# I work with a gun toting idiot.



## Thesemindz (Feb 1, 2009)

So I'm at work today, and this guy starts bragging about the unregistered firearms he owns. Now, I'm all for firearms, and I'm completely against registration of any kind, but bragging about how you're breaking the law is just dumb. Making sure that everyone around knows how you own multiple firearms which you have failed to register in accordance with state law is stupid. Especially when you are doing it to impress the people around you with how tough you are.

I let the people around me know I own guns, and that my wife knows how to use them. I make vague comments at work about how my wife and I have practiced defending our home against intruders. I do it not to impress anyone, but so that the casual aquaintances around me have some idea that my home and my wife are not easy targets. I'm not against that. 

What I'm against is bragging about how you're flouting the law so that you can impress the people around you. It's stupid and dangerous, and probably a lie. Behaving in that fashion can get you in trouble.

When he started bragging about how he liked to carry his gun tucked into the back of his pants so everyone could see he was armed I had to leave the room.


-Rob


----------



## Carol (Feb 1, 2009)

Bragging about an "Mexican" carry of an unregistered firearm.  Holy Hannah that guy is a motard.  

The guy is the kind of bloody idiot that gives the rest of us (those of us that are interested in self-protection, whether we are gun owners or not) a bad name.

Its also enough to make you wonder if that guy will make one of the Darwin awards list in the future.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 1, 2009)

Just in case I'm misunderstanding something...

There is no requirement for any type of firearm registration in Missouri (except for NFA items). The only licensing is for those who wish to carry concealed. Is that what you're talking about...that he is carrying concealed w/o a CCW? 

That aside...this guy definitely sounds like a total idiot.


----------



## GBlues (Feb 1, 2009)

Yeah he does sound stupid. However, personally I don't tell casual aquaintances anything about whether I have firearms or not. Nor do I tell them how much martial arts I've studied or anything else. If the subject comes up I usually willl respond with, "Well, I don't know how many of know this or not, but I'm a master of mexican judo." and generally they ask, "mexican judo?" and I respond with, " Yeah ju don't know I gotta knife, ju don't know I got a gun." and laugh, and everybody else laughs and we have a good time. Otherwise I'll tell them, " Nah, I quit carrying a gun when I learned to kill a man with my bare hands."  I usually get some good laughs from that one, but I never tell a cop that, I did once when I was 21 and thought I was gonna' go to jail for that joke. LOL! I don't make it a habit to tell people I don't know what I have and don't have. Matter of fact, I don't have any of those things, and feel that I need them. I've two big german shepherds, there ain't nobody getting in my yard, much less my house unless they kill my dogs, and I don't forsee that happening in the middle of the night. You can't see the monsters, as there both black, so I feel secure at night.


----------



## Drac (Feb 1, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> So I'm at work today, and this guy starts bragging about the unregistered firearms he owns. Now, I'm all for firearms, and I'm completely against registration of any kind, but bragging about how you're breaking the law is just dumb. Making sure that everyone around knows how you own multiple firearms which you have failed to register in accordance with state law is stupid. Especially when you are doing it to impress the people around you with how tough you are.
> 
> I let the people around me know I own guns, and that my wife knows how to use them. I make vague comments at work about how my wife and I have practiced defending our home against intruders. I do it not to impress anyone, but so that the casual aquaintances around me have some idea that my home and my wife are not easy targets. I'm not against that.
> 
> ...


 
Carrying an unregistered firearm concealed???That guy sounds like a real tool...Announcing that you're packing is similar to announcing that you hold a blackbelt in some discipline, there is always going to be someone that challenges...


----------



## searcher (Feb 1, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> Just in case I'm misunderstanding something...
> 
> There is no requirement for any type of firearm registration in Missouri (except for NFA items). The only licensing is for those who wish to carry concealed. Is that what you're talking about...that he is carrying concealed w/o a CCW?
> 
> That aside...this guy definitely sounds like a total idiot.


 

Tex, I am glad you got this down.   The registration of firearms is one of the things we are fighting right now.


----------



## tellner (Feb 1, 2009)

My father told me this story _avec bon accent_ when I was young to teach a lesson about reputation:



> One day the famous and wealthy Pierre went to his doctor and said
> 
> "Doctor, I am depressed"
> 
> ...



There aren't thousands of responsible people with guns. There aren't hundreds of thousands of responsible people with guns. There are millions of responsible people with guns. All it takes is one like this clown to confirm every prejudice.

By the bye, registering regular guns is not required in Missouri. If they're automatic weapons, grenade launchers, sawed off shotguns or similar, then there are Federal requirements. But run of the mill pistols and long arms? No. Carrying one in public requires a license. If he's carrying without a license he could really use a visit from the police. This ***-hat is a menace to public safety.

The usual rule is that guns are like underwear. Most of us wear it. But we don't let it show. And particulars of our underwear don't normally come up in polite conversation. Someome who insists on talking about his underwear with strangers or co-workers is at least a bit creepy.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 1, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> Just in case I'm misunderstanding something...
> 
> There is no requirement for any type of firearm registration in Missouri (except for NFA items). The only licensing is for those who wish to carry concealed. Is that what you're talking about...that he is carrying concealed w/o a CCW?
> 
> That aside...this guy definitely sounds like a total idiot.


 
You're right, there isn't any requirement to register _ownership_ but their is a requirement to register _purchase_. He was bragging about aquiring the firearms illegally, so that the government wouldn't know. Ooooohhh. Scary....


