Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

NRA making robocalls to residents of Newtown. Goes to show you what pigs
they really are. I'm sure that Herring and Scotty won't say a word about
it, unless they think it's a great idea.

http://tinyurl.com/cyd426h

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

iBoaterer wrote:
NRA making robocalls to residents of Newtown. Goes to show you what pigs
they really are. I'm sure that Herring and Scotty won't say a word about
it, unless they think it's a great idea.

http://tinyurl.com/cyd426h

Scotty probably runs the robocall machine

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:28:59 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:26:27 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

"The people Newtown" can just hang up like everyone else. If it were
up to me, all RoboCalls would be outlawed. At least with a real
person you can patiently explain how they just broke the law by
calling someone on the "Do Not Call" list.

Yeah That will scare them. What is the conviction rate on that crime?
0.000001%?

The do not call list is as big a joke as thinking all of those gun
runners will submit background checks.

There are imperfect means to figure out who is calling.

And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...


And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

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

The problem is nobody knows for sure how many guns currently exist in
the US. Most states do not require registration so there's no way of
tracing them.

The best estimates are between 200 million and 350 million privately
owned guns. Even if a federal registration law was passed tomorrow,
that's quite an inventory of potentially available guns with no record
of ownership or traceability.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:06:37 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Right, but that has nothing to do with the point. The point is that
the NRA is being more obnoxious than usual with these calls to the
people Newtown.

========

"The people Newtown" can just hang up like everyone else. If it were
up to me, all RoboCalls would be outlawed. At least with a real
person you can patiently explain how they just broke the law by
calling someone on the "Do Not Call" list.

Yes, they can. That again isn't the point. The point is that the NRA
doesn't give a **** about people. They care about their benefactors,
the gun manufacturers.

====

I guess there's a reason why they don't call themselves the National
People's Association. There's no question that the NRA is over the
top on some issues but they're up against some stiff opposition, and
there are multiple sides to every position. In many respects the
whole thing comes down to modern urban America vs old time rural
America - two totally different cultures and points of view on a lot
of different issues. As a kid I had one grandmother who lived miles
down a country road in a very rural area. She always kept a shotgun
behind the kitchen door and knew how to use it. It would have taken
an hour for any law enforcement agency to get there if they could even
find it.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:33:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
.. .


And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

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

The problem is nobody knows for sure how many guns currently exist in
the US. Most states do not require registration so there's no way of
tracing them.

The best estimates are between 200 million and 350 million privately
owned guns. Even if a federal registration law was passed tomorrow,
that's quite an inventory of potentially available guns with no record
of ownership or traceability.


Yes, true. Does that mean we should just not worry about all the new
ones and all the future deaths that might be prevented. Oh ****, I
might have to fill out a form!

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:35:38 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:07:57 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:28:59 -0400, wrote:



The do not call list is as big a joke as thinking all of those gun
runners will submit background checks.

There are imperfect means to figure out who is calling.

True for caller ID but not really for the Telco.

I have call trace on my line. I can get the info to the authorities
unless they're offshore. It's still imperfect and sometimes a number
is spoofed, but mostly it works.


And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

You are delusional. Do you really think a guy buying guns out of the
trunk of a car in Chicago is going to care if it was stolen? The
numbers might be ground off anyway. It is going to end up in a storm
drain anyway, as soon as he shoots someone with it. I would not be
surprised if these guns live the rest of their life with the ammo that
was in it when it was stolen. There are not a lot of places where you
can go target shooting in the South side of Chicago.

The guy selling the gun will care if he has to explain how his gun
ended up at a crime scene. According to you, you'd rather say **** it
and not do anything, even if it's a small thing to make the situation
better. God ****ing forbid you have to fill out a form.

You're all anti-war, but not anti-war on all the innocents killed by
guns in the US.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:24:20 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:06:37 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Right, but that has nothing to do with the point. The point is that
the NRA is being more obnoxious than usual with these calls to the
people Newtown.

========

"The people Newtown" can just hang up like everyone else. If it were
up to me, all RoboCalls would be outlawed. At least with a real
person you can patiently explain how they just broke the law by
calling someone on the "Do Not Call" list.

Yes, they can. That again isn't the point. The point is that the NRA
doesn't give a **** about people. They care about their benefactors,
the gun manufacturers.

====

I guess there's a reason why they don't call themselves the National
People's Association. There's no question that the NRA is over the
top on some issues but they're up against some stiff opposition, and
there are multiple sides to every position. In many respects the
whole thing comes down to modern urban America vs old time rural
America - two totally different cultures and points of view on a lot
of different issues. As a kid I had one grandmother who lived miles
down a country road in a very rural area. She always kept a shotgun
behind the kitchen door and knew how to use it. It would have taken
an hour for any law enforcement agency to get there if they could even
find it.

