Dick Metcalf now supports gun Control

[tombogan03884]

TAB has started his campaign for President of the Brady Campaign.  Pretty broad brush strokes in your assertions concerning "everybody" 

TAB and Tom,

What gun control measure does everybody support?

how about not shooting a gun up in the air.

That is not gun control.  That is comparable to not falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Now I'm totally puzzled about your earlier comment . 
Shooting in the air is reckless conduct, irresponsible behavior, and just plain stupid.
Stupid is still legal, but the other 2 have always been punishable.
It goes back to my earlier post, Murder, assault, and negligent conduct have always been against the law, that's all that's needed IF you have Judges that actually punish criminals.

[MikeBjerum]

Now I'm totally puzzled about your earlier comment . 
Shooting in the air is reckless conduct, irresponsible behavior, and just plain stupid.
Stupid is still legal, but the other 2 have always been punishable.
It goes back to my earlier post, Murder, assault, and negligent conduct have always been against the law, that's all that's needed IF you have Judges that actually punish criminals.

Tom,

Shooting into the air is not a firearm issue.  It is reckless endangerment of human life and property.  Reckless endangerment is illegal, so why do we need special firearms laws that can be interpreted to specify something with arms?  The actual act of falsely shouting fire in a crowded venue is not illegal, but the reckless endangerment it causes is.  The reason we know so much about this particular phrase is that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that my free speech protections end when I endanger someone else's basic rights.

Over the years we have become conditioned to believe that we need everything very specific and black and white.  The Founding Fathers did not craft our Constitution in this manor, because they wanted to protect us from the stupid concept that it was only as things were the day the document was signed.  That is why we can correctly say that modern arms are protected, as opposed to only flint lock firearms are protected.

[tombogan03884]

Tom,

  #1  Shooting into the air is not a firearm issue.  It is reckless endangerment of human life and property.  Reckless endangerment is illegal, so why do we need special firearms laws that can be interpreted to specify something with arms?  The actual act of falsely shouting fire in a crowded venue is not illegal, but the reckless endangerment it causes is.  The reason we know so much about this particular phrase is that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that my free speech protections end when I endanger someone else's basic rights.

Over the years we have become conditioned to believe that we need everything very specific and black and white.  The Founding Fathers did not craft our Constitution in this manor, because they wanted to protect us from the stupid concept that it was only as things were the day the document was signed.  That is why   #2  we can correctly say that modern arms are protected, as opposed to only flint lock firearms are protected.

We are in complete agreement on number 1, on number 2 another thing to consider is that when we today consider the "arms" mentioned in the 2A we think only of pistols, rifles, and shot guns.
That is NOT what the Founders intended or said.
The 2nd A DOES NOT PROTECT "GUN RIGHTS".
The 2A specificlly states "ARMS" NOT "GUNS".
"Arms", as used includes all weapons from slings to ICBM's.
The original intent was every thing from bayonets to the latest naval cannon which were quite often placed on privately owned merchant ships.
The possession of plutonium is highly restricted so nukes lack the critical component, but as written the 2A protects everything else .
The Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation in the Miller decision by finding that Miller's sawed off shotgun had no "military utility".

[MikeBjerum]

I'm trying to figure out where I felt we went different directions Tom, because your latest post is right along my train of thought.  I will not try to hard to figure it out, and accept we are on the same page.  TAB, however ... NOT  SO  MUCH.

[Solus]

I'm trying to figure out where I felt we went different directions Tom, because your latest post is right along my train of thought.  I will not try to hard to figure it out, and accept we are on the same page.  TAB, however ... NOT  SO  MUCH.

The confusion started when Tom responded to your comment about TAB running for  BC Pres.

He thought you were referring to TAB's comment about half the folks being below average intelligence when you were actually referring to TAB's comment about everyone here supporting some kind of gun control.

Tom agreed with TAB's half the people comment but he thought you were disagreeing with it.

You disagreed with TAB's comment about everyone wanting some kind of gun control and you thought Tom was agreeing to it.

Simple   

[Sponsor]

[MikeBjerum]

Now I really need a drink!

Here's a quick tip for future reference:

If you notice that I am pissed with TAB it is always better than duck and cover than jump in the middle 

[TAB]

or you know maybe i was trying to earn money to feed my family...  Gun control is not just about who owns what, its also about how you use it.

[MikeBjerum]

Bold talk from a pumkin headed turkey who spent too many years in the people's republic of Kalifornia, sometimes referred to as the land of fruits and nuts.

[Big Frank]

It's the granola state --- fruits, nuts, and flakes.

[billt]

Did anyone listen to the Metcalf / Gresham interview? I was working.