-Rob


----------



## just2kicku (Feb 1, 2009)

This guy sounds clueless. Unless he's going to walk around with in his hand, it doesn't do him much good in his belt. He'll probably get the crap beat out of him and get it taken away. Would serve him right.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 1, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> You're right, there isn't any requirement to register _ownership_ but their is a requirement to register _purchase_. He was bragging about aquiring the firearms illegally, so that the government wouldn't know. Ooooohhh. Scary....
> 
> 
> -Rob


 

Illegally, how, exactly? If he purchased them used, then there is (typically) no requirement to register their purchase-though this may differ in Missouri, I don't know. I do know that in most places, you can sell or purchase a firearm as a private citizen, to or from another private citizen, and there is no obligation to record that purchase anywhere. It's how a lot of us wind up having "unregistered" firearms. Of course, they _were_ registered, at the time of their original purchase-they're just not registered to their current owners. All imperfectly legal......


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 1, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Illegally, how, exactly? If he purchased them used, then there is (typically) no requirement to register their purchase-though this may differ in Missouri, I don't know. I do know that in most places, you can sell or purchase a firearm as a private citizen, to or from another private citizen, and there is no obligation to record that purchase anywhere. It's how a lot of us wind up having "unregistered" firearms. Of course, they _were_ registered, at the time of their original purchase-they're just not registered to their current owners. All imperfectly legal......


 

Exactly. Unless you live in occupied territory such as, oh, say, my fair and perfect(ly retarded) home state that has individual gun registration the only paperwork you fill out at the dealer is the federal form 4473.

They can prove an individual *purchased* a firearm on a given date but cannot determine whether they *still possess* it.

In the particular case of our friend with the death wish as outlined in the particular post, I would consider him enough of a 5150 (CA police code for "dangerous to self and others") to rat him out. I would expect the same damn thing done to me if I boasted about carrying, especially in open violation of the law. What kind of person boasts about things like that? No one who should be carrying, for damnsure. 

I'm gonna come right out and say it, however unpopular it makes me, there's more at stake than my popularity, this guy is self destructing the entire image we work so hard to present to those who do not *U*nderstand *T*he *P*roblem.

I'm telling you:

Rat him out.

Before he does anything else or creates any other accident which his behavior is bound to lead to. Get this guy shut down before his negligence or idiocy gets an innocent killed and makes it just that much worse for us.

Flame away.


----------



## Drac (Feb 1, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> This guy sounds clueless. Unless he's going to walk around with in his hand, it doesn't do him much good in his belt. He'll probably get the crap beat out of him and get it taken away. Would serve him right.


 
And runs the risk of having it used against him...


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 1, 2009)

Drac said:


> And runs the risk of having it used against him...


 

Exactly. Even my concealment holster has a retention device even if discovered by accident while grappling.


----------



## David Weatherly (Feb 1, 2009)

Drac said:


> And runs the risk of having it used against him...


 
Agreed, he's asking for trouble.  People who talk stupid usually do stupid things.  I'd certainly be careful around him.

David


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 1, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> You're right, there isn't any requirement to register _ownership_ but their is a requirement to register _purchase_. He was bragging about aquiring the firearms illegally, so that the government wouldn't know. Ooooohhh. Scary....
> -Rob


There is no requirement to register purchase either.  There is the NICS check (Form 4473) but that's only required when purchasing firearms from a  licensed dealer and is not required on private transfers.  
There used to be a "Permit to acquire a handgun" (which is, I will admit, _de facto_ registration).  However, that requirement was repealed in August of last year.  Even when it was in effect, it only applied to handguns purchased within the state, not to those owned by someone who moved from another state (and when it came to private transfers it was unenforceable )

I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this...I just jump on this one when I hear it because I *hate* the fact that many people in the general public are conditioned to think that all guns are/should be registered.  They are usually surprised to find out that they are not and do not need to be (in most states anyway).  I guess it comes from watching too many stupid cop shows and action movies.



tellner said:


> ...No. Carrying one in public requires a license. If he's carrying without a license he could really use a visit from the police. This ***-hat is a menace to public safety.


I do not agree that carrying a firearm without a license is, in and of itself, evidence that the person is a "menace to public safety."  I know several people who possess a very high level of skill and training and are the epitome of responsibility and professionalism.  Unfortunately, they happen to live in states that do not allow them to carry a firearm legally.  Does violating an oppressive law in order to be prepared to defend oneself make one a menace to society? 
At any rate, it's definitely a stupid thing to disclose...If you're going to do it, STFU so you don't attract attention.  This guy apparently isn't smart enough to figure that out.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 1, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> There is no requirement to register purchase either. There is the NICS check (Form 4473) but that's only required when purchasing firearms from a licensed dealer and is not required on private transfers.
> There used to be a "Permit to acquire a handgun" (which is, I will admit, _de facto_ registration). However, that requirement was repealed in August of last year. Even when it was in effect, it only applied to handguns purchased within the state, not to those owned by someone who moved from another state (and when it came to private transfers it was unenforceable )
> 
> I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this...I just jump on this one when I hear it because I *hate* the fact that many people in the general public are conditioned to think that all guns are/should be registered. They are usually surprised to find out that they are not and do not need to be (in most states anyway). I guess it comes from watching too many stupid cop shows and action movies.
> ...


 
Ok, now I understand our confusion. I purchased my last handgun several years ago, when you were still required to apply for a permit to acquire. I didn't realize they had repealed that, and when I looked into it on the internet the information I found still showed it as a requirement. 

So when he purchased the guns, he failed to apply for the permit, but now you don't need one. Does that apply retroactively? Could he still be prosecuted for having failed to apply when it was still a requirement?


-Rob


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 1, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Ok, now I understand our confusion. I purchased my last handgun several years ago, when you were still required to apply for a permit to acquire. I didn't realize they had repealed that, and when I looked into it on the internet the information I found still showed it as a requirement.
> 
> So when he purchased the guns, he failed to apply for the permit, but now you don't need one. Does that apply retroactively? Could he still be prosecuted for having failed to apply when it was still a requirement?
> 
> ...



To my knowledge, it's as if it never existed...so no I don't think he could be prosecuted (at least I hope people can't be prosecuted for that ).  And, from what I remember, it was only a misdemeanor offense so even if it doesn't apply retroactively, the statute of limitations is probably up).


