Gun Registration?

[G-Man]

You know, I find myself drawn to this topic and thread for a few reasons. One of which is how 2 folks who generally believe in the same idea can get so worked up over a minor disagreement. It reminds me of religious conflicts that have torn our world apart on more than one occasion. Folks start out near the middle on a topic and after a few rounds of discussion they find themselves at further and further apart and it starts to break down.

I find that when all else fails you just need to let a child touch the fire to teach them it’s hot.

We have all tried to make our points, folks have read and responded, it’s time to let the learning begin.

For what it’s worth, I think the majority of current gun owners will always have a firearm in their home for protection, legal or not. I like to believe that these same people will teach their children about gun ownership and influence their political views. I have faith in the system but there are times when it really tries my patience.

And just in case anyone has forgotten, the topic was bill H.R. 45 (a bill that would require a person to obtain a license to own a firearm) and to date no one here has posted support for it. :thumright

[Gisteppo]

Be careful with this statement:

Your side

I don't have a side. I lean progressive, but I don't claim party.

I love to quote Gerbals,

Joseph Goebbels

The democrats want to shut down talk radio because, except for Fox TV, it is the only Conservative opposition anymore. With the liberal media getting tingling feelings up and down their legs, is it any wonder why people are believing the story line that is being presented. More importantly, mix a little truth into the mix and it makes the lie seem plausible.

The only outlet actually putting out stories on "shutting down talk radio" is conservative media outlets like EIB, Fox, etc. There has been no legislation brought forth, nor committee hearings that would indicate this process even starting. Don't let the issue become muddled because of a perceived threat.

I don't like any single media, I get my news across a broad spectrum and fact-check those things that concern me so I know the truth behind the reporting. Everyone should do the same.

t is not that .375 rounds are being sent to war, it is that the production lines that make the .375 have been converted over to the military rounds, .223, 9mm, etc.

Seems like a good reason to have a shortage to me.

Montana wants to allow guns to be made, and apparently kept, in Montana, and because this means that no trade crosses state boarders, they would not, by proposed Montana law, be subject to registration.

I desperately hope that this either dies at the desk of Gov Schweitzer, or that it is shown to be at odds with Interstate Commerce Trade laws. Without some sort of border security to protect its neighbors, this seems like a tremendous can of worms. If the gun is built in a fashion that is legal in all 50 states, why would one need to go around the law? What weapon is so necessary to the Montana way of life (I was a resident at one point) that it must be built and not be legal elsewhere?

There are those that call you the extremest, and of course there are those that call me that same thing.

Extremism isn't debate. Extremism is voicing action which will bring harm to others....

E

[Gisteppo]

And just in case anyone has forgotten, the topic was bill H.R. 45 (a bill that would require a person to obtain a license to own a firearm) and to date no one here has posted support for it.

It also died in committee roughly day 3, P1 of the post!!

E

[zen leecher aka Bill W]

I think in the future I will spend my discussion time on the thread for "catch and release" musky record.

[Gisteppo]

Zen, that will stifle one more voice. I like to hear your opinion.

E

[swedefish4life1]

[Mike Carey]

Those who enter the "Off Topic Zone" need to be prepared for rising blood pressures. That's why I don't wander over here too much either. That said, I appreciate that after 6 pages of back and worth it hasn't broken down into verbal attacks and cursing. And it appears guys can still maintain their WL.com friendships intact after some pretty intense back and forth.

Thank you all for keeping it civil.

[Anglinarcher]

Be careful with this statement:

Your side

I don't have a side. I lean progressive, but I don't claim party.

I should have stated more clearly, those that lean your way. I, like you, do not belong to a party. For most of my voting live, I have subscribed to unaffiliated. I vote more moderate, lean conservative, but on specific issues I do cross over the line. I would hope that any intelligent person would do that. As I have mentioned before on other topics, what is considered liberal or conservative now was often considered just the opposite in the past, and may be considered opposite in the future.

I love to quote Gerbals,

Joseph Goebbels

While I would have liked that you quote more then just that snippet, I do appreciate you correcting the spelling and providing the entire name. The reason I love to quote Joseph Goebbels is for the irony of it. He proves how someone can be so brilliant, and yet so evil. One could probably make a good argument they he alone proves that evil exist. Nevertheless, his brilliance was demonstrated so clearly in his ability to control the media and in his ability to convince people that bad was good.

