Nancy

[The Cynic]

Okay, we get the point. Your pro gun. Enough already. I'm pro gun too but how about you state your own opinion for once instead of just posting links to other articles. I haven't checked out most of them because frankly I don't put much faith in them. Even though I am pro gun I accept and realize that anything put out by one faction is usually just meaningless propoganda. Be it the NRA, Big Tobacco, the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, or whatever, the authors are going to slant their articles to a particular viewpoint and ignore any contrary opionions (or ridicule them). Lets hear your views and reasons, not someone elses.

[G30man]

Agreed. I think when she referred to nocturnal sexual fantasies in another thread she was expressing her ideas. http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Mikey

[Spider]

Thanks Cynic, my sentiments exactly. But try and look at this from the NRA point of view;
Why would they want people to form their own opinions when they are perfectly willing to follow them like sheep and spread anything and everything they write as if it were true?

[This message has been edited by Spider (edited 08-30-2000).]

[dkiefner]

So spider, did you just burn your NRA card or have you always been such an independent thinker?

[Spider]

Originally posted by dkiefner:
So spider, did you just burn your NRA card or have you always been such an independent thinker?

I've always been an independent thinker, which is why I let my NRA membership lapse back in 1985. I think the NRA only represents gun manufacturers, not gun owners. Responsible gun owners don't oppose reasonable regulations on the sale and ownership of firearms. The NRA does.

[dkiefner]

"Reasonable" regulations have been around for a number of years spider. They simply have not been enforced, or lack effectiveness.

I have been a responsible firearms owner since way longer than your membership lapse, so I don't think much of your statement about responsible ownership.

So now, why don't you enlighten us as to precisely what is "reasonable" in your opinion.

[Niteshift]

I'm waiting to hear this answer.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[dkiefner]

Here is probably what spider considers "reasonable". Check out: http://www.handguncontrol.org

Look at press releases for the " 2000 Report Card" - it tells which states are failing to save children's lives. Yeah, they're responsible people alright. Standing around and wringing their hands to do something for the children.

If this is the crap you believe, then I have to seriously question your ovine status.

[Spider]

Originally posted by dkiefner:

So now, why don't you enlighten us as to precisely what is "reasonable" in your opinion.


As an LEO, you should know that there is no "precise" measure of what is "reasonable". Suffice to say that I am of the opinion that someone who opposes any and all gun laws is unreasonable.
Originally posted by dkiefner:
Here is probably what spider considers "reasonable". Check out: http://www.handguncontrol.org

There are certainly zealots on both sides of this issue. Both sides spread some ridiculous "facts", and both sides have their sheep. As an independent thinker, I don't put much credence in what I read in these people's web sites. Your assumption that I adhere to the beliefs found in handguncontrol.org is based on nothing more than my disdain for the NRA. You are hardly one to question anyone's ovine status.

[This message has been edited by Spider (edited 08-30-2000).]

[Niteshift]

I'm still waiting to hear an answer.

[dkiefner]

Well then, if ya can't measure precisely, then just give us a ballpark estimate of what you consider reasonable, spider.

Never said I opposed laws, so at least I'm not unreasonable in your opinion. Although, here in VT, we certainly aren't unduly burdened by all these "reasonable" laws, and by golly, we have the crime rates to show it.

[Spider]

Originally posted by dkiefner:
Well then, if ya can't measure precisely, then just give us a ballpark estimate of what you consider reasonable, spider.


Not excessive or immoderate. Within due limits.

[dkiefner]

Thank you, Mr Webster. I believe asking what you considered reasonable regulation was a pretty straightforward question, and one which you have yet to answer.

So will you continue to dance, or answer? If you don't want to answer, that's OK too. I hereby let you off the hook.

[Spider]

Originally posted by dkiefner:
I believe asking what you considered reasonable regulation was a pretty straightforward question....

Oh. You didn't ask that. Well then, backgound checks are reasonable.