----------



## searcher (Feb 1, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Ok, now I understand our confusion. I purchased my last handgun several years ago, when you were still required to apply for a permit to acquire. I didn't realize they had repealed that, and when I looked into it on the internet the information I found still showed it as a requirement.
> 
> So when he purchased the guns, he failed to apply for the permit, but now you don't need one. Does that apply retroactively? Could he still be prosecuted for having failed to apply when it was still a requirement?
> 
> ...


 

It does not apply, the Tiahrt Ammendment got rid of any laws of this type, along with that stupid AWB.


----------



## searcher (Feb 1, 2009)

And I agree with Tex, if you are going to carry you need to be quiet about it.   The first guy that gets sgot by the BG is the one that poses the biggest threat.   In most cases, that is the guy with a gun.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 1, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> When he started bragging about how he liked to carry his gun tucked into the back of his pants so everyone could see he was armed I had to leave the room.
> 
> 
> -Rob


 

Evil thought--I hope he prefers small-of-back carry and gets tripped/thrown on his back( The uninitiated will scratch their heads, but the wise willl understand).*Evil grin*


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 1, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Evil thought--I hope he prefers small-of-back carry and gets tripped/thrown on his back( The uninitiated will scratch their heads, but the wise willl understand).*Evil grin*



:ultracool


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 1, 2009)

*Thesemindz,

I understand from posts above that your colleague is not up to date on the laws in your state. However, if he believes the weapons are -- to whatever extent, illegal -- then he is not only announcing their existence to every Tom, Dick and Harry, he's also announcing that he's unlikely to report their theft to the police, if they are stolen from his home.



*


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 1, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> What I'm against is bragging about how you're flouting the law so that you can impress the people around you. It's stupid and dangerous, and probably a lie. Behaving in that fashion can get you in trouble.


 
Rob,

Clearly you have never heard of 'GUNKID". Do a google on him and you will find there used to be a super troll. I mean SUPER TROLL! He advocated lots of illegal gun stuff. 

His real name was John Davis. Yes he was outed by a very well gun gun leather maker. I was basicly Gunkids nemis since I detest those to advocte murder, robbery, theft, and other such unpleasant things. 

Well John, who was actually was in the IPSC at the start and did sign the IPSC founding documents, got himself busted for manufacturing silencers. While he was on parole for that, he blabbed on the internet all the time about such and how to murder and rob. 

He took his own advice and tried to sell a silencer and .22 pistol to undercover ATF agents in Oklahoma. 

Yep, busted again. 

He now resides in a federal pen in Arkansas (for real!!!)

And that is what happens to fools like the one you describe. Sooner or later they get busted.

Deaf


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 1, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> And that is what happens to fools like the one you describe. Sooner or later they get busted.
> 
> Deaf



Or if they're more like Gecko45, they end up being forever ridiculed and have their name used as a pejorative...


----------



## tellner (Feb 2, 2009)

KenpoTex, I don't mean that carrying without a permit is morally wrong or any more dangerous to the public than carrying with one. In fact, I think it's a shame that we feel the need as a country to force a person to exercise a fundamental civil right.

But this particulary ***-hat is a menace to himself and others. The sooner he's separated from repeating firearms the safer everyone will be. The fact that he brags to one and all about breaking the law is one strike against him. The veiled menace and apparent instability are #2 and #3. And just in case a couple of those strikes were balls (and he seems to have guns as a substitute for having balls  ) the fact that he carries in a way which puts him at severe risk for a negligent (not accidental, negligent) discharge means he needs some sort of safety check for the sake of innocents around him.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 2, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> Or if they're more like Gecko45, they end up being forever ridiculed and have their name used as a pejorative...


 

Oh man, you just made my week. I've never heard of this guy before, but when I read that he has special shoes that let him walk on cielings, I almost cried in pure joy.

This is the funniest, and saddest, thing I've read in years.


-Rob


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 2, 2009)

tellner said:


> KenpoTex, I don't mean that carrying without a permit is morally wrong or any more dangerous to the public than carrying with one. In fact, I think it's a shame that we feel the need as a country to force a person to exercise a fundamental civil right.
> 
> But this particulary ***-hat is a menace to himself and others. The sooner he's separated from repeating firearms the safer everyone will be. The fact that he brags to one and all about breaking the law is one strike against him. The veiled menace and apparent instability are #2 and #3. And just in case a couple of those strikes were balls (and he seems to have guns as a substitute for having balls  ) the fact that he carries in a way which puts him at severe risk for a negligent (not accidental, negligent) discharge means he needs some sort of safety check for the sake of innocents around him.


 
That and the fact he bragged about a carry mode( small of back), that even WITH a holster, no professional chooses for obvious reasons, which, combined with "Mexican carry" just marked him in the eyes of anyone with half a clue as a total rank amateur idiot.( And that is putting it politely).


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 2, 2009)

Andy,

How can he have a S.O.B. holster and Mexican carry at the same time?

Never heard of this Gecko45 guy, but he sounds interesting.

Thing is, Gunkid was real. And he really could shoot.

http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2006/07/goodbye-gunkid.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1661678/posts

And he is in the pen (again.) But don't worry, no doubt he will get out and the internet boards will see him again.

Deaf


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 2, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Andy,
> 
> How can he have a S.O.B. holster and Mexican carry at the same time?


 
He can't. But from what I understand he bragged about Mexican carry IN the small-of-back area which is a DOUBLE Code Stupid.



> Never heard of this Gecko45 guy, but he sounds interesting.


 
Read the link, and be Entertained.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 2, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> He can't. But from what I understand he bragged about Mexican carry IN the small-of-back area which is a DOUBLE Code Stupid.


 
You read it right. He claimed he walked around with his firearm tucked into the back of his pants "so he could get to it quick."

