Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Roper, Feb 13, 2008.
This is still opened
What do you mean Daryle, the thread or the HB3359?
If you have to register by name to buy sudafed, then having serial numbers on ammunition can't be that bad. If anything, it will be a way to assist law enforcement in tracking where ammunition from crime scenes was purchased.
Two problems with this line of thinking, Tom:
1. Signing for Sudafed has done very little to curtail the meth problem so using this analogy is entirely appropriate in my opinion.
2. This is a good illustration of how one useless, bureaucratic, invasive law is used to justify another useless, bureaucratic, invasive law.
The LEOs I've spoken with DO NOT agree that "it will be a way to assist law enforcement in tracking where ammunition from crime scenes was purchased". In fact, the LEOs I've spoken with think that this is a useless proposal. Consider this, revolvers do not leave spent cases, projectiles when fired into meat and bone are usually fragmented beyond recognition and the supply of unmarked cases and projectiles is so enormous that it will be easy to procure unmarked ammunition for years to come. I believe this proposal would also encourage a lucrative black market for unmarked ammo.
The end result would be no increase in public safety and further harassment of law abiding gun owners. This is so obvious that i can only believe that must be the real objective.
I have not heard or read one shred of evidence that this measure would increase public safety. In fact I haven't even read one convincing argument that this could increase public safety.
Yes, you're absolutely correct. These atrocities should be ignored.
More sand please, the ostrich is getting uncomfortable!
This is what annoys me about people on either end of arguments like this. They just want to spout insults and rhetoric, not actually talk with those of us in the middle. I guess it's nice that it's an equal opportunity thing, I get the same crap from PETA supporters as I do from gun-rights advocates.
Way to win people to your cause Jon.
I agree with you. Doesn't help anyone's cause when they go into the realm of the extreme.
Excellent addendum to my comment. You are correct in saying too many criminals on the streets with guns.
Now if the ostrich can get it's head out of the sand long enough to rationally discuss the issue then by all means let's continue.
IMO, not having a solution to the problem does not justify passing a bill to do something else.
If you remember the movie "10" with Bo Derek...Dudley Moore was having coffee with the Vicar in his den. There was a great dane lying in front of the fire. This old lady came tottering in to bring the coffee, and broke wind. The dog whimpered and got up and ran from the room. The Vicar said, "Oh, that's Mrs. Smithers. When she breaks wind, we beat the dog."
That didn't work either...
OK, I'll take that. Sometimes I lose my patience with the people "in the middle".
Josh, you claimed in an earlier post that you:
I thought that I would help your imagination with a suggestion that you peruse some of the info that is readily available on govt. abuse of current firearms legislation.
It seems to me that you are willing to sweep from the table valid evidence of abuse rather than confront the reality that such abuses actually exist. It seems that your rationale for doing so is that these two atrocities were too extreme to be useful for discussion.
I suspect that if I were to provide more subtle examples of govt. intrusion that you would argue that these do not constitute enough of a breach of freedom to be useful for discussion.
My overall impression is that you are not going to be swayed by any of the arguments presented here in defense of the second ammendment. On the contrary, you would prefer to pretend a neutral stance while you take potshots at all the arguments you disagree with while claiming to have a so called moderate viewpoint.
It is unfortunate if you find my language or demeanor to be offensive. That was certainly not my intent.
I am absolutely not ashamed to be grouped among those you choose to label as "gun rights advocates". You have probably noticed that those who support the second ammendment belive that it is every bit as important as the first ammendment and that some of us have taken offense at the constant efforts of the gun ban lobby to strip this right from the constitution one little piece at a time.
Consider this Josh, those of us who support the 2nd aren't trying to take anything away from you. Those who wish to abridge the RKBA are trying to take away a right that is held sacred by us.
If you choose to side with the gun ban lobby you will continue to get some pretty sharp replies to your rhetorical questions.
I would caution anyone with strong beliefs to not "lose patience" with those of us "in the middle". The middle is where a majority of america resides with their beliefs. I work very hard to try and keep an open mind and to be willing to change my stance if I am presented with evidence to the contrary. And it is one of my biggest peeves that the those on the extreme ends of any issue want to throw the "you're with us or you're against us" attitude at me. That flat-out ignores a huge percentage of americans. The left does it with Nascar dads (oddly enough I'm watching the daytona duels with my pregnant wife as I watch this) and the right does it with Soccer Moms (which my wife no doubt will be).
No, I'm not with you or against you. I have an initial opinion (I'm not worried about registering handgun ammo, I'd have to register the handgun itself) that is based on my own life experience (guns have been in, but not a huge part of, my life and only a few of my friends are in law enforcement). But initial opinions are usually not based on much in the way of facts, so I ask questions to learn.
No, I just do not think that situations that exist on the extreme ends of the spectrum of life are useful in discussions like this. Yes, Ruby Ridge and Waco were a mess. Law enforcement made huge mistakes, we all know that by now. But those events are not the majority of law enforcement in america. Ruby Ridge and Waco were very singular and rare situations, which is why we are still talking about them over a decade later. Trying to use them as an answer to my "would this law help law enforcement" as as unhelpful as the anti gun person who answers "would crime go down if assault rifles were all confiscated?" by saying "the columbine shooters used assault rifles". Well yeah, they did. But the vast majority of crime, even the vast majority of gun deaths do not come from assault rifles. So that fact is not helpful for the discussion. (and yes, I know that one was an assault "rifle" and one was an assault "pistol" at columbine, but you get my point).
If that is your belief, you are entitled to it. But you've wasted a chance to educate me and everyone else reading this thread.
C'mon Josh, there was never any chance that I could "educate" you. You have already chosen sides in this debate and if you really are still "in the middle" do I actually have the kind of power necessary to sway your opinion?
By the way, what was your "initial opinion"?
I'm curious, did the many posts by others sway your opinion?
I must confess, my intent was never to educate you or "everyone else reading this thread". I don't see that as my job. I'm just exercising my right to self expression. Hope you don't mind.
I told you my initial impression in my previous post and where that opinion came from:
But I'm done with this. You appear to be more interested in calling me a liar and questioning my motives then talking about the subject. I guess you know everything.
I am considering the grim possibility that I have actually wasted the opportunity to educate people reading this thread. I readily admit that I am unsuited to the task of educating people who oppose freedoms outlined in our constitution.
I have taken the liberty of posting links to several resources that will enable anyone who wishes to learn more about the 2nd ammendment and gun control.
yah.........we don't need no f..kin' gun control or nothin'...........
if those kids in that class had their heat, the guy would'a'been blown away....yeah, thats the ticket............more guns in the hands of more lunnies!
actually why not number ammo lots?? makes pretty good sense to me as another avenue for tracking a crime. or maybe, we should just eliminate all serial numbers on fire arms.................
I don't recall anyone suggesting that school children should be armed or that firearm serial numbers should be eliminated.
I think your question,
has been covered pretty well already in this thread.
Of course the shooting story is tragic. Try to remember that about 295 crimes were prevented today with defensive use of privately owned firearms. It won't make the tragedy go away but it's important to keep in mind that every day guns are used to spare others from facing a tragedy at the hands of an armed criminal. Are you aware that there is a documented case of an armed teacher taking down a gunman at a school?