[dkiefner]

Well I disagree, spider.

Background checks are unreasonable:

-The "law" is easily circumvented.
-It is a federal mandate without funding.
-The computers are frequently down.
-Ineligible persons don't go to gunshops to purchase their weapons.

[Niteshift]

I agree with background checks. They take 2 mins on the phone. The NRA SUPPORTED background checks. Ok, we've been doing them for years. So I guess that's kind of a dead issue.

Dave, let me rephrase the question for our evasive friend: What measures not already being done do you think we need to adopt?

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[TM]

-Ineligible persons don't go to gunshops to purchase their weapons.


Yep, they go to gun shows, pawn shops, or other places they can illegally purchase a concealed weapon.

The Brady Act hasn't shown any significant decrease in lowering gun homicide since it was enacted in 1994. It has dropped the suicide rate in seniors by about 6% though....if that really means anything..

The truth is, if someone wants a gun bad enough they will get one, whether it is through a dirt pawn shop, stealing one, "borrowing" one from a friend, HAVING a friend BUY ONE FOR THEM, using "gunshow loopholes", or any other illegal way of getting them.

[Niteshift]

Gun show loopholes is a crock. You still have to do the background check at a gun show for a commercial sale. If it is a private sale, one person to another, you don't. Of course, you don't have to do that for private sales away from the gun shows either, so that's kind of a hollow arguement.

Background checks also apply in pawn shops.

BTW TM, you don't buy a concealed weapon. You buy the weapon, then you may or may not conceal it.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[Spider]

Originally posted by Niteshift:
What measures not already being done do you think we need to adopt?


You presume too much. I never suggested in any way that I favored any new gun laws. But you seem to forget that the NRA vigorously opposed the current laws which require background checks, they still do, and they oppose any and all gun control measures, no matter how reasonable. I am certainly not the only NRA member who was lost when it became clear, as it is to most Americans polled, that the NRA is fanatical and unreasonable.

To tell the truth, I don't follow this issue too closely anymore. I was never in the NRA because of the politics. I think gun control is a relatively unimportant subject. I'd hate to have to give up my guns, but if and when the time comes, they won't need to pry them from my cold dead fingers.

If Gun Control is what gets your blood boiling(and it looks as though it does) then you can chat nice with Nancy or pick fights at handguncontrol.org. I don't really care enough about about it to get into a prolonged debate about it.

[TM]

Concealable weapon........happy?

[Nancy]

"As an LEO, you should know that there is no "precise" measure of what is "reasonable". Suffice to say that I am of the opinion that someone who opposes any and all gun laws is unreasonable."


All GUN control laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

[JKT]

TM,

In Texas any way, Pawn shops hold Federal Firearms Licenses and ARE (legally) "Gunshops".

------------------
Good luck and be safe

Jack

[THE BRONZE]

But you seem to forget that the NRA vigorously opposed the current laws which require background checks, they still do, and they oppose any and all gun control measures, no matter how reasonable.

Spider, I have to point out that the reason the NRA opposed the current background check system was because they favored a better law. I think it was called the Stagers/Leahey(?) Bill. It required instant background checks, and funding for the necessary equipment. Furthermore, they don

[Niteshift]

spider, I didn't presume anything. I asked a question. Actually, Dave asked a question, you danced around for a few posts, I rephrased it and now you tell me I'm presuming.

Why didn't you say that in the first place?

Jim beat me to the answer. The NRA has supported numerous gun control measures. You are dead wrong on the issue if you maintain that they oppose all of them.

Nancy, I appreciate your zeal, but the unwillingness to be reasonable hurts our cause rather than helps it. There is no reason for you to own a fully automatic weapon, so I think that is a good law. There is no reason for a convicted felon to have a gun, so that is a good law. There's 2 gun control laws that are good and reasonable. If you can't agree that they are, you're not thinking rationally.



