close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

What do you think about.....?

Discussion in 'Guns and Ammo' started by Warpath, Jan 27, 2005.

  1. The Columbus City Council met today with police officers about a possible assault weapons ban within the city limits. Was wondering what everyone on here thought of it? I myself am not a member of the NRA, but am considering it. I do not own a firearm at all, but these attacks on personal rights have got to stop somewhere. I'm not a smoker, but I also opposed the smoking ban. Just ask yourself, when will it be something you love (like the hp limits at local reserviors?)?

    Hopefully, this post is appropriate for this forum. The moderators can edit it as they see fit. Thanks all!

    Eric
     
  2. H2O Mellon

    H2O Mellon Hangin' With My Gnomies

    I am a life member of the NRA-so you know where I stand on the assult weapon ban. The word Assult, gets the non gun people thinking they are talkign about fully auto M16's & AK47's, it isnt. Those type of weapons will always be illeagal to own. I get PO'd when they really mean my 9 shot Mossberg, or my Ruger 10/22 w/ 20 rd mag etc...

    I too cant stand the smoking ban, & I am not a smoker either. How can laws like this be passed? I try to stand up agasint laws like this, becasue the next one very well could affect me. Heck they could introduce a non cafene law. And I for one like a freakin' Pepsi every now & then!
     

  3. very well said H20. the fools that run Cincinnati must be talking to the fools that run Columbus. you really have to ask yourself whats next.
     
  4. It`s not that we need bans on weapons it`s that we need to get the city Council to let the police officer do their jobs.We also need the court system to step up and do their job and put these people behind bars who use guns in a crime.the day we can get them to do their job is the day we wont have to worry about the weapon bans.

    i seen where these people wanted to ban all hunting rifles and shotguns,just goes to show you that these folks wont stop with the full auto`s. the gun owners down under once said they would never ban guns in their country and look at them now.the one thing we can do is get out there and vote and know who your voting for because they may this sort of thing in mind.




    Bub
     
  5. Reel Man

    Reel Man Member

    806
    0
    721
    Since several of you brought up smoking bans in conjungtion with this I'm going to throw my two cents in on that topic. Second hand smoke is as dangerous to a non smoker as first hand smoke is to the smoker. How could any sane person be opposed to a ban on smoking? I have no use for it. It has absolutely no redeeming qualities and can only harm those that comes in contact with it. Smoking bans don't even belong in the same debate or sentence as a ban on assault weapons.
     
  6. jeffmo

    jeffmo officially unofficial!!!!

    reel man,i think the problem with the smoking ban is that business owners have no rights to run their establishments as they see fit.the owners should be the ones who should be able to say if their business is smoking or non-smoking.if they choose to make it smoking then everyone entering the building would know that it is allowed.then THEY have the choice to go in or not.if allowing smoking ends up hurting their business then so be it.but it should be their choice.
    now,the assault weapon ban would be a joke.anyone that use one of these weapons while committing a crime surely isn't going to care if there's a ban or not and they will still be able to obtain these weapons,illegally!
    the ones it will hurt will be those who use these weapons legally.these politicians can't seem to be able to have the ability to use common sense.they continue to try to ban this weapon or that weapon and they just don't realize that a criminal will use whatever he can to commit a crime.that could be anything from a legal shotgun to a barrett .50 caliber!
    some years back they added the "if you use a gun while committing a crime" stipulation into the laws and THOUGHT it would reduce crime.it just didn't work.what they needed to do was say that if you had a "WEAPON" in your hand while committing a crime we're gonna add 20 years to the sentence.then it would cover anything from a screwdriver to a gun.
    no measurable results in lowering crime will ever come about until our lawmakers realize one thing.the punishments simply aren't changing these criminals way of thinking and the younger kids see it and know our penal system is a joke!
    the punishments have to be severe enough to lock these criminals up for a long time in a place that they would NEVER want to go back to.the young kids would see what happens whe you screw up bad enough to be sent to prison and they'd know one thing for sure,that they'd never want to end up there.
     
  7. Pharley

    Pharley Hook 'Em

    223
    0
    721
    Unfortunately this is the growing trend across the states, with California being the most anti-gun of them all. Several states have been defeated, others are passing. I personally do not see this passing in Ohio. From what I have read and kept up with, concealed carry has gone well in our state so far (as far as the responsibility of the CCWers), and I think the laws will get modified and less stringent over time.
     
