The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

We'll be seeing a lot more of this in the future. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/10/colorado-gun-rights-backers-gun-control-activists-/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/10/colorado-gun-rights-backers-gun-control-activists-/)

i generally don't support gun control legislation

i do support repealing the 2nd amendment

and then outlawing private ownership of any firearm

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

I can't believe that Colorado legislators were so out of touch with the general population. Hopefully we can see some of the more liberal Republicans take notice as well. It would not hurt to see some more middle of the road rather than pushing of everything to the fringe like both parties are trying to do.

This might not be apparent from the article or the original post, but for those keeping track on the scoreboard:

Colorado state Senate, pre-recall:
21 D/16 R

Colorado state Senate, post-recall:
19 D/18 R

So before the recall, Dems had a majority (but not a supermajority), and after the recall, Dems have a majority (but not a supermajority).  The will of the people be done!

Of note: gun advocates attempted to recall 4 Democratic state senators, but on two of the four, they were unsuccessful in getting enough petition signatures to even force a recall election.  The outrage of the Colorado electorate seems somewhat exaggerated.

When the 2011 Wisconsin state Senate recalls similarly resulted in the GOP losing some seats (but maintaining control), was that a harsh reprimand on the anti-union principles of conservatism?  Was it an indicator of a tide of voter retaliation across the republic, against any man who would attempt to weaken our unions?  Or was it an ultimately meaningless circlejerk?  I leave it to the reader to decide.

^^^ Regardless of what they say after the fact, I'm pretty sure that the politicians that lost their jobs don't think that it was a circle jerk. That's what happens when you ignore what the citizens want and proceed to limit their rights by creating laws through fear mongering and disinformation.   

That's a good thing. ;)

This has to be a joke or something. The chances of that happening are so remote that I can't even believe that you took the time to type it. Good luck to any politician that votes for that. Even hardcore democrats would run from that one. You can dream though.

You are aware that what you are proposing would probably lead to a civil war and half the states trying to succeed from the union?

Not if we're able to repeal the 2nd amendment first . .that by definition indicates a massive support for what i've proposed by enough people your scenario won't come to pass.

And it's not a joke. I challenge you to demonstrate a current negative impact from what I've proposed.

Who is "we"? Are you secretly the member of some extremist group that we don't know about, lol.

That massive support that you dream of doesn't exist and probably never will in this country. Most people in this country support the 2nd amendment and recognize it's importance and significance. Regardless of what the media stooges tell you.

Taking away someone's rights in itself is a negative. Not to mention the lack of self protection from the criminals that will still have firearms and other weapons at their disposal. How are you going to protect yourself, your wife, and your children(if you have any of these things)? What about people that are heavily invested in firearms and ammunition? Think of all the money people have invested, I assume their interests won't be grandfathered in with your "ban 'em all" laws. What about people who shoot competitively or as a hobby. What about the firearm and ammunition companies that will lose money? What about their employees that will lose their jobs? What about their shareholders that will lose money? What about the impact that it would have to national security? Don't you think that there is a reason that we have never been invaded and probably never will be? And finally, repealing the 2nd amendment would set a precedent that our rights are negotiable. As far as I'm concerned our rights aren't negotiable and that's what makes this country the best country in the world. Is that enough negative impact for you?

^^^ I am a gun owner and supporter but you honestly think private gun ownership is what keeps a foreign military from invading the US? That is absurd.

Actually we have been invaded, both by Mexico and Canada, although not recently. 

There are two reasons that other countries haven't invaded us and it has absolutely nothing to do with private gun ownership -- namely the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean. 

Absurd? Not when you look at the numbers. We have enough firearms to arm every citizen and the world knows it.

The defense forces of the United States are reported to have 3,054,553 firearms.

Police in the United States are reported to have 1,150,000 firearms.

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000 to 310,000,000. The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in the United States is 101.05 firearms per 100 people. In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 178 countries, the United States ranked at No. 1.