Idiot.


-Rob


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 2, 2009)

Like I said, Double Code Stupid( Actually triple, the bragging is an additional Code Stupid).


----------



## searcher (Feb 2, 2009)

You all bringing up "Mexican Carry" got me to thinking about those of you that carry your gun in the 12, 1, or 2:00 position.   If you carry in this position, you realize that you muzzle yourself everytime you sit down?   It is to scary for me.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 2, 2009)

searcher said:


> You all bringing up "Mexican Carry" got me to thinking about those of you that carry your gun in the 12, 1, or 2:00 position. If you carry in this position, you realize that you muzzle yourself everytime you sit down? It is to scary for me.


 
www.smartcarry.com

Photo example: http://www.smartcarry.com/scinvi.htm

Not strictly the "appendix carry" you describe but with certain guns, fine.

Just don't do Mexican Appendix carry where your safety can disengage against your pants


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 2, 2009)

searcher said:


> You all bringing up "Mexican Carry" got me to thinking about those of you that carry your gun in the 12, 1, or 2:00 position.   If you carry in this position, you realize that you muzzle yourself everytime you sit down?   It is to scary for me.



yeah...

-people that carry in a shoulder rig sweep everyone behind them
-people that carry pretty much anywhere else sweep everyone on the floor below them
-etc...

AFAIC, when the weapon is in the holster, it is perfectly safe...it's only when people have it in their hand and forget Rule #2 that we start running into problems.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 3, 2009)

And of course, not for no reason is Rule #3 called the Golden Rule....


----------



## mozzandherb (Feb 3, 2009)

Guns are bad, so are bullets.


----------



## tellner (Feb 3, 2009)

And you, mozzandherb, are acting like a troll.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 3, 2009)

Agreed.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 3, 2009)

mozzandherb said:


> Guns are bad, so are bullets.


 
So are hammers, scissors, pliers, ladels, and all other tools.


-Rob


----------



## mozzandherb (Feb 3, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> So I'm at work today, and this guy starts bragging about the unregistered firearms he owns. Now, I'm all for firearms


 
I'm sorry I didn't mean to come off sounding like a troll, I guess it's just the mentality I have and I think it is different here in Canada than in the U.S, but all I was trying to say is that I don't believe in guns and if my comment has offended anyone then I apologize, but it's my opinion


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 3, 2009)

mozzandherb said:


> I'm sorry I didn't mean to come off sounding like a troll, I guess it's just the mentality I have and I think it is different here in Canada than in the U.S, but all I was trying to say is that I don't believe in guns and if my comment has offended anyone then I apologize, but it's my opinion


 

I assume you mean you don't believe that people should own or use guns, not that you don't actually believe in guns themselves, as they clearly exist. If that is indeed your belief, I feel you are welcome to it. 

As long as you don't attempt to enforce your beliefs on others, I don't have any problem with it. You are welcome to feel however you wish about any number of issues.


-Rob


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 3, 2009)

mozzandherb said:


> I'm sorry I didn't mean to come off sounding like a troll, I guess it's just the mentality I have and I think it is different here in Canada than in the U.S, but all I was trying to say is that I don't believe in guns and if my comment has offended anyone then I apologize, but it's my opinion



Opinion or no, what does that statement even mean?! It's not quite the same thing as saying "I don't believe in Vishnu"!


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 3, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> So are hammers, scissors, pliers, ladels, and all other tools.
> 
> 
> -Rob



A gun is a weapon. It only has one use. It's not a friggin ca opener! I'm all for guns, but I really get annoyed when people call guns "tools". That's like calling a sword a tool. it was made for one purpose.


----------



## mozzandherb (Feb 4, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I assume you mean you don't believe that people should own or use guns, not that you don't actually believe in guns themselves, as they clearly exist. If that is indeed your belief, I feel you are welcome to it.
> 
> As long as you don't attempt to enforce your beliefs on others, I don't have any problem with it. You are welcome to feel however you wish about any number of issues.
> 
> ...


 I am not the type to enforce my beliefs on others, that would be hard for me to do.



Josh Oakley said:


> Opinion or no, what does that statement even mean?! It's not quite the same thing as saying "I don't believe in Vishnu"!


 
It's not a statement, it's my opinion.  And what it means is that I believe guns cause more problems than they solve.  I believe that if guns were abolished from the world a lot less people would be murdered, but like I said this is just my opinion


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 4, 2009)

mozzandherb said:


> Guns are bad, so are bullets.


 

Yes, so I've heard you say in one form or another several times in several threads. In one notable case in direct denial of an entire post by Archangel, refuting not only the claims you made but several of the main ones that the anti gun nuts keep parroting.


Is this to be the most constructive kind of contribution you can make to these type of threads?

if so, perhaps you might consider posting to others instead.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 4, 2009)

Josh Oakley said:


> A gun is a weapon. It only has one use. It's not a friggin ca opener! I'm all for guns, but I really get annoyed when people call guns "tools". That's like calling a sword a tool. it was made for one purpose.


 

So wasn't a hammer, or a shovel, or a hoe, or a rake.  and they are tools. The logic does not hold.


----------



## Drac (Feb 4, 2009)

I believe in guns, I better as I carry one on duty..I am not a "gun nut" like some of my fellow LEO's..I don't have a safe filled with them..I have 2 in the house and one is a shotgun police issue configuration, the ultimate home protection..


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 4, 2009)

Drac said:


> I believe in guns, I better as I carry one on duty..I am not a "gun nut" like some of my fellow LEO's..I don't have a safe filled with them..I have 2 in the house and one is a shotgun police issue configuration, the ultimate home protection..


Nor am I.  I have my issue sidearms, and I own an off duty gun.  My wife brought a revolver into the "collection" when we got married.

Guns serve a purpose.  And I support ownership and concealed carry -- with reasonable regulation.  I disagree with the fervor of some of the gun rights organizations that see every law and every restriction as the start of some government plot to seize all the guns.

