Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong?

Page 13 of 15 [ 233 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

13 Mar 2012, 2:45 pm

Raptor wrote:
cthulhureqiuem wrote:
donnie_darko wrote:
Americans love guns because they hate strangers and automatically assume everyone is out to get them.


no, not all of us do... our voices are just drowned out by large and powerful gun lobbyists who continue to make a profit of the deaths and suffering of others. (which ironically are statistically the gun owner, or loved one of the gun owner)


My guns haven't tried to kill me yet. Should I put hidden surveillance equipment in my gun safe to monitor for possible uprisings or conspiracies?
:roll:


Hi Raptor,

Some unfortunate reports have many hunters claiming they were out-smarted my inanimate objects.

Of course, those "who would have known" explanations for frequent sequences of events leading to "unexpected" discharges, shift the consideration of the level of much "smarts" of the possessor to a greater level assigned to the possessed inanimate object taking the initiative of "unexpected" action.

A video investment might be worth big money on one of those home video doofus TV shows, but it seems to have a strong immoral taint that also should be well-regulated to protect the untypical individual's tendency towards methane abuse in a poorly designed out-house doubling as a safe-&-sane gun-safe.

Tadzio



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Mar 2012, 3:06 pm

Tadzio wrote:
Raptor wrote:
cthulhureqiuem wrote:
donnie_darko wrote:
Americans love guns because they hate strangers and automatically assume everyone is out to get them.


no, not all of us do... our voices are just drowned out by large and powerful gun lobbyists who continue to make a profit of the deaths and suffering of others. (which ironically are statistically the gun owner, or loved one of the gun owner)


My guns haven't tried to kill me yet. Should I put hidden surveillance equipment in my gun safe to monitor for possible uprisings or conspiracies?
:roll:


Hi Raptor,

Some unfortunate reports have many hunters claiming they were out-smarted my inanimate objects.

Of course, those "who would have known" explanations for frequent sequences of events leading to "unexpected" discharges, shift the consideration of the level of much "smarts" of the possessor to a greater level assigned to the possessed inanimate object taking the initiative of "unexpected" action.

A video investment might be worth big money on one of those home video doofus TV shows, but it seems to have a strong immoral taint that also should be well-regulated to protect the untypical individual's tendency towards methane abuse in a poorly designed out-house doubling as a safe-&-sane gun-safe.

Tadzio


Whatever..... :roll:
Why not just come clean and admit that you DO NOT believe in private gun ownership and be done with it.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

13 Mar 2012, 3:49 pm

Raptor wrote:

Whatever..... :roll:
Why not just come clean and admit that you DO NOT believe in private gun ownership and be done with it.


The reason why there are never any moderate voices in the gun debate is that the second someone tries to be a moderate they get shouted down by both sides. The pro-gun side "Well, I need that there gun to hunt elk, then that one for deer, then that one for vermin, that one for duck, this one for goose, the derringer to tie my shoes, the one over there for moose and the Glock is just my omnitool."

The no gun side "Nobody should ever have a gun ever because guns literally kill people and having one automatically makes you a murderer"

If people could just agree that the magazines of civilian firearms should be capped at 5 shots, that gun shows need to be more tightly controlled, that training in firearms must be undertaken and passed before a person is allowed to buy a firearm then that would greatly help.



CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

13 Mar 2012, 4:06 pm

TM wrote:
The reason why there are never any moderate voices in the gun debate is that the second someone tries to be a moderate they get shouted down by both sides.


Isn't that the truth.

TM wrote:
If people could just agree that the magazines of civilian firearms should be capped at 5 shots...


Why not law enforcement and military firearms as well? They were able to "get the job done" with 5 shot rifles and 6 shot revolvers back in the day.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

13 Mar 2012, 4:08 pm

CoMF wrote:
TM wrote:
The reason why there are never any moderate voices in the gun debate is that the second someone tries to be a moderate they get shouted down by both sides.


Isn't that the truth.

TM wrote:
If people could just agree that the magazines of civilian firearms should be capped at 5 shots...


Why not law enforcement and military firearms as well? They were able to "get the job done" with 5 shot rifles and 6 shot revolvers back in the day.


