Mass Shooting - A Patriot Exercising Their Constitutional Right in Brooklyn..

NumbersDude wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Have you ever considered that this is just another boogeyman in your head that doesn’t really exist? Sure there are people on the internet that will yell and shout, but has there ever actually been any kind of realistic threat to your ability to own a gun? There hasn’t been. The truth is that you won this argument a long long time ago. There is no need for you to have this fight anymore. You won. It’s over. No one is going to stop you from owning whatever gun you want. In your head I believe that you know this, but you fight about it anyway because once again, it’s just a made up boogeyman that people use to rile you up because the arguments are useful to them.

Well, I live in CA where there are new gun restrictions imposed on law abiding citizens almost yearly.
I love living in CA. This is where I grew up, but the laws are so restrictive its difficult to get ammo. There are restrictions on certain types of guns and even an approved pistol roster.
And you are right I can get anything I want because I have legal residency in AZ. But many people can’t set up residency in a state less draconian laws.

You lessen the effect of the word "draconian" by using it in this manner.

Trapper Gus wrote:I'm still waiting for the gun supporters to find one rational reason to create such high death rates from their hobby.

Pandemic
Inflation
Economy
Lack of mental health
Social media
Racism
Hate.
Failed drug war
Organized crime

NumbersDude wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:I'm still waiting for the gun supporters to find one rational reason to create such high death rates from their hobby.

Pandemic
Inflation
Economy
Lack of mental health
Social media
Racism
Hate.
Failed drug war
Organized crime

He said rational reason.

The pandemic is not a reason to kill someone.
Inflation is not a reason to kill someone.
The economy is not a reason to kill someone.
Lack of mental health is not a reason to kill someone.
Social media is not a reason to kill someone.
Racism is not a reason to kill someone.
Hate is not a reason to kill someone.
Failed drug war is not a reason to kill someone.
Organized crime is not a reason to kill someone.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

NumbersDude wrote:

Someone said a boogeyman incident was rare- and yet it happened to a member here.

If you dont like guns, fine, why restrict someone elses legal ability to own them. People have different reasons for owning guns.

Have you ever considered that this is just another boogeyman in your head that doesn’t really exist? Sure there are people on the internet that will yell and shout, but has there ever actually been any kind of realistic threat to your ability to own a gun? There hasn’t been. The truth is that you won this argument a long long time ago. There is no need for you to have this fight anymore. You won. It’s over. No one is going to stop you from owning whatever gun you want. In your head I believe that you know this, but you fight about it anyway because once again, it’s just a made up boogeyman that people use to rile you up because the arguments are useful to them.

I'm not worried about anyone coming to take my guns. I do slightly worry about my ability to own "guns that I want" due to things like magazine restrictions and media coming up with snazzy terms like "assault rifle." But even that doesn't concern me all that much.

What annoys me is the plethora of laws and minutia that a law abiding citizen has to master in order to exercise this "constitutional right." A person like NumbersDude has to know Federal law, CA state law, possibly CA municipal law, AZ law.... it's ridiculous. Want to drive from Michigan to Maine and take your guns? Have a nice trip, but you better be damn sure to read up on New York state law in case you're pulled over. Or what about the guy who legally did everything right when checking his gun on a flight, but his flight got diverted to New Jersey, and he was arrested?

I understand that a large portion of the population believes we have a gun violence problem in America. And no one likes seeing little kids get shot on the news. But enacting all of these little local laws and restrictions is just stupid. It hurts the average citizen and the criminals don't care anyway.

Trapper Gus wrote:I'm still waiting for the gun supporters to find one rational reason to create such high death rates from their hobby.

High death rates from our hobby? I don't think our hobby's death rates are very high at all.

Now crime rates are pretty high. But since my hobby isn't "crime" I don't see the connection.

Shootings are never a big deal for gun owners until they or one of their relatives are shot.

If The Frozen One loses his unthawed life to gun fire so be it.  He seems to be aware of what damage guns can do to innocents and doesn’t give a shit.  Hence I don’t give a shit about how he meets his end.  

It does bother me when people are going about their business at school, at work, shopping or sitting in their home and are wounded or die due to gun violence.

GRR Spartan wrote:Shootings are never a big deal for gun owners until they or one of their relatives are shot.

If The Frozen One loses his unthawed life to gun fire so be it. He seems to be aware of what damage guns can do to innocents and doesn’t give a shit. Hence I don’t give a shit about how he meets his end.

