***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[Glass Joe]

FTR, I disagree with Senstor Feinstein about banning assault rifles. But she has always been very consistent in her position on this. She is a believer in the 2nd Amendment- banning these sorts of rifles has nothing to do with that amendment. Ms. Feinstein has never attempted to ban all firearms, nor has she ever been disingenuous about this issue (or any other issue I'm aware of.) She is a woman of high integrity and strong moral character, and I'm proud she is my senator.

I think we're zeroing in on the problem. You're proud she's your senator? So, you're Californian too? Let me guess... San Francisco? Bay area at least? Or is it LA/SD? I'm starting to think this is less about Republican vs Democrat or even liberal vs conservative. I'm thinking this is more about urban vs suburban vs rural. No offense meant, and is only a generalization so doesn't apply to everyone, but I'd guess most of the anti-gun argument is coming from the cities where stricter gun policies have been an issue for a hundred years and so are more desensitized to these infringements. Most of the pro-gun crowd is from more rural areas where guns are more common than gun laws and the fence-riders are more suburban.ChopMeat, care to disclose? Cincinnati, or Cleveland?

Suburbs between Cleveland and Akron. Yes, I would agree the "gun culture" is more engrained in rural areas - where hunting is particularly popular. Travel east from me about 20 miles, and there's plenty of hunting, but around here - it's all white collar families, hardly the gun crowd. I will say this - and this seems kind of rare - I think I've softened my stance on gun control, in part due to this thread. I still see the need for massive gun regulations, however I'm willing to concede that a person may want a gun for home defense. Not any kind of gun though...And I'm definitely not ok with the massive gun fetish this country has.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

FTR, I disagree with Senstor Feinstein about banning assault rifles. But she has always been very consistent in her position on this. She is a believer in the 2nd Amendment- banning these sorts of rifles has nothing to do with that amendment. Ms. Feinstein has never attempted to ban all firearms, nor has she ever been disingenuous about this issue (or any other issue I'm aware of.) She is a woman of high integrity and strong moral character, and I'm proud she is my senator.

I think we're zeroing in on the problem. You're proud she's your senator? So, you're Californian too? Let me guess... San Francisco? Bay area at least? Or is it LA/SD? I'm starting to think this is less about Republican vs Democrat or even liberal vs conservative. I'm thinking this is more about urban vs suburban vs rural. No offense meant, and is only a generalization so doesn't apply to everyone, but I'd guess most of the anti-gun argument is coming from the cities where stricter gun policies have been an issue for a hundred years and so are more desensitized to these infringements. Most of the pro-gun crowd is from more rural areas where guns are more common than gun laws and the fence-riders are more suburban.ChopMeat, care to disclose? Cincinnati, or Cleveland?

Suburbs between Cleveland and Akron. Yes, I would agree the "gun culture" is more engrained in rural areas - where hunting is particularly popular. Travel east from me about 20 miles, and there's plenty of hunting, but around here - it's all white collar families, hardly the gun crowd. I will say this - and this seems kind of rare - I think I've softened my stance on gun control, in part due to this thread. I still see the need for massive gun regulations, however I'm willing to concede that a person may want a gun for home defense. Not any kind of gun though...And I'm definitely not ok with the massive gun fetish this country has.

I think you would be surprised how many of your white collar neighbors have guns. Westchester, NY is about as white collar as you can get ($80k median income):http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/7794/ctguns.png

 

[tom22406]

Intentions...

2nd Amendment / Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in

Chris W. Cox

Published 4:00 am, Sunday, March 7, 2004

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/2nd-Amendment-Mr-and-Mrs-America-turn-them-2813319.php#ixzz2HDKQgXAv

The ban on semi-automatic firearms -- which an anti-gun Congress redefined as "assault weapons" in the 1994 crime bill -- will expire Sept. 13. A drumbeat has begun in the national media to "reauthorize" the ban, and some politicians are dancing to that familiar beat.

In the House, HR2038 has been introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. Instead of a "reauthorization" of the earlier ban, McCarthy wants to ban millions more guns and begin a backdoor national registration scheme. All told, HR2038 is a giant step closer to the goal stated by the assault-weapons ban sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS "60 Minutes": "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."

"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." Those are the only words gun owners should ever need to remember. Never has the anti-gun agenda been stated more succinctly or more honestly. Now Feinstein is back trying to keep alive the ban inflicted on law-abiding Americans. Joined by comrades such as Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., she introduced S1034, "Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003." It makes the Clinton gun ban permanent and also bans the importation of large-capacity magazines.

Certainly Feinstein's bill is less "ambitious" than McCarthy's and undoubtedly will be portrayed as a "reasonable," and "common-sense" alternative by firearm-phobic editorial writers. The truth, of course, lies elsewhere, as Schumer confessed to the Los Angeles Times: "We know if we push it too far, we'll have no bill." Translation: "Don't threaten Mr. and Mrs. America too much." Don't remind them that the semi-automatic firearms they own for self-defense, hunting and target shooting function identically to those "assault weapons" you want to ban.

The "assault weapon" debate, as we saw in 1994, is ruled by emotion, not by fact, and therefore it was a tailor-made issue of the ethically challenged Clinton administration and its allies. But the truth can not be buried forever, not even in Washington. That's exactly why in the elections following enactment of the ban, gun owners went to the polls in great numbers and unseated the first speaker of the House in 134 years. That's why Bill Clinton told the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "the fight for the assault weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress." That's why in March 1996, 239 members of the House of Representatives voted across party lines to repeal the Clinton gun ban.

The debate is not really about so-called "assault weapons." It's about banning guns. It's about gun prohibitionists searching for the easiest target of opportunity. They're going after guns claiming, without a shred of credible evidence, that these guns are the "weapons of choice" of criminals. It's a lie. A day after Clinton signed his gun-banning crime bill into law, a Washington Post editorial admitted: "Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control."

In the words of the radical Violence Policy Center: "The public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." Machine guns were, of course, effectively banned in 1934.

Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason magazine, captures the issue well: "The 'assault weapon' ban sets a dangerous precedent precisely because the justification for it is so weak. It suggests that you don't need a good reason to limit the right to keep and bear arms, and it invites further restrictions down the road. As far as the gun banners are concerned, that is the whole point."

You guys are refusing to admit that their intentions are aimed at all semiautomatic weapons (at a minimum) and are only proposing legislation that they have a chance in hell of getting passed. Gun registration is the tip of the iceberg and you are purposefully being oblivious if you claim you don't see it.

And then once the next tragedy hits they will be screaming from every mountain we did not do enough and here we go again with even more getting banned in the name of public safety.The goal IMO is to chip away at this until finally getting their way and so far with a huge media blitz it's well on it's way(again).

And again I am all for tighter background checks and not allowing private sellers at any gun show and also to put in a required training course for all gun owners that they must pay for.I kinda see things going in the right direction already but it's pretty clear the mob doesn't so here we are.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

It wasn't the availability of guns, crack, abortions, prisons, nor police presence that contributed to the rise AND the fall of murders from the 60's through present, it was leaded gasoline.

 

[Glass Joe]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

 

[timschochet]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. We need to have all firearms registered, and the ones that should pay for this are the ones who own guns. The more you own, the more you'll have to pay. Those of us who don't own any guns shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. We need to have all firearms registered, and the ones that should pay for this are the ones who own guns. The more you own, the more you'll have to pay. Those of us who don't own any guns shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

gun registration has worked so well in Canada...http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/gun-registrys-price-was-not-as-advertised/article4326647/

http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2000/How-Firearms-Registration-Works.htm

In 1977, the protection of property was eliminated as a suitable reason for acquiring a handgun. Police routinely refuse to issue a firearm permit to anyone who indicates they desire a firearm for self-protection (although Canadians still use guns defensively.) In 1991, after a nationwide campaign demonizing "gun owners," the government vastly expanded the list of types of firearms that needed to be registered. In 1995, Bill C-68 was rammed through parliament over the protests of three of the four opposition parties. This bill banned small and short-barreled handguns on the grounds that they could be easily concealed. Presumably, large caliber handguns are less dangerous. In addition to prohibiting and confiscating over half of all registered handguns, Bill C-68 also:

* Significantly relaxes parliamentary oversight of the process of prohibiting weapons through order in council (allowing gun bans without the need for parliamentary approval);

* Broadens the police powers of "search and seizure" and expands the types of officials who can make use of such powers (allowing the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun storage and look for unregistered guns);

* Requires suspected gun owners to testify against themselves;

* Requires firearm licenses to possess and acquire firearms, and to buy ammunition;

* Requires the registration of all firearms, including shotguns and rifles.

Immediately after the federal election this November, the government decided to classify BB and pellet guns as firearms; and then expanded the list of restricted weapons.

What kind of taxes and fees are we talking about? I thought I read something about annual fees. This sounds above and beyond covering the cost of the initial registration.

 

[timschochet]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. We need to have all firearms registered, and the ones that should pay for this are the ones who own guns. The more you own, the more you'll have to pay. Those of us who don't own any guns shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

gun registration has worked so well in Canada...http://www.theglobea...article4326647/

What kind of taxes and fees are we talking about? I thought I read something about annual fees. This sounds above and beyond covering the cost of the initial registration.

Whatever it costs, it costs. It's worth it.It won't add to our spending deficit, because you gun owners will be the only ones paying for it.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. We need to have all firearms registered, and the ones that should pay for this are the ones who own guns. The more you own, the more you'll have to pay. Those of us who don't own any guns shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

gun registration has worked so well in Canada...http://www.theglobea...article4326647/

What kind of taxes and fees are we talking about? I thought I read something about annual fees. This sounds above and beyond covering the cost of the initial registration.

Whatever it costs, it costs. It's worth it.It won't add to our spending deficit, because you gun owners will be the only ones paying for it.

I won't be paying for it.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. We need to have all firearms registered, and the ones that should pay for this are the ones who own guns. The more you own, the more you'll have to pay. Those of us who don't own any guns shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

gun registration has worked so well in Canada...http://www.theglobea...article4326647/

What kind of taxes and fees are we talking about? I thought I read something about annual fees. This sounds above and beyond covering the cost of the initial registration.

Whatever it costs, it costs. It's worth it.It won't add to our spending deficit, because you gun owners will be the only ones paying for it.

And I propose that you, the non-gun owners pay for the registration fees. It is you who are scared of citizens owning guns and where those guns go. I think the gun owners - as part of the state militias - should tax you for not supporting the security of a free state. If you do not feel the need to contribute to a big part of what this nation is made of and stands for, you should pay for the security we provide you. The tax should be paid for each adult living in the house who does not own a gun.Sounds a little different coming from the other side, doesn't it? What I find funny, is those in heavily populated areas will be the first ones to fall victim during a period of civil unrest (think market crash, US dollar crash, race riots). You want to keep your city safe by outlawing guns and displaying maps of lawful gun owners, and will be pleading for their help and protection if, God forbid, your community falls upon bad times.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Ben Franklin

 

[Borat]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. We need to have all firearms registered, and the ones that should pay for this are the ones who own guns. The more you own, the more you'll have to pay. Those of us who don't own any guns shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

Why? You're the ones who want this so bad. Why don't you pay for it?

 

[Henry Ford]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. We need to have all firearms registered, and the ones that should pay for this are the ones who own guns. The more you own, the more you'll have to pay. Those of us who don't own any guns shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

gun registration has worked so well in Canada...http://www.theglobea...article4326647/

What kind of taxes and fees are we talking about? I thought I read something about annual fees. This sounds above and beyond covering the cost of the initial registration.

Whatever it costs, it costs. It's worth it.It won't add to our spending deficit, because you gun owners will be the only ones paying for it.