And that has what to do with keeping an invading military out? As Hoodie pointed out the Atlantic & Pacific have quite a bit to do with it. Also, the guns owned by the majority of Americans would have little effect on the firepower needed to defeat our own military and invade this country. Private gun ownership is a large number but has absolutely nothing to do with homeland security from an opposing military.

Also, I can't help but notice you throw in military as well as police facts while our topic is actually private gun ownership.

Yes, US is number one.  Serbia is #2.  They have been invaded recently.  Not far down the list is Iraq #8.  Didn't prevent them from being invaded either.  

Your side arm isn't what keeps other countries from invading us.  The Navy is.  

If our "rights" are not negotiable, why are there so many constitutional amendments? Why was slavery abolished? Why were women allowed to vote? We don't have "rights" in this country. Anyone who believes that we do should familiarize themselves with Japanese-American internment camps in the 40s. 120,000 US citizens were locked away and told they had no rights whatsoever simply because they were Asian. Now, explain to me how that can actually happen in a country that has "rights"? Rights aren't rights if they can be changed or taken away. They're suggestions at best. -EK

Let me rephrase my post. Let's just say that mainland America hasn't been invaded in the last century.

Although, the Atlantic and Pacific ocean are one piece of the puzzle. They are hardly the main reason. America and all or our guns invade countries across those very same oceans on a constant basis. The oceans don't seem to be slowing us down much.

I would highly disagree. I think that if it came down to it the US population could defeat the US military through sheer numbers, guns and people. As long as no nukes or chemical weapons were used. We had enough problems with Vietnam and Iraq. The US citizens would have a distinct advantage over those 2 countries. If you haven't noticed, WWII was the last war that the US has won.

Yes, just to put in context exactly how many firearms actually are secured by private citizens.

And look at the gap between #1 and #2-5. Serbia has about 60% and Iraq has about 30% the firearms we have respectively. That's a huge difference between the 3. Kind of like the difference between Marino, Fiedler, and Henne. 

Actually, all of those added rights. If I recall correctly the only amendment that took away a right was prohibition which was subsequently amended to restore the right because prohibition was a total failure.

Anyhow, this thread is getting off topic.

Winning in war is a relative term. I will tell you that in no conflict that you consider a loss has the US military taken more casualties than their opponents. I will also say that in today's world our military does not even need to put troops in the line of fire to inflict casualites. If you want to dream an armed civilian rebellion can overtake the US military, go ahead. I bet you aren't even factoring in who is currently a civilian that would not support the uprising and would fight for the government if such a thing happened.

Note to the Office of the Liberal Scribe-General: Please include an addendum to our current insidious gun control agenda which allows the United States government to keep its Navy.

They would have to put boots on the ground in a civil war. Correct me if I'm wrong. If we use rough numbers there are 2 million in the military and 300 million US citizens. I would agree with you that there would be a percentage of the civilian population that would not participate. However, you also have to realize that there would be a percentage of military personal that wouldn't fire on or kill American citizens and would switch sides. Even if only 25% of the population participated, that would be 75 million. Even if zero percent of the military defected to the other side, which would be highly unrealistic, I would guess 15-20 percent would defect. That would be a 38 to 1 civilian to military ratio. All of whom are heavily armed and know the land. Those odds ain't too bad.

Somehow, I doubt that anyone in this thread (least of all, you) cares what those particular politicians think.  And if we did, since at least one of them has already come out and said that it was all worth it, I don't think the lesson learned is quite what you think it is.

Are you talking about Wisconsin or Colorado?  Just so I understand which feckless recall attempt (that resulted in no actual change of power) is supposed to be driving the national discussion.

Yes, I know, according to you none of it matters.

I'm pretty certain that the number of private citizens' handguns in the United States has had exactly zero impact on every invasion the U.S. has carried out in the last 50 years.

So if the U.S. military is dropping nukes on Dallas, you admit that handguns and rifles would be useless, but if they are carpetbombing Dallas into rubble from miles above, you think the local NRA chapter has a fighting chance?  Are you planning on grabbing your shotgun and taking out a submarine that's firing cruise missiles, or a battleship that's shelling your city from 20 miles away?

