http://wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=1092887

Found this today, and it should be of interest to those with concealed weapon permits. Probably be a topic at the gun show on the 31st.
This was tried a few years back and defeated. The whiny liberal cock suckers wont let it die.

http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=252360

and then there is this

This is a very serious issue. "gun toting heat packers" jokes and idiotic comments aside, many judges and single women with violent ex's get concealed carry permits. Several women were reportedly forced to move after that paper published the data because violent ex's they were hiding from could look them up and find them. People like me have to worry that if this data is sitting there that criminals will use the list as a car break-in shopping list to try to get weapons out of cars. I don't store any in my cars, but the thief will have to break my windows to find that out.

This was a very serious breach of privacy for law-abiding citizens. We weren't arrested or anything like the Arrest DB shows so "now you know how it feels to be on the arrest database" doesn't apply.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2007 07:49PM by pgens.

The orignal article in the Roanoke Times pretty much compared the release of concealed weapon permit holders to sex offenders.

The paper is so liberal it makes the washington post look like a conservatives dream. It is such a piece of shit they give it away for free during the week if you take a subscription. A huge amount of people dropped subscriptions as soon as that article came out. I dont think that paper is going to last much longer under its current liberal editors. In the Roanoke Valley it is very much hated.

I think the heat should be put on the Roanoke Times' advertisers.

A little long but worth the read if you have a CWP. I lke where someone published the writers home address as soon as he wrote the article. Appears he didnt think that was worth publishing as much as the holders of the permit.


http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/109163

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/trejbal/wb/wb/xp-91155

This is an example of the crap this guy writes.

Folks, if you want to protect your Second Amendment rights or learn more about responsible firearms ownership / concealed handgun permits / etc. you should head over to The Virginia Citizens Defense League website at http://vcdl.org/

They are the largest grassroots organization of its kind in the country. They focus on Virginia gun issues (unlike the NRA which focuses on nationwide issues) and are the reason why the CHP list was removed within one day from the RT website.

Virginia is a very gun friendly state (law wise) because of the hard work of this group!

On the one hand, if you exercise any of your constitutional rights, it is public. The word PRIVACY is not in the constitution anywhere.

On the other hand, the fact that these records even exist is debatably unconstitutional.

Christian Trejbal = Total piece of shit

I am not going to claim that George Allen was the best guy in the world, but to take quotes from some mud slinging campaign acusations is pretty irresponsible reporting. I know it is an editorial, but I still find it fairly low class. I wouldn't vote for John Kerry in a billion years, but I dont rely on the Swift Boaters For Truth for the history of his life. And I like southwest VA, the residents are great people.

tinffx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the one hand, if you exercise any of your
> constitutional rights, it is public. The word
> PRIVACY is not in the constitution anywhere.
>
> On the other hand, the fact that these records
> even exist is debatably unconstitutional.

Correct, but it is an implied right of the equal protection "liberty" clause of the 14th. This was referred to in Roe v Wade and many other opinions. Bottom line, it's up to the interpretation of the judges.

tinffx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the one hand, if you exercise any of your
> constitutional rights, it is public.

Really, so is your vote public? Are we entitled to read your letters or hear your prayers? Must you disclose which religion you believe in? Can I FOIA your tax returns and publish them on the web?


>The word
> PRIVACY is not in the constitution anywhere.

So what's the purpose of the 4th Ammendment, then?

By your logic, you have no right to defend yourself, either, because the word self-defense is not used in the constitution. Nor do you have a right to eat, because the word food is not used.

That is the weak argument conswervatives always drag out against Roe v. Wade, and it's BS. If you don't like abortion, fine, argue against abortion, but don't make a fool of yourself by arguing against a right to privacy.

The 9th Amm. covers the bases, in any case. A person going about daily life has too many rights to list, so the founders didnt try. There is no requirement for a right to be listed in the constitution in order for you to believe in it.


>
> On the other hand, the fact that these records
> even exist is debatably unconstitutional.

At least you got that part correct.

Since bearing arms is a right, there should be no government permission list to begin with. Since there is a permit law, people who follow the law should not have their privacy violated.

In any case, getting this list from the government may imply that the requestor will be a good steward of the information. Turning around and publishing it on your website is not being a good steward; it's being a vindictive anti-gun dick.

good points tomahawk. What kills me is the argument that people need to know who has a concealed weapon permit so they can determine if their kids are safe in a neighbors home.

It is the most stupid argument since you can own a hundred guns and never have a concealed weapon permit and still be perfectly legal. It is the usual gun haters argument that never fully discloses the real truth.

Rather than check on your neighbor to see it he has a permit how about checking to see if he is a sex offender.

I also talked to my friend in Roanoke yesterday and was told the Roanoke Times is begging for subscriptions. The only thing keeping them in business is it is the only paper in the area. There are some that are in the smaller towns but they target only local events and news.

Let's be accurate here. The Roanoke times is no different than other newspapers when it comes to begging for subscibers. Almost every newspaper in the country has seen a major dip in home subscribers.

yeah the newspapers are seeing a huge drop in revenue from ads that arent being made up just yet in online ads revenue. So if you want to get some yellow journalism going start pushing the hot buttons. Its a last ditch attempt to get readership up

The funny thing is gun owners will picket the ad buyers and there will go that money.

Believe me I stay in touch with people from that area, I used to live there. The paper is very much hated and it goes beyond the loss of readership from the internet. It just isn't the right area to publish slanted news about guns. Most everyone in that area owns one. To compare the concealed weapon holders list to the sex offenders list pissed everyone off.