But, to bring this diversion back on target, the "featured idiot" that inspired this thread is a great example of WHY I favor a certain degree of regulation.


----------



## mozzandherb (Feb 4, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Yes, so I've heard you say in one form or another several times in several threads. In one notable case in direct denial of an entire post by Archangel, refuting not only the claims you made but several of the main ones that the anti gun nuts keep parroting.
> 
> 
> Is this to be the most constructive kind of contribution you can make to these type of threads?
> ...


It seems that I am being ostricized by my anti-gun views, and this is quite possible, I just saw a sponsor on the top of this page on this site saying that "In a gun fight, those who train win". it was an add to train with guns.

So it looks as though I am on the other side of the fence in this debate. And if you read through my posts you will see that I contribute more than just sayin "guns are bad".


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

Josh Oakley said:


> A gun is a weapon. It only has one use. It's not a friggin ca opener! I'm all for guns, but I really get annoyed when people call guns "tools". That's like calling a sword a tool. it was made for one purpose.


 

A sword is a tool. It was designed to serve a specific purpose, and refined for that purpose over time.

You may not like the purpose it serves, or you may since you said you are "all for guns," but they are tools either way.

That's like saying, I don't like raking leaves, so I don't acknowledge rakes as tools. 

A tool is "an entity used to interface between two or more domains that facilitates more effective action of one domain upon the other." -Wikipedia

If you don't consider a firearm a tool, even a tool of death and destruction, then what do you consider it?


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Guns serve a purpose. And I support ownership and concealed carry -- with reasonable regulation. I disagree with the fervor of some of the gun rights organizations that see every law and every restriction as the start of some government plot to seize all the guns.
> 
> But, to bring this diversion back on target, the "featured idiot" that inspired this thread is a great example of WHY I favor a certain degree of regulation.


 
Except that regulation failed to keep this guy from at least bragging about, if not actually behaving, in a completely foolish and unsafe manner.

I'm against all forms of state oppression. Regulation only works on those people who are already responsible enough not to behave in this fashion anyway. Education will bring more people around, but fiat does nothing for those who will, and nothing for those who won't.


-Rob


----------



## tellner (Feb 4, 2009)

mozzandherb, the fact that people are replying to you means that you're not being ostracized. What we're doing is something rather different. We're disagreeing with you, often with long posts containing many links and reams of information.

If you'd talked to me twenty years ago I would have agreed with almost everything you say. But the more I learned the less I could support my beliefs. So they changed. You'll find a lot of that in this debate. But it almost always goes one way. Plenty of people have gone from staunch opponents of firearms ownership to strong supporters. Almost nobody travels in the other direction.

Sure, there are people who say "What in the world do you have all those guns for?" And plenty listen to the paranoia-indicuing ravings of the NRA with a healthy dosing of skeptical disgust. When the Lodge is tyled a few will even say that mandatory education would be a good thing if it could be done without turning it into a backdoor ban; given what shows up in the Darwin Awards and the daily stories at Fark.com I'd settle for built-in breathalyzers. Mall Ninja are viewed with contempt by the vast majority of gun owners. 

None of that changes the fact that we believe in the right of people to defend themselves with the most effective tools available for that purpose. Today that means firearms. A hundred years from now that might be phasers or the Possible Sword.


----------



## Drac (Feb 4, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> But, to bring this diversion back on target, the "featured idiot" that inspired this thread is a great example of WHY I favor a certain degree of regulation.


 
Agreed on both points...


----------



## searcher (Feb 4, 2009)

Josh Oakley said:


> A gun is a weapon. It only has one use. It's not a friggin ca opener! I'm all for guns, but I really get annoyed when people call guns "tools". That's like calling a sword a tool. it was made for one purpose.


 

I, and the NRA, do not agree with you.   A gun is not a weapon UNTIL it is turned on a person.   Guns have more than one use.   They can be used to feed your family, for competition,........

A gun is not always a weapon.   A hammer, scissors, ink pen, or car can all become a weapon, but arethey not also tools?


----------



## mozzandherb (Feb 4, 2009)

tellner said:


> mozzandherb, the fact that people are replying to you means that you're not being ostracized. What we're doing is something rather different. We're disagreeing with you, often with long posts containing many links and reams of information.
> 
> If you'd talked to me twenty years ago I would have agreed with almost everything you say. But the more I learned the less I could support my beliefs. So they changed. You'll find a lot of that in this debate. But it almost always goes one way. Plenty of people have gone from staunch opponents of firearms ownership to strong supporters. Almost nobody travels in the other direction.
> 
> ...


 I completely agree with you, all I was saying that I was taking some heat in the fact that I wrote "I dont believe in guns", but I dont see why that what I wrote is so different to let's say this quote?


terryl965 said:


> Do I believe in guns, our nation was built behind the use of guns, so of course I believe in guns.


 
I think that if I would have just simply agreed with the majoirty, I would not have been criticized.  Can we just make believe that I said what Terrtyl965 said and then be let off the hook?


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

mozzandherb said:


> I completely agree with you, all I was saying that I was taking some heat in the fact that I wrote "I dont believe in guns", but I dont see why that what I wrote is so different to let's say this quote?
> 
> 
> I think that if I would have just simply agreed with the majoirty, I would not have been criticized. Can we just make believe that I said what Terrtyl965 said and then be let off the hook?


 
It isn't a matter of criticizing, at least not from me. It's a matter of discussion. Your original post was quite simple.



mozzandherb said:


> Guns are bad, so are bullets.


 
Now, if you feel that way, fine. I don't agree, but I wouldn't deny you your opinion. However, many who hold this opinion would be more than willing to deny me mine. In fact, many of them would turn to the very guns and bullets in which they don't believe, to take away my right and ability to defend myself and my family, from theft, violence, and state oppression.