------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[Nancy]

Nancy, I appreciate your zeal, but the unwillingness to be reasonable hurts our cause rather than helps it. There is no reason for you to own a fully automatic weapon,......

Why not? Who decides what is right for me to own? You? The Government?

>so I think that is a good law.

"shall NOT be infringed....
Where in the 2A is there a list of firearms we the people should not own?

>There is no reason for a convicted felon to >have a gun, so that is a good law.

I agree felons should not be allowed to own firearms , but these are criminals, I am NOT..
Well.. not yet anyway, if Clinton and osie O have their way all law abiding gunowners will be criminals....


There's 2 gun control laws that are good and reasonable. If you can't agree that they are, you're not thinking rationally.

I'm thinking CONSTITUTIONALLY! http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Niteshift]

If you think that everyone shoudl have free and unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons, you and I have little more to say to each other. If you believe that, you are, in my book, a zealot. I'm finally learning to not argue with zealots because they won't let reason get in the way of the blind pursuit of their chosen cause.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[Nancy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Niteshift:
[B]If you think that everyone shoudl have free and unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons,

did I say EVERYONE?

[Niteshift]

Ok then, clarify it. Who should have access to fully automatic weapons?

BTW, when I said everyone, I of course was excluding those who can't leagally own firearms to begin with.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[The Cynic]

Nancy the problem with your attitude is that your too much of a zealot for the cause. You remind me of St. Just in the drug forum's. Your so far to the right on your cause that you refuse to see other points of view. I lean to the right on this issue but compared to you I'm a left winger and I actually find more common ground with them. I believe in certain restrictions and background checks. Until you soften your stance a little and realize that your going to have to compromise no one is going to take you seriously. I don't even though I agree with you in principle. Your points lose merit and credibility because you are so hardline.

[Leroy Pyle]

But you will have to agree that the zealots are the ones that determine the whereabouts of that middle-of-the-road normalcy that we all search for, and the area that law enforcement is charged with protecting.

The extremists may be disturbing, but I am thankful for the extremist Right who tend to keep the pressure on the extremist Left and give me a middle that I can respect.

Of course, my wife is constantly telling me that I have some wierd friends :-). And I tell her to thank God for the wierdos of 1776!

Leroy (testing newly registered features)

Originally posted by The Cynic:
Nancy the problem with your attitude is that your too much of a zealot for the cause. You remind me of St. Just in the drug forum's. Your so far to the right on your cause that you refuse to see other points of view. I lean to the right on this issue but compared to you I'm a left winger and I actually find more common ground with them. I believe in certain restrictions and background checks. Until you soften your stance a little and realize that your going to have to compromise no one is going to take you seriously. I don't even though I agree with you in principle. Your points lose merit and credibility because you are so hardline.



------------------
<A HREF="http://www.2ampd.net
" TARGET=_blank>http://www.2ampd.net
</A> The Second Amendment Police Department
To Protect & Serve ALL Citizens!

[Niteshift]

Still waiting Nancy.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[Jessica]

Niteshift &lt;------ You have the patience of Job my friend. http://www.officer.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
The Armed Citizen (http://www.thearmedcitizen.net/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro)

[This message has been edited by Jessica (edited 09-05-2000).]

[Monty Ealerman]

Niteshift:

What a person needs is the right tool for the task at hand. While it's true that auto weapons are not usually the right tool for civilian purposes, it's also true that one cannot reliable predict that they never will be. I think that for a good indicator of what the average civilian should have access to, one need only look at the most extreme weapons available to the average police officer. Most departments don't issue full auto weapons for normal use; however, such weapons are available if the situation calls for it.

Nancy:

I don't think you're an unreasoning zealot; I think you're right.

Regards,

Monty

[Leroy Pyle]

Niteshift:

While waiting for Nancy's reply, can I ask where you would draw the line in denying certain firearms to law-abiding citizens? Is it only automatic fire, or would type of action, capacity of magazine, or rate of fire cause you concern?