That severely cuts into the RFC* factor for the military and LE

*Really f*****g Cool


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

13 Mar 2012, 4:13 pm

Vigilans wrote:
That severely cuts into the RFC* factor for the military and LE


Nonsense. It can be argued that an M1903 Springfield is more aesthetically pleasing and elegant than an M4 Carbine. :P



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Mar 2012, 5:26 pm

TM wrote:
Raptor wrote:

Whatever..... :roll:
Why not just come clean and admit that you DO NOT believe in private gun ownership and be done with it.


The reason why there are never any moderate voices in the gun debate is that the second someone tries to be a moderate they get shouted down by both sides. The pro-gun side "Well, I need that there gun to hunt elk, then that one for deer, then that one for vermin, that one for duck, this one for goose, the derringer to tie my shoes, the one over there for moose and the Glock is just my omnitool."

The no gun side "Nobody should ever have a gun ever because guns literally kill people and having one automatically makes you a murderer"

If people could just agree that the magazines of civilian firearms should be capped at 5 shots, that gun shows need to be more tightly controlled, that training in firearms must be undertaken and passed before a person is allowed to buy a firearm then that would greatly help.


Quote:
The pro-gun side "Well, I need that there gun to hunt elk, then that one for deer, then that one for vermin, that one for duck, this one for goose, the derringer to tie my shoes, the one over there for moose and the Glock is just my omnitool."

I never explain why I buy any gun in that sense. I might tell a fellow gun nut (yes, I AM a gun nut) why I bought this or that but it's not about justification.


Quote:
If people could just agree that the magazines of civilian firearms should be capped at 5 shots, that gun shows need to be more tightly controlled, that training in firearms must be undertaken and passed before a person is allowed to buy a firearm then that would greatly help.

I don't see any moderation there. Your asking me to give something up (not that I will) but not telling me what the other side is giving up. That's one sided moderation if I were to agree to it.
So let's say that I go along with your proposed moderation. A few murders and/or accidents later and I'm asked (more like forced) to submit to more moderation. When that has no real effect (and it won't) even more moderation.

Has anyone explained to you that the right to bear arms is a right and not a privilege?
Probably, but it appears to have gone in one ear and out the other.
:roll:



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Mar 2012, 5:35 pm

/\ And to add to that we've had our share of moderation in the past with no effect but to momentarily appease your side.

The National Firearms Act of 1934
The Gun Control Act of 1968
The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (sunset'd in 2004) to name a few federal moderations.
Add on top of that state laws intended to moderate, then throw in city ordinances.
Yeah, I'd say we've been subjected to our share and then some of moderation.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

13 Mar 2012, 5:52 pm

Raptor wrote:
TM wrote:
Raptor wrote:

Whatever..... :roll:
Why not just come clean and admit that you DO NOT believe in private gun ownership and be done with it.


The reason why there are never any moderate voices in the gun debate is that the second someone tries to be a moderate they get shouted down by both sides. The pro-gun side "Well, I need that there gun to hunt elk, then that one for deer, then that one for vermin, that one for duck, this one for goose, the derringer to tie my shoes, the one over there for moose and the Glock is just my omnitool."

The no gun side "Nobody should ever have a gun ever because guns literally kill people and having one automatically makes you a murderer"

If people could just agree that the magazines of civilian firearms should be capped at 5 shots, that gun shows need to be more tightly controlled, that training in firearms must be undertaken and passed before a person is allowed to buy a firearm then that would greatly help.


Quote:
The pro-gun side "Well, I need that there gun to hunt elk, then that one for deer, then that one for vermin, that one for duck, this one for goose, the derringer to tie my shoes, the one over there for moose and the Glock is just my omnitool."

I never explain why I buy any gun in that sense. I might tell a fellow gun nut (yes, I AM a gun nut) why I bought this or that but it's not about justification.


Quote:
If people could just agree that the magazines of civilian firearms should be capped at 5 shots, that gun shows need to be more tightly controlled, that training in firearms must be undertaken and passed before a person is allowed to buy a firearm then that would greatly help.

I don't see any moderation there. Your asking me to give something up (not that I will) but not telling me what the other side is giving up. That's one sided moderation if I were to agree to it.
So let's say that I go along with your proposed moderation. A few murders and/or accidents later and I'm asked (more like forced) to submit to more moderation. When that has no real effect (and it won't) even more moderation.

