Quote:
Okay…..this will be the last warning. Keep the political bias out of this thread, or the Management Committee will be forced to lock it up.
No one wants that, so keep this thread on point.
Gun control is meant to protect society as a whole. I would imagine that the majority of the people on this thread are law-abiding citizens who have never nor would they ever use a gun on someone else. Decreasing crime does not equate to arming the masses.
Quote:
Decreasing crime does not equate to arming the masses.
Correct;
HOWEVER,
It is a proven historical fact as well as a military strategy, that when you disarm the masses, you loose freedom.
That sir, has been occurring for over 2000 years.
What Jon Jordan’s post reflected on 8 (EIGHT) leaders of this century alone, whom disarmed the masses and conquered a country through dictatorship and tiereny…..
This bill is sought to disarm the masses of this country. It is the “first step” that the previous 8 dictators took in their process.
If anyone steps in my house some night, they will find out how quickly I’ll use my gun on them. Yes, I’m a law abiding citizen. Threaten my wife or daughters safety, I’m the meanest SOB ever to step face on the earth.
What I can’t understand is how the folks who support laws like this believe criminals are just gonna lay down their weapons and that I should not be able to protect my family, especially in my home. 
The second ammendment was put in place for a reason. Now consider if this law passes. Someone has to challenge the new law all the way to the supreme court(if it can even get there), which appears to be heavily liberal biased. Once in place, this would be very, very hard to repeal.
Write your congressman/senators!!!
Quote:
Gun control is meant to protect society as a whole. I would imagine that the majority of the people on this thread are law-abiding citizens who have never nor would they ever use a gun on someone else. Decreasing crime does not equate to arming the masses.
I can see what you’re saying, but there’s a problem with nearly all of the gun control bills that have been introduced, and this one is no different; None of them do anything to stop crime or deter criminals from getting and using guns. All the bills do is burden, or plainly take away the rights of the law abiding sportsmen and gun owners. How is this bill going to stop a gang banger from giving a stolen gun to another gang banger and then using it? It doesn’t…..
I’m all for reducing crime and making our streets safer. But these types of bills are not the way to get it done. I will not have my constitutional rights infrindged upon while the thugs feel no consequence.
Not sure you caught what I meant…
Regardless, I think it’s relevent, and just as relavent as any other political issue tied in some way to outdoor sports.
I don’t think anybody would complain here if I posted some PETA backed legislation limiting our rights to fish.
Quote:
Decreasing crime does not equate to arming the masses.
or better said “Disarming the masses does not equate to increasing crime”
Actually it does. I have the numbers to proove it. But one can only look at Washing DC as example of gun control gone bad and crime run rampant. Take away guns from law abiding citizens, and the overall crime rate including murder increases greatly over neighboring communities.
Shoot me a PM and I can provde the stats.
-J.
I for one hope it passes. I can’t stand handguns, nor do I see the need for them.
And just because someone’s in your house you don’t have the right to shoot them, that’s law. So go ahead and shoot an intruder, you will go to jail just like they will. And if they die you will be tried for manslaughter. Everything you own is insured, and they are just things. You have to prove they were armed, and had intent to harm.
Quote:
What I can’t understand is how the folks who support laws like this believe criminals are just gonna lay down their weapons and that I should not be able to protect my family, especially in my home.
The second ammendment was put in place for a reason.
First of all, I’m against this bill. But the 2nd amendment was not put in place for people to protect themselves from criminals, it was to protect them from the government. To keep the government from stripping the masses of weapons so the masses could not revolt or defend themselves.
The problem now is that these household weapons, handguns, shotguns, even automatic weapons could not defend a group of citizens from the weaponry now available to the US Government. So the debate becomes, do we need these weapons that are used in crimes.
The answer I believe, is yes, because it has been shown that eliminating these weapons does not reduce violent crime. Those that will committ violent crime will get their hands on a gun one way or another.
That becomes the debate.
Eric
How many of those opposed to the bill have ever had to use their gun in self defense?
EXCLUDING military or law enforcement.
jwitt4,
You sound like you are part of the youtube generation. Watch this: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA
-J.
And I will take my chances with the court of law, with a group of my peers judging me. In my soul, I will know I did the right thing. If you or others can sit and look at my 3 daughters and say I did the wrong thing, your daddy now has to go to jail because he prevented you from being raped or murdered. I’m guessing they will understand when they get older.
