| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Legal in Colorado. Don't know about the other states...that's one of the problems. Inconsistent enforcement, registration and laws. National registry does not exist and guns can be sold across state lines with differing levels of scrutiny.
Seems like maybe these could be areas where fantasy could, actually, meet reality with a little political will. Taking my revolver and replacing it with a muzzleloader...not so much. Pretty dangerous too. I assume that you don't own one or you could not possibly suggest folks keep a loaded flintlock in their bedrooms.
I also assume you have no idea what sort of dangers exist with using and storing black powder.
Part of the problem is zealots pushing their agendas. Guess what...folks don't like being told what to do by those on the outside fringes of the political spectrum...either end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14888
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | Legal in Colorado. Don't know about the other states...that's one of the problems. Inconsistent enforcement, registration and laws. National registry does not exist and guns can be sold across state lines with differing levels of scrutiny.
Seems like maybe these could be areas where fantasy could, actually, meet reality with a little political will. Taking my revolver and replacing it with a muzzleloader...not so much. Pretty dangerous too. I assume that you don't own one or you could not possibly suggest folks keep a loaded flintlock in their bedrooms.
I also assume you have no idea what sort of dangers exist with using and storing black powder.
Part of the problem is zealots pushing their agendas. Guess what...folks don't like being told what to do by those on the outside fringes of the political spectrum...either end. |
Ok a specific point thanks... I bet a gallon of gas it is safer. I am sure the storage and handling is old science and some regs are in place.
you forgot flamethrowers, are they legal? safe or hazardous?
awe seems you are unglued again because you are a gun zealot? I am all for guns as you can see, I am just for a different manner in storing of them and what can be kept at home. After all the founders really had no intention of the average person owning one. Exactly how much in todays money did a gun cost back them before mass production made them a household affordable item. could only the top 10% aford a few guns at the time. I am curious.
my suggestion as noted meets constitutional muster. And to me that is one of the most important criteria in any arrangement.
are you saying people right now that own black powder guns are a danger to the community and should be arrested? Or are you saying they are irresponsible? Or are you saying these people are too stupid to know what they are doing. Are you saying there is a higher death rate per capita of black powder than state of the art weapons?
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14888
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
did a quick search, 4.1k confidence vote whatever that means.
http://www.answers.com/Q/How_much_did_a_rifle_cost_in_1776
How much did a rifle cost in 1776?
EDIT
Answer by Eaglestar78 CONFIDENCE VOTES 4.1K
| Quote: | | Most firearms were muskets, and cost 1 Pound Sterling. There were a few rifles, such as the Ferguson, but they were very pricey- about 4 Pounds. But to keep this in perspective- a Pound ($5 Continential Dollars) was a good part of a year's wages for many people at that time. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| baja-human wrote: | | awe seems you are unglued again because you are a gun zealot? |
It doesn't seem like he's "unglued" at all. His only error is trying to have a rational conversation with an irrational person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14888
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NP wrote: | | baja-human wrote: | | awe seems you are unglued again because you are a gun zealot? |
It doesn't seem like he's "unglued" at all. His only error is trying to have a rational conversation with an irrational person. |
compulsive serial troll post......
seems you are such a zealot whimp...
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just some info from a William and Mary Law Review conclusion for Baja's benefit.
| Quote: | | Thus, everywhere and in every time period from 1636 through 1810, we found high percentages of gun ownership in probate inventories. Approximately 50-79% of itemized male inventories contained guns in all eight databases we discuss here---Jones (National, mostly 1774), Providence (Rhode Island, 1670, 16791726), Gunston Hall (Maryland & Virginia, 1740-1810), Essex County (Massachusetts, 1636-1650), Hawley (Virginia, 1690-1715), Main (Maryland, 1657-1719), McGaw (New Jersey & Pennsylvania, 1714-1789), and Gill (colonial Virginia). |
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jp5
Joined: 19 May 1998
Posts: 3394
Location: OnUr6
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | | ...Part of the problem is zealots pushing their agendas. Guess what...folks don't like being told what to do by those on the outside fringes of the political spectrum...either end. |
Well said Boardhead.
