1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Fellow gun owners: hide your property

Discussion in 'The Atrium' started by GreenBlood, Jan 10, 2013.

  1. Darth Garfunkel

    Darth Garfunkel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    522
    Ratings:
    +495
    Only problem is The American gun owner lost the arms race with the federal government 200+ years ago.
     
  2. Darth Garfunkel

    Darth Garfunkel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    522
    Ratings:
    +495
    As a gun owner myself I still think it's a little weird that there were less licensing procedures for buying my guns than there was for a person getting a job at great clips.

    That said I think the number of private guns in this country makes any kind of confiscation program a little out of the question.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Chicocheese

    Chicocheese Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    615
    Ratings:
    +209
    1) I DO agree to some kind of mental health checks, however that leads to a scary proposal: Who, when, where, and why? I mean, how do you enforce that kind of mental health screening? Do you require every citizen to have a psychological screening every 2 years? I would NOT be down for that. Also, who would be issuing these mental screenings? A government appointed psychologist? No thanks, too easy to corrupt.

    2) Assault is not a type of weapon, it is a behavior. MOST people who own a fully automatic weapon are responsible people. You cannot blame them for what is going on out there with these mass shootings. Some mentally unstable kid killed his mother, stole her guns, and committed an unspeakable crime. It is terrible, but should everyone else who owns this kind of weapon be held responsible?

    I mean, if you DO hold them responsible, then you should also ban cars, eating utensils, cigarettes, alcohol, and more.

    Some people drive drunk, MOST do not. Should we ban cars because some cannot be responsible enough to not drive while intoxicated?

    There are tons of obese people in this country. Should we ban forks, spoons, and knives because it makes it easier for those SUPER obese people to pile a ton of junk food into their mouths? Eventually they die from heart failure and diabetes. Should we ban those aforementioned tools for eating because some people push it to the limit?

    Cigarettes kill MILLIONS yet we do not ban them. EVERYONE knows what they do, but the government will not regulate that industry. They simply say "You cannot buy any until you are 18, then after that you are on your own and you can make your own decisions."

    Alcohol ties into drunk driving, but ALSO some people are just drunks. They drink and drink and drink until their livers give out and they die. They also die of alcohol poisoning. Yet, again, not banned.

    So why in the blue hell are we talking about banning fully automatic weapons? "Well, George Washington never imagined these types of guns!" Boo hoo, the amendment is the amendment. We are allowed to hold these weapons because we do not want our government to rise up and be tyrannical. "Well, that is just SUCH a stretch! That won't happen!" The government is already basically doing what they want when they want. If we had no way to rise up and tell them NO, what will EVER stop them?

    Also, a semiautomatic weapons simply means a gun that fires a bullet when you pull the trigger and then it loads another round into the chamber. Your basic revolver is semiautomatic.

    I am getting burnt out here, I hope this didn't start a flame war. I simple want to try and bring some clarity to all this talk of banning "assault" weapons.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  4. PFanCan

    PFanCan That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,531
    Ratings:
    +880
    "Assault"is, in fact, a type of weapon. It's not just a verb.

    The amendment only gives you the right to bear arms. It does not define which ones. Congress does. That's why in the blue hell we are talking about this. Pay attention if you wish to gain a clue.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Chicocheese

    Chicocheese Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    615
    Ratings:
    +209
    I really wish we could bring George Washington to our present day and let him tell us all what is what.
     
  6. Poppa San

    Poppa San SB I trophy First of four Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,479
    Ratings:
    +1,049
    • Like Like x 1
  7. PFanCan

    PFanCan That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,531
    Ratings:
    +880
    George Washington probably wouldn't have a clue. He was a military commander. He didn't even want to be a politician, but became president reluctantly. He didn't have anything to do with the authoring of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

    Maybe you meant James Madison? He was one of the more famous authors, but there were many others involved ("the framers") who were less famous. Thomas Jefferson, too. He wasn't part of the delegation, but I recall that he was involved.

    I get bummed when Americans know so little about their history. Or, even world history or geography. E.g. On a recent survey, what was the #1 answer from high school seniors on, "What country borders America to the south"?

    ...

    South America.