They especially hate outsiders coming in and telling them what is wrong with the area and calling them racists and bigots. For sure they have their share but in my current office the worst racial remarks I hear come from those who are from up north.

"The permit information is public record and is subject to the Freedom of Information act."

How is getting a list of weapon owners out there any differant than the arrest and ticket search DB on THIS VERY SITE that you all are infatuated with? its NOT

Gun owners jump through enough hoops to be legal. The list was posted out of spite by the liberals because the must issue on demand was passed. It was a back door attempt to scare possible applicants away.

The same kind of dirty trick that some of the local jurisdictions tried when they wanted to charge $800.00 to process the applicants. The state saw that for what is was and passed a law on the amount the appicant must pay and no more than that. Less than $100.00 I believe.

These same papers cried foul when sex offenders were posted on the internet. Which do you believe is a bigger danger to society? Which ones repeatedly commit the same crime over and over.

CCP holders must be fingerprinted and take gun safety classes. The vast majority are law abiding and hard working. Their only desire is to be left in peace. Publishing their names and addresses is just punishment for their exercising their freedoms.

Some of the names on the list were victims of crimes and it was illegal to release their information but it was released anyway.
One woman moved several times to get away from a stalker. When she finally thought she was safe her name and address were posted for him to see if he desired. She now has to move again. Some are retired police officers and criminals with a beef now know where to find them.

"One woman moved several times to get away from a stalker. When she finally thought she was safe her name and address were posted for him to see if he desired. She now has to move again. Some are retired police officers and criminals with a beef now know where to find them"

Dude if someone wants to find someone bad enough they have MANY means with wich to do so. the arrest and ticket search for instance. Ferfux is right. if its legal then there should be no shame in printing where somneone lives. its called a PHONE BOOK. any private dick could have found that woman who had a stalker. Scruples or morals or not.

well, if its legal through the 2nd ammendment to own guns, then the same argument can be made since its legal through freedom of the press and freedom of information act to print names. You cant apply one aspect of US law and dismiss the other. They are both laws granting US citizens rights. so STFU

Not sure it is the governments job to help stalkers find victims. I am sure it would be a different story if it was your wife, sister or daughter.

It is also illegal for the state to have released her name in the first place. It comes under the code for being a crime victim. STFU back at you.

well since it wasnt the goverment who listed her name but the paper a private press then its not the Gov who disclosed her whereabouts. and if she was being stalked and a stalker saw her name on a list of people who were armed isnt that a deterent to the stalker he might get a cap popped in his ass? there ya go. By your own argument she is safe and sound.

By her own statement she had to move, please read the whole post. The government has an obligation to not release it. They screwed up and did. The paper, not checking to be sure all the names should have been released, then screwed up and gave hers out. By their own admission they also screwed up.

In their haste to post everyones names they didnt bother to check it out. Their liberal zeal may bite them in the ass yet.
They lost many subscribers and hopefully will lose many more.

The attorney general is considering whether or not it is public record. At present it is a gray area. Not sure if you work in the AG's office. Maybe you have info the public doesnt have yet.

again freedowm of information act.

Come on. WOrrying about a list of Gun owners being targeted by criminals is like worrying that a criminal is gonna walk by a house with a "BEWARE OF DOG" sign and think, "DAMN now I know where I can steal me a gaurd dog"

Gun owners are targeted because criminals can watch to see when they leave for work or go on vacation. Once gone they will make the attempt since it is known, thanks to the government, that the owner has at least one gun and maybe more. Since he is gone on vacation there is little chance he will risk an armed occupant being home at all.

BTW filing for bankruptcy is public record along with divorce, why dont the papers go nuts over these people. It is simple, because they have a personal agenda against any and all guns.

uh no its cuz papers are making sensational headlines. Wanting to sell papers. They dont have a liberal bias wich is the silly paranoia of the hardcore conservative. Besides people who own guns often TAKE THEIR GUNS WITH THEM when they leave their house. Who says the Crims arent going to come back empty handed? Liberals arent "out to get you". thats just your own rampant paranoia at work

You make a good liberal yourself. Only reading part of the post. If you had looked at the pictures posted on here of 7-10 guns you would know gun owners cant take them all with them, it is just too many. That leaves the bulk of them at home. Do you think the guy who posted on here a picture of ten plus guns takes them with him everywhere he goes?

Guns bring a high price on the street. They are prized by criminals. They will take risks to get them. It gives them the edge when dealing with the cops and unarmed sheep like citizens who falsly believe if I give them what they want they will go away without hurting me. To narrow down possible victims they have an edge because the papers have done the work of finding out who owns guns and for the price of a paper will give it to anyone.

Anyone who believes the washington post is not a liberal paper, I have a big bridge in NY I want to sell you.

again your rampant paranoia is showing. If the gun owner is reasonable and responsible he or she will LOCK away the guns in a gun safe. Gun owners are alaway rambling on and on about responsible gun ownership. OK fine. When you are not at home LOCK THEM AWAY in a safe or other hard to access spot. Sheesh. Stop worrying about criminals breaking in to steal JUST YOUR GUNS> Im sure they would also like your Computer with credit card data, plasma TV, Stereo, IPOD, jewelry illegal and or prescription drug stash oh and the gaurd dog protecting it all as well. Sheesh get a life.

uh you were talking about the roanoke times not the washington post werent you? bit of lateral thinking there dude. dont get the two mixed up when one isnt involved at all

"uh no its cuz papers are making sensational headlines. Wanting to sell papers. They dont have a liberal bias" <<<quote in case you didnt read it all. He said papers dont have a liberal bias I say they do. I offer the wash post as proof. Again please read the WHOLE post.