It does both me when people are going about their business at school, at work, shopping or sitting in their home and are wounded or die due to gun violence.

Yes. We should do more to prevent crime and catch criminals. I agree. If we could get a handle on all of this crime, maybe I wouldn't need so many guns?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Have you ever considered that this is just another boogeyman in your head that doesn’t really exist? Sure there are people on the internet that will yell and shout, but has there ever actually been any kind of realistic threat to your ability to own a gun? There hasn’t been. The truth is that you won this argument a long long time ago. There is no need for you to have this fight anymore. You won. It’s over. No one is going to stop you from owning whatever gun you want. In your head I believe that you know this, but you fight about it anyway because once again, it’s just a made up boogeyman that people use to rile you up because the arguments are useful to them.

I'm not worried about anyone coming to take my guns.  I do slightly worry about my ability to own "guns that I want" due to things like magazine restrictions and media coming up with snazzy terms like "assault rifle."  But even that doesn't concern me all that much.

What annoys me is the plethora of laws and minutia that a law abiding citizen has to master in order to exercise this "constitutional right."  A person like NumbersDude has to know Federal law, CA state law, possibly CA municipal law, AZ law.... it's ridiculous.  Want to drive from Michigan to Maine and take your guns?  Have a nice trip, but you better be damn sure to read up on New York state law in case you're pulled over.  Or what about the guy who legally did everything right when checking his gun on a flight, but his flight got diverted to New Jersey, and he was arrested?

I understand that a large portion of the population believes we have a gun violence problem in America.  And no one likes seeing little kids get shot on the news.  But enacting all of these little local laws and restrictions is just stupid.  It hurts the average citizen and the criminals don't care anyway.

Are a lot of law abiding citizens arrested driving through New York with guns and/or arrested leaving airports (or in airports) in New Jersey?

NigelUno wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

I'm not worried about anyone coming to take my guns.  I do slightly worry about my ability to own "guns that I want" due to things like magazine restrictions and media coming up with snazzy terms like "assault rifle."  But even that doesn't concern me all that much.

What annoys me is the plethora of laws and minutia that a law abiding citizen has to master in order to exercise this "constitutional right."  A person like NumbersDude has to know Federal law, CA state law, possibly CA municipal law, AZ law.... it's ridiculous.  Want to drive from Michigan to Maine and take your guns?  Have a nice trip, but you better be damn sure to read up on New York state law in case you're pulled over.  Or what about the guy who legally did everything right when checking his gun on a flight, but his flight got diverted to New Jersey, and he was arrested?

I understand that a large portion of the population believes we have a gun violence problem in America.  And no one likes seeing little kids get shot on the news.  But enacting all of these little local laws and restrictions is just stupid.  It hurts the average citizen and the criminals don't care anyway.

Are a lot of law abiding citizens arrested driving through New York with guns and/or arrested leaving airports (or in airports) in New Jersey?

I guess that depends upon your definition of "a lot."

I've certainly heard of it happening, yes.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Are a lot of law abiding citizens arrested driving through New York with guns and/or arrested leaving airports (or in airports) in New Jersey?

I guess that depends upon your definition of "a lot."

I've certainly heard of it happening, yes.

What is your definition of "a lot"? Can you cite some examples?

Thanks in advance.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Shootings are never a big deal for gun owners until they or one of their relatives are shot.

If The Frozen One loses his unthawed life to gun fire so be it. He seems to be aware of what damage guns can do to innocents and doesn’t give a shit. Hence I don’t give a shit about how he meets his end.

It does both me when people are going about their business at school, at work, shopping or sitting in their home and are wounded or die due to gun violence.

Yes. We should do more to prevent crime and catch criminals. I agree. If we could get a handle on all of this crime, maybe I wouldn't need so many guns?

The us police budget makes it the third largest military in the world, behind the us and China. What more did you have in mind because I’m pretty sure simply getting more cops won’t be effective at a certain point

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Yes. We should do more to prevent crime and catch criminals. I agree. If we could get a handle on all of this crime, maybe I wouldn't need so many guns?

The us police budget makes it the third largest military in the world, behind the us and China. What more did you have in mind because I’m pretty sure simply getting more cops won’t be effective at a certain point

Huh. OK. Guess I'll just have to keep my guns, then.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

The us police budget makes it the third largest military in the world, behind the us and China. What more did you have in mind because I’m pretty sure simply getting more cops won’t be effective at a certain point

Huh. OK. Guess I'll just have to keep my guns, then.