I do not understand how you can say a criminal has the right to enter my house and endanger my family. I pray it never happens.
Oh, I won’t be using a handgun either. It will be a 12 gauge full of 4 shot. Pull!! 
Quote:
I for one hope it passes. I can’t stand handguns, nor do I see the need for them.
And just because someone’s in your house you don’t have the right to shoot them, that’s law. So go ahead and shoot an intruder, you will go to jail just like they will. And if they die you will be tried for manslaughter. Everything you own is insured, and they are just things. You have to prove they were armed, and had intent to harm.
Actually in MN you are wrong.
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when
necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the
actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in
the actor’s place of abode.
History: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.065; 1978 c 736 s 1; 1986 c 444
I do not condone killing anyone who steps in your home, but if you feel you or your family are in danger, fire away.
I did see you are from Iowa which has a much weaker Castle Doctrine. I believe you must retreat within the house first, and if left with no other options, can use deadly force. Please correct me if I am wrong on that, but that is what google told me 
Nope, you are correct Farmboy. There are 5 recent cases here in the TC where criminals were shot dead in private homes and no charges were ever filed.
There was even one case where the police entered a home without a warrant and the home owner blasted the cop. No charges.
-J.
Quote:
I for one hope it passes. I can’t stand handguns, nor do I see the need for them.
And just because someone’s in your house you don’t have the right to shoot them, that’s law. So go ahead and shoot an intruder, you will go to jail just like they will. And if they die you will be tried for manslaughter. Everything you own is insured, and they are just things. You have to prove they were armed, and had intent to harm.
Obviously you’re comfortable in the role of the victim. Each to their own. I think that is a pretty bitter pill for some to swallow.
If we won’t or refuse to protect our own, Who should???
Thanks to Lawyers thats how things work.If someone breaks into your house you better make sure they arent around to talk afterwords otherwise you might do more time than them.It also isnt good if you wound them and then chase them down and fire another shot a couple minutes later to finish them off.Because they will turn this around on you and say he was the victim.I suggest a shotgun with buckshot unless you are very good with a pistol.
The old saying if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns is still true.
Think about this.Up north where everyone has guns there are very few police and very little crime.In the big city not everyone has guns yet there are a lot of police and a lot more crime.
I know you can argue there are a lot more people but I think there would be a lot less problems if everyone had and new how to use a gun than taking them all away.
If you want mine make sure you bring a lot of ammo with.You will need it.
Quote:
I for one hope it passes. I can’t stand handguns, nor do I see the need for them.
And just because someone’s in your house you don’t have the right to shoot them, that’s law. So go ahead and shoot an intruder, you will go to jail just like they will. And if they die you will be tried for manslaughter. Everything you own is insured, and they are just things. You have to prove they were armed, and had intent to harm.
Wow! I do not not look at it that way at all. My family is not replaceable and I am not going to take the chance. I will take my chances going to jail. Am I supposed to stand there and watch what they take and write it down so I can let the insurance company know. Or better yet politely ask them to leave. I don’t get it. What would you do?
Good video Jon.I like the old lady toteing the shotgun.
This SUPPORTS THE BILL!!!! The Bill we are talking about is requiring gun owners to REGISTER their weapons, notify if address changes, and prohibit use by minors. Making hand guns extinct will never happen, but for some reason you are against regulation. What has deregulation by government taught us over the past four months? Eventually, inevitably, it goes all wrong.
If you want to own a hand gun, go ahead, but by registering it and following the recommendations of the proposed bill, you will not lose your right to carry or own a gun, you will just have to be a little more responsilble about it.
And as for the VA Tech shootings, what are your thoughts on a bill that would require all public institutions (schools, libraries, courthouses) to have have metal detectors and armed security at all entrances? I would give up the freedom of another to carry a gun to a lecture hall if it meant my child wouldn’t be shot. So I guess that makes me pro-dictatorship, doesn’t it.
Quote:
Quote:
I for one hope it passes. I can’t stand handguns, nor do I see the need for them.
And just because someone’s in your house you don’t have the right to shoot them, that’s law. So go ahead and shoot an intruder, you will go to jail just like they will. And if they die you will be tried for manslaughter. Everything you own is insured, and they are just things. You have to prove they were armed, and had intent to harm.