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

No reasonable "rural" person cares about whether or not his gun is
registered. Most people are in favor of it. We're not talking about
shotguns. We're talking about assault weapons, as you know.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:29:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

You're all anti-war, but not anti-war on all the innocents killed by
guns in the US.

===

It's a classic case of an ineffective cure that ends up being worse
than the disease. You come across as being just another semi
hysterical anti gun weenie. Have you ever looked at the number of
kids killed in accidents or by suicide? Those are *very* big
numbers. I personally know of close to a dozen young people who were
killed in car accidents as opposed to one guy who was killed in a
hunting accident. Since that's too small a sample for statistical
accuracy, I suspect the actual ratio is much higher than the 12 to 1
that I cite.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.


That's unconstitutional. 2nd Amendment.
But you can support selling guns to criminals and nutjobs if you wish.
1st Amendment.
Learn about the law before you pipe up.

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

"Rural" is 1/6 of the U.S. population. And you can't speak for them.
And what's with this "don't trust you city/suburban folks."
You're a city-slicker, so that's YOU, pal.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:29:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

You're all anti-war, but not anti-war on all the innocents killed by
guns in the US.

===

It's a classic case of an ineffective cure that ends up being worse
than the disease. You come across as being just another semi
hysterical anti gun weenie. Have you ever looked at the number of
kids killed in accidents or by suicide? Those are *very* big
numbers. I personally know of close to a dozen young people who were
killed in car accidents as opposed to one guy who was killed in a
hunting accident. Since that's too small a sample for statistical
accuracy, I suspect the actual ratio is much higher than the 12 to 1
that I cite.

"much higher than the 12 to 1 that I cite," eh? That's incredibly
ignorant.
http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/f...vehicle-deaths
Of course car registration, training and safety are highly regulated.
And many, many more people drive cars than own guns.
But any dumb**** legal owner of a gun can legally sell his gun to a
criminal or nutjob.
Yep. You're making a lot of sense here.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:29:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

You are delusional. Do you really think a guy buying guns out of the
trunk of a car in Chicago is going to care if it was stolen? The
numbers might be ground off anyway. It is going to end up in a storm
drain anyway, as soon as he shoots someone with it. I would not be
surprised if these guns live the rest of their life with the ammo that
was in it when it was stolen. There are not a lot of places where you
can go target shooting in the South side of Chicago.


So now you're agreeing with iboaterer that most guns used in crimes are
stolen? Dance, dance.
According to the ATF only 10-15% of crimes are committed with stolen
guns.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html
But keep dancing.




The guy selling the gun will care if he has to explain how his gun
ended up at a crime scene.

Do you really think the guy selling stolen guns really gives a ****
who filled out the last 4473 on it?
The same would be true of the guy buying it.
If a guy is a felon, having a stolen gun or a gun with a ground off
serial number is only marginally worse than having the gun in the
first place.
Those are the kinds of charges that get traded away in the quest for a
plea on the top count. That is one reason why there are so few
convictions on firearms charges.,

So you add the "ground off serial number myth" to the "stolen guns"
myth.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Forensic-B...vering-Hidden-
Serial-Numbers-From-Firearms&id=917211
What's the name of that step? Lying two-step?

According to you, you'd rather say **** it
and not do anything, even if it's a small thing to make the situation
better. God ****ing forbid you have to fill out a form.

I have said several times that if the private seller had access to the
instant check system, I would have no problem with the law.
most 4473s are filed electronically these days anyway.


Whoa. I thought you said that could be used to "blackmail your
neighbor." And you were opposed to a fee being charged by an FFL dealer
to do the transfer, calling it a "tax."
What's this step called? The bull****ter shuffle?

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:33:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
.. .


And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

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

The problem is nobody knows for sure how many guns currently exist in
the US. Most states do not require registration so there's no way of
tracing them.

The best estimates are between 200 million and 350 million privately
owned guns. Even if a federal registration law was passed tomorrow,
that's quite an inventory of potentially available guns with no
record
of ownership or traceability.


Yes, true. Does that mean we should just not worry about all the new
ones and all the future deaths that might be prevented. Oh ****, I
might have to fill out a form!

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

I just don't think it makes sense to pass laws just for the sake of
passing laws. Makes the politicians look good as a response to media
hype and emotional public responses but doesn't really do anything to
address the problem.

Personally, I don't have any problem with background checks. It's in
place in my state and has been for years. I don't really have any
personal gripe about a national registry of gun owners either but I
can understand the case made by those who oppose it. Frankly, doing
background checks and calling in every gun purchase made from a dealer
like they do here in Massachusetts creates the data base required for
a national registry anyway. Your name, permit number, gun type and
digital fingerprint image is taken every time you purchase a gun.
Private sale requirements are lax however. You are supposed to report
the transaction within a certain number of days, but I doubt everyone
does.

