinion would include producing instructional manuals on how to produce high explosive devices, biologicical weapons and other such items of mass destruction. Similar to Tim McVeigh, you remember him don't ya.

------------------
Ron
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance." - Cicero , 55 BC. So, evidently we've learned nothing in the past 2,000+ years.

Did you see Japans stat ? I dont think they allow any kind of guns legally there. Its like 1 in 20 people there strangle each other.....(not actual stat )

Why do people think that our 2nd admendment is meant so we can keep our guns for hunting? It's not meant for that, the 2nd amendment is there so we can arm ourselves with the capable tools so that no government can ever take over. That means allowing us to have guns with the sole purpose for combat. Like or dislike it, our founders wanted us to be able to fight.

quote Originally posted by CommanderKeen: I apply is to the U.S. Constitution, which I swore an oath to defend. There is no slippery slope, that which violates the United States Constitution is unlawful. Do you have other slippery slope examples you are interested in? Such as asset seizure/forfeiture without trial or prosecution of the owner? Perhaps the attack on the Christian faith despite a freedom of religion? I loathe any encroachment of our Constitution, but you cant just pick a few parts you like to support.

God Bless you and keep you safe.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: I have a few of those still. Classics

Would you be willing to part with them? If so, PM me with your price.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788



"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.



"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 01-09-2013).]

-Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not.

-Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

Thomas Jefferson quotes.

It's funny how one of our founding fathers could have had such a clear forsight on a subject such as this. It is truely amazing and awe inspiring.

------------------

ARCHIES JUNK IS FASTER THAN SHAUNNA'S JUNK
12.3 is faster than a 13.2

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Yup, I had them all, and THEN some. Fat Freddys Cat, Zap, Snatch, etc. Watch the documentary "Crumb". It's about the master of that genre!

Rip-Off press. I learned a lot of life-lessons from those!

quote Originally posted by FIEROPHREK: It's funny how one of our founding fathers could have had such a clear forsight on a subject such as this. It is truely amazing and awe inspiring.

You know, these guys weren't all-knowing & perfection in thoughts & deeds.
They themselves made slaves of men.
And raped those men's women & children.
So yeah, they weren't all skittles & beer.

They had some good ideas.
And some bad ones.
But they were no more then men.
And as such, fallible.
In all things.

fal·li·ble ~ Capable of making a mistake.

Don't get me wrong, every one of them was 10 times smarter, 100 times tougher, and a million times braver then I could ever be.
I'm here BECAUSE of what they did.
I love it!
But everything they thought, said, & did wasn't perfect.
They could make mistakes.

[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 01-09-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: You know, these guys weren't all-knowing & perfection in thoughts & deeds. They themselves made slaves of men. And raped those men's women & children. So yeah, they weren't all skittles & beer. They had some good ideas. And some bad ones. But they were no more then men. And as such, fallible. In all things. fal·li·ble ~ Capable of making a mistake. Don't get me wrong, every one of them was 10 times smarter, 100 times tougher, and a million times braver then I could ever be. I'm here BECAUSE of what they did. I love it! But everything they thought, said, & did wasn't perfect. They could make mistakes.

Well they were only men not perfect. They did have first hand knowledge on how to deal with an oppresive government. They wanted freedom and fought for it ,they fought for their freedom and they fought fo every Americans freedom they came after them. To throw away a constitutional right that was paid for in blood makes no sence at all. There is a reason it was worth dieing for. The problem today is not the gun but the lack of responsibility and morals of modern people. Everyone knows this is being blown out of proportion to further an agenda. People think we are to civilized to need firearms. Well we are not as a species. We are still to animalistic. We are violent and greedy.

------------------

ARCHIES JUNK IS FASTER THAN SHAUNNA'S JUNK
12.3 is faster than a 13.2

quote Originally posted by FIEROPHREK: People think we are to civilized to need firearms. Well we are not as a species. We are still to animalistic. We are violent and greedy.

Reminds me of some SyFi move I seen where one astronaut shockingly said to another; "Uhhhhh, why do you have a gun in space".

quote Originally posted by F355spider: Because they are stupid and believe the Liberal/Democrats that brain wash them.

Man, the past week or so your posts have been very aggressive.

It's not a good way to communicate.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Man, the past week or so your posts have been very aggressive. It's not a good way to communicate.

He's not communicating, he's belittling.
He's angry.
And rude.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Would you be willing to part with them? If so, PM me with your price.

Hell no, theys mine but here is one on ebay http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymot...&hash=item1e75b7c5d0

Well I am glad to be reading all this. At least it got an open discussion going.

Oh, I was pretty drunk when I posted it. Bought up with guns, even like shooting, but the more people talk the better it will get. There is a middle ground somewhere that will work for ALL usa residents. Up to you guys to find it now.

The controls I would like to see you guys adapt is at least keeping guns a lot more secure and away from the nuts. A big step one.

Don't bother argueing that point with me. I wont answer I didn't post this to argue. Just posted it to see where people stand and to get a discussion started.

Although sad my biggest hit thread on the forum is about this and not tits.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: But let's remember, before the internet, the information that was in that book was very hard to come by.

It wasn't hard at all to get that information ( and the right kind, not the made up kind ). We had these things we used to call 'libraries', big buildings that had books in them. I hear they have gone extinct. Used to spend hours browsing the chemical abstracts at random, and miles of books of physics...

The college version of those places had the most useful data, as it wasn't watered down to fit the mentality of the masses.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 01-10-2013).]