Has anyone explained to you that the right to bear arms is a right and not a privilege?
Probably, but it appears to have gone in one ear and out the other.
:roll:


I'm not really asking you to give up your right to bear arms. What I asked for was

A. If someone wants to kill more than 5 people, at least make him or her reload.
B. That Gun shows which are currently one of the main sources of illegal weapons in the US be more tightly controlled.
C. That anyone who owns a firearm must be trained in how to maintain and use that firearm.

This is not denying anyone their right to bear arms. If you view this as restricting your second amendment rights, then we may as well let anyone sell guns out of the back of their truck for cash with no waiting period. The other side is giving up a full ban on handguns, on automatic weapons, psych evaluations and requirements that firearms and ammunition must be locked up in a safe in your house at any time and that your car must have a lockable safe bolted into it for transport of your guns.

The funny thing is, the right to bear arms does not prevent anyone from restricting the capabilities of said arms. It would be perfectly fine to ban weapons with a magazine capacity over 1 bullet and it still wouldn't infringe on the amendment. You could ban handguns, automatic weapons, assault rifles and every magazine with a capacity over 3 shots and its still not infringing on your rights.

If this is unreasonable to you, then you are a pro-gun extremist, the exact same as the person you attacked, just on the other side of the issue.



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

13 Mar 2012, 5:55 pm

I have the same opinion on guns that I do about abortion. I oppose both from an ethical standpoint, but society has deemed both morally acceptable, even good, so there's no way they could be realistically made illegal.



CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

13 Mar 2012, 6:49 pm

TM wrote:
A. If someone wants to kill more than 5 people, at least make him or her reload.


The problem with that argument is that society as a whole is more conditioned to sit back and wait for help to arrive than to disarm a criminal. It also sounds nice in theory but would do little to prevent the loss of life. A notable example of this would be that a revolver holding only 5 or 6 rounds can be reloaded just as quickly as a pistol holding 13 or 15.

TM wrote:
B. That Gun shows which are currently one of the main sources of illegal weapons in the US be more tightly controlled.


Citation please?

TM wrote:
C. That anyone who owns a firearm must be trained in how to maintain and use that firearm.


Education and training in the safe and responsible use of firearms are inarguably beneficial, but the problem with compulsory training is that it is not an aegis against carelessness. Fortunately, we have a system of civil and criminal courts to punish those who demonstrate a lack of sound judgment.

TM wrote:
This is not denying anyone their right to bear arms. If you view this as restricting your second amendment rights, then we may as well let anyone sell guns out of the back of their truck for cash with no waiting period. The other side is giving up a full ban on handguns, on automatic weapons, psych evaluations and requirements that firearms and ammunition must be locked up in a safe in your house at any time and that your car must have a lockable safe bolted into it for transport of your guns.


The first sentence is a slippery slope argument. Furthermore, compulsory safety education and evaluations have the potential to be discriminatory in nature (exclusion of the poor, the disabled, the elderly, etc.) in addition to mandating policies like decommissioning which, in practice, are tantamount to disarmament and result in the wasteful prosecution of vicimless crimes when the laws aren't followed.

TM wrote:
The funny thing is, the right to bear arms does not prevent anyone from restricting the capabilities of said arms. It would be perfectly fine to ban weapons with a magazine capacity over 1 bullet and it still wouldn't infringe on the amendment. You could ban handguns, automatic weapons, assault rifles and every magazine with a capacity over 3 shots and its still not infringing on your rights.


So using this reasoning, should free speech under the First Amendment be forbidden for all but a select few except when using quill and parchment, movable type, and the spoken word?



Last edited by CoMF on 13 Mar 2012, 7:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Mar 2012, 7:09 pm

TM wrote:
Raptor wrote:
TM wrote:
Raptor wrote:

Whatever..... :roll:
Why not just come clean and admit that you DO NOT believe in private gun ownership and be done with it.


The reason why there are never any moderate voices in the gun debate is that the second someone tries to be a moderate they get shouted down by both sides. The pro-gun side "Well, I need that there gun to hunt elk, then that one for deer, then that one for vermin, that one for duck, this one for goose, the derringer to tie my shoes, the one over there for moose and the Glock is just my omnitool."