And I propose that you, the non-gun owners pay for the registration fees. It is you who are scared of citizens owning guns and where those guns go. I think the gun owners - as part of the state militias - should tax you for not supporting the security of a free state. If you do not feel the need to contribute to a big part of what this nation is made of and stands for, you should pay for the security we provide you. The tax should be paid for each adult living in the house who does not own a gun.Sounds a little different coming from the other side, doesn't it? What I find funny, is those in heavily populated areas will be the first ones to fall victim during a period of civil unrest (think market crash, US dollar crash, race riots). You want to keep your city safe by outlawing guns and displaying maps of lawful gun owners, and will be pleading for their help and protection if, God forbid, your community falls upon bad times.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Ben Franklin

Thank you for getting that quote right.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Another example of registration being used to facilitate confiscation in the U.K. and the U.S.:

Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule. Gun registration has laid a foundation for confiscation not only in Great Britain, but also in New York City, where the 1967 registration system for long guns was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles. Nevertheless, United States gun control advocates continue to insist that the United States gun rights advocates are "paranoid" for resisting registration because it might lead to confiscation. The gun control advocates reason that they do not intend to confiscate registered guns. However, the gun control advocates fail to consider what their successors might advocate. The British Parliament who created the gun registration system in 1920 had no intention of banning handguns. But that 1920 Parliament failed to foresee the danger that a registration system, even if created with the best intentions, could later be used for confiscation. Thus, it is eminently sensible for civil liberties advocates in the United States to resist registration of persons who exercise constitutional rights, not because registration is excessively burdensome in itself, but because registration amounts to greasing the slippery slope.

 

[timschochet]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. We need to have all firearms registered, and the ones that should pay for this are the ones who own guns. The more you own, the more you'll have to pay. Those of us who don't own any guns shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

gun registration has worked so well in Canada...http://www.theglobea...article4326647/

What kind of taxes and fees are we talking about? I thought I read something about annual fees. This sounds above and beyond covering the cost of the initial registration.

Whatever it costs, it costs. It's worth it.It won't add to our spending deficit, because you gun owners will be the only ones paying for it.

And I propose that you, the non-gun owners pay for the registration fees. It is you who are scared of citizens owning guns and where those guns go. I think the gun owners - as part of the state militias - should tax you for not supporting the security of a free state. If you do not feel the need to contribute to a big part of what this nation is made of and stands for, you should pay for the security we provide you. The tax should be paid for each adult living in the house who does not own a gun.Sounds a little different coming from the other side, doesn't it? What I find funny, is those in heavily populated areas will be the first ones to fall victim during a period of civil unrest (think market crash, US dollar crash, race riots). You want to keep your city safe by outlawing guns and displaying maps of lawful gun owners, and will be pleading for their help and protection if, God forbid, your community falls upon bad times.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Ben Franklin

Let's get this straight. I DO pay for our security and freedom. I pay for the police, and I pay for the military. It's laughable that you believe I would be contributing to our freedom and security by paying for eiryour gun addiction. Hate to break it to you, but your guns are not going to protect me or you in the event of civil unrest. Your guns are a hobby. Nothing more. You own them for your personal pleasure, and perhaps because they make you feel safer. They don't. I don't begrudge you owning them, but sometimes they are used illegally by bad guys, so we have to try to stop that by having them registered. And you're going to pay for it, not me.

The Ben Franklin quote is a great one and it is absolutely true. But it does not apply to our discussion in any way whatsoever, since I have NEVER proposed that either you or I or anyone else give up any essential liberties.

 

[timschochet]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. We need to have all firearms registered, and the ones that should pay for this are the ones who own guns. The more you own, the more you'll have to pay. Those of us who don't own any guns shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

Why? You're the ones who want this so bad. Why don't you pay for it?

Because I don't own any firearms. My neighbor has an RV and has to pay extra registration for that. But I don't own the RV, so it's not my problem.

 

[timschochet]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. We need to have all firearms registered, and the ones that should pay for this are the ones who own guns. The more you own, the more you'll have to pay. Those of us who don't own any guns shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

gun registration has worked so well in Canada...http://www.theglobea...article4326647/

What kind of taxes and fees are we talking about? I thought I read something about annual fees. This sounds above and beyond covering the cost of the initial registration.

Whatever it costs, it costs. It's worth it.It won't add to our spending deficit, because you gun owners will be the only ones paying for it.

I won't be paying for it.

Good to know that you're planning on giving up your guns! There are several gun exchange programs going on right now- I'm betting there's one near you. Or of course, you'll be able to get rid of them for a profit through a private sale, if you wish. Just make sure you do a background check on the buyer and record the sale. Otherwise you'll be breaking the new laws...

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. We need to have all firearms registered, and the ones that should pay for this are the ones who own guns. The more you own, the more you'll have to pay. Those of us who don't own any guns shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

gun registration has worked so well in Canada...http://www.theglobea...article4326647/

What kind of taxes and fees are we talking about? I thought I read something about annual fees. This sounds above and beyond covering the cost of the initial registration.

Whatever it costs, it costs. It's worth it.It won't add to our spending deficit, because you gun owners will be the only ones paying for it.

I won't be paying for it.

Good to know that you're planning on giving up your guns! There are several gun exchange programs going on right now- I'm betting there's one near you. Or of course, you'll be able to get rid of them for a profit through a private sale, if you wish. Just make sure you do a background check on the buyer and record the sale. Otherwise you'll be breaking the new laws...

How do you know I own any guns? You know as much as the government does.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. We need to have all firearms registered, and the ones that should pay for this are the ones who own guns. The more you own, the more you'll have to pay. Those of us who don't own any guns shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

gun registration has worked so well in Canada...http://www.theglobea...article4326647/

What kind of taxes and fees are we talking about? I thought I read something about annual fees. This sounds above and beyond covering the cost of the initial registration.

Whatever it costs, it costs. It's worth it.It won't add to our spending deficit, because you gun owners will be the only ones paying for it.