    DOH!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. NorthWestCheeseHead

    NorthWestCheeseHead Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,113
    Ratings:
    +374
    I really loathe that statement, even more so than PFanCan's lamentation about the average American's woeful knowledge of our country's history. I agree with that point also, but I think it is just a reflection of the more general intrinsic lack of want to retain knowledge that permeates most people under the age of 20. Everyone now is so used to the internet that they feel like they don't actually have to learn anything. They can just look it up if they ever need to. Unfortunately, even more so, most people then just rely on off the cuff knowledge and common misconceptions to enable them to hold their own in discussions.

    My personal dislike for the statement actually is because I think it is a pointless thought experiment being expressed their. Some such form of that thought experiment always rears when personal freedoms are talked about. For one thing say we do bring back Washington - or Madison, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, et al as would be more apt to the conversation; any one of their opinions about what we should do with regard to gun control, much less anything, would be entirely uncredible. Yes; they are the founders of this country and scripted those documents that we all hold near and dear to ourselves. But; they would lack any amount of knowledge about recent events, relevant legal precedents or statistical data, comprehension about the world in which we live today, or the context of our culture currently to make any sort of relevant observation about the current issue.
     
  9. NorthWestCheeseHead

    NorthWestCheeseHead Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,113
    Ratings:
    +374
    Good points, but I'd put forth that Madison of all people would argue against that style of interpretation of the constitution. There have always been two thoughts on the topic; essentially:
    Well it doesn't say we can't - so we can.
    -and-
    Well it doesn't say we can - so we can't.

    I don't think that particular argument has ever been adequately defined. I'd also ask that if some of those established precedents were formed due to a faulty understanding of what is actually in the powers of the government to do; would then those precedents themselves be faulty?
     
  10. tynimiller

    tynimiller Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    458
    Ratings:
    +129
    Violent crimes in Britain have went up % wise since the gun ban, but yes you are right in that gun crimes went down...but isn't that kinda pointless if violent crimes didn't go down?!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,599
    Ratings:
    +1,870
    There is an estimated 1 billion rounds of ammunition sold in the US each month (prior to the CT shooting). How many of those are used for murder? Especially mass shootings? 100/year? How many cars are sold in the US? 1.3M/month. How many of them are used by drunk drivers to kill people? 40/day.

    If the government wants to protect us, banning automobiles would save more lives.

    A gun ban would not make practical sense. There will never be a gun ban as there would be extreme civil unrest. I'm a quiet non-violent type person, yet I would defend my right as an American. And there are millions upon millions who would do likewise. The government bans guns, it ends with either the politicians are removed from office or after millions of dead Americans.

    If it is, as is most likely, just a restriction on 30 round magazines, I expect that. Restrictions and more paperwork to buy guns, fine. As far as mental health checks, it would be a big bite out of personal freedom. The Government having the option of determining which 'thoughts' are appropriate does not sound like a good idea. I say this, mind you, as a person who has a crazy stalker who has tried to kill me on several occasions.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. tynimiller

    tynimiller Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    458
    Ratings:
    +129
    Amish...love the stats...where'd you find them just so I have piece of mind saying them to people.
     
  13. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,599
    Ratings:
    +1,870
    On my cell, just Google ammunition sales 14 billion per year. Lots of places with drunk driving stats. 100/yr is based on only my recollection.
     
  14. Poppa San

    Poppa San SB I trophy First of four Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,479
    Ratings:
    +1,049
    excerpt
    "Dissatisfied with national progress under the Articles of Confederation, Washington advocated a stronger central government. He hosted the Mount Vernon Conference (1785) at his estate after its initial meetings in Alexandria, though he apparently did not directly participate in the discussions. Despite his sympathy with the goals of the Annapolis Convention (1786), he did not attend. But, the following year, encouraged by many of his friends, he presided over the Constitutional Convention, whose success was immeasurably influenced by his presence and dignity. Following ratification of the new instrument of government in 1788, the electoral college unanimously chose him as the first President"

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/delegates/washington.html
    You said it I didn't!
    Bazinga!!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,286
    Ratings:
    +4,132
    that seems a little suspect, can you cite the source?
     