Which, as I said, no one is trying to stop you from doing so you sound like a lunatic

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Huh. OK. Guess I'll just have to keep my guns, then.

Which, as I said, no one is trying to stop you from doing so you sound like a lunatic

I sound like a lunatic because I'm doing something that no one wants to prevent me from doing and I'm not worried about it?

OK. Interesting take.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

The us police budget makes it the third largest military in the world, behind the us and China. What more did you have in mind because I’m pretty sure simply getting more cops won’t be effective at a certain point

Huh. OK. Guess I'll just have to keep my guns, then.

How many guns do you own?

NigelUno wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Huh. OK. Guess I'll just have to keep my guns, then.

How many guns do you own?

None-of-your-business-teen.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

How many guns do you own?

None-of-your-business-teen.

Did Obama take some of them away?

You getting back to me on those NY/NJ things you talked about? Or just going to let your credibility take a hit on those also?

NigelUno wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

None-of-your-business-teen.

Did Obama take some of them away?

You getting back to me on those NY/NJ things you talked about? Or just going to let your credibility take a hit on those also?

Of course he didn't. I have never once in my life feared that the government would take away my hypothetical firearms. To even suggest such a thing is possible in the U.S. is absurd.

And no, I'm not going to be your Google bitch. If you want to understand the topic more, you can do your own research. But I'll throw you bone. You want to research the case "Revell v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 10-236."

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Did Obama take some of them away?

You getting back to me on those NY/NJ things you talked about? Or just going to let your credibility take a hit on those also?

Of course he didn't. I have never once in my life feared that the government would take away my hypothetical firearms. To even suggest such a thing is possible in the U.S. is absurd.

And no, I'm not going to be your Google bitch. If you want to understand the topic more, you can do your own research. But I'll throw you bone. You want to research the case "Revell v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 10-236."

Why are you afraid of answering the simple question of how many guns you own?

And why did you bring up NY/NJ as an example of government oversight if you don't want to discuss it?

NigelUno wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Of course he didn't. I have never once in my life feared that the government would take away my hypothetical firearms. To even suggest such a thing is possible in the U.S. is absurd.

And no, I'm not going to be your Google bitch. If you want to understand the topic more, you can do your own research. But I'll throw you bone. You want to research the case "Revell v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 10-236."

Why are you afraid of answering the simple question of how many guns you own?

And why did you bring up NY/NJ as an example of government oversight if you don't want to discuss it?

I simply don't feel the need to share that information with random interwebz strangers. It's bad enough that certain government authorities can find that information. I don't really see the point in telling you.

I brought up Revell v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 10-236 as an example of what I found frustrating as a legal firearm owner. If you would like to discuss it, with me, or anyone else, you should educate yourself on the case. It's an interesting one.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Why are you afraid of answering the simple question of how many guns you own?

And why did you bring up NY/NJ as an example of government oversight if you don't want to discuss it?

I simply don't feel the need to share that information with random interwebz strangers. It's bad enough that certain government authorities can find that information. I don't really see the point in telling you.

I brought up Revell v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 10-236 as an example of what I found frustrating as a legal firearm owner. If you would like to discuss it, with me, or anyone else, you should educate yourself on the case. It's an interesting one.

Is it weird that you want to discuss legal gun control, but you don't want to discuss how many guns that you own (on an anonymous message board)? Why not?

You mentioned NY/NJ as some sort of big example of government oversight. You then were hesitant to disclose examples of such. You wanted me to look up examples you cited. You finally found one case from 11 years ago. It's my guess airport gun laws in some states may have been a result of 9/11.

Kind of seems like you took one case and are making it out to be a big deal that really hasn't impacted a large group of people.

NigelUno wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Of course he didn't. I have never once in my life feared that the government would take away my hypothetical firearms. To even suggest such a thing is possible in the U.S. is absurd.

And no, I'm not going to be your Google bitch. If you want to understand the topic more, you can do your own research. But I'll throw you bone. You want to research the case "Revell v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 10-236."

Why are you afraid of answering the simple question of how many guns you own?

And why did you bring up NY/NJ as an example of government oversight if you don't want to discuss it?

Its not anyones business how many guns he owns.
There are people that do not own guns but support gun rights.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:I understand that a large portion of the population believes we have a gun violence problem in America.

I don't love the way you've chosen to phrase that statement.

NigelUno wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

I simply don't feel the need to share that information with random interwebz strangers. It's bad enough that certain government authorities can find that information. I don't really see the point in telling you.