And I propose that you, the non-gun owners pay for the registration fees. It is you who are scared of citizens owning guns and where those guns go. I think the gun owners - as part of the state militias - should tax you for not supporting the security of a free state. If you do not feel the need to contribute to a big part of what this nation is made of and stands for, you should pay for the security we provide you. The tax should be paid for each adult living in the house who does not own a gun.Sounds a little different coming from the other side, doesn't it? What I find funny, is those in heavily populated areas will be the first ones to fall victim during a period of civil unrest (think market crash, US dollar crash, race riots). You want to keep your city safe by outlawing guns and displaying maps of lawful gun owners, and will be pleading for their help and protection if, God forbid, your community falls upon bad times.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Ben Franklin

Let's get this straight. I DO pay for our security and freedom. I pay for the police, and I pay for the military. It's laughable that you believe I would be contributing to our freedom and security by paying for eiryour gun addiction. Hate to break it to you, but your guns are not going to protect me or you in the event of civil unrest. Your guns are a hobby. Nothing more. You own them for your personal pleasure, and perhaps because they make you feel safer. They don't. I don't begrudge you owning them, but sometimes they are used illegally by bad guys, so we have to try to stop that by having them registered. And you're going to pay for it, not me.

The Ben Franklin quote is a great one and it is absolutely true. But it does not apply to our discussion in any way whatsoever, since I have NEVER proposed that either you or I or anyone else give up any essential liberties.

L.A. Riots down? Why do I even bother...

 

[timschochet]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. We need to have all firearms registered, and the ones that should pay for this are the ones who own guns. The more you own, the more you'll have to pay. Those of us who don't own any guns shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

gun registration has worked so well in Canada...http://www.theglobea...article4326647/

What kind of taxes and fees are we talking about? I thought I read something about annual fees. This sounds above and beyond covering the cost of the initial registration.

Whatever it costs, it costs. It's worth it.It won't add to our spending deficit, because you gun owners will be the only ones paying for it.

And I propose that you, the non-gun owners pay for the registration fees. It is you who are scared of citizens owning guns and where those guns go. I think the gun owners - as part of the state militias - should tax you for not supporting the security of a free state. If you do not feel the need to contribute to a big part of what this nation is made of and stands for, you should pay for the security we provide you. The tax should be paid for each adult living in the house who does not own a gun.Sounds a little different coming from the other side, doesn't it? What I find funny, is those in heavily populated areas will be the first ones to fall victim during a period of civil unrest (think market crash, US dollar crash, race riots). You want to keep your city safe by outlawing guns and displaying maps of lawful gun owners, and will be pleading for their help and protection if, God forbid, your community falls upon bad times.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Ben Franklin

Let's get this straight. I DO pay for our security and freedom. I pay for the police, and I pay for the military. It's laughable that you believe I would be contributing to our freedom and security by paying for eiryour gun addiction. Hate to break it to you, but your guns are not going to protect me or you in the event of civil unrest. Your guns are a hobby. Nothing more. You own them for your personal pleasure, and perhaps because they make you feel safer. They don't. I don't begrudge you owning them, but sometimes they are used illegally by bad guys, so we have to try to stop that by having them registered. And you're going to pay for it, not me.

The Ben Franklin quote is a great one and it is absolutely true. But it does not apply to our discussion in any way whatsoever, since I have NEVER proposed that either you or I or anyone else give up any essential liberties.

L.A. Riots down? Why do I even bother...

You bother because it's fun to discuss. I was in the L.A. Riots. I was coming out of Dodger Stadium the night they broke out, and I saw things happen right in front of me. It is true that some Korean store owners protected themselves with guns. It is also true that other store owners managed to save their stores without guns. I personally know some of both. Private gun ownership did nothing to stop the riot overall. It was stopped, after 2 days, when the governor declared martial law.

 

[timschochet]

One of the bravest women I have ever known is a minister who stood in front of a block of retail stores on Long Beach Blvd. all night during the first two nights of the riots and prevented them from being burned down. She was unarmed.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. We need to have all firearms registered, and the ones that should pay for this are the ones who own guns. The more you own, the more you'll have to pay. Those of us who don't own any guns shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

gun registration has worked so well in Canada...http://www.theglobea...article4326647/

What kind of taxes and fees are we talking about? I thought I read something about annual fees. This sounds above and beyond covering the cost of the initial registration.

Whatever it costs, it costs. It's worth it.It won't add to our spending deficit, because you gun owners will be the only ones paying for it.

And I propose that you, the non-gun owners pay for the registration fees. It is you who are scared of citizens owning guns and where those guns go. I think the gun owners - as part of the state militias - should tax you for not supporting the security of a free state. If you do not feel the need to contribute to a big part of what this nation is made of and stands for, you should pay for the security we provide you. The tax should be paid for each adult living in the house who does not own a gun.Sounds a little different coming from the other side, doesn't it? What I find funny, is those in heavily populated areas will be the first ones to fall victim during a period of civil unrest (think market crash, US dollar crash, race riots). You want to keep your city safe by outlawing guns and displaying maps of lawful gun owners, and will be pleading for their help and protection if, God forbid, your community falls upon bad times.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Ben Franklin

Let's get this straight. I DO pay for our security and freedom. I pay for the police, and I pay for the military. It's laughable that you believe I would be contributing to our freedom and security by paying for eiryour gun addiction. Hate to break it to you, but your guns are not going to protect me or you in the event of civil unrest. Your guns are a hobby. Nothing more. You own them for your personal pleasure, and perhaps because they make you feel safer. They don't. I don't begrudge you owning them, but sometimes they are used illegally by bad guys, so we have to try to stop that by having them registered. And you're going to pay for it, not me.

The Ben Franklin quote is a great one and it is absolutely true. But it does not apply to our discussion in any way whatsoever, since I have NEVER proposed that either you or I or anyone else give up any essential liberties.

L.A. Riots down? Why do I even bother...

You bother because it's fun to discuss. I was in the L.A. Riots. I was coming out of Dodger Stadium the night they broke out, and I saw things happen right in front of me. It is true that some Korean store owners protected themselves with guns. It is also true that other store owners managed to save their stores without guns. I personally know some of both. Private gun ownership did nothing to stop the riot overall. It was stopped, after 2 days, when the governor declared martial law.