As long as you don't fall into that category, I don't have any beef with you. Our discussion then would be purely academic, and only exist in the realm of persuasive argument. It is those who would seek to forceably disarm my family with whom I have a more realized issue.

Voting to use violence to oppress me is no different than pointing the gun at me yourself. 

Calling the police to use violence to oppress me is no different than pointing the gun at me yourself.

As long as you aren't pointing a gun at me, we can talk.


-Rob


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 4, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> A sword is a tool. It was designed to serve a specific purpose, and refined for that purpose over time.
> 
> You may not like the purpose it serves, or you may since you said you are "all for guns," but they are tools either way.
> 
> ...



I consider it a weapon.

However, I looked up the definition of "weapon" and got: a tool employed to gain a tactical advantage over an adversary, usually by injury, defeat, or destruction, or the threat of these.

So I'm revamping  my understanding. Any weapon is a tool. So you're right. In fact, my response was a knee-jerk reaction to people how tend to call knives, guns, etc. "tools" for the sole reason that they don't want to have to deal with people's reaction to the word "weapon. 

Obviously, I was not responding to you but to what I thought you represented. I was sorely mistaken. Thank you, though, for giving me a better understanding on the concept of the word "tool".


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 4, 2009)

searcher said:


> I, and the NRA, do not agree with you.   A gun is not a weapon UNTIL it is turned on a person.   Guns have more than one use.   They can be used to feed your family, for competition,........
> 
> A gun is not always a weapon.   A hammer, scissors, ink pen, or car can all become a weapon, but arethey not also tools?



A weapon is a tool employed to gain a tactical advantage over an adversary, usually by injury, defeat, or destruction, or the threat of these.

the deer you're killing is your adversary because he's trying _not_ to become your dinner.

In a competition you are beating your adversary through destruction of paper.

I've yet to see a single use of a gun that would not make it a weapon, despite the NRA's creative redifinition of the word "weapon".

But you are right, a weapon is also a tool. and it has more than one use. It can put holes in things and be used as a blunt instrument.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

Josh Oakley said:


> I consider it a weapon.
> 
> However, I looked up the definition of "weapon" and got: a tool employed to gain a tactical advantage over an adversary, usually by injury, defeat, or destruction, or the threat of these.
> 
> ...


 
No problem. Now we're on the same page. I think that you are one who does not fetishize weapons. Neither do I. I see them as a means to an end. That end can be hunting, or sport, or self defense, but they exist to serve me, not I for them.


-Rob


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 4, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I'm against all forms of state oppression. Regulation only works on those people who are already responsible enough not to behave in this fashion anyway. Education will bring more people around, but fiat does nothing for those who will, and nothing for those who won't.
> 
> 
> -Rob



Im all for gun ownership (if you cant tell) BUT saying that there should be no government regulation is a bit far even for me. There are limits to the types of weapons and the type of people (criminals+crazies) allowed them in my worldview. The problem is that there are too many people (or a few loud voices) on either end of the spectrum IMO. Total bans on pistols, magazine capacity etc. is silly....allowing anybody to buy GPMG's is just as silly as I see things.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 4, 2009)

searcher said:


> I, and the NRA, do not agree with you.   A gun is not a weapon UNTIL it is turned on a person.   Guns have more than one use.   They can be used to feed your family, for competition,........
> 
> A gun is not always a weapon.   A hammer, scissors, ink pen, or car can all become a weapon, but arethey not also tools?



A weapon is a tool employed to gain a tactical advantage over an adversary, usually by injury, defeat, or destruction, or the threat of these.

the deer you're killing is your adversary because he's trying _not_ to become your dinner.

In a competition you are beating your adversary through destruction of paper.

I've yet to see a single use of a gun that would not make it a weapon, despite the NRA's creative redifinition of the word "weapon".

But you are right, a weapon is also a tool. and it has more than one use. It can put holes in things and be used as a blunt instrument.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 4, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> No problem. Now we're on the same page. I think that you are one who does not fetishize weapons. Neither do I. I see them as a means to an end. That end can be hunting, or sport, or self defense, but they exist to serve me, not I for them.
> 
> 
> -Rob



Well, yes, but at the same time, you show me a picture os a woman, and show me a picture of the same woman holding an M16, that second picture will be exponentially hotter.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 4, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> ....allowing anybody to buy GPMG's is just as silly as I see things.



why?  If we acknowledge that mere possession of a firearm does not cause someone to use it inappropriately, why would it matter what type of firearm it is?

In other words...I own a bunch of guns, would the ability to own full-auto weapons, suppressors, or SBSs/SBRs without jumping through a myriad of ridiculous formalities suddenly turn me into a nut-job?  (and please, let's avoid the straw-man crap of talking about nukes and jet fighters...)


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 4, 2009)

As someone outside of the culture, it does seem to me that there is the world of difference between owning a shotgun for defence of the home (against criminals likely to go elsewhere once they realise they're up against armed resistance) and possessing an assault rifle.

I know it is possible to make arguments 'in extremis' for such military weaponry in civilian hands doing some good (the aftermath of the hurrcane in New Orleans for example).  I also agree that a level headed chap with good intentions is no more likely to misuse an M16 than he is a .22 pistol.

However, when it comes to the general level of threat to the public and the police if possession of such weapons is not illegal, then is it not possible to argue that such threat is increased if there is no disincentive for the criminal element to use them?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 4, 2009)

mozzandherb said:


> It seems that I am being ostricized by my anti-gun views, and this is quite possible.
> 
> .


 

No, I just this week happen to be full up past my max capacity of suffering from the reverse type of thing that Tez3 has to deal with everytime she has to hear an American saying England should be armed, and so on. It's no secret where I stand on the right to bear arms, it is no secret that I am licensed to carry, and have taken apropriate training so as to do justice to the responsibility that must accompany that right.