As far as what they will take it will be cash and guns if available. Never heard of a criminal using an ipod to pull a stickup. Criminals know the value of what you own better than you do. Only the most amatuer would take a tv or big computer. As I said in the post which you chose to ignore guns bring the best price on the street. Electronics, jewelry and what you consider valuable bring next to nothing. Its value to you came by what you paid for it. A criminal looks at what is transportable and brings the best price.
Safes are nice too, makes it easier for them to carry out the door and put in the car without off loading the guns or money. Before you respond well they need a bigger safe try around $800-1000 for one they cant carry with two determined people.

??? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "uh no its cuz papers are making sensational
> headlines. Wanting to sell papers. They dont have
> a liberal bias" << all. He said papers dont have a liberal bias I say
> they do. I offer the wash post as proof. Again
> please read the WHOLE post.
>
>
> As far as what they will take it will be cash and
> guns if available. Never heard of a criminal using
> an ipod to pull a stickup. Criminals know the
> value of what you own better than you do. Only the
> most amatuer would take a tv or big computer. As I
> said in the post which you chose to ignore guns
> bring the best price on the street. Electronics,
> jewelry and what you consider valuable bring next
> to nothing. Its value to you came by what you paid
> for it. A criminal looks at what is transportable
> and brings the best price.
> Safes are nice too, makes it easier for them to
> carry out the door and put in the car without off
> loading the guns or money. Before you respond well
> they need a bigger safe try around $800-1000 for
> one they cant carry with two determined people.


yeah right and the Crooks arent gonna sell that other stuff for money as well? Get the fuck out of here. oh and while committing a crime the crooks are gonna have time and energy to just Waltz out of someones house carrying all that stuff without a neighbor seeing and calling the cops and or shooting them himself? Oh and the crooks in your logic are gonna steal guns and sell them or use the guns to rob people of what? NOT jewelry wich are apparenlty worth next to nothing according to you? "STick em up! got any guns on yuou? no just worthless jewelsand ipods! Dayam! ok go on then" LMAO LOSER you ARE!

I guess the county schools teach everything but common sense. A gun is the only item once stolen increases in value. I will try to make this simple so even the most stupid can follow. The gun legally sold is worth $600.00. Once stolen it can be retained to use in robberies or against the police. If it is sold, esp in DC where they are illegal, they will go for $1,000 or more. The customer cannot buy one legally because DC will not allow them. They cannot buy one legally in Virginia because they do not live here and most likely are a convicted felon.

Tv's computers and jewelry go for less because the customer can buy the same thing new for a few bucks more legally, with no hassles.

I dont know how much more simple I can make it. Certainly there are people on this board who have street smarts and still dont live at home or under a rock.

Criminal - I got a plasma tv here with a few scrathes and no warranty, it sells in Best Buy for $1,600.00 bucks. I want you to pay me $1,600.00 for it.

Customer - Gee that sounds like a great deal. Saves me the trouble of driving over to Best Buy and getting one myself. Hey how come the serial number is scratched off?

Criminal - That is called shipping and handling

Prescription drugs also increase in value, but doesn't diminish your point.

I appreciate the info. Drugs like painkillers can bring extra cash. My point is that guns are a very hot commodity. The days of stealing tv's and other hard to carry or sell items is over. Those that do are usually caught quickly.
Pawnshops would throw you out the door if you brought a tv in.

The guns used in crimes in DC, since all guns there are illegal, are stolen from homes mostly or in shipping. The only other place to get them is a gun store. Only someone with a death wish would rob a gun store. That leaves a home owner as the only source.

??? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I appreciate the info. Drugs like painkillers can
> bring extra cash. My point is that guns are a very
> hot commodity. The days of stealing tv's and other
> hard to carry or sell items is over. Those that do
> are usually caught quickly.
> Pawnshops would throw you out the door if you
> brought a tv in.
>
> The guns used in crimes in DC, since all guns
> there are illegal, are stolen from homes mostly or
> in shipping. The only other place to get them is a
> gun store. Only someone with a death wish would
> rob a gun store. That leaves a home owner as the
> only source.


ok. so let me get this straight and using your own logic. The only reason the criminals are out there is to steal guns, BUT they can only get guns from law abiding gun ownning citizens. Since all other avenues of obtaining guns except from gun owners is out of the question then they HAVE to rob law abiding gun owning citizens. SO if there were no law abiding gun owning citazens then the criminals would have NO REASON TO BREAK INTO MY HOUSE!?!?!? you are a gun nut. Emphasis on NUT



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2007 09:30PM by ferfux.

I thought I had made it simple enough so even a short bus rider such as yourself could understand but I have failed.

A criminal in order to commit crimes while armed needs a gun. It is protection for him against the cops and if he sells drugs against other dealers. Do you really believe he buys the gun legally. You CANNOT I repeat CANNOT buy a gun legally in DC. In case you dont read a paper or watch the news that is where the shootings are happening. A gun is the tool of their trade.

The only reason criminals are out there is because that is the lifestyle they have chosen. It is not the fault of society as many liberals such as yourself believe. Rather than work every day for their pay they take a shortcut and commit robberies and burglaries with the outside hope they will get somone like you on the jury who feels sorry for them.

Admission to the gun show costs money so I doubt I will see you there.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yeah the newspapers are seeing a huge drop in
> revenue from ads that arent being made up just yet
> in online ads revenue. So if you want to get some
> yellow journalism going start pushing the hot
> buttons. Its a last ditch attempt to get
> readership up

Lets talk facts. While newspaper ad revenue may be dipping, it is still the dominant force in the industry. If you take the major markets individually and add up all the local advertising from radio and TV,and online (not including Newspapers online) in those markets together, it will about equal what the dominant newspaper brings in. A full page ad in the Washington Post costs $167,000 or more to an advertiser that places ads regularly _think Hechts or now Mays. Advertisers who advertise less frequently pay more - alot more.

