Started by Caruthers612, July 02, 2010, 12:34:40 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Paper*Boy on May 19, 2013, 12:48:52 PM Hopefully people realized the above was a tongue in cheek answer to those that say the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to modern firearms. I'm with Onan that we should have background checks to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. While realizing there is always going to be a black market for anything that's restricted. I'm also with Sardondi that people just don't trust the current law makers to pass clean legislation. I believe the true goal of too many currently in office is ultimatly to ban guns. In a local news item, this week a 23 year old gang member was sentenced to 9 years for a failed robbery of Federal agents responding to his attempt to buy a grenade launcher. This is the first time this person is going to jail after 6 arrests in 7 years on various gun charges. I live in a pretty liberal area. The people running things have lots of gun laws on the books, but very little apparent interest in enforcing them.
QuoteMy understanding is it's much the same everywhere that has restrictive guns laws.
Quote Maybe if gun laws we have were enforced, then got clean background check legislation that wasn't loaded up with other anti-gun measures, people would support it More gun crime equals increased demand for more gun laws.
QuoteOn gun registration I have an honest question - what is the point of it? How does it reduce gun crime? .
Quote from: onan on May 19, 2013, 12:02:56 PMYa know Sardondi, I give you a lot of credit and I don't like arguing with you because you are a pretty bright buy. But your response here is nothing more than I don't like it, so it is wrong. I won't let you piss on stats without better refutation than some ad hominems of moore and alinski.There is nothing irrational about a waiting period. There is nothing wrong with registering weapons... At the moment I have 6 hand guns all registered and no one has attempted to take my guns. The only bother I get is from the NRA sending me pamphlets and wanting my membership. That is as bad as it has gotten. My only dog in this fight is that I truly believe there is a percentage of our population that shouldn't have access to guns. Most people should have the every right to own a firearm.No we can't stop crazy, but we sure as hell can work against it.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 19, 2013, 03:10:33 AMSo how would you determine who and who isn't responsible and moral? To become competent and experienced in any notable skill or profession requires a modicum of intelligence (to a lesser or greater degree). Hours, days, weeks or years of training, more training, skill development, assessment, re-evaluation, and more improvement. The very good quite quickly rise to the top, the less good fade away. Selection to be a fighter pilot for example is ongoing, from day one. Very very few of the initial very good intake, ever sit in the cockpit of a jet fighter. And even fewer are selected to go on to be on the front line. I was told by someone close to the Army air corp (Uk helicopter regiment) that the aspiring Apache pilots on the first selection are the top 5% of military helicopter pilots (who are themselves the best)..of those 5%, fewer than 10% will finally go on to be Apache pilots.If you cannot assess with any meaningful certainty that someone who has a firearm is a) rational b) competent c) entitled. You have problems. The pro gun 'at any cost' lobby won't allow the scales to fall from their eyes. Guns kill people. It's avoidable. If it had been discovered today, I very much doubt that tobacco and alcohol would be classed as anything other than class A drugs. Beer came about because a lot of water at the time was undrinkable unless it was straight from the spring, beer was a method to drink a clean liquid. Tobacco kills more people than all class A narcotics combined..Back as recently as the 50's there were televison adverts with doctors saying how good smoking was for you! Fortunately we've moved n, but it still doesn't stop the industry promoting what they do as a good thing. There is every possibility that back in the 1770's, they too had a less than firm grasp of what the future would hold (I'd say it's a dead cert). Who would have predicted in 1900 that the first powered flight and manned flight to the moon, and a space station would happen in the same century? If the US population at large is terrified of their own government's nefarious intent, (Which is the underlying justification for everyone holding firearms) then hold a referendum to eliminate the government. Make the Whitehouse a theme park; an annex of Disney world or something, and have instead a peoples parliament with no one leader and an equitable and mutually supporting utopia. In fact, why not eliminate the whole state system. Have small mutual hamlets all over the continent, self sufficient?
Quote from: onan on May 19, 2013, 06:23:53 AMAnd if the two ammendments used the same wording you would have a point.If words could indescriminantly kill people in a movie theater or in a class room your point would have some legs to stand on. I believe that is why this conversation is going on. 85% of Americans endorse the mandatory registration of handguns and 72% also want mandatory registration of rifles and shotguns.This is a lot of words with no focus and certainly no following of the current discussion. Cars and guns aren't the same thing and if one is one is mentally ill with a psychotic disorder a doctor has to notify the DMV in the appropriate state to the patient's condition and if the patient is not compliant with meds they can't drive. There is little risk of a molatov coctail burning down your house they are still illegal. Anyone can make a boogie man like you just did. This discussion isn't about limiting anyone's freedom it is about who merits owning a firearm. Certainly there is enough reason here to see that some people do not merit owning a firearm. And to add, since there is so much discussion about the second amendment, and that amendment is somewhat vague, how about requiring some military service to firm up the regulated militia part?
Quote from: Paper*Boy on May 19, 2013, 12:48:52 PMOn gun registration I have a serious question - what is the point of it? How does it reduce gun crime?