  8. H2O Mellon

    H2O Mellon Hangin' With My Gnomies

    the smoke ban is just anoter way that someone is trying to run your life. I dont smoke, I dont like smoke, I cant stand the smell of cig smoke, but I alos dont like government telling me what I can do & cant do & where & when I can or cant do something. MY point was that if you keep giving in it will never stop.
     
  9. Reel Man, I agree with you entirely that smoking is a disgusting, unhealthy habit. But others would disagree with you. It's their choice to smoke. Ask yourself this...if it's so disgusting and unhealthy for a person to smoke, why doesn't the governement just make it illegal? Why don't they stop taxing it and using it for publicly-funded projects? You need look no further than the Cleveland Browns Stadium, which was built from a "sin" tax (meaning alcohol and cigarette taxes). And yet, smokers are demanded to exit to the concourse to smoke. They built the stadium, shouldn't the non-smokers get up and go to the concourse when a smoker lights up?

    The problem with law these days is that it is not based on logic. Don't get the feeling I'm personally attacking you Reel Man. But when will the government come and say you don't have the right to fish anymore? It sounds crazy but it could happen. A lot of folks seem to think their rights are more important than another person's. We have given the government the sword to cut our own heads off with, and its time to take it back. As a birthday present to me, my brother is buying me a NRA membership. I still do not own a gun, and I do not hunt. But I will not sit by and let them take someone else's right to do so away. I will be on the front line of this battle with Columbus City Council, including being at next week's hearing on the assault weapons ban. I work with the Columbus Police every night, and I do not know one officer for the ban.

    Eric
     
  10. I'll start off by saying that I am a retired LEO and aFFL holder/dealer. Bubba, it takes more than the police doing their jobs to keep offenders in jail. I can't tell you how many times I have arrested an offender to have judges and sentencing laws made by politicians put them right back out!

    Secondly, I find it amazing that this country of ours that is supposedly free can take away an item from people because someone else may use it wrong. There are a lot of instance of drunk drivers hurting others, but no mention of banning cars or booze! (I am not advocating or making light drunken driving, just an example).

    For those who look at smoking bans, look at the fairly new law about public smoking in New York. No smoking in any public place under a roof!!

    Criminals don't obey laws, that's what makes them criminals. Don't enact more laws, improve the ones that are there!

    Just my brief two cents, which when added to a dollar will get you coffee at most places!
     
  11. I agree with what Reel Man brought up here that gun rights and smoking ban are two completely different issues here. I guess if we want to say we are talking about every right that has ever been taken away then yes they are in the same category. (For example: govt controls on sewage handling, noise ordinances, alcohol cunsumption limits, alcohol distribution, etc., etc.) The underlying cause and the purpose for control in these two examples are completely different. Gun bans really have no effect on the individuals involved unless you subscribe to the beliefs of the proponents in that they cause undue risk and so forth. Tobacco usage on the other hand, as Reel Man says, is a health risk to ALL who are exposed to it. I can not legally walk around spreading any other harmful chemicals into the air for everyone to ingest. I am not allowed to carry a can of gasoline into an establishment and open it so I can smell it just because I like the way it smells. But based on what some think I should be allowed to. I know I always hear people say that it should be up to the establishment to make that decision. But I don't know of many establishments with the kahunas to impose their own ban on tobacco without fear of loss of business. The one thing that I feel is out of line with the ban is that it is for all establishments. I think they should limit it to eating establishments and exclude the adult only bars. After all that is a lifestyle that people either accept to subject themselves to or not. But I am a father of 3 and I find it pretty irritating when I can not find a place to eat that is without the smell of smoke. Many times it makes no difference whether you specify smoking or non-smoking because they seat you side-by-side. Now how do I as a consumer work around a situation like this if I feel that strongly against sitting in a smoke filled room? Is it too much to ask people to restrain from smoking for an hour or less so that they can eat?

