Durbin's Reply

[luvhuntin]

JPH

I`m sorry but your opinion sounds way too nevil chamberlain for me to be comfortable with. any paper agreement that can be pushed into existence can just as readily be pushed out of existence.

[quote="JPH"
I'm just a but worried about some of the company we keep, as gun lovers. I listen to the conversations and there seems to be a callousness toward the loss of life, racism and an unhealthy fear of big brother. I really think we'd be better off without this crowd. All I'm asking for is some reason and open discussion.[/quote]

And your better than the quote above,

you have no clue how hard it was for me to swallow the fact that I was willing to stand on the so called wrong side of this debate because of my belief that the constitution is one of the greatest miracles to ever be witnessed. please do`nt get petty because your hitting turbulence, we would all probably sign on to your gun control regs if you were the one setting them but your not.

now i`m back to my hole and my phone. after getting over the flu i have decided bending legislators ears is where i need to put my time in.

[Woods Walker]

I'll let this gentleman speak for me. He does it so much better.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGw_OiNS ... r_embedded

[kellory]

I'll let this gentleman speak for me. He does it so much better.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGw_OiNS ... r_embedded

Well said, Woodsie.

[JPH]

I'll let this gentleman speak for me. He does it so much better.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGw_OiNS ... r_embedded

Okay WW, I watched your video. I've seen it before and it is very compelling.

Now you watch mine. viewtopic.php?f=51&t=39011

[Woods Walker]

I guess LaPierre was right......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/3 ... d=webmail1

This happened YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, and while I watched TV for 2 hours last night and had the radio on I heard not ONE WORD about it, not ONE. And this is tragically in the aftermath of Sandy Hook and all the hand wringing and navel gazing that accompanies it.

Gee.....I wonder why? No one killed, and it doesn't support the gun banner's agenda? Not enough body count to make it interesting?

[hot tamale]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The banter on here is good and healthy, love to see it. I thought I would chime in here a bit.
In Milwaukee, Wi- Sheriff David Clark is telling the citizens to arm themselves for protection. He had to cut back his staff last year by 150 officers and now the response times are way up. He wants the citizens to be able to fight for themselves, to defend themselves. He is a firm believer that if criminals think we are armed, they are less likely to try and over power us or rob us.

I saw this on the news a few days ago and cannot find it on any video feeds. But here is a sheriff telling the people to arm themselves because the law enforcement has been depleted due to budget cutbacks.

On another note here, the whole discussion about what should or shouldn't be banned. If you give 'em an inch, they take a foot! this is the premise for which law abiding citizens do not want any bans on anything. If we make certain stipulations to ban anything, it is much easier for the opposition to just amend their criteria to include more and more weapons as they would have their foot in the door, invading our 2A rights.

So with all of this in mind and I know this probably isn't going to be viewed by many of you as being along the same lines, but it is to me:

This is sort of like including crossbows as not legal or should not be used by hunters.
Just because it's one group of hunters trying to make law on what other hunters should and/or shouldnt' be able to use for hunting, the anti-gun nuts are doing the same thing. why? because they don't like what we have or think that we shouldnt have them because it's not the way they do things. It's one group trying to regulate another.
We as hunters, should first pull together and not divide on our issues as this has been and/or will become fodder for anti hunters, anti-gun and anti everything groups.

It is my belief that anyone buying a gun, should have to wait for a thorough background check and that a 3 week to a month wait instead of 3 days waiting should be imposed. you can still have the gun if you pass the background check.
The reason for this is because i have seen several nut bags that want to kill their cheating spouses, go to the store, wait 3 days, get the gun and then kill them along with others (it's happened here in the milwaukee area 3 or 4 times last year). this 3 week to 1 month cooling off period i think may help deter some of the nut jobs.