However, it still doesn't regulate the 300 million plus guns that
can't be traced now. That's why a law requiring a national registry
would have very little effect on those with criminal intent. Hell, if
private ownership of all guns were banned tomorrow, there's no way of
telling who has them and who doesn't.

I think we need to be a little realistic about gun control. As
starters, here's what I'd propose:

1. Require background checks and permits for gun ownership
nationwide.
2. Require mandatory safety training for issuance of the permit.
The training should be more extensive than a single 5 hour session.
I was very surprised at the sketchy training required in MA in
order to obtain a LTC. It should be much longer and cover more.
3. Require mental health data to be made available in the background
checks. This includes drug addiction or alcoholism.
4. Enforce current laws. Put criminals and violent people away. If
there were fewer on the streets, fewer people would feel the need to
own a gun. That said, we also have to accept the fact that we
don't live in a perfect world, never will, and the right to own a gun
for personal and family defense is justified.
5. Finally ... use your friggin' head. Make damn well sure the gun
isn't loaded when cleaning it. As you get used to handling a gun,
it's very easy to get sloppy about handling it. When cleaning,
checking, loading or unloading, turn off the damn TV, computer and
cell phone. Concentrate on what you are doing, thinking every step
through. I think people that get too cavalier about this are the
ones who cause accidents to happen.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

"Wayne B" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has
demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

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

Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:27:34 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

"Rural" is 1/6 of the U.S. population. And you can't speak for them.

About 95% of the land area however.

And what's with this "don't trust you city/suburban folks."
You're a city-slicker, so that's YOU, pal.

Not really. I grew up in a rural area where just about everyone
owned guns. Where I am now there are 10,000 acre cattle ranches just
a few miles from town.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:46:01 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

NRA making robocalls to residents of Newtown. Goes to show you what pigs
they really are. I'm sure that Herring and Scotty won't say a word about
it, unless they think it's a great idea.

http://tinyurl.com/cyd426h

I got robo called by Bloomburg today.

Do you really think it's the same as the NRA robocalling people in
Newtown after what's happened?

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:48:31 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

I got robo called by Bloomburg today.

Do you really think it's the same as the NRA robocalling people in
Newtown after what's happened?

Pretty much, I just hung up on them too.

So..... the NRA calling people in a town rocked by deaths of their young
kids and trying to sell them on the great virtues of guns while they are
still mourning the deaths is the same to you as someone calling you
about a magazine subscription? You must really think you're important
then.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:47:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
.. .

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:33:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
. ..


And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

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

The problem is nobody knows for sure how many guns currently exist in
the US. Most states do not require registration so there's no way of
tracing them.

The best estimates are between 200 million and 350 million privately
owned guns. Even if a federal registration law was passed tomorrow,
that's quite an inventory of potentially available guns with no
record
of ownership or traceability.


Yes, true. Does that mean we should just not worry about all the new
ones and all the future deaths that might be prevented. Oh ****, I
might have to fill out a form!

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

I just don't think it makes sense to pass laws just for the sake of
passing laws. Makes the politicians look good as a response to media
hype and emotional public responses but doesn't really do anything to
address the problem.

I agree. We shouldn't pass laws just for the sake of doing that.
However, many many studies have shown and empiracle evidence has shown
that it'll help.

Personally, I don't have any problem with background checks. It's in
place in my state and has been for years. I don't really have any
personal gripe about a national registry of gun owners either but I
can understand the case made by those who oppose it. Frankly, doing
background checks and calling in every gun purchase made from a dealer
like they do here in Massachusetts creates the data base required for
a national registry anyway. Your name, permit number, gun type and
digital fingerprint image is taken every time you purchase a gun.
Private sale requirements are lax however. You are supposed to report
the transaction within a certain number of days, but I doubt everyone
does.

So?

However, it still doesn't regulate the 300 million plus guns that
can't be traced now. That's why a law requiring a national registry
would have very little effect on those with criminal intent. Hell, if
private ownership of all guns were banned tomorrow, there's no way of
telling who has them and who doesn't.

It will going forward. After a time, perhaps a long time, there will
be fewer and fewer unregistered guns. If that's the best we can expect
it's still better than nothing.

I think we need to be a little realistic about gun control. As
starters, here's what I'd propose:

1. Require background checks and permits for gun ownership
nationwide.
2. Require mandatory safety training for issuance of the permit.
The training should be more extensive than a single 5 hour session.
I was very surprised at the sketchy training required in MA in
order to obtain a LTC. It should be much longer and cover more.
3. Require mental health data to be made available in the background
checks. This includes drug addiction or alcoholism.

So far so good... I read on...