QuoteThe registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up
Quote from: Jackpine Savage on May 19, 2013, 06:20:46 PMI'm not making a boogie man, you are. I'm saying human behavior is to blame. You are saying the gun is. Guns in the hands of a responsible public are an important check on the power of the state, a power that when wielded incorrectly can commit far more evil than handguns or rifles in the hands of a few individual madmen. Look at history. The power of the state in the hands of a madman is far more dangerous that the power of small arms in the hands of the relatively small percentage that comprise the mad or criminal element in the private citizenry.
Quote from: Jackpine Savage on May 19, 2013, 08:17:46 PMSo no government ever has systematically disarmed a population and then precede to tyrannize or slaughter them. Got it. Just a figment of my imagination. Could never happen. I hope you know what is happening to the civilian population in parts of Mexico, just over the border. A generally disarmed civilian population, I might add. But no, could never happen here. It's that special American dirt and air that makes tyranny impossible.
Quote from: Sardondi on May 19, 2013, 01:39:25 PMMy point is, those figures are on their face simply incredible, because were they accurate everything you propose would have been done eons ago. 85%, of whoever the number was actually taken from, is a massive, game-changing, immediate-response majority. That's the kind of figure that gets things done today. It's the 800-pound gorilla, a tsunami, the true Irresistible Force. That is why I know it doesn't exist. BTW, it's pretty funny that I don't like to cross swords with you for the very same reason. It's too damn much work, and it makes my head hurt to think that hard. What it feels like to see strong posts put up by folks with a sharply differing point of view is that I'm outnumbered, alone, cut off, and that I have a duty to, uh, make everyone see the perfect logic of my position. I suspect I'm not alone in that though.
Quote from: onan on May 19, 2013, 09:05:33 PMOK bone head... lets follow your secenario out. Madman Obama declares all guns illegal and you and your posse start the new US militia and you start fighting... who? What target are you going after? And once you get your battle going and lets say you take out some infrastructure and the result is reducing the US to a third world country... now who steps in to manage the disarray? China? The Russian Federation? The lack of foresight is beyond stupid.
Quote from: ItsOver on May 19, 2013, 09:28:54 PMI greatly enjoy your thoughtful and well-written analyses, Sardondi. It probably helps that most of the time I agree with your positions.One thing I've observed with the advent of the internet and the opportunity to see different but anonymous viewpoints is my assessment that no matter how well-reasoned, logical, and factual arguments may be, I rarely see another person's basic viewpoint changed. It's one reason, over the years, I've greatly decreased my discourse on-line concerning anything related to politics. It's interesting to note there definitely do seem to be two major, fairly distinct groups of political opinions, though. Call it conservative and liberal, left and right, libertarian and statist, whatever. Why is this the case, I wonder? Regardless, it seems to be rare for one to cross from one side to the other, regardless of the arguments from the other side. It would seem more likely for an apple to become an orange. If there's anything I've learned from the internet, it is this assessment.It is comforting to see some consensus on one topic, though, if nothing else than to have a distraction from the frustration of the above. George Noory sucks!
Quote from: Jackpine Savage on May 19, 2013, 06:12:34 PMWow, a lot of words to basically prove my point. A point I made in two lines. One side believes in living life by Big Boy rules: personal responsibility, innocent until guilty, morals not "values". The other side believes the state of man can be perfected by tweaking this or that until the possibility to engage undesirable behavior is mitigated beyond a shadow of doubt. Murdering someone is wrong, no matter what the implement or technology. That doesn't change no matter what new tech shows up. Of course no one knows what the future may hold, that's why you hold MAN to a moral standard, not his tools.
Quote from: West of the Rockies on May 19, 2013, 11:07:12 PMIt would be a bit like Red Dawn, but the Soviets would be, uh, well, us. Wait... didn't we do that once before? A little shindig called The Civil War?