I brought up Revell v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 10-236 as an example of what I found frustrating as a legal firearm owner. If you would like to discuss it, with me, or anyone else, you should educate yourself on the case. It's an interesting one.

Is it weird that you want to discuss legal gun control, but you don't want to discuss how many guns that you own (on an anonymous message board)? Why not?

You mentioned NY/NJ as some sort of big example of government oversight. You then were hesitant to disclose examples of such. You wanted me to look up examples you cited. You finally found one case from 11 years ago. It's my guess airport gun laws in some states may have been a result of 9/11.

Kind of seems like you took one case and are making it out to be a big deal that really hasn't impacted a large group of people.

Exactly how many firearms I may or may not own is irrelevant. Whether I have one or fifty one, the same laws apply. It's no more germane to this conversation than to ask how many sex toys your wife owns.

I listed a pretty well known example of how gun laws in this country trip up otherwise law abiding citizens. I gave you the case name and number. Those laws are still relevant today, and the same thing could happen to you or I. Based upon your reaction to that information, I'm not certain that you're interested in discussing this topic so much as moving goal posts and testing my Google-fu skills. And as I mentioned previously, I have zero interest in being your Google bitch.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

High death rates from our hobby?  I don't think our hobby's death rates are very high at all.

Now crime rates are pretty high.  But since my hobby isn't "crime" I don't see the connection.

Crime rates are down. Dude.  

Violent crime, some commited with guns are higher, but still low by historic standards.  (Higher in states  controlled by Republicians than in States controlled by Democratics)

Gun deaths are up, with the highest level being suicide, and the highest level of suicides being middleaged or older white dudes.

Eliminate hand guns as a vast majority of gun deaths are done using that particular version of gun.

Crime rates are plenty high.

Including suicides in any gun control argument is a red herring.

Cameron wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:I understand that a large portion of the population believes we have a gun violence problem in America.

I don't love with the way you've chosen to phrase that statement.

How would you love that I phrase it and still be accurate?

I don't know, exactly. What I was getting at is that the implication of your phrasing seems to be that you don't agree that there is a gun violence problem in America, which is a notion I find ridiculous on its face.

Cameron wrote:I don't know, exactly. What I was getting at is that the implication of your phrasing seems to be that you don't agree that there is a gun violence problem in America, which is a notion I find ridiculous on its face.

I have not expressed any personal opinion within this thread on that topic. My phrasing was to suggest that there are, indeed, a group of people within this country that don't agree that there is a gun violence problem. I have not claimed to be within such a group.

Cameron wrote:

I don't know what you're trying to get at with your meme.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Cameron wrote:

I don't know what you're trying to get at with your meme.

I shoehorn that in to many conversations in which the word "implication" is used. You have not stated an opinion on the matter, this is true, but I have inferred one from your chosen phrasing. It is possible my inference is incorrect, and it would be trivially easy for you to give your opinion, yet you have conspicuously chosen not to do so thus far, so here we are.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Is it weird that you want to discuss legal gun control, but you don't want to discuss how many guns that you own (on an anonymous message board)? Why not?

You mentioned NY/NJ as some sort of big example of government oversight. You then were hesitant to disclose examples of such. You wanted me to look up examples you cited. You finally found one case from 11 years ago. It's my guess airport gun laws in some states may have been a result of 9/11.

Kind of seems like you took one case and are making it out to be a big deal that really hasn't impacted a large group of people.

Exactly how many firearms I may or may not own is irrelevant. Whether I have one or fifty one, the same laws apply. It's no more germane to this conversation than to ask how many sex toys your wife owns.

I listed a pretty well known example of how gun laws in this country trip up otherwise law abiding citizens. I gave you the case name and number. Those laws are still relevant today, and the same thing could happen to you or I. Based upon your reaction to that information, I'm not certain that you're interested in discussing this topic so much as moving goal posts and testing my Google-fu skills. And as I mentioned previously, I have zero interest in being your Google bitch.

This thread has talked about hunting and personal protection. Not sure why your gun ownership on an anonymous message board has to be so mysterious (if you're trying to have an honest discussion about gun ownership).

I don't carry a gun in my luggage, so the same thing couldn't happen to me. If I did, I would make myself aware of any applicable laws that I might have to follow.

YOU brought up very specific examples of government oversight (as if they occurred frequently). Yet you can only name 1 case in NJ and can't name any cases for your driving through NY scenario. Again...YOU brought these up.

If you want to make a case that law abiding citizens are being ridiculously harmed by government oversight AND you give specific examples of what you say is oversight, then don't get all pissy when you're asked for examples of such...and just deflect.

