VaporTrail Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Cysko, please see point 2 in post 54 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 In addition to the other stuff he contributes, Cysko also does a wonderful job of advertising his industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Why is it ridiculous? Do you just leave your weapons lying around where they could be stolen anytime you're not home? That would be highly irresponsible. How about this? They mandate a law where a gun safe is necessary and it sends a signal to a monitoring company via gsm radio, phone or internet whenever the gun safe is opened, prompting them to call you and verify that you've removed the weapons. If you don't answer they call the cops. Same as any alarm system? Would that be too invasive for you? What if it were part of your home insurance? lol, you have to check in with ADT every time you put your gun into or out of your safe? Yes, that's invasive and annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 lol, you have to check in with ADT every time you put your gun into or out of your safe? Yes, that's invasive and annoying. How about a national database of "lunatics" is that invasive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 lol, you have to check in with ADT every time you put your gun into or out of your safe? Yes, that's invasive and annoying. Youre long on criticism and arguement but quite short on ideas vapor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Gentleman, some of you took issue with my idea of random spot checks. Cal I think you mentioned warrants, others brought up some privacy issues etcetera. Keep in mind that 5 or 10 a day doesn't really eat up much of the police time. Add those with legally licensed weapons would know they could get checked at any time. We all agree we don't want them accessible to teenagers or neighbors or friends or whoever, right? So just remember when you get your license to drive a car you give up a lot of your so called rights. You can basically be stopped for any reason even if there is none with the pretense of let's say weaving. Check points on the roads are perfectly constitutional whether you've done something wrong or not. Police are allowed to do a preliminary search of anything visible from the windows of your car. Refusepal to show identification or other papers leads to a rest. Refusal to submit to a battery of tests can result in the loss of your driving privileges and there for your ability to make a living in many cases. So I wouldn't expect random home checks for weapons would have a very high legal hurdle to jump. Just saying.... WSS And I'm late to this thread, but this isn't correct, which perhaps some people have already pointed out. The government has a pretty high and established legal hurdle to enter your home. It is not the same thing as your car. It's not even the same thing as the trunk of your car. We're not going to be doing government "spot checks" of anyone's home in this country. It'd be a clear violation of the 4th amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Lots of trouble with this and the Castle law found in many states. You ring my doorbell, and if you appear threatening or trespassing, I can shoot you in the face. I have a good friend who is a game warden. He was a former police officer and says he'd imagine walking a beat at Cabrini Green would be less stressful than trying to sneak up on hunters to attempt to accuse them of doing something wrong or not having all their "t's" crossed and "i's" dotted. You want to talk about "not welcome?" Wow. Rough gig. I think mandatory sentencing for crimes committed with your weapon because it was not secured or locked up is the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 While that's technically the case I don't think many officers need more than the weaving excuse. We were at a winery, Susan had nothing to drink, and about a mile or 2 from it we were pulled over for, get this, going the speed limit. There was a curve and a yellow triangular sign with 25 as in miles per hour on it. She slowed to 25 and the officer pulled us over wanting to know why we were driving so slowly. As for searching your car it's perfectly alright to search anything they can see through the windows. And in most, if not all, States it is illegal to tint your windows so they can't see in. But at the end of the day do you think drunk driving is serious or not? If Susan had been drunk that officer might have saved someone's life. And it was probably a good guess seeing a car leaving a winery, ya think? So I'd say that stands true for gun violence. It's not too weird to imagine that a hell of a lot of guns fall into the wrong hands because the owners don't keep them secure, how about it? WSS We agree most of the time my friend, but first, prove it, and second, who gives a damn? If it is taken illegally and used illegally you want to hold me accountable?? Let's hope the same standard you propose isn't held to cars and someone doesn't steal your car and end up mowing down 10 children standing at a bus stop....I don't care if you left you left the