also, if you have anyone under the age of 18 in your home, you should be required to have your weapons with some type of trigger locks on them. if your child takes one of those guns and uses it to kill someone, hold up a store, etc, the owner of the gun should be held responsible.
Also, if your child or persons living in your home are deemed with some type of mental disorder, the same rules would apply here as well. Defining what mental disorders are dangerous would have to be determined by someone other than me, but i believe the last school shooting was a mentally diagnosed kid, the columbine kids had access to weapons in their homes and lord only knows what kids have access to now days.

but by holding the owners of the guns accountable for keeping the weapons locked up, trigger locks, ammo in separate locations locked up, should help with many of these problems. it wont stop the crimes themselves from happening right away, but when people realize the penalties associated with not locking up their arms, they will soon enough when prison sentences start getting handed down.
also, for a home protection weapon, to be made handy and not having to unlock a trigger lock when someone has broken into your home-
well they have those safes that have the fingerprint locking mechanism. put that in your drawer by your bed if you care to do so. but then only you can be allowed to open it, not your kids or an intruder. Thats what we have in our house. We practice situations of how to get to the weapon if needed.

just my thoughts.

[Woods Walker]

Good thoughts, and while I agree with a lot of it the trigger lock part has some flaws.

I have one daughter, and she's been shooting a gun and a bow since she was 8. We live in a semi-rural area and from when she was about 12 years old I showed her were we keep the LOADED firearms we keep for home defense, which include my wife's 20 gauge and a 9mm handgun. She had shot and was familar with both. (I gave her the 9mm when she moved out of state to start her career...) The other firearms I have are in a gun safe.

Trigger lock was she was under 18? And maybe find her raped and dead? I don't think so.

I started gun hunting when I was 16. I had a .22 and a shotgun. I kept them in the closet in my bedroom. I was able to have those weapons because my father drilled the personal responsibility angle into me from a young age. No trigger lock needed. Maybe times are different now.

Bottom line...it's about personal responsibility. If you think that your child cannot be trusted with a firearm then by all means lock all of them up. But this is not a "one size fit's all" type of deal. Not at all.

[Woods Walker]

I'll let this gentleman speak for me. He does it so much better.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGw_OiNS ... r_embedded

Okay WW, I watched your video. I've seen it before and it is very compelling.

Now you watch mine. viewtopic.php?f=51&t=39011

I did J'per, and it sounds like us on here! Again, it comes down to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Here's a question......would YOU buy a watch, or a stereo, jewelry or anything else from someone in a parking lot who you don't know? I know you wouldn't, and neither would I. In fact over the years I've had people approach me in supermarket parking lots offering me a great "deal" on just these type of items out of the back of a van. So I told them no thanks and called the police. Now if I wanted to buy a sell an item to my uncle, or my friend who I go to church with, I'd do that without a moment's hesitation. Guns are no different. Make people responsible if they buy or sell ANYTHING that's been stolen, or to someone they have suspicions about. Any transaction you make needs to be backed up with paperwork, and if I were selling a firearm it would be ONLY to someone I knew or that I could verify I could be comfortable with. But I'd d the same thing with a chainsaw.

I know you want to make things better. We ALL do. And I commend you for having a soul and a conscience and I know you are deeply concerned and bothered by all this. As you said we agree on most all of this, and for me at least, ESPECIALLY the part about how as a culture we are gravely ill. But restricting the very people who are the SOLUTION to the problem is NOT the way to go, especially when the restrictions would have done nothing to prevent the tragedies.

Now...do I want background checks? YES! NO ONE wants a person who is a criminal or deranged to have a firearm OR a vehicle for that matter. The question is how to do that without infringing on the rights of sane, law abiding Americans. You can stop at any gas station, swipe a striped credit card and in mere SECONDS it reads it and tells you if you have enough money to pay for the sale. They should be able to do that with a similar card that goes into a national database to see if you have a record or have been assessed as unstable. That would be for new sales and sales to strangers. Maybe for private sales a stranger would have to get some kind of print out from local law enforcement or some other source to show the seeler that the buyer was indeed OK. Even Obama has left an "out" in his latest royal edict that sales between relatives are OK without a check.