What is NOT generally known is that I was not always of this belief. Like tellner, I had to be SHOWN the way the real world was before those beliefs changed to their current form.

(Sukerkin's sig line recalls the conversation I had with him over this many ages past  )

So when I have bothered to go to the trouble of doing the research, and taking the classes, and Learning the truth about self defense and am QUALIFIED to have an opinion on the role of the firearm in personal protection, and I see blanket "guns are bad" or " the 2nd amendment is the reason you need to own guns" or "It'll just get used against you" or "any idiot can get them" or "no civilian should carry" by any number of UNqualified people, irrespective of national origin, who Just. Don't. Have. The First. Clue........Yeah, you could say I get bent.

BUT.

That still does not mean I get to be a prick about it. I apologize to you.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> As someone outside of the culture, it does seem to me that there is the world of difference between owning a shotgun for defence of the home (against criminals likely to go elsewhere once they realise they're up against armed resistance) and possessing an assault rifle.
> 
> I know it is possible to make arguments 'in extremis' for such military weaponry in civilian hands doing some good (the aftermath of the hurrcane in New Orleans for example). I also agree that a level headed chap with good intentions is no more likely to misuse an M16 than he is a .22 pistol.
> 
> However, when it comes to the general level of threat to the public and the police if possession of such weapons is not illegal, then is it not possible to argue that such threat is increased if there is no disincentive for the criminal element to use them?


 
I don't think the argument can be labeled extreme when you follow it with a very recent and very real example of a need for such a weapon. 

Yes, the existance of these weapons poses a threat. However, Great Britain is an island, where the government has almost complete control over what can and can not be imported, and yet somehow, criminals are still able to obtain weapons and commit acts of violence.

Legislating away the use of weapons to commit violence is impossible. It can not be done. All these laws do is legislate away the rights of responsible people. If you are willing to admit that a responsible gun owner is no more likely to act irresponsibly with a .22 than with a .223 than the argument quickly devolves into projecting the very logical fear of the monster onto the innocent, and very illogically revoking the rights of the innocent in an attempt to cage the monster.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

Josh Oakley said:


> Well, yes, but at the same time, you show me a picture os a woman, and show me a picture of the same woman holding an M16, that second picture will be exponentially hotter.


 
I think that's a different fetish.


-Rob


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 4, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> As someone outside of the culture, it does seem to me that there is the world of difference between owning a shotgun for defence of the home (against criminals likely to go elsewhere once they realise they're up against armed resistance) and possessing an assault rifle.


 
While I'm at it this is the perfect post to use to kill THIS misconception too.

The term "Assault rifle" as it is bandied about in gun control circles is not a correct term. This is why we on the pro gun side always use quotation marks and you should imagine hearing the words "assault weapon" uttered with extreme scorn and derision. 

The defining characteristic of a TRUE assault weapon is select fire capability. That is, the safety switch has one setting for "safe", another for semiautomatic fire ( one round for each pull of the trigger) and a third for either fully automatic, or, more often the case in modern designs, three round burst fire. *These have not been available to the general American public since the National Firearms act of 1934*.

where the issue becomes distorted is that in the early 90's culminating in 1994's incorrectly termed "assault weapons" ban, *none of the banned firearms possessed this characteristic* and were selected because they were semiautomatic-only versions of military rifles and looked scary because they happened to look like them. In fact each item which was supposed to identify a firearm as a "semiautomatic assault weapon"( Pistol grip in addition to stock, barrel shroud, flash suppressor, etc) *were purely cosmetic and had no bearing on the gun's function at all.*

The politicians know this, and also know that the majority of the American public does not, which was why the damn thing ever got passed to begin with and then proceeded to accomplish exactly nothing about crime.


There is no such thing as a "semiautomatic assault weapon" and anyone stating anything contrary to this *FACT* is flat dead wrong.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> While I'm at it this is the perfect post to use to kill THIS misconception too.
> 
> The term "Assault rifle" as it is bandied about in gun control circles is not a correct term. This is why we on the pro gun side always use quotation marks and you should imagine hearing the words "assault weapon" uttered with extreme scorn and derision.
> 
> ...


 
Just for the sake of clarification, from wikipedia the "features" which were banned were


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: 

Folding stock
pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: 

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: 

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine
So, just to clarify. I could have a semi-auto rifle, only capable of firing one round per trigger pull with a grenade launcher on the end, and it would be perfectly legal. But if I had added a bayonet mount, not even the bayonet just the mount, it would have become an "assault weapon" and would be illegal.

Does any objective observer really think that this law had any basis in reality? Look at the list. You could have a shotgun that could shoot more than five rounds, but if it had a folding stock, it was an assault weapon. You could have a semi-automatic version of an automatic pistol, but if it was too heavy it was an assault weapon.

This is, and was, complete foolishness. It was fear mongering designed to drive firearms manufacturers out of business. And the anti-gun lobby betrayed their intentions when they cried foul at all the gun manufacturers who abided by this law and sold guns which fit the legal requirements.

It wasn't about safety, it was about control. That's all it's ever about.


-Rob


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 4, 2009)

also on the topic of "assault weapons"...

In America, the primary reason that the 2nd Amendment exists is so that the general population can possess the means to resist tyranny.  That being the case I feel that law-abiding citizens have the right to own the same basic types of weapons carried by the average soldier...yes, including full-auto and the other stuff I mentioned earlier.  Stated another way, I feel that it is wrong for soldiers and cops to be armed with firearms that the public is not allowed to possess.  

As far as crime and criminals access to these types of weapons...as with any other gun law, the only ones that follow it are the ones we don't have to worry about anyway.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 5, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I think that's a different fetish.
> 
> 
> -Rob



Probably, but we should find a camera, some hot women, and some M16's just to make sure.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 5, 2009)

Josh Oakley said:


> Probably, but we should find a camera, some hot women, and some M16's just to make sure.


