"Proper", my ass.

There are many more great quotes out there from the OP.

My favorite is his if When I'm king.

I really think only about half you guys need to be disarmed.

What you really think doesn't really matter, does it Micky?
I checked out your little blog, what a fricken joke, you've got some really nasty foul mouthed anti gun people there, I felt like I needed a shower after reading some of their comments. Never again.

almost all the commenters are PRO-GUN folks. But you're right about one thing, they are nasty.

The two of you both seem honestly puzzled as to why your Etch-A-Sketch positions (they are unworthy to be dignified with the name 'principles') aren't catching on...

About not catching on, you're whistling in the dark. I figure the gun-rights movement has a few good years left. Here's how.

Every year 100,000 are killed or injured with guns. They all have friends and relatives. If even half of them are pushed towards the gun control side due to their suffering, we're talking about a million people a year.

The scales are tipping in our favor. Enjoy your last hurrah.

Ok Micky, you just keep believing that from Italy. I've been hearing that same argument for 20 years now and so far, gun laws have been getting laxer, violent crime, including firearms crime has been declining while firearm ownership has been rising, CC permit applications have been rising.

You seem to have a tough time admitting that your little dream of more gun control laws is not working out, but if it helps you sleep better at night believing that the pro gun movement is about to collapse, then, knock yourself out, meanwhile, we'll keep on racking up the victories.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=268677&mesg_id=268677



Posing as a 'hip' expat seems to impress some of the weaker-minded locals...

So you're hardly unique in your deeply ingrained prejudice.

The first one 'knew' all about USAian gun owners despite actually living in Canada.

The second was an expat living in Australian who went to great lengths to 'inform' us that Australia is a crime- and racism-free Sunnybrook Farm (with marsupials).

Neither of the are here any longer. The three of you have other things in common:

You're all bullshit artists, who display the characteristics of the majority of gun control advocates these days- a herdlike mass of slacktivists and keyboard commandos
trading links to lurid stories and earnest op-eds on the Internet. No coalition-building or actual political grunt work for you lot, nosiree! Instead, you satisfy
yourself with convincing people that already agree with you about the supposed moral rightness of your cause.

And that is why you lose- you won't "do" actual politics. Love or hate the NRA, they practice realpolitik in a way the astroturf Brady Campaign, et al
can't or won't.

/no no no, we'll just ban them a little. We'll totally stop . . . after the *next* law.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-short-barreled-rifles-shotguns.html is the first link.

If you build an AR rifle from a lower receiver, it's a rifle and must be over 26" long.
If you build an AR pistol from a lower receiver, it can not have a shoulder stock or vertical hand grip but can use any length of barrel. If the over all length is greater than 26", you may put a vertical grip on it as it is now an 'other' firearm and no longer a pistol.
If you put a barrel longer than 16" on the pistol, you can put a stock on it. At that point it is a rifle. If you remove the stock you can again put any length of barrel on it and it's still a pistol.
If you take the stock off of the rifle and put a shorter barrel on it you have made a stockless short barreled rifle and must have a $200 stamp and the lower receiver must be engraved with your stamp number. If you don't do that you face a felony charge and a $25,000 fine.

Some states do not allow you to have a pistol over a certain weight or with certain cosmetic parts. Massachusetts is one. Other states don't allow Short Barreled Rifles to be owned by private individuals, like IL, NY and NJ. California has a LOT of rules as to what constitutes an 'Assault Weapon', a term that is purely political and never existed before 1994.

Common sense is neither common nor sensible. Which state is more sensible? Who gets to choose?

the same as felons and mentally ill?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Italy

So, does Italian military law have the same due process protections as the US Uniform Code of Military Justice or the Canadian Forces Code of Service Discipline?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector#Italy

seems similar to the Italian law and pretty unreasonable if you ask me.

you have to be convicted of a major felony in a general court martial. It hasn't been a crime in Italy since 1972, but still a prohibition.

But as with any enumerated constitutional right, the onus is on those advocating a given restriction to demonstrate that it is as narrowly tailored as possible to meet a substantial societal need, and that no other course is available...

but I do believe in reasonable restrictions. For example I feel the gun laws in Florida meet this criteria although I am sure many here would disagree with me. I'm not saying that they could not be improved in order to be more effective.

I believe the minority of those who support RKBA and post here in the Gungeon agree with me.

for people like mikeb, as show by the quoted post up-thread.

One small step at a time.

That may be understandable as banning all firearms at this time is politically impossible. The incremental approach offers those who support banning all firearms some chance of eventually succeeding.

I do believe if you give and inch they WILL take a mile.

And it's always one more.

Even essentially banning them isn't enough as another post here showed. In Britain they're even restricting who can read about guns.

