dagblog - Comments for "Gun Shows Ban Loaded Guns, Magazines"

I disagree with your

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:58:41 +0000

I disagree with your contention that many here at dag would like to ban guns. I think those who would like to ban guns are a decided fringe element in American society and extremely rare here at dagblog.

If you look again at what I actually said I think you might agree that I did not paint the contributors here with such a broad brush as you suggest. Emphasis in the original except bold.

"I have asked a couple times what situation strong advocates here for these regulations would ultimately wish to see. The question has been completely evaded each time. I suspect that is out of a desire among at least some not to make the honest response that they would like to see all guns removed from common access. Whether that is correct or not here at Dag , it is believed by very many people around our country to be the case."

And,In case it seems otherwise to anyone, I want to say that I would describe, as a group, those in our country who would like all guns removed in exactly the same terms as I used above; Honest, law abiding, honorable, tax-paying, family loving, patriotic, community minded, law abiding, educated, intelligent, bla bla bla.

I don't accuse anyone of being disingenuous because they did not reply to my question. Besides the good reason you gave there could be a million other reasons besides the one I suggested only as a likely possibility and only to make a point about the whole gun control issue. Saying that nobody responded is certainly not an accusation that someone was lying.

For the record, since statements like this get misunderstood so often, ...

I know just what you mean. Cheers.

VA Its worth a lot more to

Resistance — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:00:14 +0000

In reply to Well, for what it's worth, I

VA Its worth a lot more to me than you could ever realize.

The only time I was hearing from you, is when we disagreed.

Shame really, because I agree with you most of the time.

Well, for what it's worth, I

Verified Atheist — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:39:04 +0000

In reply to I've been places and seen the

Well, for what it's worth, I completely agree it's a disgusting habit, as is smoking.

I've been places and seen the

Resistance — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:27:53 +0000

In reply to I'm not a chewer (or dipper)

I've been places and seen the red solo cups left behind and get knocked over.

Who wants to clean up some ones spit?

Or the little ones thinking it cola. ICK!

Funny how some can pack it in, but can't pack it out.

My mother used to say "They were born in a barn"

PIGS!

Nasty disgusting habit.

I'm not a chewer (or dipper)

Verified Atheist — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:34:21 +0000

In reply to But I am from the south;

I'm not a chewer (or dipper) myself, but I've been around plenty. I've seen the red solo cups that serve as receptacles for their spit. I've never seen any dippers spit "all over the place", except for out in nature.

I would be happy if someday

artappraiser — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 21:06:32 +0000

In reply to Good responses. The kind of

I would be happy if someday we have the equivalent of automobile driver's license testing for guns ( like Japan) The former is far from perfect, as every parent who fears letting their 16 year old drive alone after they just finished driver's ed and passed the state test can attest. But it's something, better than just letting them learn by doing by themselves, and the whole licensing system itself allows for rules of operation with consequences. Without automobile drivers licenses, we'd have a way smaller population and a helluva lot fewer cars to boot, lotta used car parts and junk cars maybe.

Licensing each and every gun and gun owner also gives you a national database of serial numbers that can be tracked when stolen. The same with automobiles does not prevent car theft or people using stolen cars in crimes, but the results are way better than nothing. It's very easy for law enforcement to track them when stolen and when used in a crime.

As to the Second Amendment argument regarding such a database strikes me as ridiculous: how long would take for a dictator government to take all the guns away? Before they do so, surely there would be the armed conflict Second Amendment nuts visualize. It would require obedience from every single law enforcement person in the country, highly unlikely. (Comes to mind it would of course be much worse if "they" tried to take all the cars away!)

I disagree with your

ocean-kat — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 20:40:36 +0000

In reply to Your stand on gun control

I disagree with your contention that many here at dag would like to ban guns. I think those who would like to ban guns are a decided fringe element in American society and extremely rare here at dagblog. I generally take people at their word absent some clear indications they are being disingenuous. I wonder why you're here if you believe many here are disingenuous. I wouldn't bother discussing issues with people if I thought they were lying to me. For the record, since statements like this get misunderstood so often, I'm not suggesting you should leave, its just puzzling to me.

I tend to avoid broad questions like, what would you like to see done on gun control. Not because I'm trying to hide my true views but because such a broad question requires an equally broad and comprehensive answer, a blog. I don't have time to write a blog so I restrict myself to comments on some of the details on issues rather than the full and comprehensive analysis of a blog. Perhaps other's feel likewise.

Its true that many of the far right gun owners think democrats want to ban guns. I think they are being duped by the NRA and other gun organizations to increase the power of those organizations. I disagree that this is a broad belief among gun owners. I say that as a hunter and a gun owner. Polls show that a vast majority of NRA members, gun owners, and the public at large favor universal background checks and a ban on large capacity magazines. There is significant majority support for other legislation.

Your stand on gun control

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:10:31 +0000

In reply to The current debate on gun

Your stand on gun control indicates that your prime motive is, like any rational non-maniac, making our country a safer place to live. Good luck. I share that desire. Even though I may be crazy, I assure you that I am not a maniac.

"The current debate on gun safety does not seek to totally disarm Americans,..."

I read that declarative sentence with heavy emphasis on the word 'current'. I have asked a couple times what situation strong advocates here for these regulations would ultimately wish to see. The question has been completely evaded each time. I suspect that is out of a desire among at least some not to make the honest response that they would like to see all guns removed from common access.

Whether that is correct or not here at Dag , it is believed by very many people around our country to be the case. Many honest, law abiding, honorable, tax-paying, family loving, patriotic, community minded, law abiding, honest, educated, intelligent people feel they have the 'right' to own a firearm as well as a good reason to do so and also believe that there is a push among many to deprive them of the legal protection to do so. Many of those people believe that they must defend against being pushed towards the proverbial 'slippery slope'. A cliche can refer to something correct.

Admitting a desire to remove all guns would sharply weaken current arguments about regulation. Agreeing that people have a right to own firearms for personal protection and for hunting and sport shooting, which makes them available to most any maniac, makes the argument that these regulations will measurably help protect us from maniacs very weak indeed.

If cops in a region are brutal or corrupt, guns will not solve the situation, a better administration of the city or county is required.

What is the word "if" even doing in that sentence?

What then, if another

Resistance — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:35:46 +0000

In reply to The current debate on gun

What then, if another administration refuses to act any better, acting with impunity, as the opinion I offered before suggested could happen; a rare occurrence but a possibility?

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those

exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed —

where the government refuses to stand for reelection

and silences those who protest;

where courts have lost the courage to oppose,

or can find no one to enforce their decrees.

However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

THEN WHAT DO "WE" DO; NCD?

There are too many family

Resistance — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:16:18 +0000

In reply to Resistance, are we like

There are too many family health issues at the present time, to devote the time responders deserve.

Besides, the current issues of our times are well covered by the mast head crew. As explained in the “About Us” section of daglog

But seriously, dagblog is six guys and two woman who don't get enough attention in their personal lives and want to post anonymously about issues of common concern, to get your attention.

They offer their opinions to get our attention and I offer mine in response.

If you NCD want to make stereotypical blogs, you will find I am very opinionated and won’t remain silent. Isn’t that the way we all should respond to bias and stereotyping?