I bet they're glad we have 2nd amendment. Unlike you, of course.

 

[timschochet]

I bet they're glad we have 2nd amendment. Unlike you, of course.

I'm very glad we have the 2nd Amendment. Why do you guys keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment? What does it have to do with this discussion?

 

[Cookiemonster]

I bet they're glad we have 2nd amendment. Unlike you, of course.

I'm very glad we have the 2nd Amendment. Why do you guys keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment? What does it have to do with this discussion?

We argue that registration of legal guns and owners as well as restrictions on regular, common firearms is an attempt to further erode the 2nd Amendment in a never-ending attempt by a vocal few to abolish it completely. The more ground given, and the more rights taken and restricted, weakens the overall foundation of the 2nd Amendment and what it means, stands for and protects. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms, it restricts the government's ability to take that right away.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I bet they're glad we have 2nd amendment. Unlike you, of course.

I'm very glad we have the 2nd Amendment. Why do you guys keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment? What does it have to do with this discussion?

We argue that registration of legal guns and owners as well as restrictions on regular, common firearms is an attempt to further erode the 2nd Amendment in a never-ending attempt by a vocal few to abolish it completely. The more ground given, and the more rights taken and restricted, weakens the overall foundation of the 2nd Amendment and what it means, stands for and protects. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms, it restricts the government's ability to take that right away.

I like that

 

[Power Monster]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. We need to have all firearms registered, and the ones that should pay for this are the ones who own guns. The more you own, the more you'll have to pay. Those of us who don't own any guns shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

gun registration has worked so well in Canada...http://www.theglobea...article4326647/

What kind of taxes and fees are we talking about? I thought I read something about annual fees. This sounds above and beyond covering the cost of the initial registration.

Whatever it costs, it costs. It's worth it.It won't add to our spending deficit, because you gun owners will be the only ones paying for it.

The second amendment tax. Just like all taxes from out of control statists like feinstein- they will just keep going up and up and up. And you appluade this?

 

[Cookiemonster]

I bet they're glad we have 2nd amendment. Unlike you, of course.

I'm very glad we have the 2nd Amendment. Why do you guys keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment? What does it have to do with this discussion?

Let's get this straight. I DO pay for our security and freedom. I pay for the police, and I pay for the military. It's laughable that you believe I would be contributing to our freedom and security by paying for eiryour gun addiction. Hate to break it to you, but your guns are not going to protect me or you in the event of civil unrest. Your guns are a hobby. Nothing more. You own them for your personal pleasure, and perhaps because they make you feel safer. They don't. I don't begrudge you owning them, but sometimes they are used illegally by bad guys, so we have to try to stop that by having them registered. And you're going to pay for it, not me.

The Ben Franklin quote is a great one and it is absolutely true. But it does not apply to our discussion in any way whatsoever, since I have NEVER proposed that either you or I or anyone else give up any essential liberties.

How do you believe in and support the 2nd Amendment following statements like these? You're "glad we have the 2nd Amendment," but "your guns are not going to protect me or you in the event of civil unrest. Your guns are a hobby. Nothing more. You own them for your personal pleasure." Then what is the 2nd to you? What purpose does it serve in your opinion?

You say the Franklin quote doesn't apply, but you are expecting us to give up our privacy and/or protection, be taxed absurdly and subjected to pressure and prejudices from people like you who would gladly sacrifice our liberties for your temporary feeling of safety. By Franklin's quote, you sir, deserve neither liberty nor safety. And you will support that premise with open arms, and applaud as you become more and more of a subject and less and less of a citizen. If you care to walk into the lion's den covered in gravy, so be it, but DON'T TREAD ON ME!!!

 

[Power Monster]

I thought it was widely known Feinstein wants to ban all guns but that seems to not be the case.

This was back during the first AWB when she said this

I don't need credibility and I can care less about credibility on a message board but your damn right that I care about my blood line making sacrifices. What does your observations say about THIS generation. Lot of Americans serving out there to protect the Constitutional rights of Americans RIGHT NOW! Some wars I do not agree with but I am not going to sit up here and appluad some despot like Feinstein or any other lying chump up on the Hill or in the local town halls that cannot keep from dishonoring an oath to protect our rights. My grandfather killed many men and was sick to his stomach for years and was depressed for the rest of his life over it just to have numb nuts two generations later pissing on the Constitution. I knew more guys than my grandfather that served in WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Desert storm etc. to be disrespecting the sacrifices they made. The Feinsteins should just go away in live in Canada or England or Egypt or anywhere they please if the Bill of Rights is not in their best interest. Lying despots...

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Another byproduct I have seen discussed of proposed registration is taxes and fees based on weapon owned, it may not be bundled in the current proposal but registration facilitates levying these types of penalties against gun owners.

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. We need to have all firearms registered, and the ones that should pay for this are the ones who own guns. The more you own, the more you'll have to pay. Those of us who don't own any guns shouldn't have to pay for any of it.

gun registration has worked so well in Canada...http://www.theglobea...article4326647/

What kind of taxes and fees are we talking about? I thought I read something about annual fees. This sounds above and beyond covering the cost of the initial registration.

Whatever it costs, it costs. It's worth it.It won't add to our spending deficit, because you gun owners will be the only ones paying for it.