    Now back to the gun ban.:D I am not a NRA member and I will admit that there are some stances that the NRA makes that I find more radical than my beliefs. I do own several guns and I am a hunting enthusiast. I have to admit that when H2O mentions that people will have us believe that assault weapons means AK47's, that is what I start thinking. I am not that in tune with the ban proposals but I have always sort of taken the quiet road on this one because I always thought that the AK47's, etc. were useless for anything but killing. Now if there is truth to the part that they are targeting any semi-auto rifle as well then they are starting to branch over in to firearms many use for hunting. I have always agreed wth the people who say that "The laws are only for those who obey them. The criminals will continue to do what they want." I just have always taken a more pacifist approach to this. However, the more I read comments like H2O's the more I think to myself that I owe it to myself to stay more in tune with what they are trying to do with gun control. If I see that they are infringing on my rights to own any guns that I see myself as having an interest in whether I own it or not, then the NRA and all other gun rights activists will get my full approval.
     
  12. The point I was making about the bans being similar is that there exist in our government, certain factions that have slowly eroded personal rights. It will not stop with the smoking ban, it will not stop with the assault weapons ban, and it won't stop until somehow...we don't have any rights anymore.

    The fact is, you can go to restaurants that are non-smoking. You might only get a TofuBurger, but hey that's life. And even more so, there are greatly designed restaurants, such as Don Pablo's, where the smokers are upstairs and the non-smokers downstairs. They add a high volume ventilation system, and ta-da! Smoke-free environment.

    It should have in the least bit been left up to the establishments. They pay the bills, they take the risks with the business. If as a non-smoker you do not want to frequent a smoking establishment, then spend your money elsewhere. The MARKET will dictate what people do and do not want much better than any government official can. I mean these screwballs can't even balance a budget!

    Again, if it's so bad for everyone involved, then the government should not only allow all parties to sue the tobacco companies, but the government should pay all the money back it got from taxes on tobacco products and make it illegal to grow, sell, or possess. It seems to have worked with marijuana, right?

    Eric
     
  13. *pokes head into discussion*

    "It seems to have worked with marijuana, right?"

    I will assume this was a joke. Because our drug laws certainly are.

    *leaves discussion peacefully*
     
  14. Another party of concern in the restaurants is the waiters/waitresses, etc. They are being subjected to it for several hours at a time. Sure they can quit. But how many restaurants can they find around that will allow their help to determine which tables they serve?
     
  15. Warpath mentioned Don Pablos as an example. That example solves the problem pretty well. But how many Don Pablos do you have around and you better hope that everyone likes mexican. In other words I don't think there are a whole lot of establishments that have given it that much effort to address the issue. Perhaps if they could force them to follow the example that Don Pablos set. But not every place can do that either whether it be financially or physically due to building constraints.
     
  16. H2O Mellon

    H2O Mellon Hangin' With My Gnomies

    Assulat Ban...... If you look @ the senate bill (I had the #, but forgot it) supported/created by Mr. Kerry & Mr. Kennedy it wants to ban rifles that held more than 3 cartridges, and shotguns that held more than three (i think it was 3) shells. Which means, the Remmington 1187 that Mr. Kerry held so prodly during the big photo shoot would no longer be a legal huting weapon. I honestly dont remember where handguns (revolvers) that were used for hunting stood. *note: this is not a Kerry/Kennedy bashing post, I am onyl pointing out items in the bill. The type of guns that they wanted to outlaw was scary. What about my old Remmington Nylon66 tube fed .22, my numerous ( :D ) Shotguns that have entended tubes, my Ruger Mini 14, I can go on & on. Thats what gets me ticked, they try & use the word "Assult" to scare the normal American, I mean heck, a my kids little league bat could be considered an assult weapon, if I assulted you with it right?
     
  17. H2O Mellon

    H2O Mellon Hangin' With My Gnomies

    One more thing: I think Bubba is right, but I'd liek to add, that it would be nice to see the laws heldup when it gets past the arresting officer. If I was a law enforcement officer, & I arrested some Redneck from Coldwater, (that just happens to hang around in a duck blind @ Grand Lake, you know this guy, Bubba? :p ) for vandlaizing at "Crazy Johns Bar & Grill" just to ahve the loacl PA or Judge let him off, then I as that officer would probally be less likely to arrest that same guy, or anoyone else for doing the same vandalizng @ the same location. I hope that made sense! I am a big advoate for us enforcing the laws that are already there. Give punishment when punishment is deserved, I think it would be less likely for that person to do the crime again.
     