car running with the doors unlocked while you zipped in to get your morning Joe. You guys are talking crazy shit......it why I don't need to hang here. Really man, spot checks?? Are you crazy? Later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 I think it's valid to hold a parent responsible, for loaded pistols openly left available to kids. That's all. This "idea" to have the gov know every gun to watch it, control it, have alarms on gun safes and home searches....... that isn't "LOL", it's enough to make real Americans puke. It all involves the gov having a green light to register every gun, and confiscate every gun soon afterwards. BS. Heck and Cysko apparently read salon.com and suck it up. One more time.... "gun show loophole" does not mean no background checks are done at gun shows. That is one last fact to dumb, ignorant, genuine solution ignoring sumbeeches.. We bought our pistol at a gun show. Required background check. so shut the freakin up about it. Private citizens should have the freedom to sell their guns, own their guns, will their guns, give their guns... to family and friends any damn way they see fit. You can't declare some kind of martial law over the lissue because it still will NOT SOLVE THE FREAKIN PROBLEM YOU PRETEND TO BE "concerned" about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 Youre long on criticism and arguement but quite short on ideas vapor. It's better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 It's better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 I think it's valid to hold a parent responsible, for loaded pistols openly left available to kids. That's all. This "idea" to have the gov know every gun to watch it, control it, have alarms on gun safes and home searches....... that isn't "LOL", it's enough to make real Americans puke. It all involves the gov having a green light to register every gun, and confiscate every gun soon afterwards. BS. Heck and Cysko apparently read salon.com and suck it up. One more time.... "gun show loophole" does not mean no background checks are done at gun shows. That is one last fact to dumb, ignorant, genuine solution ignoring sumbeeches.. We bought our pistol at a gun show. Required background check. so shut the freakin up about it. Private citizens should have the freedom to sell their guns, own their guns, will their guns, give their guns... to family and friends any damn way they see fit. You can't declare some kind of martial law over the lissue because it still will NOT SOLVE THE FREAKIN PROBLEM YOU PRETEND TO BE "concerned" about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 I think it's valid to hold a parent responsible, for loaded pistols openly left available to kids. That's all. This "idea" to have the gov know every gun to watch it, control it, have alarms on gun safes and home searches....... that isn't "LOL", it's enough to make real Americans puke. It all involves the gov having a green light to register every gun, and confiscate every gun soon afterwards. BS. Heck and Cysko apparently read salon.com and suck it up. One more time.... "gun show loophole" does not mean no background checks are done at gun shows. That is one last fact to dumb, ignorant, genuine solution ignoring sumbeeches.. We bought our pistol at a gun show. Required background check. so shut the freakin up about it. Private citizens should have the freedom to sell their guns, own their guns, will their guns, give their guns... to family and friends any damn way they see fit. You can't declare some kind of martial law over the lissue because it still will NOT SOLVE THE FREAKIN PROBLEM YOU PRETEND TO BE "concerned" about. You shouldn't even have a gun. You're a fucking nutjob. Listen to yourself whining about brownshirts and black presidents and conspiricy theories. You're like one step away from abducting an autistic kid and holding him hostage in a bunker. I wish the crazy shit you say was being heard in the house and senate. You're like a walking talking anti gun ad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 You shouldn't even have a gun. You're a fucking nutjob. Listen to yourself whining about brownshirts and black presidents and conspiricy theories. You're like one step away from abducting an autistic kid and holding him hostage in a bunker. I wish the crazy shit you say was being heard in the house and senate. You're like a walking talking anti gun ad. Cysko I have to call bullshit here. You can attack Cal for just about anything you wish, Brown shirts, Nazis conspiracies etcetera but I've never heard him attack Obama because he's black. You should leave the unnecessary race card to, well, the others. It's stupid. I would imagine he, and possibly others, would think that a president Gore or president Kerry or whoever would be just as big a POS. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 History isn't a nutjob. And you continually can't explain what the rest of us are trying to point out on the issue. You lose your "argument" every single time, loser. Or, with no sheply here, you are being hired by heckbunker's boss to help run genuine conservers off the board. You are being more irrational, more an angry blowhard. I'd think you are describing yourself in that last post. Since you don't know me fer nothin. I'm saying what I say because of world history. It happens. So, Registration always? has led to confiscation. OF course it has. So, mr irrational, you are campaigning to replace heckbunker as the #1 butt of the board? Congrats. You have my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 Hey, now - I haven't mentioned brownshirts for a long time. HEY ! Pulling the race card out means: "I'm mad, and I want to change the subject because I"m losing the argument badly/getting my ass verbally pummelled and I'm looking like an enraged flea penis" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 Hey, now - I haven't mentioned brownshirts for a long time. HEY ! Pulling the race card out means: "I'm mad, and I want to change the subject because I"m losing the argument badly/getting my ass verbally pummelled and I'm looking like an enraged flea penis" That's all you have to stand on? Sad. But maybe Im confusing you for bunker/saint/T whatever. Your views have been so similar and your posts just as wacky. I stand by everything else I said. You're still a Nutjob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 Cysko I have to call bullshit here. You can attack Cal for just about anything you wish, Brown shirts, Nazis conspiracies etcetera but I've never heard him attack Obama because he's black. You should leave the unnecessary race card to, well, the others. It's stupid. I would imagine he, and possibly others, would think that a president Gore or president Kerry or whoever would be just as big a POS. WSS There will be an attempt to ignore this, and bury it with more posts yelling at cal. 5..4..3..2.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 Like I never bitterly criticized Carter or Clinton, or the spouse of pres clinton - Bill ? Surely both weren't considered "black presidents". Cysko - you are confused alright. I wasn't happy all that much with George H, either. Now you are lashing out so much, irrationally, that you can't get the people straight you want to lash out at. Perhaps you should consider whipping yourself with chains because you can't get people to not disagree with you... see if that helps. Idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 That's all you have to stand on? Sad. But maybe Im confusing you for bunker/saint/T whatever. Your views have been so similar and your posts just as wacky. I stand by everything else I said. You're still a Nutjob. Look in the mirror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 [quote name='Legacy Fan' timestamp='1359761704' post='325hunters to attempt to accuse Rough gig. I think mandatory sentencing for crimes committed with your weapon because it was not secured or locked up is the way to go. I guess we need to agree on a definition. Is gun ownership an actual right that cannot be infringed or a privilege to be licensed and controlled by the state? If we decide it's the latter then it would be like a car license. I don't think there is a criminal penalty for refusing a breathalyzer. There would be no criminal penalty for refusing an inspection of your safety procedures in the home. Of course your license could be revoked... But you want mandatory sentencing for carelessness? Good luck, we can't even get Heck to agree to that for repeat gun criminals. I'm not particularly comfortable with going after the easy target, that is the careless guy or the unsuspecting bartender... Sure I'd like to change behavior but can't we focus on the real criminals? And don't get so touchy ballpen..... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Steve - I think you look at the definition thing like the 1st amendment. Id say folks feel thats a right that cant be infringed, but you Can't say "fire" in a crowded theater, etc. either. A gun used in commission of a crime that was stolen from a locked home, and or locked safe = owner of gun not liable. Leave a gun lying around the house and your kid with mental problems steals it, & goes on a rampage? You've got to be more responsible. And you will be liable. Same as if he stole your car & mowed down the pre-school bus stop. Can this distinction not be lawyer proof or loophole proof? (I'm asking because I don't know). I would hope it could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 I must have been confused by that " Shall not be infringed" part. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Plus if somebody steals my car I'm responsible for crimes committed in it? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Maybe "stole" was too strong. If your car was carelessly accessible to someone who shouldnt be driving it (negligence) then yes, you're liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 I must have been confused by that " Shall not be infringed" part. WSS Me too. Plenty of clauses in 1A that share a similar "confusing" nature (assembly, speech, petition the govt) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 http://vimeo.com/58994462 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.