Also, do you have the same concerns for others in your profession? Are some cops more capable of responsible firearms ownership than others?

Thanx,
Leroy

Originally posted by Niteshift:
Still waiting Nancy.

[Niteshift]

I've always been against a limitation on magazine capacity limits. It was a stupid law then, it's a stupid law now.

Rate of fire? That's kind of a moot point. It doesn't matter that your AR-15 will shoot X number of rounds per minute if you mags only hold 30 rounds. Hell, I watch Jerry Miculek (sp?) fire 6, reload and fire 6 more in the time I'd fire 6 in. So, a lot of that will deal with the shooter, not the gun.

Where do I draw the line? Pretty much at fully automatic weapons. Despite Monty's contention that they're readily available to the cops, that's not always the case. They're readily available to some officers in some depts. But if that officer is 40 miles away, it's little comfort to you when the guy shooting at you has one. I get a semi-auto carbine, rifle and a pump shotgun to supplement my handguns. I have, in the past, been assigned fully-auto weapons. Civilians do not need them. You can't justify it to me. Some will say they don't need to justify it to me. That's fine, but you will if you want my support.

How do most cops feel? Survey after survey shows most cops oppose gun control, oppose mag capacity limits, support instant background checks (although they feel they're not being prosecuted enough) and support manadatory sentences for gun crimes.

Nancy, are you ever going to answer?



------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[THE BRONZE]

I wouldn't hold my breath, Niteshift. I think she is more into posting links and leaving. For all her posts, she has shared very little with us.

------------------
Jim

[Niteshift]

Very, very true. Look for more on the topic soon.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[The Cynic]

My personal take on Nancy is that she is the alter ego of some other regular poster. Badgeman would have been my first guess but he's no longer with us so now I'm not sure.

[tcsd1236]

Nite, I've fired fully automatic weapons..no big deal in a way, always glad the gov't is paying for those bullets, 'cause I couldn't afford that. I think you probably have been there and know what I mean.
On the other hand, think about this: we've made full-auto a boogey man because its got some sort of ooohhhh and aaaaahhhhh quality to it by being out of the general publics scope of general familiarity. It has this forbidden fruit quality to it, so to speak. At the dawn of the last century, they were marketing the Thompson as a full auto pest control item to farmers. What a shift in public awareness, eh?
What bothers me about the full auto thing is that Reagan simply BANNED further production of full auto weapons for sale to civilians. there had been no major outbreak of civilian full auto weapons used in crime; he simply said he didn't see why the public needed that sort of thing...just like you are. The result is that prices for legal civilian full auto weapons went through the roof, making it that much more unlikely that most civilians will never get to handle a full auto weapon outside military or police service.
My feeling is that if a person can pass the rather strenuous background check and pay the tax stamp, fine, let them buy the damn thing. There's never been a crime committed by a lawfully owned full auto civilian weapon. That track record speaks volumes, and when the gov't STILL took away that right in spite of no criminal acts, it shows what their true intent was and is.
There is now a similar hue and cry from the anti's over 50 cal weapons and scopes over
6 power. Hillary is saying that any scope over 6 power is a sniper scope and should be banned, and that no one needs a 50 cal. Where will the line be drawn? It seems to be a slippery slope, and I for one do not want the Feds deciding what I "need"
Spider:
You never did answer the question, except to throw out instant check. Well, if thats the limit of your gun control wish list, we HAVE that. Are you then willing to concede that all our pending gun control legislation is unneeded?
And as for the Felon bar on gun ownership, let me point out that there seems to be an increasing "felonization" of laws...more and more crimes are being pushed into the felony level. While I certainly wouldn't want violent felons to have access to firearms, is it necessary to ban someone convicted of a white collar felony from gun ownership? Let me give an example. Nick Nolte the actor is a convicted Felon. Back during Viet Nam he forged draft cards for his buddies. Wow. Now theres a true violent criminal folks.