Since we're talking gun control lets see who is real

If guns are registered and the legislature hasn't ordered those lists to be made private, I don't see what the problem is. The owner essentially consented to the disclosure when he bought and registered the gun.

If you don't think the information gathered in the registration process should be public, your beef is with the legislature.

A driver's license is a "public record" .. and so is a "social security card" ...

....... college records, birth certificates, military records, criminal histories...

.... the list is endless.

Posting a list of gun owners is motivated by one goal ...

.... trying to stir up trouble for owners and make them victims of retaliation for owning.

"Scarlet Letter"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Of course that's the whole point. The problem with that line of thinking is many Gun Owners don't care.
Of couse, as a Texans, we live in a different culture than many other States. What works for us might not work in other enviroments where people believe the best defense against any harm is to crawl into the fetal position and beg for mercy.

By the way. If you think College Records are that easy to access, try getting your hands on President Obama's.

Let's see let me post if, how many and the type of guns I own. Maybe where I keep them, if I own them, in my home.

The when I post on facebook when I am going on vacation, someone can come in and steal them.

Not to hard to figure out who you are even on this board, if you know what you're doing. Careful what you post on the web, any place, period.

Of course that's the whole point. The problem with that line of thinking is many Gun Owners don't care.
Of couse, as a Texans, we live in a different culture than many other States. What works for us might not work in other enviroments where people believe the best defense against any harm is to crawl into the fetal position and beg for mercy.
Originally Posted by Jackie S

Maybe non-gun owners understand how unlikely it is that one's home will be invaded while they are in it or how unlikely it is that they will be a victim of a violent crime. Certainly it happens but not as often as certain factions would make you believe.

Do you drive a car? You are approximately twice as likely to die in a car accident as you are by homicide. (CDC data)
Drive a motorcycle? You just increased your odds of dying. (CDC data)
Drive a motorcycle without a helmet? Your odds just soared.
Smoke? Deaths related to smoking in the range of 10x the homicide rate.
Drink to excess? Again deaths due to alcohol abuse much greater than the homicide rate.
Don't exercise or follow a healthy diet? Doing so will do more to probably increase your life expectancy than owning a gun.

The point is that every day of our lives we do things that put our lives at risk at a much higher rate than not owning a gun for our protection. I am in no way suggesting that gun owners get rid of their guns. Just pointing out that us non-gun owners might choose to focus on those factors other than gun ownership that statistically will increase our life expectancy.

What I find unacceptable is that your choices are 1) shooting a firearm wih the intent to kill or 2) "crawling not the fetal position and beg for mercy."

Shirley there is some more civilized ground.

What I find unacceptable is that your choices are 1) shooting a firearm wih the intent to kill or 2) "crawling not the fetal position and beg for mercy."

Shirley there is some more civilized ground. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

My sentiments also.

Then please, tell us what that "more civilized ground" is?

ADT

What I find unacceptable is that your choices are 1) shooting a firearm wih the intent to kill or 2) "crawling not the fetal position and beg for mercy."

Shirley there is some more civilized ground. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I don't who "Shirley" is, but ...

If one is shooting a firearm for hunting purposes, generaly speaking killing the game is preferable to wounding it and thereby allowing it to suffer .... on the other hand ...

if one is shooting a firearm for self-protection, the protection of another, or the protection of property (in defense), generally speaking the shooter ought to be firing the weapon in a manner that stops the offender from doing the act that is considered offensive, and therefore the "intent" is to cause serious bodily injury that will disable the offender and render him harmless or ineffective to complete the offensive act.

That is somewhere on the "force continuum" between ...

fetal position (aka French posture) and intent to kill (UniBomber posture).

I wasn't talking about hunting, though certainly killing is the intent, as is feeding one's self.

You know what I was talking about. Things in this debate aren't black and white, though many of you want to believe it's that way.

Now I can't speak for every gun lover out there, but I can speak for THIS gun control advocate. I don't want your fucking guns.

I also don't want you playing Charles Bronson in "Death Wish." Or George Zimmerman. Or Charles Whitman, if you perceive a threat to your property or someone else's.

That doesn't mean I'm in the fetal position any more than that means you're in the fecal position.