In the case of the Washington Post, ad revenue was $572 million last year, plus a little more than $100 million online. In contrast, by far the leading radio stations in ad billings, wtop and wpgc, earned 42 and 32 million respectively. And these two stations earn far more than their closest rivals. WAY MORE!

The numbers are similar for local advertisements on tv. I am not talking national network advertising here though whereby the local stations get a small percentage, if that, of national ads that run on their stations.

yeah, I agree with you rp, my bigger point was just that things have slowed down a bit for the newsies.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well since it wasnt the goverment who listed her
> name


ummmmm yes it was,,,,,,, the newspaper just published the information

ECON202 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ferfux Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > well since it wasnt the goverment who listed
> her
> > name
>
>
> ummmmm yes it was,,,,,,, the newspaper just
> published the information

uh no the reporter used the freedom of information act to force the Gove to cough up the info THEN the newspaper printed it.

Cherrytop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
If the
> gun owner is reasonable and responsible he or she
> will LOCK away the guns in a gun safe. Gun owners
> are alaway rambling on and on about responsible
> gun ownership. OK fine. When you are not at home
> LOCK THEM AWAY in a safe or other hard to access
> spot. Sheesh.

you are retarded, maybe you've never seen a safe before..... it's usually anchored down, which isn't incredibly difficult to unanchor. I'm sure it's not impossible to cut through it either.........with the right tools at least

the info should have never been available under the FOIA

???? wrote >
> I dont know how much more simple I can make it.
> Certainly there are people on this board who have
> street smarts

LMAO! Who's the private DICK with all the street smarts and gets all the Chicks?

???!!!!
ya daaaamn right!

he's a dumb mutha..
shut yo mouth
but we just talking about ???
and i can DIG IT



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2007 05:47PM by doubledeckertriplebypasssonofabitch.

??? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought I had made it simple enough so even a
> short bus rider such as yourself could understand
> but I have failed.
>
> A criminal in order to commit crimes while armed
> needs a gun. It is protection for him against the
> cops and if he sells drugs against other dealers.
> Do you really believe he buys the gun legally. You
> CANNOT I repeat CANNOT buy a gun legally in DC. In
> case you dont read a paper or watch the news that
> is where the shootings are happening. A gun is the
> tool of their trade.
>
LMAO uh no a criminal could use a Knife, a big ole stick, some mace, his own two hands a lead pipe. Havent you ever played CLUE? There are all KINDS of ways a Criminal can commit armed robbery.

> I guess the county schools teach everything but common sense
> I dont know how much more simple I can make it
> you are retarded, maybe you've never seen a safe before
> I thought I had made it simple enough so even a short bus rider such as
> yourself could understand but I have failed

LMAO Obviously everyone who disagrees with your point of view are but Humble intellectual Midgets shivering in ignorance while you are a gun toting Mightly Mental Collossuss Towering above all and who's Authoritive Voice is SO HIGH up in the Clouds above thier toddler developed heads they cant hear your reasoning tones. Little wonder then that you dont realize that people are

DISAGREEING WITH YOU FOR THE SAKE OF FUN OF FUCKING WITH YOU

edit by cary: fixed messed up html tags



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/31/2007 10:19PM by Cary.

Nice try using a Parkers Brothers board game to back up your gun control agenda.

I'm sure the US Navy consults Hasbro when they are in a jam too.
Attachments:

doubledeckertriplebypasssonofabitch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ??? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I thought I had made it simple enough so even a
> > short bus rider such as yourself could
> understand
> > but I have failed.
> >
> > A criminal in order to commit crimes while
> armed
> > needs a gun. It is protection for him against
> the
> > cops and if he sells drugs against other
> dealers.
> > Do you really believe he buys the gun legally.
> You
> > CANNOT I repeat CANNOT buy a gun legally in DC.
> In
> > case you dont read a paper or watch the news
> that
> > is where the shootings are happening. A gun is
> the
> > tool of their trade.
> >
> LMAO uh no a criminal could use a Knife, a big ole
> stick, some mace, his own two hands a lead pipe.
> Havent you ever played CLUE? There are all KINDS
> of ways a Criminal can commit armed robbery.


LOL uh im pretty sure DDTBPSOB was pointing out the inanity of saying armed robbery consists soley of pointing a gun at someone. noone here is trying to take away your lil flame throwing toys. We are just Fucking with you. so calm down there naked. Besides Shouldnt someone who is naked not be so uptight?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2007 09:29PM by cherrytop.

Why is it that NoVa is the only place in Va that contains most of the anti-gunners. Yet NoVa has the most crime in Va. Sounds a bit odd to me. Not flaming, just an observation.

FYI - Richmond has the highest crime rate in Va.

I was going to say... that was an odd thing to say. Crime is pretty low here, and I hear very little anti-gun crap here out of the citizenry. The police in Manassas harass citizens, but they aren't really in NoVA anyway. Right now the anti-gun hero is in Roanoke, very far away from here.

CNN is actually airing a story about the incident in Manassas Monday at 8PM on the Paula Zahn show.

http://www2.vcdl.org/webapps/vcdl/vadetail.html?RECID=1397314

Actually that piece will be on the Roanoke Times situation... I haven't seen any info that says that will involve the Manassas PD's citizen harassment incident.

Thanks Mofo for the research. Hopefully the piece will be fair and not slanted as CNN sometimes does.

