doublegunshop.com - home Forums Is KING BROWN an Anti-Gunner?

mike: you are sounding like you wish to have a serious, respectful discussion here?

however, based upon our other communications on this web site, I quite frankly question your sincerity and your mental stability.

I mean, are you the same mike that started a thread here advocating my permanent banning from posting here?

and are you the same mike, when you get agitated, goes into a repetitive posting pattern that reminds one of a stuck phonographic needle?

cuse me if I appear a little "gun shy" here (pun intended)

If you want to have serious and respectful discussion with me about this topic answer the questions in my previous post.

Otherwise, you are just baiting and trolling.

The issue is, and always has been, that of criminality. Criminals use guns to commit crimes, such is their morality. There are plenty of laws on the books to deal with this, it's just that they are not enforced. What is happening in Chicago is a prime example. In effect, the system is CAUSING the crisis, so the statists can attempt to disarm our population of free and equal citizens. "Fast and Furious" was another example, the Obama administration creating the crisis as a way to rationalize weapons confiscation from law-abiding, free and equal citizens. This is the way totalitarians have always done it, disarm the public so it cannot defend itself from Tyranny. Law-abiding citizens should be able to own military weapons, including fully automatic ones. It is the morality of the person who pulls the trigger and commits the crime that is the real issue, not the weapon.

ok mike. lets give it a try...

first, if you are not familiar with it already, then google the nfa act of 1934, where the federal government restricted the possession of certain classes of firearms.

then research the back ground for why that law was enacted. what was going on the the country in the early thirties that caused the congress and the president to approve such restrictive firearms legislation?

then, just for the fun of it, research the official position of the nra regarding that law at that time.

ken: now your last post had a lot worth while to say...

you get no argument or disagreement here from me with what you posted above.

however, millions of our fellow citizens are fearful of what happens when very destructive firearms get into the hands of criminals. we need to respect their fears, instead of ingnoring them and calling others who do not agree with us, names like libertard, etc.

hell, I don't even know what a libertard is. no one here will tell me.

That is all interesting information and history ed. But you wanted to have a discussion about the benefits of restricting the possession of certain firearms now available:



So lets have that discussion. You can start by defining what guns you would restrict and what those restrictions are. Then we can discuss the "possible benefits".

This is the third time I have asked these questions. If you don't answer them then you are just baiting and trolling.

The Chicago Police are no more capable of controlling criminal access to guns as they are to drugs or even alcohol during Prohibition.
Prohibition was one of the 1st general applications of the law of unintended consequences. The well meaning and generally Christian females(WCTU) who made up the core of this movement thought that if they could eliminate the source of drunkeness that all the social problems associated with it would go away.
When there is a high demand for a product such as alcohol and unfortunately drugs some entrapeneur will step in and meet this demand with a supply. The Primarily Italian Mafia, which was a minor criminal player, until prohibition took off like a rocket and met the demand. The vast majority of society still wanted alcohol and were willing to break the law to get it and did in numbers that can only be imagined.
This was probably the 1st instance of the bulk of the citizenry flaunting a law and I think this led to a disrespect for the law in general that exists today. It also was the springboard for large organized crime which still plagues us.
The gun grabbers some of which we are unfortunaely plagued with here won't be satisfied until every firearm in private hands is confiscated and destroyed.
We currently have 20,000 gun laws at the Federal and State level today NONE of which will in any way deter the gang bangers and dopers on the South Side of Chicago from possessing and illegally using guns.

As an additional point: I'm essentially through with responding to the Libtard gun grabbers here. It's a complete waste of time. I will continue to post information that I believe the majority of the membership here wants to see based upon thd PMs and emails I've received.
I've always had a hard time coping with stupidity and ignorance.

well mike, I will try to answer your questions in the context of the spirit of the nfa of 1934. too bad, you will not take the time to research it...anyway, lets agree for now that restricting is not the same as banning?

as to which specific firearms to restrict? there is no single answer, except that those details should be determined by the governing authority enacting the legislation. the needs of each state and each city are too variable for a blanket recommendation. semiauto handguns with a removeable magazine would be high on many lists, I would suspect; as this particular class of firearms are used in a high percentage of criminal shootings, I would suspect?

what are the benefits? certainly peace of mind for many...plus, many states here in the east restrict hand gun possession. most notably New York and Massachusetts. it has been claimed for years that those hand gun restrictions have resulted in a decrease in the criminal use of hand guns. course there are those that will argue to the contrary...however, logic does dictate that the less of an item there is, then the less it will be utilized, be it for legal or criminal purposes...point is, you can still possess handguns in ny and mass, but it aint easy to do so... so, per capita, those states with hand gun restrictions, have a relatively lower percentage of hand gun possession, than say where you are in texas and hence a lower percentage per capita of criminal shootings with handguns?

sxs: "The gun grabbers some of which we are unfortunately plagued with here won't be satisfied until every firearm in private hands is confiscated and destroyed."

who are these gun grabbers you speak of here? have never seen any member posting here that advocates confiscation and destruction of firearms. certainly not I. and certainly not king...

are you sure you know what forum you are posting on? or are you just playing the old keith game, where, if you tell somebody something enough times they will begin to believe it?

Where do I begin?

If you want to bring the NFA into the discussion please feel free to do so. Please quote it, reference it, quote the 1934 NRA. Knock yourself out.

There has been no argument from me that restrictions are the same as banning. Please stop straw-manning me. Serious and respectful - remember.

We can't discuss the benefits here unless we know what your proposed restrictions are and what firearms they will be applied to. We can't possibly have a debate over any "possible benefits" from "restriction of possession" without defining the restrictions.



If you don't answer these questions now I will know you are just baiting and trolling and not interested in a serious and respectful discussion.