4. Enforce current laws. Put criminals and violent people away. If
there were fewer on the streets, fewer people would feel the need to
own a gun. That said, we also have to accept the fact that we
don't live in a perfect world, never will, and the right to own a gun
for personal and family defense is justified.

Sticking point. Many of the 300 or so laws are poorly written or have
been watered down. New ones or revised ones need to be written and
enforced.

5. Finally ... use your friggin' head. Make damn well sure the gun
isn't loaded when cleaning it. As you get used to handling a gun,
it's very easy to get sloppy about handling it. When cleaning,
checking, loading or unloading, turn off the damn TV, computer and
cell phone. Concentrate on what you are doing, thinking every step
through. I think people that get too cavalier about this are the
ones who cause accidents to happen.

Total 100 percent agreement. Of course, this requires some education,
and not just about guns.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:04:50 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:29:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

You're all anti-war, but not anti-war on all the innocents killed by
guns in the US.

===

It's a classic case of an ineffective cure that ends up being worse
than the disease. You come across as being just another semi
hysterical anti gun weenie. Have you ever looked at the number of
kids killed in accidents or by suicide? Those are *very* big
numbers. I personally know of close to a dozen young people who were
killed in car accidents as opposed to one guy who was killed in a
hunting accident. Since that's too small a sample for statistical
accuracy, I suspect the actual ratio is much higher than the 12 to 1
that I cite.

Well you come across as a ****ing stupid ****, but I try not to bring
it up. I own four. No, I'm not going to list them. One's a handgun,
one's a 20 gauge. Figure it out from there.

In anycase, you're diatribe has nothing to do with the issue, which is
thjat Gretwell is a poser.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:17:16 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:29:55 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

You are delusional. Do you really think a guy buying guns out of the
trunk of a car in Chicago is going to care if it was stolen? The
numbers might be ground off anyway. It is going to end up in a storm
drain anyway, as soon as he shoots someone with it. I would not be
surprised if these guns live the rest of their life with the ammo that
was in it when it was stolen. There are not a lot of places where you
can go target shooting in the South side of Chicago.



The guy selling the gun will care if he has to explain how his gun
ended up at a crime scene.

Do you really think the guy selling stolen guns really gives a ****
who filled out the last 4473 on it?
The same would be true of the guy buying it.

For all time? The gun will never break will never get sold to a pawn
shop, will never do anything except continually circle around with
criminals, even after they're killed by the cops during their violent
rampage? Give me a ****ing break.

If a guy is a felon, having a stolen gun or a gun with a ground off
serial number is only marginally worse than having the gun in the
first place.

Huh? the crime lab doesn't need a visible serial number to get it off
the gun. Read up.

Those are the kinds of charges that get traded away in the quest for a
plea on the top count. That is one reason why there are so few
convictions on firearms charges.,

Citation? doubtful. There are thousands going on all the time.

According to you, you'd rather say **** it
and not do anything, even if it's a small thing to make the situation
better. God ****ing forbid you have to fill out a form.

I have said several times that if the private seller had access to the
instant check system, I would have no problem with the law.
most 4473s are filed electronically these days anyway.


You're all anti-war, but not anti-war on all the innocents killed by
guns in the US.

We would do a whole lot more stopping the drug war than ramping up the
gun war.

Nice, but nothing to do with the question at hand.

When are we going to figure out that driving a business underground
only makes it worse.

Illegal gun possession is already underground. Time to make it more
difficult.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:52:32 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.

That's right. But, nobody is actually talking about something like
that in a serious way. I'd be happy if there were no guns. I mean
zero. Just like no nukes. your point?

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

Really? Too many people? That's of course bull****, but lets assume
it's true. Carried to its logical end point, they might be in the
majority. I thought this was a democracy? So, you're saying **** the
democratic process, and you're going to decide to keep guns around
even though the majority doesn't want them. Of course this is just the
logical conclusion to your bull****.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:31:49 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:27:34 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

"Rural" is 1/6 of the U.S. population. And you can't speak for them.

About 95% of the land area however.

And what's with this "don't trust you city/suburban folks."
You're a city-slicker, so that's YOU, pal.

Not really. I grew up in a rural area where just about everyone
owned guns. Where I am now there are 10,000 acre cattle ranches just
a few miles from town.

Which is 1/6 of the population, thus they are in the extreme minority.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Wayne B" wrote in message
.. .

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence.
Study after study has shown and country after country has
demonstrated
that fewer guns means fewer deaths.

====

Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable
conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths.

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

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

Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others.


Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:23:56 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

We're not talking about
shotguns. We're talking about assault weapons, as you know.