And I propose that you, the non-gun owners pay for the registration fees. It is you who are scared of citizens owning guns and where those guns go. I think the gun owners - as part of the state militias - should tax you for not supporting the security of a free state. If you do not feel the need to contribute to a big part of what this nation is made of and stands for, you should pay for the security we provide you. The tax should be paid for each adult living in the house who does not own a gun.Sounds a little different coming from the other side, doesn't it? What I find funny, is those in heavily populated areas will be the first ones to fall victim during a period of civil unrest (think market crash, US dollar crash, race riots). You want to keep your city safe by outlawing guns and displaying maps of lawful gun owners, and will be pleading for their help and protection if, God forbid, your community falls upon bad times.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Ben Franklin

Let's get this straight. I DO pay for our security and freedom. I pay for the police, and I pay for the military. It's laughable that you believe I would be contributing to our freedom and security by paying for eiryour gun addiction. Hate to break it to you, but your guns are not going to protect me or you in the event of civil unrest. Your guns are a hobby. Nothing more. You own them for your personal pleasure, and perhaps because they make you feel safer. They don't. I don't begrudge you owning them, but sometimes they are used illegally by bad guys, so we have to try to stop that by having them registered. And you're going to pay for it, not me.

The Ben Franklin quote is a great one and it is absolutely true. But it does not apply to our discussion in any way whatsoever, since I have NEVER proposed that either you or I or anyone else give up any essential liberties.

L.A. Riots down? Why do I even bother...

You bother because it's fun to discuss. I was in the L.A. Riots. I was coming out of Dodger Stadium the night they broke out, and I saw things happen right in front of me. It is true that some Korean store owners protected themselves with guns. It is also true that other store owners managed to save their stores without guns. I personally know some of both. Private gun ownership did nothing to stop the riot overall. It was stopped, after 2 days, when the governor declared martial law.

So guns protected them during a time of civil unrest, as well as a number of people that had guns in their cars.

 

[Glass Joe]

There are a lot of people - on this board, and elsewhere, planning for their Waco/ruby ridge moment.

That says a lot about you kooks. But nothing good.

 

[timschochet]

There are a lot of people - on this board, and elsewhere, planning for their Waco/ruby ridge moment. That says a lot about you kooks. But nothing good.

"Mister Two Cents? Yes I'm calling to remind you that if you own any firearms, they must be registered.""COLD DEAD HANDS, mother####er!!!"

 

[Hoosier16]

I don't begrudge you owning them, but sometimes they are used illegally by bad guys, so we have to try to stop that by having them registered. And you're going to pay for it, not me.

How many of these bad guys will be registering their guns and if your answer is zero, or something near zero, why should only responsible, law-abiding gun owners pay for this registration?

 

[TPW]

There are a lot of people - on this board, and elsewhere, planning for their Waco/ruby ridge moment. That says a lot about you kooks. But nothing good.

It says at equally large amount about you that you consider people willing to sacrifice everything in the defense of their freedoms "kooks".By inference you are not. I guess that makes you a coward.

 

[Cookiemonster]

There are a lot of people - on this board, and elsewhere, planning for their Waco/ruby ridge moment. That says a lot about you kooks. But nothing good.

I took my oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have been out of the Marines for 10 years, but I still believe in that part of the oath. I also believe in leaving this country in the state my children deserve it to be. If that means the worst possible outcome, under the gravest of circumstances, well then, I'd rather die on my feet than live a life on my knees. To each their own.For the record, I'm not out panic buying AR-15s, or stocking up 20,000 rounds of ammo to barter during the apocalypse. I don't own a generator nor a 60 day supply of water and food. I'm going back to work, and sending my kids to school every day. I mow the lawn, take out the trash, watch football and play fantasy football. I'm not all that different than your regular Joe, but I do believe in the right to defend myself and my family. If you don't, that's your prerogative. Why vilify me for that?

 

[timschochet]

There are a lot of people - on this board, and elsewhere, planning for their Waco/ruby ridge moment.

That says a lot about you kooks. But nothing good.

I took my oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have been out of the Marines for 10 years, but I still believe in that part of the oath. I also believe in leaving this country in the state my children deserve it to be. If that means the worst possible outcome, under the gravest of circumstances, well then, I'd rather die on my feet than live a life on my knees. To each their own.For the record, I'm not out panic buying AR-15s, or stocking up 20,000 rounds of ammo to barter during the apocalypse. I don't own a generator nor a 60 day supply of water and food. I'm going back to work, and sending my kids to school every day. I mow the lawn, take out the trash, watch football and play fantasy football. I'm not all that different than your regular Joe, but I do believe in the right to defend myself and my family. If you don't, that's your prerogative. Why vilify me for that?

Despite our disagreement on several of these issues, I'm grateful for your service.

 

[Guest]

And I propose that you, the non-gun owners pay for the registration fees. It is you who are scared of citizens owning guns and where those guns go. I think the gun owners - as part of the state militias - should tax you for not supporting the security of a free state. If you do not feel the need to contribute to a big part of what this nation is made of and stands for, you should pay for the security we provide you. The tax should be paid for each adult living in the house who does not own a gun.

This seems to fit here

A Vermont dairy farmer was herding his cows in a remote pasture when suddenly brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him. The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the farmer "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?"The farmer looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, Why not?"The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his AT&T cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany. Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech,miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the farmer and says, "You have exactly 1586 cows and calves.""That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says the farmer. He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.Then the farmer says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?" The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?""You're a consultant from one of the Multinationals." says the farmer."Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?""No guessing required." answered the farmer. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked and you don't know anything about my business........ Now give me back my dog."

 

[Cookiemonster]

And I propose that you, the non-gun owners pay for the registration fees. It is you who are scared of citizens owning guns and where those guns go. I think the gun owners - as part of the state militias - should tax you for not supporting the security of a free state. If you do not feel the need to contribute to a big part of what this nation is made of and stands for, you should pay for the security we provide you. The tax should be paid for each adult living in the house who does not own a gun.

This seems to fit here

A Vermont dairy farmer was herding his cows in a remote pasture when suddenly brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him. The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the farmer "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?"The farmer looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, Why not?"The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his AT&T cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany. Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech,miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the farmer and says, "You have exactly 1586 cows and calves.""That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says the farmer. He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.Then the farmer says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?" The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?""You're a consultant from one of the Multinationals." says the farmer."Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?""No guessing required." answered the farmer. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked and you don't know anything about my business........ Now give me back my dog."