The democrats want to shut down talk radio because, except for Fox TV, it is the only Conservative opposition anymore. With the liberal media getting tingling feelings up and down their legs, is it any wonder why people are believing the story line that is being presented. More importantly, mix a little truth into the mix and it makes the lie seem plausible.

The only outlet actually putting out stories on "shutting down talk radio" is conservative media outlets like EIB, Fox, etc. There has been no legislation brought forth, nor committee hearings that would indicate this process even starting. Don't let the issue become muddled because of a perceived threat.

You mean that the only media talking about it is the media threatened. Still, the same media has documented the Democrats that have and are trying to impose the so called "fairness doctrine" in one form or another. Personally, if they want to do it, I say go for it, but impose it on all media, not just the ones they don't agree with. You are correct, no legislation is yet proposed, and therefore it has not made it into committee, but the trial balloons have been floated, and if we don't shoot them down, the legislation is next.

I don't like any single media, I get my news across a broad spectrum and fact-check those things that concern me so I know the truth behind the reporting. Everyone should do the same.

We agree on this point.

t is not that .375 rounds are being sent to war, it is that the production lines that make the .375 have been converted over to the military rounds, .223, 9mm, etc.

Seems like a good reason to have a shortage to me.

Again, we agree.

Montana wants to allow guns to be made, and apparently kept, in Montana, and because this means that no trade crosses state boarders, they would not, by proposed Montana law, be subject to registration.

I desperately hope that this either dies at the desk of Gov Schweitzer, or that it is shown to be at odds with Interstate Commerce Trade laws. Without some sort of border security to protect its neighbors, this seems like a tremendous can of worms. If the gun is built in a fashion that is legal in all 50 states, why would one need to go around the law? What weapon is so necessary to the Montana way of life (I was a resident at one point) that it must be built and not be legal elsewhere?

You really can't have your cake and eat it to. Either gun control is a states right, or it is not. I suspect that Montana is doing this (don't know how far it has gone) to make a point, and I doubt it will gain momentum at this time. But, if a state has a right to control guns beyond the federal mandates, then do they not also have the right to not control them? Additionally, beyond the interstate commerce trade laws, which are alluded to in the US Constitution, what control does the Federal Government have over guns. In short, either Gun Control is a States Rights issue and Montana and New York can do as they will, or it is Federal Issue and the 2nd Amendment controls.

There are those that call you the extremest, and of course there are those that call me that same thing.

Extremism isn't debate. Extremism is voicing action which will bring harm to others....

True enough, but please note that both "debate" and "voicing" are essentially the same, it is the intent that changes things. Worse yet, intent is not possible to actually divine unless there is a call to arms. Even then, if such a call to arms (pun intended) was made, then would Thomas Payne, Benjamin Franklin, and so many of the founding fathers be called extremest?

Note that I indicated that both of us are called Extremist, but let me make it clear at this time, I CONSIDER NEITHER OF US EXTREMIST. We are actually two educated people that are taking opposite sides of this argument, in an attempt to educate both sides.

Given another topic, we might actually switch sides. Ya got to love debate.

[Gisteppo]

Still, the same media has documented the Democrats that have and are trying to impose the so called "fairness doctrine" in one form or another.

Show me an example.

True enough, but please note that both "debate" and "voicing" are essentially the same, it is the intent that changes things. Worse yet, intent is not possible to actually divine unless there is a call to arms. Even then, if such a call to arms (pun intended) was made, then would Thomas Payne, Benjamin Franklin, and so many of the founding fathers be called extremest?

They were extremists in the eyes of Mother England, no doubt. Difference being their actions were treason against the Queen. If you were to commit the same acts that they did, you should probably have another country all brewed up to move into.

E

[Anglinarcher]

Still, the same media has documented the Democrats that have and are trying to impose the so called "fairness doctrine" in one form or another.

Show me an example.

True enough, but please note that both "debate" and "voicing" are essentially the same, it is the intent that changes things. Worse yet, intent is not possible to actually divine unless there is a call to arms. Even then, if such a call to arms (pun intended) was made, then would Thomas Payne, Benjamin Franklin, and so many of the founding fathers be called extremest?

They were extremists in the eyes of Mother England, no doubt. Difference being their actions were treason against the Queen. If you were to commit the same acts that they did, you should probably have another country all brewed up to move into.

E

I'll dig up some examples for you soon. I am pretty tied up this week, so give me a little time.

And you are correct about treason. I have sworn to protect our country from all enemies, external and internal, so I am not about treason. Of course, some consider the blatant abuse of the constitution we currently have as treason. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.