"Assault weapons" are such a small part of the problem that I am not
even sure why they are talking about it.
You are talking about a couple hundred victims a year, (358 in 2010
rifles all kinds, assault and otherwise) That is less than half of the
number who get killed by unarmed murderers (fists, feet etc ... 745 )
From the FBI
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/murder%20weapon.htm

Great. Then you have no problem banning them in the extreme. Sounds
like a good start. Next stop, national registration of handguns and
instant background checks available for all.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:10:58 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:48:31 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

I got robo called by Bloomburg today.

Do you really think it's the same as the NRA robocalling people in
Newtown after what's happened?

Pretty much, I just hung up on them too.

So..... the NRA calling people in a town rocked by deaths of their young
kids and trying to sell them on the great virtues of guns while they are
still mourning the deaths is the same to you as someone calling you
about a magazine subscription? You must really think you're important
then.

You got it.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/27/2013 1:32 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:23:56 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

We're not talking about
shotguns. We're talking about assault weapons, as you know.

"Assault weapons" are such a small part of the problem that I am not
even sure why they are talking about it.
You are talking about a couple hundred victims a year, (358 in 2010
rifles all kinds, assault and otherwise) That is less than half of the
number who get killed by unarmed murderers (fists, feet etc ... 745 )
From the FBI
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/murder%20weapon.htm

Great. Then you have no problem banning them in the extreme. Sounds
like a good start. Next stop, national registration of handguns and
instant background checks available for all.


....next stop, 2014, a democratic congress and senate, and a nice list to
start your confiscation ...

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/27/2013 1:32 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:23:56 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

We're not talking about
shotguns. We're talking about assault weapons, as you know.

"Assault weapons" are such a small part of the problem that I am not
even sure why they are talking about it.
You are talking about a couple hundred victims a year, (358 in 2010
rifles all kinds, assault and otherwise) That is less than half of the
number who get killed by unarmed murderers (fists, feet etc ... 745 )
From the FBI
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/murder%20weapon.htm

Great. Then you have no problem banning them in the extreme. Sounds
like a good start. Next stop, national registration of handguns and
instant background checks available for all.


...next stop, 2014, a democratic congress and senate, and a nice list to
start your confiscation ...

Your place would be the place to start, PsychoSnotty.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:47:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
.. .

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:33:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
. ..


And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

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

The problem is nobody knows for sure how many guns currently exist in
the US. Most states do not require registration so there's no way of
tracing them.

The best estimates are between 200 million and 350 million privately
owned guns. Even if a federal registration law was passed tomorrow,
that's quite an inventory of potentially available guns with no
record
of ownership or traceability.


Yes, true. Does that mean we should just not worry about all the new
ones and all the future deaths that might be prevented. Oh ****, I
might have to fill out a form!

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

I just don't think it makes sense to pass laws just for the sake of
passing laws. Makes the politicians look good as a response to media
hype and emotional public responses but doesn't really do anything to
address the problem.

Personally, I don't have any problem with background checks. It's in
place in my state and has been for years. I don't really have any
personal gripe about a national registry of gun owners either but I
can understand the case made by those who oppose it. Frankly, doing
background checks and calling in every gun purchase made from a dealer
like they do here in Massachusetts creates the data base required for
a national registry anyway. Your name, permit number, gun type and
digital fingerprint image is taken every time you purchase a gun.
Private sale requirements are lax however. You are supposed to report
the transaction within a certain number of days, but I doubt everyone
does.

However, it still doesn't regulate the 300 million plus guns that
can't be traced now. That's why a law requiring a national registry
would have very little effect on those with criminal intent. Hell, if
private ownership of all guns were banned tomorrow, there's no way of
telling who has them and who doesn't.

I think we need to be a little realistic about gun control. As
starters, here's what I'd propose:

1. Require background checks and permits for gun ownership
nationwide.
2. Require mandatory safety training for issuance of the permit.
The training should be more extensive than a single 5 hour session.
I was very surprised at the sketchy training required in MA in
order to obtain a LTC. It should be much longer and cover more.
3. Require mental health data to be made available in the background
checks. This includes drug addiction or alcoholism.
4. Enforce current laws. Put criminals and violent people away. If
there were fewer on the streets, fewer people would feel the need to
own a gun. That said, we also have to accept the fact that we
don't live in a perfect world, never will, and the right to own a gun
for personal and family defense is justified.
5. Finally ... use your friggin' head. Make damn well sure the gun
isn't loaded when cleaning it. As you get used to handling a gun,
it's very easy to get sloppy about handling it. When cleaning,
checking, loading or unloading, turn off the damn TV, computer and
cell phone. Concentrate on what you are doing, thinking every step
through. I think people that get too cavalier about this are the
ones who cause accidents to happen.


My wife just completed a five hour course in gun safety and firing. How much more time should be
spent in telling a person that every gun is loaded, point only down range, and don't put finger on
the trigger until ready to shoot.