The no gun side "Nobody should ever have a gun ever because guns literally kill people and having one automatically makes you a murderer"

If people could just agree that the magazines of civilian firearms should be capped at 5 shots, that gun shows need to be more tightly controlled, that training in firearms must be undertaken and passed before a person is allowed to buy a firearm then that would greatly help.


Quote:
The pro-gun side "Well, I need that there gun to hunt elk, then that one for deer, then that one for vermin, that one for duck, this one for goose, the derringer to tie my shoes, the one over there for moose and the Glock is just my omnitool."

I never explain why I buy any gun in that sense. I might tell a fellow gun nut (yes, I AM a gun nut) why I bought this or that but it's not about justification.


Quote:
If people could just agree that the magazines of civilian firearms should be capped at 5 shots, that gun shows need to be more tightly controlled, that training in firearms must be undertaken and passed before a person is allowed to buy a firearm then that would greatly help.

I don't see any moderation there. Your asking me to give something up (not that I will) but not telling me what the other side is giving up. That's one sided moderation if I were to agree to it.
So let's say that I go along with your proposed moderation. A few murders and/or accidents later and I'm asked (more like forced) to submit to more moderation. When that has no real effect (and it won't) even more moderation.

Has anyone explained to you that the right to bear arms is a right and not a privilege?
Probably, but it appears to have gone in one ear and out the other.
:roll:


I'm not really asking you to give up your right to bear arms. What I asked for was

A. If someone wants to kill more than 5 people, at least make him or her reload.
B. That Gun shows which are currently one of the main sources of illegal weapons in the US be more tightly controlled.
C. That anyone who owns a firearm must be trained in how to maintain and use that firearm.

This is not denying anyone their right to bear arms. If you view this as restricting your second amendment rights, then we may as well let anyone sell guns out of the back of their truck for cash with no waiting period. The other side is giving up a full ban on handguns, on automatic weapons, psych evaluations and requirements that firearms and ammunition must be locked up in a safe in your house at any time and that your car must have a lockable safe bolted into it for transport of your guns.

The funny thing is, the right to bear arms does not prevent anyone from restricting the capabilities of said arms. It would be perfectly fine to ban weapons with a magazine capacity over 1 bullet and it still wouldn't infringe on the amendment. You could ban handguns, automatic weapons, assault rifles and every magazine with a capacity over 3 shots and its still not infringing on your rights.

If this is unreasonable to you, then you are a pro-gun extremist, the exact same as the person you attacked, just on the other side of the issue.


Quote:
I'm not really asking you to give up your right to bear arms. What I asked for was

I guess you didn’t bother to read my reply to your last. Each little compromise (the ones you propose aren’t little by any means) eventually brings more compromise when the initial compromise fails to achieve the desired results. Does the term “slippery slope” mean anything to you?
Quote:
A. If someone wants to kill more than 5 people, at least make him or her reload.

That’s either delusional or facetiousness. I’m facetious but I don’t recognize yours as such if that is your intent.
Quote:
B. That Gun shows which are currently one of the main sources of illegal weapons in the US be more tightly controlled.

“Illegal weapons”? No one is allowed to sell an illegal weapon at a gun show. I’ve been to lots and lots of them and know some of the vendors so I know something. Are you talking illegal as in un-registered class III weapons (for example) or just guns and magazines you wish were illegal?
Quote:
C. That anyone who owns a firearm must be trained in how to maintain and use that firearm.

More regulation (a.k.a.infringement) here: Writing of law, enacting of law, establishing competency criteria to be satisfied, establishing who is authorized to teach/certify, what constitutes satisfaction of that standard, loopholes, enforcement of that law, etc….
I have to deal with more untrained users than you’ll ever see so it’s not like I’m blind to it.
Besides, in most all states you already have to have some competency training and certification to obtain a concealed carry license. That covers safety, the law, and personal responsibilities as it applies to being armed in public.
In addition to that there is mandatory hunter safety for hunters.
I see more training to cover an even wider group as just another brick in road to prohibition.

Quote:
This is not denying anyone their right to bear arms. If you view this as restricting your second amendment rights, then we may as well let anyone sell guns out of the back of their truck for cash with no waiting period.