I would be willing to bet the anti gun speakers point of view will be the same old tired argument that people need to know who in the neighborhood has guns to protect their kids from those monstors.

This can be effective as the majority of people are not aware you do not need a CWP to own a gun. For some strange reason they think if you dont have the permit you dont own a gun.

Gun control advocates arent saying take ALL guns away. they are asking for restrictions. this stems from a very real fear. Of being wounded or killed by a weapon. Let me ask ALL gun owners, Have you ever or know anyone who has been wounded by a firearm? The real fear is from those who say they are responsible but who fuck up by accidentally shooting, wounding and killing people. I point out DICK CHENEY shooting his buddy hunting, Sal culosi being shot by a swat team officer, that kid who was shot dining and dashing at denny's the girl who was shot in the club in DC. Except for the last example, were RESPONSIBLE gun owners who were TRAINED to handle fire arms BUT KILLED SOMEONE USING ONE ANYWAY! Its usually innocent bystanders who get wounded and killed by gun owning enthusiasts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2007 08:36PM by ferfux.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Have you ever or know anyone who has been wounded
> by a firearm?

Nope.

> I point out DICK CHENEY shooting his
> buddy hunting

People die in sports all the time... should we have licensing of football players?


> Sal culosi being shot by a swat
> team officer

The firearm was involved, but not the cause. The root cause was a FCPD official presenting too much firepower for a situation that didn't require it.


> that kid who was shot dining and
> dashing at denny's

Again, a firearm was involved but the root cause was the holder jumping in front of his vehicle and shooting at it claiming self defense.


> the girl who was shot in the
> club in DC.

A criminal... could have been a knife or a fist causing injury and death.


> Its usually innocent bystanders who get wounded
> and killed by gun owning enthusiasts.

Only your first example was an enthusiast... the rest were carrying firearms for their job or criminals.

But your points are well taken, which is why gun groups have asked that firearm awareness and training be taught in schools as sex education is. Those requests are routinely denied.

Alcohol causes more deaths than guns do. We license driving but do not license alcohol purchases once a person is 21 years old. We don't live in a world where people are guaranteed not to get hurt... it's a dangerous place. Gun ownership and carrying is a constitutional right, as opposed to driving which is not and alcohol consumption which is not. However gun owners, like licensed drivers and those who purchase alcohol, have a responsibility to control their purchases safely. We can't ban or license everything that can possibly present a danger, otherwise we can't get to work or school, cook, play sports, build roads or houses or bridges, or walk outside on hot or cold days. And even if we started banning all of those things, the starting point should be with things that aren't rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Replace the word "firearm" in your example by "ice" or "knife" or "construction equipment" and adjust your examples to suit and you'll get my meaning.

We have registration of firearms in many states (fortunately not Virginia), and people can take clear measures to avoid injury if they are worried. One can move to DC and feel as safe as they would like where firearms are banned, for example. If one is afraid of gun injury then the remedy is better education availability, not bans. Your examples also didn't bring up the opposite take where firearms saved innocent lives in situations where if someone didn't have a firearm they would be seriously injured or dead.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ferfux Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Have you ever or know anyone who has been
> wounded
>
>
> People die in sports all the time... should we
> have licensing of football players?
>
>
>


oh bullshit. name pro sports players (non boxers who are OUT to hurt each other) who died because of injuries sustained while playing sports!!!!! BULLSHIT

Ferfux is right, How many gun enthusiasts have actually taken a bullet? would change your prespective im sure,

"Ferfux is right, How many gun enthusiasts have actually taken a bullet? would change your prespective im sure,"

If they obey the basic rules of firearm safety none would get hurt. Cheney said he was blinded by the sun when he shot his buddy. He ignored the most basic of rules in shooting a gun and by doing so injured the other guy.

If you read crime stats, even here in fairfax, you will see most arrested criminals have a very long record of previous arrests. Bottom line is they just dont give a shit. My personal safety is my own responsibility. I do not look to the government to protect me every minute of my life nor should they be expected to do so.

westox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ferfux Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Have you ever or know anyone who has been
> > wounded
> >
> >
> > People die in sports all the time... should we
> > have licensing of football players?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> oh bullshit. name pro sports players (non boxers
> who are OUT to hurt each other) who died because
> of injuries sustained while playing sports!!!!!
> BULLSHIT
>
> Ferfux is right, How many gun enthusiasts have
> actually taken a bullet? would change your
> prespective im sure,


People die in football training all the time. High school, college, and pro. Sometimes a concussion, sometimes dehydration/ over exertion. And there ARE restrictions on getting guns (background checks, certain guns/ammo cannot be sold to civilians, one pistol a month in this state without permit). etc etc. Just because I haven't taken a bullet doesn't mean we should ban them. Guns would just be smuggled into our county as drugs is now. A person is responsible for their actions.

Steve Bechler DEAD.

Cristiano de Lima Junior DEAD

Korey Stringer DEAD

Some college track star: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061010/SPORTS11/610100382

Notice how firearms accounts for 1.2%? And that 1.2% is mostly comprised of INTENTIONAL (but preventable) deaths, MURDERS not ACCIDENTS. Next look at smoking, diet, and booze. Looks like Ferfag has his priorities wrong if he is trying to save the world from accidental death. If more people carried firearms for protection maybe the firearms deaths would be LOWER! (less murders)

Causes of preventable death in US and A:

1) Tobacco Use (Smoking)
Tobacco use (smoking) resulted in 435,000 deaths or 18.1% of the total deaths.

2) Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity
Poor diet and physical inactivity lead to 365,000 deaths or 15.2% of the total deaths. This is a corrected value from the often cited originally published and later corrected, incorrect values of 400,000 and 16.6%.

3) Alcohol Consumption
Alcohol consumption resulted in 85,000 deaths or 3.5% of the total deaths.

4) Microbial Agents
Microbial agents resulted in 75,000 deaths or 3.1% of the total deaths.

5) Toxic Agents
Toxic agents resulted in 55,000 deaths or 2.3% of the total deaths.

6) Motor Vehicle Crashes
Motor vehicle crashes resulted in 43,000 deaths or 1.8% of the total deaths.

7) Incidents Involving Firearms
Incidents involving firearms resulted in 29,000 deaths or 1.2% of the total.

8) Sexual behaviors
Sexual behaviors resulted in 20,000 deaths or 0.8% of the total.

9) Illicit Use of Drugs
Illicit use of drugs resulted in 17,000 deaths or 0.7% of the total deaths.

LOL, What's really f'd is if you shoot a robber in your house and kill him/her the family of the robber can sue your ass and they'll probably win! So kiss your savings and retirement money goodbye!

Jester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL, What's really f'd is if you shoot a robber in
> your house and kill him/her the family of the
> robber can sue your ass and they'll probably win!
> So kiss your savings and retirement money goodbye!

Not for long... smart states like Florida (and hopefully Virginia one day) have beefed up "castle doctrine" laws where a homeowner is protected lawsuits if a household is defended.

I don't think people typically run into trouble for killing intruders in the house. Where you get into trouble is if it can be proven that an intruder was hit with a bullet while outside the house running away or something like that.

Damn I was just about to mention castle doctrine.

I just read that article about the applicability of it from state-to-state... it was a good read, I wish i could remember where it was located.

??? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Ferfux is right, How many gun enthusiasts have
> actually taken a bullet? would change your
> prespective im sure,"
>
> If they obey the basic rules of firearm safety
> none would get hurt. Cheney said he was blinded by
> the sun when he shot his buddy. He ignored the
> most basic of rules in shooting a gun and by doing
> so injured the other guy.
>
> If you read crime stats, even here in fairfax, you
> will see most arrested criminals have a very long
> record of previous arrests. Bottom line is they
> just dont give a shit. My personal safety is my
> own responsibility. I do not look to the
> government to protect me every minute of my life
> nor should they be expected to do so.


yeah but the dude who shot the Bookie in FX said he had his weapon ready and the FRICKEN DOOR SWUNG BACK and caused him to discharge the weapon, kissling the suspect!!!!

Causes of preventable death in US and A:

1) Tobacco Use (Smoking)
Made to SMOKE BUT NOT KILL OUTRIGHT

2) Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity
OWN PERSONS FAULT

3) Alcohol Consumption
MADE TO INTOXIXCATE BUT NOT KILL

4) Microbial Agents
Natural occurring not man made

5) Toxic Agents
MADE TO KILL

6) Motor Vehicle Crashes
MADE for Transportation

7) Incidents Involving Firearms
FIREARMS MADE TO KILL

8) Sexual behaviors
Made to feel PLEASURE and make babies NOT KILL OUTRIGHT

9) Illicit Use of Drugs
Made to get you HIGH NOT KILLED OUTRIGHT

Mofo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> westox Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > pgens Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ferfux Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Have you ever or know anyone who has been
> > > wounded
> > >
> > >
> > > People die in sports all the time... should
> we
> > > have licensing of football players?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > oh bullshit. name pro sports players (non
> boxers
> > who are OUT to hurt each other) who died
> because
> > of injuries sustained while playing sports!!!!!
>
> > BULLSHIT
> >
> > Ferfux is right, How many gun enthusiasts have
> > actually taken a bullet? would change your
> > prespective im sure,
>
>
> People die in football training all the time. High
> school, college, and pro. Sometimes a concussion,
> sometimes dehydration/ over exertion. And there
> ARE restrictions on getting guns (background
> checks, certain guns/ammo cannot be sold to
> civilians, one pistol a month in this state
> without permit). etc etc. Just because I haven't
> taken a bullet doesn't mean we should ban them.
> Guns would just be smuggled into our county as
> drugs is now. A person is responsible for their
> actions.


The differance is GUNS are weapons intending to KILL people. Sports are just physical activities and arent gaurded in the contstution

If they obey the basic rules of firearm safety none would get hurt. Cheney said he was blinded by the sun when he shot his buddy. He ignored the most basic of rules in shooting a gun and by doing so injured the other guy.


yeah thats my point. for all the blather about "proper training and responsibilty" fucking GUN owners get into the feild with a gun and act like drunken fratboys on a bender. they ARENT responsible. ANd no Calling me a ferfag and denegrating my intelligence is really stupid thing to do. Im trying to point out that GUNS may be respsonible for 1.2 % but thats cuz there arent as many gun owners as participants in sports, or sexusally active people, or people who ar FAT. You can Skew stats anyway you want but that arguement doesnt hold water. Just because a Goverment passed a law doesnt make it morally right. Oh and steve belcher died cuz he ingested steroids, The soccer play died unlucky How obscure do you have to get to reach for that one, dude died in INDIA, and the third example died cuz he was out of shape and deydrated and had a pre existing heart ailment. He was primed to die from walking up a flight of stairs too quickly or eating at roscoes chicken and waffles for the 100th time. At least I cited 5 examples that were IN the country. Cheney having sun in his eyes does not exscuse him from shooting his buddy in the face.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2007 03:08PM by ferfux.