What kinds of things would you add to the course that should require a lot more time.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/27/2013 6:30 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:47:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:33:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...


And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

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

The problem is nobody knows for sure how many guns currently exist in
the US. Most states do not require registration so there's no way of
tracing them.

The best estimates are between 200 million and 350 million privately
owned guns. Even if a federal registration law was passed tomorrow,
that's quite an inventory of potentially available guns with no
record
of ownership or traceability.


Yes, true. Does that mean we should just not worry about all the new
ones and all the future deaths that might be prevented. Oh ****, I
might have to fill out a form!

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

I just don't think it makes sense to pass laws just for the sake of
passing laws. Makes the politicians look good as a response to media
hype and emotional public responses but doesn't really do anything to
address the problem.

Personally, I don't have any problem with background checks. It's in
place in my state and has been for years. I don't really have any
personal gripe about a national registry of gun owners either but I
can understand the case made by those who oppose it. Frankly, doing
background checks and calling in every gun purchase made from a dealer
like they do here in Massachusetts creates the data base required for
a national registry anyway. Your name, permit number, gun type and
digital fingerprint image is taken every time you purchase a gun.
Private sale requirements are lax however. You are supposed to report
the transaction within a certain number of days, but I doubt everyone
does.

However, it still doesn't regulate the 300 million plus guns that
can't be traced now. That's why a law requiring a national registry
would have very little effect on those with criminal intent. Hell, if
private ownership of all guns were banned tomorrow, there's no way of
telling who has them and who doesn't.

I think we need to be a little realistic about gun control. As
starters, here's what I'd propose:

1. Require background checks and permits for gun ownership
nationwide.
2. Require mandatory safety training for issuance of the permit.
The training should be more extensive than a single 5 hour session.
I was very surprised at the sketchy training required in MA in
order to obtain a LTC. It should be much longer and cover more.
3. Require mental health data to be made available in the background
checks. This includes drug addiction or alcoholism.
4. Enforce current laws. Put criminals and violent people away. If
there were fewer on the streets, fewer people would feel the need to
own a gun. That said, we also have to accept the fact that we
don't live in a perfect world, never will, and the right to own a gun
for personal and family defense is justified.
5. Finally ... use your friggin' head. Make damn well sure the gun
isn't loaded when cleaning it. As you get used to handling a gun,
it's very easy to get sloppy about handling it. When cleaning,
checking, loading or unloading, turn off the damn TV, computer and
cell phone. Concentrate on what you are doing, thinking every step
through. I think people that get too cavalier about this are the
ones who cause accidents to happen.


My wife just completed a five hour course in gun safety and firing. How much more time should be
spent in telling a person that every gun is loaded, point only down range, and don't put finger on
the trigger until ready to shoot.

What kinds of things would you add to the course that should require a lot more time.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


My dad was strict.. "There is no such thing as an unloaded gun", and
"More people are killed by *empty* guns....". Of course his point was
never ever point a gun at anything you don't want to destroy, this meant
always, even when the gun was "unloaded". Kind of like some of the
training I do with my kid, muscle train to never ever point the gun at
anything until you are ready to shoot it, just by second nature.

The guy that killed his kid the other day "cleaning" his gun, should go
to jail, period, he is a murderer.... If my dad had raised the guy, his
kid would be alive right now. I am adamant about it. Got a close
relative redneck who thinks I am a pussy to this day because I wouldn't
hold his german lugar in the house cause "I didn't intend to fire it"...
Another thing my dad said, "never touch another mans weapon unless you
are going to fire it"... Never asked him why, kept me alive this long
and Lord knows I have been around enough guns in another life:)

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
 

On 3/27/13 6:30 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:47:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:33:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...


And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

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

The problem is nobody knows for sure how many guns currently exist in
the US. Most states do not require registration so there's no way of
tracing them.

The best estimates are between 200 million and 350 million privately
owned guns. Even if a federal registration law was passed tomorrow,
that's quite an inventory of potentially available guns with no
record
of ownership or traceability.


Yes, true. Does that mean we should just not worry about all the new
ones and all the future deaths that might be prevented. Oh ****, I
might have to fill out a form!

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

I just don't think it makes sense to pass laws just for the sake of
passing laws. Makes the politicians look good as a response to media
hype and emotional public responses but doesn't really do anything to
address the problem.

Personally, I don't have any problem with background checks. It's in
place in my state and has been for years. I don't really have any
personal gripe about a national registry of gun owners either but I
can understand the case made by those who oppose it. Frankly, doing
background checks and calling in every gun purchase made from a dealer
like they do here in Massachusetts creates the data base required for
a national registry anyway. Your name, permit number, gun type and
digital fingerprint image is taken every time you purchase a gun.
Private sale requirements are lax however. You are supposed to report
the transaction within a certain number of days, but I doubt everyone
does.