I like it. I think it aptly applies to both sides though. I think it's a bit funny that you responded to my post with it when my post was completely satirical.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

And I propose that you, the non-gun owners pay for the registration fees. It is you who are scared of citizens owning guns and where those guns go. I think the gun owners - as part of the state militias - should tax you for not supporting the security of a free state. If you do not feel the need to contribute to a big part of what this nation is made of and stands for, you should pay for the security we provide you. The tax should be paid for each adult living in the house who does not own a gun.

This seems to fit here

A Vermont dairy farmer was herding his cows in a remote pasture when suddenly brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him. The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the farmer "If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?"

The farmer looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, "Sure, Why not?"

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his AT&T cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.

The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany. Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.

Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech,miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the farmer and says, "You have exactly 1586 cows and calves."

"That's right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves," says the farmer. He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

Then the farmer says to the young man, "Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?" The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, "Okay, why not?"

"You're a consultant from one of the Multinationals." says the farmer.

"Wow! That's correct," says the yuppie, "but how did you guess that?"

"No guessing required." answered the farmer. "You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked and you don't know anything about my business........ Now give me back my dog."

I like it. I think it aptly applies to both sides though. I think it's a bit funny that you responded to my post with it when my post was completely satirical.

You forgot to ask for your dog BB gun back.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Do you think I need a bigger safe?

 

[Henry Ford]

Do you think I need a bigger safe?

Probably. Otherwise you won't have enough guns for your 30-person family of six-armed aliens.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Do you think I need a bigger safe?

Probably. Otherwise you won't have enough guns for your 30-person family of six-armed aliens.

I think we're covered

 

[Cookiemonster]

Do you think I need a bigger safe?

They always say to buy twice as big as you think you need. They seem to breed when you close the door, don't they? That's a pretty extensive collection of pistols. We are only a few, broke years into our collection. In pistol we only have a his (.45), hers (9mm) and a backup (.380). Oh, and a piece of crap .22 revolver that was my Dad's and the 1st gun I ever shot. Made it the 1st gun my son ever shot as well. HD 12 gauge and a couple .22 rifles. No evil, high-powered "sniper rifles" yet. Next on the list... after a good safe. No hurry on the rifle. I'm not much into hunting.

 

[timschochet]

Do you think I need a bigger safe?

Probably. Otherwise you won't have enough guns for your 30-person family of six-armed aliens.

I think we're covered

Is that supposed to impress me? Mr. Two Cents wears more than that when he has to answer the front door.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Do you think I need a bigger safe?

They always say to buy twice as big as you think you need. They seem to breed when you close the door, don't they? That's a pretty extensive collection of pistols. We are only a few, broke years into our collection. In pistol we only have a his (.45), hers (9mm) and a backup (.380). Oh, and a piece of crap .22 revolver that was my Dad's and the 1st gun I ever shot. Made it the 1st gun my son ever shot as well. HD 12 gauge and a couple .22 rifles. No evil, high-powered "sniper rifles" yet. Next on the list... after a good safe. No hurry on the rifle. I'm not much into hunting.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Phone numbers and Google Earth addresses to follow on Twitter.