If you think handguns and rifles are going to make a difference against the most powerful military in the world, you're delusional.  Nothing you have will make any difference until the battle is already over, your "side" has surrendered, and your city is being occupied by "the enemy."

If you seriously think one out of four people (in addition to the existing military!) would pick up a gun, you're beyond hopeless.

For purposes of comparison: back in 1860, when picking up a gun made you nearly equal to the available arms of the government (meaning, you didn't have to worry about bombers or tanks or heavy machineguns or drones), the population of the United States was approximately 31.5 million.  The total combined strength of the Union and the Confederates was 3.16 million; just over 10%.  And you think people are going to be grabbing their Glocks to go shoot at an Apache?

Every change both adds and takes away rights.  A prohibition on guns takes away the right of private ownership of guns but add the right of security.  The ending of slavery game right to the blacks but took away rights of the slave owners. And btw the second amendment like the 18th amendment was an amendment. 

In point of fact, the 13th Amendment removed the Constitutionally-affirmed right to own slaves.

1) We haven't invaded anyone with a military close to our own strength.  

2) We typically need a staging area.  E.g. a build up in Saudi Arabia to invade Iraq.  

3) Give the other 70% of Iraq a sidearm and it doesn't change the outcome.  Fact is every single person who wanted to be a suicide bomber or take up arms against the US had no problem getting a weapon.  

Neither has either of the oceans, that was my point.
Well, that's if you believe that the US government would use that course of action. No telling what they would do these days.

Yeah, well that's all fine and good but if a bunch of goat herders in a desert can do it, I think the American people can do it better with more people and more weapons. Also that scenario doesn't cover the single end issue of military sympathizers and deserters. All it takes is for 1 soldier to "flip" and agree with the "insurgents" and the "insurgents" have a huge advantage.

Not only that, but I would amend it to give the Navy and the rest of our well regulated militia (Marines, Coast Guard, Air Force, Army, National Guard, and any state or federal designated police force, etc.) the right to keep and bear arms.

But lets close the loop hole that allows convicted felons to buy a gun at a gun show without a background check.  

Ok fine guys, since there is no way to prove it either way, we'll just have to disagree about being invaded. No point arguing with people dead set on changing the subject and derailing the original topic.

So your theory is that the reason Russia didn't invade the US during the period between 1950-1980, was not because of our Navy and Airforce would stop them mid-ocean, but because once they invaded they would lose to the insurgents in Idaho?  

Seriously?  

No those are your words. Make your own thread and discuss it.

So you think the reason why there were no Japanese soldiers running through the California countryside, or German tanks rumbling down Boston streets, has nothing to do with the Pacific or Atlantic oceans.

Right.

You are not going to see this more often. It happens occasionally, but not often. Most people mindlessly vote for the same party election cycle after election cycle. It takes something special to cause a recall, and in this case the recall was only 50% successful.
As for a second civil war and secession, it is not going to happen. People in this country are too lazy and comfortable to engage in a civil war or to secede. It is easy to spout rhetoric on the internet and puff out your chest. It is whole different story to actually lace em on, ruck up, and spill blood...and to face the hardships involved with a civil war and secession.
I am not surprised you have ignored these convenient facts.

I would bet everything I have that there would be a civil war if guns were outlawed. People came out of the wood works to fight after 911 and this would be much larger than that.

Americans are lazy but the spirit to defend freedom is still very much alive.

I do not agree with this at all. I have guns for my security and for recreation. You are taking away a means of my home security by banning private gun ownership. Criminals will still have guns if they are banned. Regardless if they do not, there will still be criminals and my plan is to have a better defense than their offense.

This is a bit of a misnomer. It isn't because of the gun shows. A licensed dealer still has to perform the background checks. The loophole is private purchases. Private citizens can sell guns to others without performing a background check, although it is illegal to knowingly do it with someone you know cannot own a gun. This sale can happen at someone's house or at a gun show. It just sounds better for the anti-gun groups to call it a gun show loophole rather than a person's private transaction loophole.