You can legally sell privately owned firearms to individuals. This happens all the time and always has. You’d have better luck plugging the cracks in Hoover Dam with a pack of chewing gum than to enforce anything that makes the above illegal.
Quote:
The other side is giving up a full ban on handguns, on automatic weapons, psych evaluations and requirements that firearms and ammunition must be locked up in a safe in your house at any time and that your car must have a lockable safe bolted into it for transport of your guns.

That’s not the other side giving anything up, it’s just telling us the limit of the attack…….for the time being.
Quote:
The funny thing is, the right to bear arms does not prevent anyone from restricting the capabilities of said arms. It would be perfectly fine to ban weapons with a magazine capacity over 1 bullet and it still wouldn't infringe on the amendment. You could ban handguns, automatic weapons, assault rifles and every magazine with a capacity over 3 shots and its still not infringing on your rights.

It’s an encroachment which is an infringement by definition. If we started infringing the daylights out of the other amendments you’d be screaming. Well, that’s if the powers to be didn’t “moderate” complaining….

Quote:
If this is unreasonable to you, then you are a pro-gun extremist, the exact same as the person you attacked, just on the other side of the issue.

Well it IS unreasonable to me or anyone else on the pro-gun side of this continuing debate and I don’t care what label you hang on me. Given your views, being called an extremist by you is a compliment.
The person I attacked? You’ll have to be more specific. Lots of people claim to have been attacked by me or the cry on behalf of others they claim I’ve attacked.

Yours truly,
The X-tremist
:roll:



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

13 Mar 2012, 7:46 pm

Quote:
A. If someone wants to kill more than 5 people, at least make him or her reload.
B. That Gun shows which are currently one of the main sources of illegal weapons in the US be more tightly controlled.
C. That anyone who owns a firearm must be trained in how to maintain and use that firearm.


Most gun owners believe in background checks for people at gun shows according to a poll ive seen. The NRA says a lot of rubbish and promotes a lot of bad ideas but they don't have the support they pretend to have. What they have is money and friendly pols at the state level, where their money has the most impact. This poll done by good old Republican Frank Luntz shows that gun owners, even NRA members, don't always agree with the organizations zealotry and paranoia.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org ... poll.shtml

You can legally restrict clip sizes, but you won't get many pro-gunners to like it.

Overall the extremists believe, as Raptor illustrates, than any regulation is the road to a ban.



CoMF
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

13 Mar 2012, 9:09 pm

simon_says wrote:
You can legally restrict clip sizes, but you won't get many pro-gunners to like it.


You mean like these?

Image



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Mar 2012, 9:39 pm

simon_says wrote:

Quote:
Most gun owners believe in background checks for people at gun shows according to a poll ive seen.

Yes, I'm sure you know so much about gun owners and what gun owners want :roll:. Besides, I can do a poll that supports anything as long as I poll the right people.

Quote:
The NRA says a lot of rubbish and promotes a lot of bad ideas but they don't have the support they pretend to have. What they have is money and friendly pols at the state level, where their money has the most impact.

Your side has The Brady Campaign (formerly HCI ) that does the same, including the zealotry and paranoia you mention below \/ about the NRA.

Quote:
This poll done by good old Republican Frank Luntz shows that gun owners, even NRA members, don't always agree with the organizations zealotry and paranoia.

Not all republicans are pro-gun. I don't agree with absolutely everything the NRA does either. I'm actually more pro-gun than the organization.

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org ... poll.shtml

Quote:
You can legally restrict clip sizes, but you won't get many pro-gunners to like it.

That statement is evidence that you don't even know what a clip is.

Quote:
Overall the extremists believe, as Raptor illustrates, than any regulation is the road to a ban.

Again, we've had increasing federal regulation for over 75 years and even longer for some states so don't bother telling us how we have no regulation but need it.

Well I think I've about covered all of my bases at least once just in this thread alone. Others have done so as well.
There has never been a "guns-r-bad" thread won by your side on this forum and this is no exception.
You've brought nothing to this debate that gives your argument any merit because there is nothing that you could bring.

I'm done with this. It's gotten too pathetic......



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

13 Mar 2012, 10:06 pm

:lol:

You phoned that one in.