But I guess this is another "agree to disagree" story!

But keep at it, because although you make my brain hurt, you do make me think, and you also helped me strengthen my position!

[Deebz]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The banter on here is good and healthy, love to see it. I thought I would chime in here a bit.
In Milwaukee, Wi- Sheriff David Clark is telling the citizens to arm themselves for protection. He had to cut back his staff last year by 150 officers and now the response times are way up. He wants the citizens to be able to fight for themselves, to defend themselves. He is a firm believer that if criminals think we are armed, they are less likely to try and over power us or rob us.

I saw this on the news a few days ago and cannot find it on any video feeds. But here is a sheriff telling the people to arm themselves because the law enforcement has been depleted due to budget cutbacks.

On another note here, the whole discussion about what should or shouldn't be banned. If you give 'em an inch, they take a foot! this is the premise for which law abiding citizens do not want any bans on anything. If we make certain stipulations to ban anything, it is much easier for the opposition to just amend their criteria to include more and more weapons as they would have their foot in the door, invading our 2A rights.

So with all of this in mind and I know this probably isn't going to be viewed by many of you as being along the same lines, but it is to me:

This is sort of like including crossbows as not legal or should not be used by hunters.
Just because it's one group of hunters trying to make law on what other hunters should and/or shouldnt' be able to use for hunting, the anti-gun nuts are doing the same thing. why? because they don't like what we have or think that we shouldnt have them because it's not the way they do things. It's one group trying to regulate another.
We as hunters, should first pull together and not divide on our issues as this has been and/or will become fodder for anti hunters, anti-gun and anti everything groups.

It is my belief that anyone buying a gun, should have to wait for a thorough background check and that a 3 week to a month wait instead of 3 days waiting should be imposed. you can still have the gun if you pass the background check.
The reason for this is because i have seen several nut bags that want to kill their cheating spouses, go to the store, wait 3 days, get the gun and then kill them along with others (it's happened here in the milwaukee area 3 or 4 times last year). this 3 week to 1 month cooling off period i think may help deter some of the nut jobs.

also, if you have anyone under the age of 18 in your home, you should be required to have your weapons with some type of trigger locks on them. if your child takes one of those guns and uses it to kill someone, hold up a store, etc, the owner of the gun should be held responsible.
Also, if your child or persons living in your home are deemed with some type of mental disorder, the same rules would apply here as well. Defining what mental disorders are dangerous would have to be determined by someone other than me, but i believe the last school shooting was a mentally diagnosed kid, the columbine kids had access to weapons in their homes and lord only knows what kids have access to now days.

but by holding the owners of the guns accountable for keeping the weapons locked up, trigger locks, ammo in separate locations locked up, should help with many of these problems. it wont stop the crimes themselves from happening right away, but when people realize the penalties associated with not locking up their arms, they will soon enough when prison sentences start getting handed down.
also, for a home protection weapon, to be made handy and not having to unlock a trigger lock when someone has broken into your home-
well they have those safes that have the fingerprint locking mechanism. put that in your drawer by your bed if you care to do so. but then only you can be allowed to open it, not your kids or an intruder. Thats what we have in our house. We practice situations of how to get to the weapon if needed.

just my thoughts.

I can get behind tougher background checks and longer waiting periods. Sure, it'd be a pain my butt, but it isn't going to keep me from obtaining the weapons that I decide are necessary for me to have. At the same time, they may actually be able to prevent some people who are unstable from obtaining a weapon and perpetrating a gun crime. Though I did read that the Newtown shooter had actually been denied the ability to purchase weapons based on background checks... not sure if that is fact or not.

Trigger locks and rules about gun storage in your own home? No way. If you follow this logic, then if you have children under 21 in your house you should have to have all alcohol locked up at all times. Any children under 16, your car keys need to be locked up. Any prescription medication should be in a box accessible by the fingerprint of only the person whose name is on the scrip...

[Woods Walker]

Provacative testimony from an immigrant to America.....he get's it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... Y2JR92Scmk