My point was (before this turned into a threadnaught), that if there's enough public support to repeal a constitutional amendment (it's been done before) then the result of that repeal will NOT result in civil war.

I'm not claiming that there is currently massive support for a repeal of the 2nd amendment. I'm just saying that i would support such a move.

Private gun ownership has no place in a structured civil society. Their purpose is to kill, there is no other purpose to owning a gun other than killing something.

I would absolutely take that bet.  And I'd win.

Our rights are absolutely negotiable, so much so that we have a structure in place in the constitution on how exactly to negotiate them.

You have the right to your own opinion, you don't have the right to your own facts. Seeing that your reason about "what makes this country the best country in the world" is in fact incorrect, I guess you have to re-evaluate your opinion.

@Fau Teixeira- I completely agree with your perspectives throughout this thread.

That's all I got. -EK

And eutopias do not exist but it would be great if they did.

I'll bet you would change your stance on this if anyone ever broke into your house and tried to hurt you and/or your family

I bet you would change your stance on this if anyone ever ran into your kid's elementary school and put a bullet in his head.

^this. Man walks into an elementary school with a gun in the US and kills 26 people. ON THE SAME DAY, a man walks into a school in China with a knife and attacks 22 people, none of whom died.

I don't even understand where the debate is. There's no need for private citizens to have firearms in our society. The "right" to bear arms was established in an era when you were likely to see a bear walking across your front lawn because most of the country was Wild Kingdom. It's no longer applicable.

Contrast the number of stories centered around, "man walks into school/mall/theater and kills dozens," with the number of them centered around, "man saves neighborhood from outlaw pirate bad asses, thanks to his personal stash of firearms." -EK

While I would be devastated I do not believe taking guns away from lawful citizens would be an answer still.

Hahaha we have bears all over. They are even in our multi-million dollar neighborhoods on a daily basis. Pain in the butt because they cause damage trying to get into things let alone the mess they make on trash days.

One of the parents on my daughter's soccer team was showing me pics of a bear looking into his daughter's window.

Don't worry though as we don't shoot them.

They would make bombs. It isn't like guns are the only thing to use for large scale destruction. Look what only enough to fertilize 4.25 acres of farmland did in Oklahoma.

The bombing claimed 168 lives[1] and injured more than 680 people.[2] The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a 16-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings,[3][4] causing at least an estimated $652 million worth of damage.

Lot's of kids involved there too.

Guess I should have used mountain lions as an example... Since our use of firearms has made them extinct and all... -EK

Then I guess it's a good thing that bombs are already illegal, and civilians are not permitted to stockpile huge caches of explosives under the cloaks of "self-defense" and "sport hunting" and "stopping government tyranny."

I would also like to point out that the fertilizer-based components of the OKC bomb were later outlawed by Congress.

Either way close the loophole. Make it illegal to sell a gun to someone unless that person can lawfully own one.  Pretty simple:  Perspective buyer goes to the police station, undergoes a background check and is issued a permit to purchase the gun.  Buyer shows the permit to the seller who is required to keep a photo copy of it.  The perspective buyer could obtain the permit before even begin shopping for the gun and it would be valid for a period of time (1 or 2 years).

If that happened, I would grab my gun and hunt down the man responsible.  All the more reason to allow private gun ownership.


And if schools employed armed security guards, the man with the gun would've been neutralized.

Adding more guns to a gun problem... Yeah that'll fix it. -EK

It already is illegal to knowing sell someone a gun if you know they cannot legally own one. Also a 1-2 year purchasing permit would not be able to stop recently convicted felons.

Wrong again....I have mountain lions all around the surrounding areas in Phoenix. In fact I had one in my back yard about 4 years ago. We don't shoot them needlessly either and I own a whole lot of guns.....who have never killed anyone by the way!!!!!  ::)

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. 