This article explains How stats can be manipulated. The top would seem to favour gun ownership BUT then goes on to explain how stats are skewed.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Guns bad

And knives, bows and arrows, gunpowder (fireworks or guns or bombs, or blasting caps for mines)? They are all made to kill are they not? How about martial arts that emphasize attack and hand to hand combat? Guns have been around for 100s of years. Deal with it.

I'll say it again, if guns are designed to kill, the vast majority of the 300 million guns in this country are defective.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gun ownership
> and carrying is a constitutional right, as opposed
> to driving which is not and alcohol consumption
> which is not.

> However gun owners, like licensed
> drivers and those who purchase alcohol, have a
> responsibility to control their purchases safely.
> We can't ban or license everything that can
> possibly present a danger, otherwise we can't get
> to work or school, cook, play sports, build roads
> or houses or bridges, or walk outside on hot or
> cold days. And even if we started banning all of
> those things, the starting point should be with
> things that aren't rights guaranteed by our
> Constitution. Replace the word "firearm" in your
> example by "ice" or "knife" or "construction
> equipment" and adjust your examples to suit and
> you'll get my meaning.


Acutally, some amendment gave us prohibition. Then another took it away. Doesnt that mean drinking alcohol is a constitutional right?

Cheney fired the gun at a target he could not see. He violated the most basic rule of firearm safety. By using ferfux's logic if a person ignored a 30 mph limit and did 50 mph on a turn and flippped over then all cars should be banned.

For the record, Cheney admitted to having at LEAST one beer before handling a firearm. Guns and booze don't mix, got that children? So, your example of Dick Cheney is not valid, he is not a responsible gun owner. In every case where someone gets hurt by a gun, I can show you a firearms law they broke and thus also show the cause of the accident was irresponsible behavior.

Cheney + shotgun + beer = shooting friend in face story: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=60212

??? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cheney fired the gun at a target he could not see.
> He violated the most basic rule of firearm safety.
> By using ferfux's logic if a person ignored a 30
> mph limit and did 50 mph on a turn and flippped
> over then all cars should be banned.


Actually ??? thats a bad counter example since the driver of the car would be hurt and wouldnt necessarily be hurting someone else. So Shame on you for being an illogical asshole

Mofo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And knives, bows and arrows, gunpowder (fireworks
> or guns or bombs, or blasting caps for mines)?
> They are all made to kill are they not? How about
> martial arts that emphasize attack and hand to
> hand combat? Guns have been around for 100s of
> years. Deal with it.


egg-xactly mate, Ya dont see people gettin awl up in ahms cuz tha cuntstatooshun prahibits jet FAWTAS, Tanks, flame throwa's and knoives! Mahtial ahts? fuck that mate, just shoot em up loik Indiana jowens!

Get ready, ta wiggle, We've been waitin for so long!

The Congressman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll say it again, if guns are designed to kill,
> the vast majority of the 300 million guns in this
> country are defective.


then what the fuck are guns designed to do asshole? and why would ANYONE bother with defective equipment? This is the stupidest argument ive ever heard! ANd ironically or not its apt that your name is CONGRESSMAN

KeepOnTruckin Wrote:

>
>
> Acutally, some amendment gave us prohibition. Then
> another took it away. Doesnt that mean drinking
> alcohol is a constitutional right?


Somewhat yes, but the second amendment was part of the bill of rights (first ten amendments) and the original constitution drafted and passed by the founding fathers. It explicitly defines a right, and there has never been anything in the constitution barring it. So no slavery and women being able to vote are both constitutional rights even though both needed a new amendment to solidify it.

My friend had a shirt that said "The critics agree, gun control works!" then showed the Swastika, the Soviet flag, and the Chinese flag.

Our courts and legislature interpret the second amendment as it is, get over it or move to DC where you won't see any guns.

The Constitution was designed by the founding fathers to be ammended and corrected as needed by future generations. These are the men who let slavery go so they could found the country. They meant for future generations to worry about slavery, rights for women etc etc. Probably why the south could secede was because of the second ammendment. Its the story of a Snake biting its own tale.

"Actually ??? thats a bad counter example since the driver of the car would be hurt and wouldnt necessarily be hurting someone else. So Shame on you for being an illogical asshole"

I forgot there can never be more than one person in the car. And of course they cant hit anyone. Logic likes yours defines logic. How many drunk drivers take out everyone but themselves in a wreck?

??? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Actually ??? thats a bad counter example since
> the driver of the car would be hurt and wouldnt
> necessarily be hurting someone else. So Shame on
> you for being an illogical asshole"
>
> .
> Logic likes yours defines logic.

yes Logic like that can define logic and counter fallacies like yours. you who are not willing to admit that cars are meant to be driven and not except for the exception of wrecks and accidents MEANT TO KILL PEOPLE unlike FIREARMS, GUNS, WEAPONS etc etc. which sole Purpose is to KILL. SO you argument that cars, drugs, drinking etc etc are not RELAVENT TO THE CONVERSATION!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2007 08:02PM by ferfux.

Criminals and military see guns as weapons that are tools to kill. I see the ones I own as tools to save my life and the lives of my family. Or perhaps an innocent bystander like yourself one day. But you are free not to own firearms. Like I and others have said... when you have grown up and are ready to move out of your house, move to DC where all firearms have been banned as you advocate.

If only she had a gun this prank would be deadly not funny


http://www.break.com/index/super_model_naked_stalker_prank.html

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Criminals and military see guns as weapons that
> are tools to kill. I see the ones I own as tools
> to save my life and the lives of my family. Or
> perhaps an innocent bystander like yourself one
> day. But you are free not to own firearms. Like
> I and others have said... when you have grown up
> and are ready to move out of your house, move to
> DC where all firearms have been banned as you
> advocate.