  18. Reel Man

    Reel Man Member

    806
    0
    721
    I have to respond once again to the smoking issue that has been brought up in this thread. I suppose I should make it clear that I don't simply support a smoking ban in public; I believe smoking should be outlawed. Is this a violation of personal freedom? With freedom comes responsibility. Even if a smoker could isolate himself from the rest of the public we still pay higher health care premiums to offset the damage he does to his own body due to a health care system that is balloons to care for him. Here's a link to a newspaper article in the University of Berkley's newspaper. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0916/smoking.html I personally would favor a steady raise in the age limit a person can buy cigarettes until the age exceeds any living smoker and there is no longer a demand for cigarettes. No person should have the freedom to poison everyone’s air. I'm afraid any argument to support that is nonsense to me when I consider there is nothing but negative consequences to cigarette smoking so I'm not about to budge on my stance on that topic.

    As far as gun control goes who do we need protection from? There are three basic types of people that will kill with guns. First there are hardened criminals that to be quite frank will get guns illegally and there is no way to keep them from possessing them. Second there are people that would murder in the heat of the moment "crimes of passion". You could probably provide some protection to the general populace if these people didn't have guns but once again wouldn't a knife or any blunt object in the vicinity of a person accomplish the same thing a gun would? Third there are those that might kill accidentally whether it is someone else or even themselves. I suspect there will always be accidental deaths in the U.S. via guns, cars, bungee jumping, ect.... the list could go on. Education is the best means to prevent accidents. I don't believe there is a reason for people to possess fully automatic weapons and I don't believe anyone should be allowed to walk around in public with a concealed gun. I don't think we need shoot outs between criminals and society. I haven't researched statistics to show how often there are happy endings and how often sad ones to such scenarios but I'd be willing to bet that the sad ones out number the happy ones. I believe responsible people have a right to bear arms not irresponsible ones so I think there are instances that citizens should be denied the privilege of owning firearms. Mental Illness, Criminal records would be just a couple of examples. It certainly is a hotly debated topic and has been for years with a lot of grey areas that I don't think any one person can properly sort out to arrive at the perfect balance but what I do know about people in general is that most of us are not balanced in our thinking and never will be. That can be proven by taking a look at yourself and seeing how your thoughts and values have changed from the time you were a child through adult hood to your present age and most of us would admit that we will continue to change and grow hopefully for the better.

    It should be remembered that rules and laws in society don't always benefit every person subject to them. They benefit the majority. That's what makes us civilized. When we have the ability to see that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

    Enough of my rambling and that will be the last I have to say on the smoking subject. It would be unfair for me to continue on that topic for the simple fact that nothing anyone says will convince me that it should even be legal. It is legal though and the good news is I'm stable and won't pull a gun on any one that lights up around me. :D
     
  19. Ok maybe i didn`t word it just right but you get my point,so stop hollerin at me lol
    But i do believe we need stiffer penelties for the crimes committed and to stop all this BS with rehabilation. i have always believed that if you do the crime then you do the time.anymore it`s like if you do the crime you look for a loophole in the system.


    and as far as assult weapons go me and my 10ga. will be out assulting geese in a duck blind on grand lake in the morning...i`ll keep a eye out for that guy your talking about.lol
     
  20. Berkley lololololololololol when was the last time they did something that didn`t have a hidden agenda? i dont smoke, never have never will but it still goes back to what has always been said"if ya dont like it leave".just because i think you do something that is bad does that give me the right to bitch about it? NO !! Same goes if i do some thing you dont like. Just because you dont think people should have fully automatic weapons doesnt mean that a responsible gun owner shouldn`t have them. if society would start shooting back once in awhile maybe i believe we wouldn`t have the violance that we do today.conceal and carry laws have brought the violent crime rates down in every state that has a CC on the books. i guarantee you that you would be safer with a CC member then someone who is not.Balanced... brother i`m about the most balanced guy you could ever have the privilege to meet. I try not to make things to difficult in life ,i look at things a little simpler than most because "most people" seem to make things harder to understand then they really are.you do your thing and i`ll do mine and just agree to not intrude on each other.

    Bubba