And yet, in the most heavily armed nation on the planet, what is the number of armed criminals stopped by legally-armed civilians compared to the number of legally-armed civilians who attack unarmed civilians?

Jared Loughner was legally armed.
James Holmes was legally armed.
Adam Lanza used the legally-acquired weapons in his home (that his mother regularly trained him to use).

this is bullshit .. pure and simple .. you know what stops a bad guy with a gun .. the bad guy not having a gun

Should have been more specific- Eastern Mountain lions have become extinct. -EK

So to be clear, you are citing vigilante violence as an intended consequence of widespread gun ownership?

At this point they are not in posession of the firearm for legal purposes anymore. Law abiding citizens do not make this list and these are the people I am talking about being served an injustice.

And that statement right there is bullshit.  For the simple reason that passing a law preventing citizens from owning guns will not stop bad guys from obtaining them, but will leave good guys unable to defend themselves.

Unless you are planning on eliminating every gun from the face of the earth (which by the way will never ever happen).....the bad guy not having a gun is impossible to accomplish and completely illogical!!!!!

And under my proposed change, you can't bury your head in the sand and sell guns to random people that you don't know are felons or not. 

And yes, it would deal with recent felons as well, b/c there would be a record said person had a permit, and as part of the sentence, the felon would be required to turn in his purchase permit.

Passing laws outlawing murder won't stop the bad guys from killing people .. it'll just leave the good guys unable to legal murder anyone .. woe to the good guys ..

Passing laws outlawing killing endangered species won't stop the bad guys from shooting down a bald eagle with a uzi .. and having a delicious eagle dinner .. it just means the good guys can't have general tso's bald eagle.

Passing laws outlawing stealing won't stop the bad guys from stealing .. it'll just prevent good guys from stealing an awesome flat screen TV from walmart.

bull .. shit .. pure and simple .. it's circular garbage language and poor thinking on your part.

Stop crowing back talking points from a gun manufacturer trade group who's only purpose is to sell guns and use your own brain if you want to talk about a topic.

I don't need to eliminate EVERY gun .. i'll settle for an Australian style gun control system.

which has had pretty good results to the tune of a 47% decrease in gun related deaths

nerdy report here (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/261-280/tandi269/view%20paper.html)

That is a completely self-serving, tautological answer, and it misses the entire point.

The problem is precisely that current gun laws allow overarmed law-abiding citizens to make their first crime an incredibly deadly and catastrophic one.

You can't simply hand-wave it away by saying, "Oh, well now they aren't law-abiding anymore," because the effect of the policies you and yours espouse is that you would have been fiercely defending the right of Jared Loughner to own a 30-round magazine on January 7, 2011, or James Holmes to own all his weapons on July 19, 2012, or Nancy Lanza to own all her weapons on December 13, 2012.

That's like eliminating all DUI laws, waiting for crashes, and then saying, "Well, that guy couldn't handle his liquor, but that's no reason to punish the rest of the drivers who drink responsibly."

Yes, that is an impossible goal.  

But we can seriously reduce the number of bad guys with guns, if we require all people to present proof that they are not a "bad guy" before they can buy a gun.

There are lots of impossible goals.  Just because we can't completely eliminate drunk driving, doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to reduce it.  

If you want to make sure the bad guys don't get them which was what you wrote before, you have to eliminate them all. Eliminate the bad guys from getting them then you eliminate the need for people like myself to need them as well. If you don't eliminate every gun on this planet the bad guys will still get their hands on them leaving people like me defenseless!!!!

Not disagreeing with you but the bad guys will get them no matter what laws or restrictions you set forth. There will be plenty of opportunities and places for them to purchase them without having to show anything.

Therefore I will take my chances with owning and carrying mine with me at all times.

Me and mine huh? You know my position that well that you assume I do not support any gun legislation? Your assumptions are astounding. I do support legislation but abolition is off the table.

So you agree we should eliminate the loophole that allows private individuals from selling guns to people they don't know are felons or not. 