However, it still doesn't regulate the 300 million plus guns that
can't be traced now. That's why a law requiring a national registry
would have very little effect on those with criminal intent. Hell, if
private ownership of all guns were banned tomorrow, there's no way of
telling who has them and who doesn't.

I think we need to be a little realistic about gun control. As
starters, here's what I'd propose:

1. Require background checks and permits for gun ownership
nationwide.
2. Require mandatory safety training for issuance of the permit.
The training should be more extensive than a single 5 hour session.
I was very surprised at the sketchy training required in MA in
order to obtain a LTC. It should be much longer and cover more.
3. Require mental health data to be made available in the background
checks. This includes drug addiction or alcoholism.
4. Enforce current laws. Put criminals and violent people away. If
there were fewer on the streets, fewer people would feel the need to
own a gun. That said, we also have to accept the fact that we
don't live in a perfect world, never will, and the right to own a gun
for personal and family defense is justified.
5. Finally ... use your friggin' head. Make damn well sure the gun
isn't loaded when cleaning it. As you get used to handling a gun,
it's very easy to get sloppy about handling it. When cleaning,
checking, loading or unloading, turn off the damn TV, computer and
cell phone. Concentrate on what you are doing, thinking every step
through. I think people that get too cavalier about this are the
ones who cause accidents to happen.


My wife just completed a five hour course in gun safety and firing. How much more time should be
spent in telling a person that every gun is loaded, point only down range, and don't put finger on
the trigger until ready to shoot.

What kinds of things would you add to the course that should require a lot more time.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


"Don't marry an asshole like John Herring."

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:22:58 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/27/13 6:30 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:47:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:33:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...


And dippy if there's a required trace on all guns, the gun runners
will have a tougher time peddling their death and destrcution.

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

The problem is nobody knows for sure how many guns currently exist in
the US. Most states do not require registration so there's no way of
tracing them.

The best estimates are between 200 million and 350 million privately
owned guns. Even if a federal registration law was passed tomorrow,
that's quite an inventory of potentially available guns with no
record
of ownership or traceability.


Yes, true. Does that mean we should just not worry about all the new
ones and all the future deaths that might be prevented. Oh ****, I
might have to fill out a form!

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

I just don't think it makes sense to pass laws just for the sake of
passing laws. Makes the politicians look good as a response to media
hype and emotional public responses but doesn't really do anything to
address the problem.

Personally, I don't have any problem with background checks. It's in
place in my state and has been for years. I don't really have any
personal gripe about a national registry of gun owners either but I
can understand the case made by those who oppose it. Frankly, doing
background checks and calling in every gun purchase made from a dealer
like they do here in Massachusetts creates the data base required for
a national registry anyway. Your name, permit number, gun type and
digital fingerprint image is taken every time you purchase a gun.
Private sale requirements are lax however. You are supposed to report
the transaction within a certain number of days, but I doubt everyone
does.

However, it still doesn't regulate the 300 million plus guns that
can't be traced now. That's why a law requiring a national registry
would have very little effect on those with criminal intent. Hell, if
private ownership of all guns were banned tomorrow, there's no way of
telling who has them and who doesn't.

I think we need to be a little realistic about gun control. As
starters, here's what I'd propose:

1. Require background checks and permits for gun ownership
nationwide.
2. Require mandatory safety training for issuance of the permit.
The training should be more extensive than a single 5 hour session.
I was very surprised at the sketchy training required in MA in
order to obtain a LTC. It should be much longer and cover more.
3. Require mental health data to be made available in the background
checks. This includes drug addiction or alcoholism.
4. Enforce current laws. Put criminals and violent people away. If
there were fewer on the streets, fewer people would feel the need to
own a gun. That said, we also have to accept the fact that we
don't live in a perfect world, never will, and the right to own a gun
for personal and family defense is justified.
5. Finally ... use your friggin' head. Make damn well sure the gun
isn't loaded when cleaning it. As you get used to handling a gun,
it's very easy to get sloppy about handling it. When cleaning,
checking, loading or unloading, turn off the damn TV, computer and
cell phone. Concentrate on what you are doing, thinking every step
through. I think people that get too cavalier about this are the
ones who cause accidents to happen.


My wife just completed a five hour course in gun safety and firing. How much more time should be
spent in telling a person that every gun is loaded, point only down range, and don't put finger on
the trigger until ready to shoot.

What kinds of things would you add to the course that should require a lot more time.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.


"Don't marry an asshole like John Herring."

I was thinking that but thought I'd see what you had to say.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

"J Herring" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:47:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

2. Require mandatory safety training for issuance of the permit.
The training should be more extensive than a single 5 hour session.
I was very surprised at the sketchy training required in MA in
order to obtain a LTC. It should be much longer and cover more.