Or you could end up being drunk with the SUN in your eyes and shooting an innocent bystander like me. I am fully grown, have been trained in Fire Arm safety and know many people who hunt fish etc etc. I dont need YOU to protect me but I fear that a self righteous gun owner would cause mayhem through drunkeness, psychological breakdowns or guns falling into the wrong hands.

Your argument was that some gun owners are irresponsible and therefore all guns should be banned. My post should have read your logic DEFIES logic.

There are many cases where the presence of a gun stopped a crime. The gun was not fired, no one was hurt no one was injured.

I stopped in a restaurant in fairfax last friday. Four people entered and all were wearing pistols. Except for a casual glance no one had a problem with them, no one called the cops. It could have well been the group from Falls Church. The group ate quietly, paid their bill and left. It was as simple as that. I didnt feel the least bit uncomfortable and it appears no one else did either.

The only thing stopping the 2nd ammendment from being wiped off the constitution is this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9O7JB9proM

the "only thing", dumbass, that "stops the
2nd amendment from being wiped away" is the 2/3 of congress needed to pass the law and the 2/3 pf states that have to ratify it.

GeorgeMason'sOpus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Congressman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'll say it again, if guns are designed to
> kill,
> > the vast majority of the 300 million guns in
> this
> > country are defective.
>
>
> then what the fuck are guns designed to do
> asshole? and why would ANYONE bother with
> defective equipment? This is the stupidest
> argument ive ever heard! ANd ironically or not
> its apt that your name is CONGRESSMAN


7) Incidents Involving Firearms
Incidents involving firearms resulted in 29,000 deaths or 1.2% of the total.

Roughly 300 million firearms in the U.S.

That means that in a given year, over 99% of firearms are not fulfilling their killing purpose.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or you could end up being drunk with the SUN in
> your eyes and shooting an innocent bystander like
> me. I am fully grown, have been trained in Fire
> Arm safety and know many people who hunt fish etc
> etc. I dont need YOU to protect me but I fear
> that a self righteous gun owner would cause mayhem
> through drunkeness, psychological breakdowns or
> guns falling into the wrong hands.

Now you are grasping... when does this happen? Please link articles describing incidents where otherwise law-abiding gun owners are getting drunk and causing mayhem this year. By your description there should be plenty... put up or shut up, troll.

Isn't arguing with Ferfux like arguing with a potato? Why bother?

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ferfux Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Or you could end up being drunk with the SUN in
> > your eyes and shooting an innocent bystander
> like
> > me. I am fully grown, have been trained in
> Fire
> > Arm safety and know many people who hunt fish
> etc
> > etc. I dont need YOU to protect me but I fear
> > that a self righteous gun owner would cause
> mayhem
> > through drunkeness, psychological breakdowns or
> > guns falling into the wrong hands.
>

PGENS responded drunkenly with the sun in his eyes
> Now you are grasping... when does this happen?
> Please link articles describing incidents where
> otherwise law-abiding gun owners are getting drunk
> and causing mayhem this year. By your description
> there should be plenty... put up or shut up,
> troll.


as a matter of fact HERE is the example provided with link ASSHOLE http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=60212

provided by naked shoplifter earlier

so fuck your condescending ass!

Did you just quote "the nation"? Really unbiased source materials there.

ferfux, why do you insist of pointing out cheney as the example of all gun owners. No responsible owner drinks and then handles a gun for any reason. So far I have not seen one post that defended what he did. He broke many rules. He was drinking and he couldnt see his target for starters.

They would no more defend his actions than a NASCAR driver would defend drinking and driving.

> > ferfux Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Or you could end up being drunk with the SUN
> in
> > > your eyes and shooting an innocent bystander
> > like
> > > me. I am fully grown, have been trained in
> > Fire
> > > Arm safety and know many people who hunt fish
> > etc
> > > etc. I dont need YOU to protect me but I
> fear
> > > that a self righteous gun owner would cause
> > mayhem
> > > through drunkeness, psychological breakdowns
> or
> > > guns falling into the wrong hands.
> >
>
> as a matter of fact HERE is the example provided
> with link ASSHOLE
> http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=6
> 0212
>
> provided by naked shoplifter earlier
>
> so fuck your condescending ass!

My challenge to you, "grownup", was to find where this has happened in Northern Virginia this year. Reread it. Your post has nothing to do with that. Again, put up or shut up troll. You are worried about YOU getting shot, so it makes sense that if you are right then this is _common_ in Northern Virginia where you live. It isn't, you lose. NEXT!

Yes, arguing with ferfux is like arguing with a potato, except I think I'd get better responses from a potato. I ask ferfux to show me an example of red and he posts something blue. Just an idiot... I so wish we had an ignore feature on this board.

I guess as reston often suggests just let the subject die on the vine.

Dick cheney's hunting accident is my example. He is Vice president of the UNited states! An elected official who could possibly become president! HOw much more responsible a position besides president is there? This is my example. Just because Cheney didnt blow birdshot into someone's face in VIRGINIA you dont allow that argument? As if they dont hunt in va? If others on this thread can spew Fox News dribble I can bring my own sources to the debate. WHICH free debate is a democratic right ie free speech as much as the 2nd ammendment is. My other examples DID happen in Virginia. ie dennys shooting, SAl Calusi being shot by arresting officer accidentally etc etc.

HAAAAAA HAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA

You used Cheney and Bush as examples of responsible persons?

You used the office of Pres and VP as examples of responsible behavior?

HAAAAAA HAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2007 02:42PM by nakedshoplifter.