Most people who want gun control aren't trying to get rid of all guns, just want some common sense laws to require responsible ownership and use.  Just like most people who support DUI laws aren't trying to bring back the 18th amendment. And requiring drivers licences and licence plates on cars, is far different than banning all automobiles.   

I am using my own brain, Mr. Mod..... as a permit carrying gun owner who has seen neighbors be the victims of burglaries and break ins.   ::)

Then I guess it's a good thing that there has never been any legislation in Congress to abolish guns, isn't it?

To this point, all you've done is insist upon the protection of your right to bear arms, while citing the boilerplate "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" silliness.  But maybe I have misinterpreted your position.   So feel free to list off some of the sane and reasonable gun control legislation you support... because apparently, you don't support closing of the "gun show loophole":


And you also don't seem to support the idea of a purchasing permit:


So what do you support, exactly?  Banning of assault weapons?  Restriction on high-capacity magazines?  National gun registry?

I have no issues with trying to improve the system to keep guns out of the hands of criminals as long as that does not infringe upon my rights to carry as I see fit without costing me a ton of money.

Unfortunately for a lot of people it is an all or nothing approach on both sides and that will never work.

Not true.  Very few on the gun control side want a complete ban of guns Fau is very much the exception.  And even the majority of gun owners supported the gun control that passed the Senate but was filibustered. 

It is just the extremest NRA that takes such an approach -- and tries to paint every reasonable law as a complete ban on all firearms. 

The problem with framing it as "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" is that such laws would, by design, have had no effect on Loughner, Holmes, and Lanza (who were not criminals until they started shooting people).

Unless you're fine with that, in which case I suppose there is no problem (from your perspective).

Never said anything along either of those lines. You like to disagree with me so much that you change my stance in these threads quite frequently.

I pointed out the misnomer of the so called "gun show loophole" by saying background checks are indeed ran by licensed dealers at the gun shows and then discussed what I saw as an issue of Hoodie's proposal. He then clarified.

When someone brings up potential gun control legislation, the only comment you make is invariably an objection.  You've done it twice so far.

Why don't you just end the suspense and say which gun control legislation you are in favor of?

I do not have issue with limiting magazine capacity. Assault rifle ban, we've had one before and it did not stop much from happeneing. I'm willing to listen to it though. Gun registry, I have mixed emotions on and can expand if necessary. Background checks, no issue with. Enhanced training, probably needs to happen.

There may be some more ideas but this is off the top of my head

Sorry I know you love to pick apart every little detail and misstep people type so I honestly don't even know why I am entertaining you but for the sake of the old collage try here goes.

You will never keep the guns out of the hands of criminals so let's try to reduce it as best we can without infringing upon the rights of those of us who obey the laws and enjoy firearms.

You aren't going to catch them all.....No law in the world outside of a complete removal of all guns from this planet will prevent fucked up people from doing fucked up things with guns. All you can do is hope to reduce it. If there weren't guns these people would find other means to kill people.

They are going to get them anyways no matter the amount of regulation or restrictions you put on them, so I will take my chances by keeping mine to better my odds of survival.

Not sure that's a good analogy either because mountain lions aren't extinct unless you know something National Geographic doesn't. Got another one? 

I agree with that.  

I want to treat guns like cars.  

Granted treating cars like cars hasn't prevented all accidental deaths nor completely prevented the use of autos in criminal behavior.  But imagine what it would be like if someone could drive a car w/o getting a license first.  

1. Require a license to buy or use a gun.  Holder must not be a felon nor adjudicated insane.  Plus holder must pass a test proving they know the proper safety rules for a gun.

2.  Register and track who owns each gun.  

3. Require basic safety equipment.  Guns must be store locked when nobody is home.  Prevent the guns from being stolen by the bad guys.

4. Guns must be locked or stored out of the reach of children, if children are present.

5. Ban high capacity magazines.  

This will still allow the good guys to keep their guns, and while it would not eliminate every gun death, it would decrease them substantially.   

Umm ... Ammonium Nitrate is still in fertilizer. In April of this year 15 people died at the West Fertilizer Co. when it exploded ... remember that?