Cameron wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

I don't know what you're trying to get at with your meme.

I shoehorn that in to many conversations in which the word "implication" is used. You have not stated an opinion on the matter, this is true, but I have inferred one from your chosen phrasing. It is possible my inference is incorrect, and it would be trivially easy for you to give your opinion, yet you have conspicuously chosen not to do so thus far, so here we are.

Would you like to know my opinion? All you need to do is ask.

NigelUno wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Exactly how many firearms I may or may not own is irrelevant. Whether I have one or fifty one, the same laws apply. It's no more germane to this conversation than to ask how many sex toys your wife owns.

I listed a pretty well known example of how gun laws in this country trip up otherwise law abiding citizens. I gave you the case name and number. Those laws are still relevant today, and the same thing could happen to you or I. Based upon your reaction to that information, I'm not certain that you're interested in discussing this topic so much as moving goal posts and testing my Google-fu skills. And as I mentioned previously, I have zero interest in being your Google bitch.

This thread has talked about hunting and personal protection. Not sure why your gun ownership on an anonymous message board has to be so mysterious (if you're trying to have an honest discussion about gun ownership).

I don't carry a gun in my luggage, so the same thing couldn't happen to me. If I did, I would make myself aware of any applicable laws that I might have to follow.

YOU brought up very specific examples of government oversight (as if they occurred frequently). Yet you can only name 1 case in NJ and can't name any cases for your driving through NY scenario. Again...YOU brought these up.

If you want to make a case that law abiding citizens are being ridiculously harmed by government oversight AND you give specific examples of what you say is oversight, then don't get all pissy when you're asked for examples of such...and just deflect.

How many examples would I have to give to satisfy you? Is it two? Five? Ten? I mean, let's cut through the goal post bullshit and lay down some ground rules.

As to the number of firearms I may or may not own, how does that impact the discussion here? Please elaborate. If I own too few does that mean my points aren't relevant? If I own too many am I "one of those people?" What would be a "good" answer to your question, in your opinion. How many SHOULD I own? Again, please be as specific as possible. TIA.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

This thread has talked about hunting and personal protection. Not sure why your gun ownership on an anonymous message board has to be so mysterious (if you're trying to have an honest discussion about gun ownership).

I don't carry a gun in my luggage, so the same thing couldn't happen to me. If I did, I would make myself aware of any applicable laws that I might have to follow.

YOU brought up very specific examples of government oversight (as if they occurred frequently). Yet you can only name 1 case in NJ and can't name any cases for your driving through NY scenario. Again...YOU brought these up.

If you want to make a case that law abiding citizens are being ridiculously harmed by government oversight AND you give specific examples of what you say is oversight, then don't get all pissy when you're asked for examples of such...and just deflect.

How many examples would I have to give to satisfy you? Is it two? Five? Ten? I mean, let's cut through the goal post bullshit and lay down some ground rules.

As to the number of firearms I may or may not own, how does that impact the discussion here? Please elaborate. If I own too few does that mean my points aren't relevant? If I own too many am I "one of those people?" What would be a "good" answer to your question, in your opinion. How many SHOULD I own? Again, please be as specific as possible. TIA.

‘Hey guys. Don’t drive from Michigan to Maine!’
- Why not?
‘Google it!’

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Cameron wrote:

I shoehorn that in to many conversations in which the word "implication" is used. You have not stated an opinion on the matter, this is true, but I have inferred one from your chosen phrasing. It is possible my inference is incorrect, and it would be trivially easy for you to give your opinion, yet you have conspicuously chosen not to do so thus far, so here we are.

Would you like to know my opinion?  All you need to do is ask.  

If you need the foreplay of me teasing it out of you before your big reveal, then sure.

What do you think, Bredo? Does America have a gun violence problem?

NigelUno wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

How many examples would I have to give to satisfy you? Is it two? Five? Ten? I mean, let's cut through the goal post bullshit and lay down some ground rules.

As to the number of firearms I may or may not own, how does that impact the discussion here? Please elaborate. If I own too few does that mean my points aren't relevant? If I own too many am I "one of those people?" What would be a "good" answer to your question, in your opinion. How many SHOULD I own? Again, please be as specific as possible. TIA.

‘Hey guys. Don’t drive from Michigan to Maine!’
- Why not?
‘Google it!’

Not interested in answering my questions? Pity. Well, no, not really. You're dishonest in your debate here, and I really have little interest in your games.