So ultimately what is "reasonable" to some people is a total ban as well as outright censorship on anyone who even wants to discuss these horrifying objects.

/of course the police and military will have guns. And the wealthy via private security.

You're a strong believer in reasonable restrictions and you think FL is doing it right.


Bwahahahahahahaha

or the US?

For example I know that Florida wears the crown in large part for its gun laws.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2011/03/florida-takes-crown-from-arizona.html

but not Wyoming and Vermont, which have laxer laws?

and you don't know what they are. I bet I know more about Italian and Canadian gun laws than you do US federal laws and any state.

Explain Florida's waiting period and the exceptions its ban on open carry.
What US federal gun control law covers handguns with shoulder stocks
In Canada, what is the youngest age one can legally buy ammunition

if you want to know the answer to "but not Wyoming and Vermont, which have laxer laws? "

About your quizzing me on my gun-law knowledge, do you really think I'd allow that? I told you I know some. I didn't say I'm an expert on anything. But in you, I recognize a close-minded, biased, gun-rights fanatic. How am I doin'?

and it said nothing.
No, I really didn't think you would allow that because in you I recognize a closed minded, biased, anti gun fanatic.
Your blog makes mine look good.

SHIT

however I think the burden of proof should be entirely on those seeking to restrict our freedoms and we should err on the side of more freedom rather than less.

Don't you agree?

This is the brilliant solution to gun violence that Mike seems to think deserves all the traffic he's trying to drive to his blog:

What Do We Mean by Proper Gun Control?
1. Licensing of all gun owners which would include a penal background check, a mental health background check, an eye exam, a written and practical test and approval by the local authorities.

2. Registration of all newly bought firearms which would need to be renewed after three months and yearly thereafter by presenting the paperwork and the weapon to the police.

3. Background checks on all purchases including private ones. This can be done at the local FFL dealer for a nominal fee.

4. Three day waiting period for all first purchases.

5. "May Issue" policy for concealed carry permits managed federally - same rules in every state.

6. Assault Weapons Ban using the California model which would include restrictions on extended magazines.


All of this derivative bullshit could have been cut and pasted to be discussed right here (for the 9842nd time). But for some reason he wants you to click the link to read it. Golly, wonder why?


I went there, so you don't have to.

biggest mistake of the day. What a POS blog. I won't ever go there again. Some really foul mouthed anti's there.

that you are actually going to his blog.

is by pro-gun folks. I don't know why you didn't notice that.

I would like to increase the traffic to my blog. Is there something wrong with that. Several of you guys keep pointing that out as if it were a dirty secret. That makes you look pretty stupid and petty since that's what blogging is all about.

All of your disparaging remarks about my blog are simply because you disagree with what I have to say and being the kind of people who can't stand to be disagreed with, you attack.

Carry on. You're a credit to the democratic spirit of DU.

are really foul mouthed while most of the pro gun posters are usually pretty mild. I stand by my comments and I will NEVER go to your POS blog again.

my one and only time that I will go there, the pro gun people were pretty mild compared to the foul mouthed anti gun people, and I would tell everyone not to waste their time going to that almost exclusively anti gun site. I really felt like I needed a shower afterwards.

When you can't win the argument, attack personally. Good policy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=73043

I'm dead serious about needing a shower after visiting your blog.

Buddy boy, y'all lost the argument along time ago, and I didn't attack you personally, I attacked your little blog for what it is, an anti gun blog.

Look, I'm as pro-second-amendment as they come.

I don't have a problem with "reasonable" regulation of the second amendment. I don't have a problem with laws that prohibit certain convicted felons from owning guns. I don't even have a problem with universal licensing.

I don't have a problem with these regulations so long as the original intent of the second amendment is preserved.

And that is the crux of the "reasonable regulations" argument.

To me, what is reasonable is to preserve the intent of the second amendment - to keep military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians so that they can function as military troops in an emergency. This includes the ability to engage enemies both foreign and domestic.

So long as any proposed restrictions on that right do not compromise that ability, I don't have a problem with it.

The problem is most anti-gun people refuse to acknowledge what the intent of the second amendment is.

"to keep military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians so that they can function as military troops in an emergency. This includes the ability to engage enemies both foreign and domestic. "

It makes no sense in modern society.

unless you like empire and you have stock in or own a piece of the MIC.

It does not matter whether the people can or will function as military troops in an emergency.

It does not matter if it makes sense in a modern society.

IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.

Just as the third amendment is also the law of the land, even though no troops have been quartered in civilian homes in 150 years.

The current law of the land, per the United States Constitution, says that US citizens may keep military-grade small arms so that they can function as military troops in an emergency.

Whether it makes sense to you or not is irrelevant.