Safety regulations and outlawing are hugely different.

The saddest part is I can make a bomb from internet directions much faster and easier than I can obtain a gun as a 15, 16 or 17 year old.

It's obvious that you'll never have 100% success with any ban.  The statement, "If ______ is banned, criminals will still have ______" applies to near any banned item you can think of: heroin, explosives, machine guns, you name it.  It is a shapeless, catch-all argument against banning things, and is not particularly useful (unless you're a libertarian and believe the government has no right to ban things).

That all being said, the handgun bans that have been enacted in countries like Japan and England have been very effective at reducing gun crime... just as the machine gun bans that have been in place in the U.S. for nearly a century have been very effective at reducing crimes committed with machine guns.

Sorry, when I said "outlawed," I meant in the sense that cocaine, bazookas, napalm, etc. are "outlawed," which is to say that they are tightly regulated by the government.

You must've missed my clarification about Eastern Mountain lions- declared extinct and removed from the endangered species list in 2011.

"The "ghost cat" is just that.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Wednesday declared the eastern cougar to be extinct, confirming a widely held belief among wildlife biologists that native populations of the big cat were wiped out by man a century ago.

After a lengthy review, federal officials concluded there are no breeding populations of cougars – also known as pumas, panthers, mountain lions and catamounts – in the eastern United States. Researchers believe the eastern cougar subspecies has probably been extinct since the 1930s."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/eastern-cougar-extinct-mo_n_830181.html

-EK

You will see more of this if politicians keep ramming legislation down the throats of people who don't want it. Maybe in general elections or maybe in recalls. Hell, the democrats in senate ran from from this shit back in April and it was only expanded background checks. I think they remember what happened back in the 90s when they pulled this shit with their made up term of "assault weapons". Plenty of them were voted out. They may talk tough, but they don't want to lose their jobs anymore than anyone else does. If the dems ain't even going to vote it in, it must be shit legislation.

If you say so. Go ask all the other countries that have gone through civil wars in the last 50 years. Oh, I forgot. It can't ever happen here because the left says it can't. Keep pushing and eventually you'll get pushed back.

Driving a car is a privledge and the right to bear arms is a right. That is a big difference.

As previously noted, if tests, licences, and fees are required then that activity is a privledge. It's called the right to bear arms. You don't need permission to exercise a right.

 Tracking and registration is the first step toward confiscation. Not acceptable.

Common sense. However, locks don't prevent theft. Pointless and near impossible to enforce.

Again, common sense. People have been prosecuted for this.

 What you you call "high capacity"? 100 rounds?

I doubt it.

And of course, when you say the Democrats "ran from" the bill, you mean that it had the support of only 92.5%  (50/54) of the Democratic caucus.  Meanwhile, 4 of the 46 Republicans (8.5%) supported the bill.

If 7.5% of Democrats voting against the bill means "the Democrats ran from it," I guess 8.5% of Republicans voting for it must mean it had broad bipartisan support, right?

Truth: It's what's for dinner.

Ramming? Just curious, but why is it ramming legislation down the throat of people, when the Dems do it and not the GOP. Both parties, upon gaining a majority in Congress, proceed to use their numbers advantage to pass bills they like over the objections of the Dems and the people who do not like it. Yet for the last few years, all I have heard is conservative politicians, pundits, and Fox News claiming it is wrong for the Dems, who have been voted into a majority, to use their majority to pass bills. We have things called elections, and if a party overreaches, the people can vote them out.
What you are really doing is whining. Your chosen party does not have the numbers to pass what it wants to pass, and you are throwing a tizzy. Quick question...when and if the GOP regains majority in Congress, and decides to pass bills based on its majority alone, will you still think it is ramming legislation down the throat of people? Based on your history here, I doubt it.

How is it outlawed if I can legally purchase it for my sod farm?