 
I suppose if it's for science...


-Rob


----------



## tellner (Feb 5, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> The defining characteristic of a TRUE assault weapon is select fire capability.


 
'Fraid you had a brain-fart, Andy.

An _*assault rifle*_ is a selective-fire rifle firing a cartridge of small-to-medium caliber. Think M-16, AK-47, FN-FAL, etc.

An _*assault weapon*_ is the PR term for "ugly guns that scare the ignorant" which appeared in the execrable 1994 gun ban.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 5, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> why?  If we acknowledge that mere possession of a firearm does not cause someone to use it inappropriately, why would it matter what type of firearm it is?
> 
> In other words...I own a bunch of guns, would the ability to own full-auto weapons, suppressors, or SBSs/SBRs without jumping through a myriad of ridiculous formalities suddenly turn me into a nut-job?  (and please, let's avoid the straw-man crap of talking about nukes and jet fighters...)



Thing is..you CAN get those things with a Class III license, which is fine by me. The government gets to regulate our vehicles, I don't think regulation of crew served weapons is such a large infringement on my rights.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Thing is..you CAN get those things with a Class III license, which is fine by me. The government gets to regulate our vehicles, I don't think regulation of crew served weapons is such a large infringement on my rights.


 
Then you are willing to accept small infringments on your rights. I don't willingly accept any infringments on my rights, however I am forced to suffer them under duress.

They are your rights. No man or government should be able to restrict or deny them.

And they can't, except through force.


-Rob


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 5, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Then you are willing to accept small infringments on your rights. I don't willingly accept any infringments on my rights, however I am forced to suffer them under duress.
> 
> They are your rights. No man or government should be able to restrict or deny them.
> 
> ...



I agree to an extent, but where is the line drawn on weaponry? What caliber, rate of fire, weapon platform etc. is "too much"? Espically if we are talking about unregulated sale and possession? I think the founding fathers had "personal small arms" in mind when the 2nd was framed. "Grab your powder..grab your gun"...not grab your cannon.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Thing is..you CAN get those things with a Class III license, which is fine by me. The government gets to regulate our vehicles, I don't think regulation of crew served weapons is such a large infringement on my rights.



..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, _except that reasonable restrictions* and a bunch of idiotic laws concerning "scary weapons" are perfectly okay"_ 

*and the definition of "reasonable" can be determined by whichever freedom-hating hoplophobe politician, jack-booted thug from the ATF, or black-robed geriatric is feeling frisky today.

I must have missed that addition to the 2nd Amendment the last time I read the Bill of Rights...

Sarcasm aside, I have two questions:

1) Do you (anyone) feel that things would suddenly be worse, or that things would have been worse over the last 75 years if these weapons/items were not severely regulated?  Over the last 20 years or so, every time a state passes "shall-issue" concealed-carry legislation we hear cries of "dodge city, wild-west, and blood in the streets."  As we all know, that has not been the case .  In recent years we hear the same crap when states seek to pass Castle Doctrine and "Stand Your Ground" laws.  Once again, the mass shootings committed by people standing their ground have not been a problem.  What would be any different if, as I believe was the original intent, we had easy access to the same basic weapons as the average infantryman?  If so, HOW would things be worse and WHY?

2) What Constitutional basis can you find for the idea that the government should be able to regulate firearms in this manner and, to a large extent, (through high permit fees, and restrictions on manufacturing and transfer, etc.) prevent  us from owning them.  What basis is there for the idea that an agent of the government (whether they're wearing a badge or ACU's) is entitled to better individual weaponry than any law-abiding citizen.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I agree to an extent, but where is the line drawn on weaponry? What caliber, rate of fire, weapon platform etc. is "too much"? Especially if we are talking about unregulated sale and possession? I think the founding fathers had "personal small arms" in mind when the 2nd was framed. "Grab your powder..grab your gun"...not grab your cannon.



And "personal small arms" are what I'm referring to when I say "the weapons carried by an individual infantryman."  In 1780, "personal small arms" meant a rifle or musket and a tomahawk or a big-*** knife.  If I walked out into the street and started shooting people with my musket, then guys with muskets would shoot me to stop me.
Now, "personal small arms" means an AK, AR, FAL, or SAW.  If I walk out into the street and start shooting people with my AK, AR, or SAW; people with AKs, ARs, or MP-5s are going to show up and shoot me...what has changed? 

The problem is that it seems that many of those in power feel that "the peasants" should still be stuck with muskets (a.k.a. "sporting arms") while the G-men get all the modern weapons...kinda throws the whole "checks and balances" thing out the window doesn't it?...


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 5, 2009)

I have to say *Tex*, that altho' I am speaking from a long way off across a large body of water, the core logic of what you write above is hard to refute.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 5, 2009)

Im SO NOT against "Assault Weapons"...I own a few myself. 

I never saw the big issue with suppressors, magazine capacity or weapon length. 

I just draw the line at crew served weapons...belt fed weapons..automatic weapons being sold unrestricted or uncontrolled in any way. 

Just my .02


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Im SO NOT against "Assault Weapons"...I own a few myself.
> 
> I never saw the big issue with suppressors, magazine capacity or weapon length.
> 
> ...


 
When did I or anyone else say "unrestricted or uncontrolled in any way?"  

All I'm saying is that if you're a law-abiding citizen who can own guns right now...why should you not be able to own the other stuff?  
I currently own a semi-automatic AK, why should I not be able to own one that's full-auto?  Is having one with the "happy switch" going to make me walk down the street spraying bullets at the schoolkids?  I think not...


----------



## searcher (Feb 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Im SO NOT against "Assault Weapons"...I own a few myself.
> 
> I never saw the big issue with suppressors, magazine capacity or weapon length.
> 
> ...


 

Why would you need to restrict those firearms?   The last time I looked, the BGs were not robbing stores or performing their drive-by with an APC or SAW.


----------