Here is the fundamental difference between liberal and conservative:
A conservative says "I don't like guns so I am not going to own one".
A liberal says "I don't like guns so no one should own one". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14888
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jpbassman wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | | ...Part of the problem is zealots pushing their agendas. Guess what...folks don't like being told what to do by those on the outside fringes of the political spectrum...either end. |
Well said Boardhead.
Here is the fundamental difference between liberal and conservative:
A conservative says "I don't like guns so I am not going to own one".
A liberal says "I don't like guns so no one should own one". |
your logic " a consevative says, I do not like
a liberal says I do not think slavery is moral, so I am not going to own one.
A conservative says that is not going to stop me from owning one..... and/or flying the flag of hate either for that matter.
what a stupid analysis by you as shown........I can go on an on with examples how stupid it was if you wish.. did you come up with that yourself or copy and paste it from some stupid hate site?
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14888
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | Just some info from a William and Mary Law Review conclusion for Baja's benefit.
| Quote: | | Thus, everywhere and in every time period from 1636 through 1810, we found high percentages of gun ownership in probate inventories. Approximately 50-79% of itemized male inventories contained guns in all eight databases we discuss here---Jones (National, mostly 1774), Providence (Rhode Island, 1670, 16791726), Gunston Hall (Maryland & Virginia, 1740-1810), Essex County (Massachusetts, 1636-1650), Hawley (Virginia, 1690-1715), Main (Maryland, 1657-1719), McGaw (New Jersey & Pennsylvania, 1714-1789), and Gill (colonial Virginia). |
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr |
too funny.... you do not even have a clue what the meaning of probate inventories is...... thanks for proving my point,
even the rich that had huge estates did not all own weapons, did you notice that it even showed how many of these rich did not even have working weapons was also noted.
Do you even have a clue why these right wingers wrote this hit piece, it was to counter another piece showing how few people did own weapons at the time.
so back to your piece, note the whopping numbers, again these were so expensive that they were the top items in the possession of the rich. get it... so expensive they were the highest value of the rich people.
In today it might be a car, but for the rich could be a exotic half million dollar car.
| Quote: |
To determine gun ownership from probate inventories, the authors
examine three databases in detail-Alice Hanson Jones's national
sample of 919 inventories (1774), 149 inventories from Providence, Rhode Island (1679-1726), and Gunston Hall Plantation's sample of
325 inventories from Maryland and Virginia (1740-1810). Also
discussed are a sample of 59 probate inventories from Essex County,
Massachusetts (1636-1650), Gloria L. Main's study of 604 Maryland
estates (1657-1719), Anna Hawley's study of 221 Surry County,
Virginia estates (1690-1715), a sample of 289 male inventories from
Vermont (1773-1790), and Judith A. McGaw's study of 250 estates
in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (1714-1789). Guns are found in 50-
73% of the male estates in each of the eight databases and |
| Quote: | Nationally, for the 1765-1790 period, the
average percentage of estates listing guns that Bellesiles reports
(14.7%) is not mathematically possible, given the regional averages
he reports and known minimum sample sizes |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
baja posted: | Quote: | | How much did a rifle cost in 1776? |
Your implication was that guns were too expensive for many to own. My post simply said that, at least for those died at the time, and their property went through probate, 50-79% owned guns. I also suspect that the less wealthy in rural areas also owned guns for the purpose of hunting. Not everyone lived off farming alone.
My point is simply that lots of US households had guns in our country's early days, and that practice continues today.
Pew Research says that just 34% of current day households have a firearm in their house.
From the NY Times in 2013 - | Quote: | The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times.
|
Since Obama has been at the helm, no doubt that gun ownership has been on a significant rise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