Actually in MN you are wrong.
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when
necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the
actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in
the actor’s place of abode.
History: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.065; 1978 c 736 s 1; 1986 c 444
Thanks for taking the time to look this up. 
I do not want a Conceal and Carry permit but break into my house and you will answer to my 9mm, .45, .357, or 12 gauge. What ever I get my hands on first.
My personal items my be insured, I am the insurance for my family and will do whatever I need to do.
No questions asked 
The bill is about hand guns.
Please read the bill.
BTW I have been an avid hunter since age 10. I took hunter’s safety at age 16 as will my daughter and my son.
Rights are rarely taken away with bold moves of force or with transparent intentions. They are slowly siphoned away at an imperceptible pace or cleaver men use fear and the allusion of a return to “safer times” to convince citizens to give up their rights of their own free will.
Quote:
The bill is about hand guns.
Please read the bill.
Actually, page 5, lines 15-21 State “the term qualifying firearm means any handgun or any semiautomatic firearm that can accept a detachable magazine feeding device, and does not include any antique. (Sorry if I mistyped something, I tried my best)
That means my 30-06, my Ruger 10/22, my .22 handgun, and a bunch of others. I for one am not willing to give up my rights to have these guns so some tree hugger in DC can feel better about themselves.
You know what they say, When seconds count, the police are minutes away 
Did you read the bill? Again, not taking your gun away. Just making sure everyone knows where it is. Kind of like your car, or in your case, your boat.
Quote:
The bill is about hand guns.
Please read the bill.
BTW I have been an avid hunter since age 10. I took hunter’s safety at age 16 as will my daughter and my son.
I’ve been hunting with a handgun since 1984….shot many a deer…it’s REALLY fun 
I have participated in silhouette handgun shooting (and loved it.. )
Both my daughters were plinking with a 22 handgun by 12…and loved it
What is so inherently evil about a handgun?
BTW…..My oldest is 31
Quote:
Rights are rarely taken away with bold moves of force or with transparent intentions. They are slowly siphoned away at an imperceptible pace or cleaver men use fear and the allusion of a return to “safer times” to convince citizens to give up their rights of their own free will.
That’s right. This all leads one direction and it’s the elimination of gun rights. (Most of) The people putting forth these bills for the most part probably aren’t even intending this but that’s the way it goes. It’s like a python strangling a mouse, with every breathe, one step closer to deatch, never reversing direction.
There are enough laws in place that these criminals are breaking already. All we’re doing is adding expense and more regualtion that the regular law abiding citizen will have to bear.
Quote:
Did you read the bill? Again, not taking your gun away. Just making sure everyone knows where it is. Kind of like your car, or in your case, your boat.
I respect you and your opinion on this. I am very interested in your take on this issue.
“Just making sure everyone knows where it is.”
Why is it in my best interest for “everyone” to know which firearms I own and where they’re located? Suffice it to say I am highly unlikely to use my firearms to commit a crime.
How does the registration of guns owned by law abiding citizens make them safer or what positive outcome do you see coming from the registration of firearms? If this bill passes and the government knows where every gun owned by law abiding citizens is located… what was accomplished?
Quote:
Did you read the bill? Again, not taking your gun away. Just making sure everyone knows where it is. Kind of like your car, or in your case, your boat.
That’s great, so when the guy robs my house when I’m out fishing, sells my gun to a bullied high school student, and he kills a bunch of people, they’ll know it was my gun. I’m changing my vote.
As a LEO……….if someone breaks into your house and you are in fear of your life, you have the right to protect yourself. And you can bet if that happens to me, there will be only one story to be told in court. Also….if anyone thinks the criminals will turn in their guns… 
You have no idea how many convicted felons we pick up now that are in possession of a firearm. They don’t care about the law!!!
Quote:
Quote:
Did you read the bill? Again, not taking your gun away. Just making sure everyone knows where it is. Kind of like your car, or in your case, your boat.
That’s great, so when the guy robs my house when I’m out fishing, sells my gun to a bullied high school student, and he kills a bunch of people, they’ll know it was my gun. I’m changing my vote.
It wouldn’t stop you from being robbed. It wouldn’t bring back the people murdered. It wouldn’t help catch the murderer. But the original gun owner get the interrogation and hard time.
Sounds like a bill that will do a lot to keep us all safe. 
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