Quote from: Sardondi on May 19, 2013, 11:41:45 PMOr maybe it takes years and years of such back and forth to see an change. It could be like trying to pilot an iceberg: it takes immense resources of time and effort to get the smallest change, and then there's no real telling where it will go or how far. I hope it's possible for us to change our attitudes ingrained from youth. And I think it is. Take me. I was born middle-aged, always super-responsible and comfortable conforming with authority. I was truly contemptuous of hippies, revolutionaries and the anti-war crowd who were rough contemporaries, because to me they were merely preening, spoiled children who had the hubris to think there was actually something morally and spiritually superior about them and their cadre. Okay, I still pretty much feel like that. Oh, man, the sheer arrogance of those people. And I have no love for the Occupy Whatever crowd either. But after some 50-odd years I'm actually regressing in some ways. I'm not following the usual formula, which says that we tend to become more conservative and rigid as we age. Perhaps it's because I started out that way, but my views on many social issues have gotten much more flexible. While I might not be actually "pro" everything my contemporaries were for back in the day, I at least have taken on a more libertarian view, or "ain't nobody's business" attitude. Hey, Sardondi ~ I have included only a small portion of your "wall of text" because I only wish to respond to the words in above passage. I actually had a fairly similar youth, I suspect. A child of depression-era parents, I learned the value of hard work, the importance of conservation (a conservative principle in theory). My parents were rather terrified of "long-haired hippies". I went to private Catholic school, went to church, and entered the work force before I was in high school (with a six-day-a-week bicycle paper route). My career goal as a child was to be a police officer. My mother worked as a clerk in the field and I grew up rather idolizing those officers. My favorite show was Adam-12. ("One-Adam-Twelve, see the man...." ). My parents were extremely conservative, though my father, in particular, liked to say he was independent because he had voted for JFK. (Probably the only time he "crossed the aisle"....)We are probably very much products of our generation, our environments. I very fondly recall lots of science fiction programs/films: Star Trek, Planet of the Apes, CE3K, In Search Of... My parents always urged their four children to go to college (3 of us did). I value education and science. I think we should take very good care of our environment, "our pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known". I lament how we seem to have so many career politicians. I detest the power that big-money lobbyists have now in Washington. Perhaps I long for a time that never really was -- I daresay that if we could peek into the closets of most of our politicians, we'd find plenty of skeletons, moments of hubris, greed, corruption.And we probably do choose a side and stick with it for better or worse (conservative or liberal). I -- like you it seems -- have tendrils in both camps. I was in law enforcement as a civilian for 13 years. I have never used any drugs illegally, but I think our so-called War on Drugs is pretty much a disaster and a waste of resources. I'd much rather see money spent on pre-abuse education and rehab. I see that there are some (many) drug offenders who SHOULD be incarcerated. I wish we took much better care of our mentally ill. The idea of neighbors helping neighbors is not a conservative or liberal principle. It's one we share. I wish we could grasp a better hold on principles we all have in common rather than on those which divide us. Here, I think, is where bloviating media pundits are causing great harm to our country. (See a very recent post I made in the Politics thread of this forum.)Well, I gotta go... lots of essays to read for finals week.
QuoteIt's not just the principle which many people adhere to that it's none of the government's goddam business how many or what kind of guns we have. It's also a matter of sheer self-preservation.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 20, 2013, 12:19:04 PMOh come on Sardondi! Is that the case for the defence? Let's break it down; The dog. That particular breed is illegal in the Uk because of it's reputation, but as this story is the USA, and it isn't illegal but still has the reputation it has; you have the consequences of a very nasty and lethal animal. (Perhaps relevant, but many criminals use such dogs as weapons-maybe that is the case here?)..Sure the dog was shot. But that's happened here too, by the police. We also had one dog not far from here strangled by a copper with his night stick through the dogs collar and twisted. This Crime lord..Criminal then? Possibly drugs? Possibly class A? Possibly involving feeding addicts? Now remind me isn't the reason for good people having firearms to stop the bad people? Is this crime lord redeemed for all his previous? Some of the posts on here have been specifically posted with the view of being used against criminals. Let's not jump to conclusions, but perhaps he isn't already inside because he's leaned on certain people to keep him out of custody? Protection rackets perhaps? Threatening witnesses (with unregistered firearms?)...who knows. Do you seriously think a $2000 cost to him will break the bank? I'd be interested to find out the eventual outcome if he's the crime lord cited. Really? Would you have the same attitude of this crime lord was throwing his weight around your neck of the woods? Or would you be keen for the local police to have all information they could muster in order to effect an arrest? Or would you and your friends make sure your guns made bigger bangs, just in case? I must say you've surpassed yourself on this one when it comes to an argument against gun registration!
Quote from: onan on May 20, 2013, 01:23:52 PMActually:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/dc-man-wont-face-gun-charges-shooting-pit-bull-att/D.C. man wonâ€™t face gun charges for shooting pit bull attacking boyThe hero will lose his unregistered weapons however.
Quote from: Sardondi on May 20, 2013, 01:35:11 PMYes. Stuff I pointed out. But boy am I ever sorry I chose to mockingly call him a "crime lord" for his unregistered weapons. How rumors and internet "facts" get started.
Quote from: UFO Fill on May 23, 2013, 07:50:31 AMYep, and too bad one of those British women who rushed to help didn't have a pistol in her purse as an American woman may have. She might have saved the guy.
Quote from: slipstream on May 23, 2013, 07:24:21 AMWow, it is really too bad British soldiers don't have the option of carrying their side arm with them.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 23, 2013, 09:36:11 AMSome do. But not all, because it isn't needed or even wanted by the military. Accidents happen with firearms, even if the user is trained to use them.
Quote from: slipstream on May 23, 2013, 09:46:39 AMI think it is needed after the events of today, but I'm sure the military will continue to strongly discourage it. Britian is politically correct after all. Accidents happen with cars, even if the user is trained to use them.
Quote from: Yorkshire pud on May 23, 2013, 09:56:37 AMIt's nothing to do with being politically correct. There are practical reasons. Our military don't need to advertise they're military. It's often counter productive if they do. There's always some drunk asshole who fancies his chances (usually ones who couldn't get into the military) and breaks a bottle over another's head if they think they're soldiers. In the case yesterday, being armed wouldn't have helped anyway, because the victim was rammed by a car driving at speed..Probably driven onto the pavement a second or two before impact.