  16. Oshkoshpackfan

    Oshkoshpackfan YUT !!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Ratings:
    +1,453
    If a criminal WANTS a gun, he will obtain one....illegally. Restrictions will only hurt those that are hunters, collectors, and home protecters. Black markets guns will always be available to anyone who puts up the cash without any questioning whatsoever. Even if the gov puts tighter restrictions on being able to purchase a gun with background checks, mental health evaluations, and even go as far as a drug test, that wont stop a criminal.....they don't obtain guns the legal way. This will be a never ending battle and the only ones it will have a negative affect on will be proper gun owners. This will also drive up the prices of guns and ammo for the respectable people who want to own a firearm.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  17. Wood Chipper

    Wood Chipper Fantasy Football Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,056
    Ratings:
    +1,406
    I view banning guns like when alcohol was banned back in 1920. It will be fruitless. The proposal that was put out yesterday said that they would ban sales of assault weapons but any weapons purchased previous to the proposal being approved would be grandfathered in (aka you can keep any weapon as long as it is was purchased already). Anyone who wants a weapon can get one and it wouldn't be too hard.
     
  18. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,599
    Ratings:
    +1,870
    We are a very superficial society that over reacts to any tragedy. We worry about and make radical societal shifts when 25 children are murdered. Well, I have news for you, 100s of children die every week from drunk drivers. I feel for the parents of those CT kids, but is it any less tragic if a child gets run over by a drunk? The CT kids where all in the same place at the same time and the story was sensationalized. But is it the gun's fault?

    We are a nation that has drifted from the whole concept of personal responsibility. It seems we are fastely becoming a country of individual dependents. Relying on our government to take care of us. Cut the dependence. Make people stand up and work for themselves. It fills a person with pride and self respect for him to work and earn a living. But that is not what is expected these days.

    So, you are going to continue down this path of moral decay and the evaporation of self respect. I expect these kind of instances are going to increase. May not be an assault weapons, maybe a high speed vehicle into a crowd. Maybe fires, who knows. But until will get to the real root of the matter, this nation will suffer more and more each year.


    Damn, reading this back, I sure have become cantankerous in my old age. Oh well - maybe the government has a program to take care of me because of that.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,757
    Ratings:
    +2,994
    What does Levi and Melvin think of it? ya know..From the amish mafi on tv?
     
  20. realcaliforniacheese

    realcaliforniacheese A-Rods Boss

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,272
    Ratings:
    +966
    I once belonged the NRA when it was primarily a hunter safety organization and not what it has mutated into today. My Grandfather told me when he was teaching me to hunt that a hunter should never need more than one shot to hit his target.

    To me the notion that private citizens should be allowed to have military assault rifles with high capacity ammo clips. Or that people need high capacity clips for their handguns is insane.

    The notion that Guns are the only thing that keeps the government from, what? enslaving us? holds no water. This whole "Everybody's got to have a gun" mentality is only a couple of decades old. What protected the people before that?

    It's madness I tell you.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  21. Chicocheese

    Chicocheese Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    615
    Ratings:
    +209
  22. Oshkoshpackfan

    Oshkoshpackfan YUT !!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Ratings:
    +1,453
    Liberal from cali ? And please for God sake: It's called a Magazine not a "clip", hence the name for the part of the weapon " magazine well "

    Being a former US Marine, I am fully aware what high capacity magazines and a assult weapons can do in the wrong hands. It's my right to own a hand gun or shotgun or rifle that holds more than one shot. You statement is just plain dumb in my opinion. So, my 30-06 deer rifle should only be able to hold one round? Maybe I wont load 5 rounds into it when i go hunting after all. My ruger P95 9mm that holds 15 rounds in the magazine (not clip, it's called magazine) is much more capable of defending my home from invasion with 15 rounds rather than one, what if there is more than one intruder? Real smart theory ya got there bud. Not to mention my mossberg 500 12. gauge, or my remington 870 12 gauge. These are also for home defense. I take no chances with the security of my family. You of all people should know this, living in cali.......

    I'm just waiting for the day the liberal bunny huggers come knocking on my door to try to take my guns away....locked loaded and waiting.
     
  23. Chicocheese

    Chicocheese Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    615
    Ratings:
    +209
    There will be an all out revolt before that happens. Why do you think Obama is out asking military officers if they would give the order to fire on American citizens? Because he KNOWS he is going to push us to our breaking point.
     
  24. Oshkoshpackfan

    Oshkoshpackfan YUT !!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Ratings:
    +1,453
    ^ when the hell did that fool Obama say that? never heard that. would love to read that.
    It should be MANDATORY that you have served in the armed forces before even becoming a candidate for president....this fool has no clue about military bearing,
     
  25. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,599
    Ratings:
    +1,870
    No comment. Litigation pending.
     

Share This Page