My wife just completed a five hour course in gun safety and firing.
How much more time should be
spent in telling a person that every gun is loaded, point only down
range, and don't put finger on
the trigger until ready to shoot.

What kinds of things would you add to the course that should require
a lot more time.

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

Much more time in handling, loading, firing and cleaning of different
popular gun types.
Much more on general awareness of things like how far a round travels
for different gun types.
How to properly and safely "carry".
How to safely deal with jammed guns or "stovepipes".
Review of pertinent laws related to gun ownership and transfers.
Much more range time and instruction, especially for those who are new
to guns.

Finally, there should be a test. A real one, not a phony self
correct, self grade type thing like the one I took.

I can probably think up a few dozen more.

My oldest son and his wife both received their LTC in Massachusetts
before relocating to South Carolina.
Neither of them had any experience at all with guns. They took a
course that lasted for a month, meeting two or three times a week. 20
hours of instruction, then they spent 3 Saturdays at a range shooting
under instruction for a couple of hours each day.

When I took the course, it was one morning ... four hours of
"instruction" and one hour at the range. He covered the basics that
any idiot would know. The state has a checklist of items to be
covered, from handling guns to road rage. In many cases the
instructor just read the checklist off to us so he could claim he
covered them all.

I've learned more by reading by myself and from talking to experienced
gun owners at the range I belong to.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:30:11 -0400, J Herring
wrote:

My wife just completed a five hour course in gun safety and firing. How much more time should be
spent in telling a person that every gun is loaded, point only down range, and don't put finger on
the trigger until ready to shoot.

What kinds of things would you add to the course that should require a lot more time.

==========

Clearing jams, inspection, cleaning, unloading. A high percentage of
accidental discharges occur during one of those four operations.

From there you could go on to strategies for developing speed and
accuracy, range practice, different types of guns, etc.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:57:48 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:20:41 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Well you come across as a ****ing stupid ****, but I try not to bring
it up. I own four. No, I'm not going to list them. One's a handgun,
one's a 20 gauge. Figure it out from there.

Hmmm, I seem to remember Plume bragging about a 20 ga.
Are you thinking about buying a sail boat too?

Who the **** is Plume? A fantasy woman of yours?

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:37:23 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:25:29 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Do you really think the guy selling stolen guns really gives a ****
who filled out the last 4473 on it?
The same would be true of the guy buying it.

For all time? The gun will never break will never get sold to a pawn
shop, will never do anything except continually circle around with
criminals, even after they're killed by the cops during their violent
rampage? Give me a ****ing break.

So you really think a guy with a gun he bought on the street will take
it into a gun dealer and register it? They just get passed around
until someone throws it in the river or the cops get it.
If the cops collect it they will either destroy it, put it in the
auction, assuming the number in NCIC is clean or the cop will put it
in his pocket for a throw down gun later.

Passed around? Any citation for that bull****? I can just see some
smack dealer passing around his gun.

Sure. And the cops are all corrupt. You sound like Glen Beck.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:36:40 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:31:21 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to
press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective
counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually
knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally
opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they
don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you
advocate.

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

Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others.


Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though.

So you support prop 8 then?

Huh? Clearly unconstitutional. What does that have to do with people
dying from guns? Oh, I get it homosexuals are threatening.

Keep trying to twist your way out of it but you're a right wing freak,
and this just makes it obvious.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:38:52 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:33:16 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:12:32 -0400, wrote:


The NRA target robocalling the citizens of Newtown is almost as bad as
the idiots from Westboro Baptist.

Did they just call Newtown or did they hit every number in the LATA?
I get NRA robocalls here about once a month.

Sometimes they hit every number in the phone book, other times they
start with a prefix and hit all 10,000 numbers.

So, they're stupid and a bunch of assholes. Great combo.

That pretty much describes any robo call operation.

Really? So, then it's your crowd.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:44:48 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:44:29 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

Sometimes they hit every number in the phone book, other times they
start with a prefix and hit all 10,000 numbers.

Did you READ the article?

Yes, it said nothing about the scope of the robocall campaign only
that people in Newtown got called. It didn't even say if they were
only people on the NRA donors list.



But they cannot do any wrong. The ****ing NRA are blood sucking scum
that only give a **** about where their next gun mouthful comes from.

Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
 

"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:57:48 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:20:41 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Well you come across as a ****ing stupid ****, but I try not to
bring
it up. I own four. No, I'm not going to list them. One's a handgun,
one's a 20 gauge. Figure it out from there.

Hmmm, I seem to remember Plume bragging about a 20 ga.
Are you thinking about buying a sail boat too?

Who the **** is Plume? A fantasy woman of yours?

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

Hmmmmmm. How did you know "Plume" is a woman?