My point is that it isn't 100% either way. To argue that it illustrates the impasse we have in this country, particularly as it pertains to the ultra right wing.

And obviously LL hasn't seen any Airplane movies... so I won't call him Shirley!

Then please, tell us what that "more civilized ground" is? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Well, IMHO...... it is simply the ability to protect what is yours as our Founding Fathers intended in the Constitution of the United States (everyone stand and remove your hats). Juat because I have lots of guns doesn't mean I'm ever going to kill someone with them. But you can damn sure bet I won't hesitate. I'm VERY protective of my BODY (Ferris Bueller's Day off reference). Oh, and I don't shoot to WOUND so the criminal with all the 'rights' can SUE ME FOR EVERYTHING I HAVE BECAUSE HE TRIED TO ENTER MY HOME AND RAPE AND KILL ME. No, not winging anyone unless they can't find me to sue me. Hahaha

That locked door is for YOUR protection, not mine. And my personal favorite; F**k the dog, fear the OWNER.

Until that day: peace, love and happiness!

Well, IMHO...... it is simply the ability to protect what is yours as our Founding Fathers intended in the Constitution of the United States (everyone stand and remove your hats). Juat because I have lots of guns doesn't mean I'm ever going to kill someone with them. But you can damn sure bet I won't hesitate. I'm VERY protective of my BODY (Ferris Bueller's Day off reference). Oh, and I don't shoot to WOUND so the criminal with all the 'rights' can SUE ME FOR EVERYTHING I HAVE BECAUSE HE TRIED TO ENTER MY HOME AND RAPE AND KILL ME. No, not winging anyone unless they can't find me to sue me. Hahaha

That locked door is for YOUR protection, not mine. And my personal favorite; F**k the dog, fear the OWNER.

Until that day: peace, love and happiness! Originally Posted by maxieryan

Works for me!

Things in this debate aren't black and white, though many of you want to believe it's that way.

Now I can't speak for every gun lover out there, but I can speak for THIS gun control

My point is that it isn't 100% either way.

And obviously LL hasn't seen any Airplane movies... so I won't call him Shirley! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

IMO the only reason why this debate is 100% either way is because of the debaters. The issues are gray, and in the middle. When people have an "agenda" they reach for the extremes to makes points in an attempt to marginalize the other side, and vice versa. The fallacy of the tactic is neither side will accomplish much from the discussion, because those in the middle with dismiss them as "fringes" in the discussion.

Nor am I a "junior birdman" ... landings and take-offs vfr with a 125 foot ceiling with no ATC or FBO at site, landing one feathered out of two, landing no gears locked indicated, landing on oxygen in a dead end "valley," and landing and take-off on gravel, grass, and paved roadways, even UTR along coast lines. No reserved seats, no reservations, and no refunds. On the clock.

Er, are you hitting the sauce this early again?

You don't have to be an asshole to own a gun.

But of you're unwilling to openly discuss gun safety and public safety because its your right to pop a cap on someone's ass, then you are.

Maxie I would never rob and rape anybody, and I hope nobody on here would. But I would nibble your thigh. Feel free to defend yourself with your Jedi Pussy Mind Trick!

On one hand, it's an open, interesting and non-abrasive question. However, given the current environment, I'd have to question your motive(s) behind asking such a polarizing and selfish question. The gun debate has few neutral corners and IMO, the upcoming changes are just the beginning of an already preplanned end. Again - IMO - those that are in support (SPs) of changing our current gun laws need to keep these words relatively fresh in their memory: Be careful what you wish for in life.

While SPs faithfully believe changes in our current gun laws (e.g., reduced magazine capacity, no automatic/assault weapons, registration requirements, no private parts transactions, etc.) will bring about meaningful results, there are a few of us that oppose (OPs) such measures not defined by fanaticism, antigovernment ideologies and/or staunch support of/for the 2nd amendment.

My suggestion, regardless of your personal stance, is to educate yourself. What I mean is this - use your own intellectual abilities, research past the surface garbage that most news agencies churn out daily, and formulate your own opinion. . .instead of regurgitating what others have said and/or stated as their beliefs.

Gent