Was my quote unclear?  When I said "outlawed," I meant "tightly regulated."

http://americancityandcounty.com/security/ammonium-law-passes

More than 12 years after Timothy J. McVeigh used ammonium nitrate fertilizer to blow up the Oklahoma City federal building, Congress quietly passed legislation this month to regulate sales of the explosive, reports The Los Angeles Times.

Here is this better for you? Just one of many similar headlines on the topic.

Obama enraged gun control couldn’t pass Democrat-led Senate

No matter how you spin it, your anti-American legislation failed because the democrats who voted against it want to keep their jobs.

The proposed legislation failed and will continue to in the future. Is that truth enough for you? I bet that burns, lol.

You absolutely don't know that you would win. You can take the bet all you want.  However, there is absolutely no way for you to know what would happen in the future.

There are better odds of you packing up all of your shit and going down under than the repeal of the 2nd amendment.

And passing more laws is going to help that? By definition "bad guys" don't follow laws. Do you think that by passing more laws that the "bad guys" are going to the local police department and turn in their firearms? If you think that restricting the activity of law abiding citizens is in any way going to affect the behavior of criminals then you are delusional. But then again you are the one organizing for the repeal of the 2nd amendment, like I said delusional.

The moment you use the term "anti-American" to refer to what you believe in, but other Americans don't...that's the moment you lose any credibility to speak reasonably on that topic. It's a term used by intolerant people to try to sway idiots who can't think for themselves.

"BLA BLA BLA" says the anti American Communist. Your gun control legislation lost and will continue to.

the irony of this statement being applied to sunstroke is fantastic

Are you this bad at math?  50+4 is not 60, and 54+4 is still not 60.

Even if every Democrat had voted for it, the result would have been the same: they didn't have enough votes to overcome the Republican filibuster.

Topic has nothing to do with my bad math skills. It has everything to do with the left's failed gun control legislation. It failed to pass the Senate and had no chance in hell of passing the house. Some of you guys might as well pack up and move to a "gun ban" country, because nothing significant regarding gun control going to change anytime soon around here, ha ha.

Actually, the topic has everything to do with your bad math skills.

You post a media article (I guess The Media is only bad when they are reporting about Zimmerman) claiming retribution via recall election for a successfully passed gun control law in the pinko leftist stronghold known as Colorado, ignoring the facts that 1) half of those recall attempts failed miserably and 2) the "successful" recall attempts did absolutely nothing to change the balance of power in that legislature.  This is a math issue.

Then you make a post claiming that Democrats ran from a bill that had just as many Republican "yes" votes as Democratic "no" votes, while ignoring the fact that had every Democrat voted for the bill, the result would have been exactly the same.  Again, a simple math issue.

Your decision to change your signature to the headline of a Washington Times article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/2/obama-enraged-gun-control-couldnt-pass-democrat-le/?page=all) (complete with late '90s text formatting) is, if nothing else, expedient.  Now I won't have to waste time looking up your past hypocritical cries of media bias... there's one baked right in to every post you make.

It would be great if you could link the article in your signature, though (just in case anyone was confused and thought you were referencing a reputable source).  I did all the heavy lifting for you... you can just quote this post and copypaste the following into your signature:

Headline-Obama enraged gun control couldn’t pass Democrat-led Senate (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/2/obama-enraged-gun-control-couldnt-pass-democrat-le/?page=all)-Gotta love seeing a grown man pout like a child

(http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/pop%20corn/grand/jackson_popcorn_gif.gif)

I knew Stroke was a pinko commie. That explains why he likes the 49ers...SF is the pinko commie mecca. They pilgrimage to Berkeley to lay among the unwashed, intellectual elitists.

I was actually stationed there (in SF) for part of my Army training...when the government was teaching me to fight the actual Commies. This was right after becoming qualified as an expert on the M16A1 rifle (and leveling a building with a turret-mounted .50 cal), and about two years before becoming qualified as expert with the .45 pistol.

So yeah, that's me...the anti-gun Commie.  ::)

My father, mother, and 4 of my 6 siblings were also anti-gun communists who served in the military.

Hey, we intellectual elitists shower daily... ;)