Anti-Gun Individuals & CelebritiesThe following celebrities and national figures have lent their name and notoriety to anti-gun causes, speaking out for anti-gun legislation and providing a voice for anti-gun organizations.Celebrities:Krista Allen - ActressSuzy Amis - ActressLouis Anderson - ComedianRichard Dean Anderson - ActorMaya Angelou - PoetDavid Arquette - ActorEd Asner - ActorAlec Baldwin - ActorBob Barker - TV PersonalityCarol Bayer Sager - ComposerDrew Barrymore - ActressKevin Bacon - ActorLauren Bacall - Actress*Sarah Ban Breathnach - WriterWilliam Baldwin - ActorCandice Bergen - ActressRichard Belzer - ActorTony Bennett - SingerBoys II Men - Pop GroupJon Bon Jovi - SingerPeter Bogdonovich - DirectorPeter Bonerz - ActorAlbert Brooks - ActorBeau Bridges - ActorBenjamin Bratt - ActorBonnie Bruckheimer - Movie ProducerChristie Brinkley - ModelDr. Joyce Brothers - Psychologist/AuthorJames Brolin - ActorJames Brooks - TV ProducerMel Brooks - Actor/DirectorBetty Buckley - ActressEllen Burstyn - ActressSteve Buscemi - ActorDavid Canary - ActorKate Capshaw - ActressKim Cattrall- ActressJosh Charles - ActorRobert Chartloff - ProducerStockard Channing - ActressJill Clayburgh - ActressTerri Clark - SingerGeorge Clooney - ActorJennifer Connelly - ActressJudy Collins - SingerKevin Costner - ActorSean Connery - ActorSheryl Crow - SingerBilly Crystal- ActorJulie Cypher - DirectorArlene Dahl - ActressClive Davis - WriterLinda Dano - ActressMatt Damon - ActorPam Dawber - ActressPatrika Darbo - ActressStuart Damon - ActorEllen Degeneres - ActressGavin de Becker - WriterRebecca DeMornay - ActressDanny DeVito - ActorMichael Douglas - ActorPhil Donahue - Talk Show HostRichard Donner - DirectorFran Drescher - ActressRichard Dreyfus - ActorDavid Duchovny - ActorSandy Duncan - ActressChristine Ebersole - ActressKenneth "Babyface" Edmonds - SingerMissy Elliott - SingerNora Ephron - DirectorGloria Estefan - SingerMelissa Etheridge - SingerMia Farrow - ActressMike Farrell - ActorCarrie Fisher - ActressSally Field - ActressDoug Flutie - NFL playerFannie Flagg - ActressJane Fonda - ActressJodie Foster - ActressRick Fox - NBA PlayerAndy Garcia - ActorArt Garfunkel - SingerGeraldo - TV personalityRichard Gere - ActorKathie Lee Gifford - TV personalityPaul Glaser - TV directorBrad Gooch - WriterElliott Gould - ActorLouis Gossett, Jr. - ActorMichael Gross - ActorNancy Lee Grahn - ActressBryant Gumbel - TV PersonalityDeidra Hall - ActressEthan Hawke - ActorMariette Hartley - ActressMark Harmon - ActorAnne Heche - ActressHoward Hesseman - ActorMarilu Henner - ActressDustin Hoffman - ActorHal Holbrook - Actor*Helen Hunt - ActressJohn Ingle - ActorFrancesca James - TV ProducerNorman Jewison - DirectorLainie Kazan - ActressRichard Karn - ActorJeffrey Katzenberg - ProducerBarry Kemp - TV ProducerDavid E. Kelley - TV ProducerDiane Keaton - ActressMargaret Kemp - Interior DesignerChaka Khan - SingerKevin Kline - ActorMichael E. Knight - ActorJonathan Kozol - WriterLenny Kravits - SingerLisa Kudrow - ActressWally Kurth - ActorChristine Lahti - Actressk.d. lang - SingerRicki Lake - TV personalityDenis Leary - ActorJohn Leguizamo - ActorNorman Lear - TV ProducerSpike Lee - DirectorHal Linden - ActorTara Lipinski - Former OlympianKeyshawn Johnson - NFL playerRob Lowe - ActorAmanda Marshall - SingerBarry Manilow - SingerCamryn Manheim - ActressHowie Mandel - ActorKyle MacLachlan - ActorMadonna - SingerMarla Maples - ActressMarsha Mason - Actress*Mase - SingerPenny Marshall - DirectorPrema Mathai-Davis - YWCA OfficialJohn McDaniel - MusicianJohn McEnroe - AthleteBrian McKnight - MusicianNatalie Merchant - SingerBette Midler - SingerMary Tyler Moore - ActressMichael Moore - Film MakerMike Myers - ActorN Sync - Music groupKathy Najimy - ActressJack Nicholson - ActorLeonard Nimoy - ActorMike Nichols - DirectorStephen Nichols - ActorRosie O`Donnel l- Actress/Talk Show HostJennifer O Neill - ActressJulia Ormond - ActressJane Pauley - TV PersonalitySarah Jessica Parker - ActressMandy Patinkin - ActorRichard North Patterson - WriterRhea Perlman- ActressMichelle Pfieffer - ActressAidan Quinn - ActorColin Quinn - ActorDennis Quaid - ActorElizabeth Bracco Quinn - ActressBonnie Raitt - SingerDebbie Reynolds - ActressMary Lou Retton - Former OlympianPaul Reiser - ActorPeter Reckell - ActorRob Reiner - Actor/DirectorRobert Redford - Actor/DirectorAnne Rice - WriterCathy Rigby - ActressJulia Roberts - ActressMarc Rosen - TV ProducerTim Robbins - ActorTim Roth - ActorRenee Russo - ActressRobin Ruzan - Wife of Mike MyersMeg Ryan - ActressSusan Sarandon - ActressJerry Seinfeld - ActorKyra Sedgwick - ActressMartin Sheen - ActorRussell Simmons - Record ProducerNeil Simon - Playwright*Louise Sorel - ActressMira Sorvino - ActressRena Sofer - ActressBritney Spears - SingerBruce Springsteen - SingerKevin Spirtas - ActorBarbra Streisand - SingerDavid Steinberg - DirectorSylvester Stallone - ActorHarry Dean Stanton - ActorMeryl Streep - ActressPatrick Stewart - ActorSharon Stone - ActressSting - SingerTrudie Styler - ActressJonathan Taylor Thomas - ActorThe Temptations - Pop GroupVinny Testaverde - NFL playerMarlo Thomas - Actress*Uma Thurman - ActressSteve Tisch - ProducerMike Torrez - Former Baseball playerShania Twain - SingerDick Van Dyke - ActorEli Wallach - Actor*Harvey Weinstein - ProducerJann Wenner - PublisherSigourney Weaver - ActressVictor Webster - ActorAndy Williams - Singer*Kelli Williams - ActressHenry Winkler - ActorOprah Winfrey - EntertainerRita Wilson - ActressVanessa Williams - SingerHerman Wouk - AuthorJoanne Woodward - Actress*Peter Yarrow - SingerCatherine Zeta-Jones - ActressAhmet Zappa -ActorDiva Zappa -ActressDweezil Zappa - MusicianGail Zappa -Moon Zappa -Actress

 

[Mr Two Cents]

I bet they're glad we have 2nd amendment. Unlike you, of course.

I'm very glad we have the 2nd Amendment. Why do you guys keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment? What does it have to do with this discussion?

You are such a moron, can we add your address to Google Earth?

 

[timschochet]

I bet they're glad we have 2nd amendment. Unlike you, of course.

I'm very glad we have the 2nd Amendment. Why do you guys keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment? What does it have to do with this discussion?

You are such a moron, can we add your address to Google Earth?

Am I a celebrity?

 

[Mr Two Cents]

There are a lot of people - on this board, and elsewhere, planning for their Waco/ruby ridge moment. That says a lot about you kooks. But nothing good.

"Mister Two Cents? Yes I'm calling to remind you that if you own any firearms, they must be registered.""COLD DEAD HANDS, mother####er!!!"

Sorry Tim all my weapons have been sold to unregistered criminals at the last three gun shows in the Houston area. I no longer have anything traceable or recordable for any database. It is happening all over the area. Unfortunate but I tried to make sure all the buyers were mentally competent, legal and not felons.Sorry I have nothing left for the government to come and get. I am now as defenseless and incapable to take care of my family as you. I sure hope neither one of us has any problems that would affect the health and well being of our families. You convinced me that being unarmed and defenseless was the way to go. Thank you for the insightful education you have given me.Guns bad.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

I bet they're glad we have 2nd amendment. Unlike you, of course.

I'm very glad we have the 2nd Amendment. Why do you guys keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment? What does it have to do with this discussion?

You are such a moron, can we add your address to Google Earth?

Am I a celebrity?

No but I think you should be the FBG representative. You being such a soft target and all, just like me now.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Guns bad.

my favorite part