Westside Steve Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 typos don't mean shit. My posts have more than anybody elses more than likely. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 I have no problem keeping guns away from those who shouldn't have them. The NRA is fine with that. But telling millions of good, decent, law abiding citizens who have guns, that they are guilty of something, then penalize them, then fine them and fee them, force them to register all guns, then publish the lists of those who registered, then start dickering with definitions of what kind of gun they are allowed to own, etc etc etc.... with the "idea" that it will stop nutjobs and crooks from having guns.... is bogus. So, I call it "anti-gunners" because of the apparent ulterior motives. There, I'm giving anti gunners the benefit of the doubt for being intelligent and well meaning. Like Feinstein - she has a gun, has used it to defend herself, yet she said that if she could have gotten the votes, she'd ban them. I'm fine with background checks. But those aren't going to stop crooks from getting guns on the black market, and reselling them to violent nutjobs. The more obvious explanation for the conflicting "intent", and dubious actions behind the words - is political antagonism, posturing for liberal dominance over conservatives. At least this is an argument even if I don't agree that the ominous they is out to get your guns for, you know, fun or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 By the way my feelings about guns have not the first thing to do with "liberal dominance over conservatives" and the fact that that thought even enters your mind is interesting. Follow the party line at all costs cal. The liberals are gonna getcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Of course different issues are, well, different. I would say that the elimination of guns in the public hands, similar to England, would be an issue favored by those on the left and the eventual goal. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Of course different issues are, well, different. I would say that the elimination of guns in the public hands, similar to England, would be an issue favored by those on the left and the eventual goal. WSS I'd say that a country where you don't need a gun should be the objective. Work on fixing that, then less people will carry guns, and eventually guns will just be used recreationally - ie, at a shooting range, where they can be locked up when not in use for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 I'd say that a country where you don't need a gun should be the objective. Work on fixing that, then less people will carry guns, and eventually guns will just be used recreationally - ie, at a shooting range, where they can be locked up when not in use for example. Chris I'm not weighing in on what should or shouldn't be done. You guys can worry about that. I'm just pointing out that when someone says nobody wants to take your guns, well it isn't correct. There are plenty of people who would like to see guns banned altogether. But sure, a society where everyone loves one another is certainly a lofty, if unattainable, goal. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Chris I'm not weighing in on what should or shouldn't be done. You guys can worry about that. I'm just pointing out that when someone says nobody wants to take your guns, well it isn't correct. There are plenty of people who would like to see guns banned altogether. But sure, a society where everyone loves one another is certainly a lofty, if unattainable, goal. WSS Of course, there's still going to be violent crime. But if you have a guy with a baseball (or cricket) bat, it's a bit harder for him to go on a rampage than if he's got a gun. I agree, plenty of people want to see guns banned - myself included, at least partially, and not immediately obviously, but as soon as feasibly possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Chris I'm not weighing in on what should or shouldn't be done. You guys can worry about that. I'm just pointing out that when someone says nobody wants to take your guns, well it isn't correct. There are plenty of people who would like to see guns banned altogether. But sure, a society where everyone loves one another is certainly a lofty, if unattainable, goal. WSS I meant nobody on this Internet forum. You know, where we're all posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 I meant nobody on this Internet forum. You know, where we're all posting.Read the previous post. I don't even think it's an outrageous proposition. Just that I doubt it would work WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 typos don't mean shit. My posts have more than anybody elses more than likely. WSS Calling out typos from me posting on my phone is much easier than actual trying to respond for Cal. It is an easy cop out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 By the way my feelings about guns have not the first thing to do with "liberal dominance over conservatives" and the fact that that thought even enters your mind is interesting. Follow the party line at all costs cal. The liberals are gonna getcha. Pretty much this. Any original thought or belief is squashed. Following the party no matter what and agreeing with them on everything, brilliant. Political parties suck... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrownsKidd Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Of course, there's still going to be violent crime. But if you have a guy with a baseball (or cricket) bat, it's a bit harder for him to go on a rampage than if he's got a gun. I agree, plenty of people want to see guns banned - myself included, at least partially, and not immediately obviously, but as soon as feasibly possible. People will commit crime, even mass murders using all sorts of means. Look at the Boston Marathon Bombings. No guns used. 9/11, no guns used. People will find a way to assault, commit crimes and murder with our without guns. But I also believe that there should be a way, where we can legislate gun ownership to those who meet certain criteria. Background checks are the first step, but it's not the solution, just a part of it. And maybe there isn't an absolute solution. You can legislate morality. There will be evil and those who commit atrocities. Each time we try and prevent the smallest incidents, even in the playgrounds at school, we are taking our freedoms. This country was founded on certain rights. And we are seeing our government ever slowly creep up on many of those rights. Government was to be small and serve the people. Each thing we give them, the more power and control they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 typos don't mean shit. My posts have more than anybody elses more than likely.WSS ************************************************* Yes, and I hate it when I make them. I just don't point them out because I'm biased, and woody brags on himself like a weirdly programmed android in a cartoon. @@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Its also much easier than trying to come up with any facts or evidence to support your idea or refute mine. Why bother... just point out the typo, pat yourself on the back, throw in some 3rd grade insults, and walk away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 That would be nice. As for the rest of your post, I agree with it except that questions regarding the nature of the youtube videos (that sparked the initial phone call) should have been pursued. This would have ultimately led to somebody with some common sense (hopefully) in the police dept. viewing said videos and getting a warrant to search the apt. This combined with the police report of the kid trying to shove some frat bros off a porch the previous summer (no charges filed, but a police report on the matter still exists) would have been enough for a warrant demonstrating that the kid had some real, violent tendencies. Ha. That's putting an awful lot of faith into a bureaucracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sienn13 Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 Best Ive heard yet! So there's a "mass shooting" that would have been a page three wet fire cracker in Compton but do it to some cracker kids from the burbs serving their four years at the Special Snowflake Warehouse & Indoc Center and the nation just loses its collective shit. Apparently busting caps in three people's asses is a lot bigger deal if you do it out the window of a '08 Beamer instead of a '94 Caprice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 Woody, I gave you facts. Legit graphs about Australia and gun control and crime. Naturally, you dissed it, because it doesn't fit your sissy, ignorant, pouty-puss, neurotic narratives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 People will commit crime, even mass murders using all sorts of means. Look at the Boston Marathon Bombings. No guns used. 9/11, no guns used. People will find a way to assault, commit crimes and murder with our without guns. But I also believe that there should be a way, where we can legislate gun ownership to those who meet certain criteria. Background checks are the first step, but it's not the solution, just a part of it. And maybe there isn't an absolute solution. You can legislate morality. There will be evil and those who commit atrocities. Each time we try and prevent the smallest incidents, even in the playgrounds at school, we are taking our freedoms. This country was founded on certain rights. And we are seeing our government ever slowly creep up on many of those rights. Government was to be small and serve the people. Each thing we give them, the more power and control they have. I agree, there's plenty of ways to kill people without guns - so should we just not bother? I'm pretty sure North Korea and Iran have the traditional firepower to wipe out any nation they feel like outside of USA, Russia, China, and maybe a few of us europeans, but that doesn't stop us from trying to prevent them from having nuclear capabilities. I hope that parallel comes across like it does in my head! The country was founded on a set of rules, the constitution. But guess what, over time people realised that these were not sufficient or correct, and it got amended - hence, the amendments. Now, the tricky part, do you hold the amendments as unequivocally right, without the possibility of changing them? I say no, if the constitution was amended what, 2 years after the constitution, does that not imply that an amendment itself may be out of date a few hundred years after it was put in to law? Some say yes, these amendments should be held sacrosanct - if you start playing with on of the bill of rights, you have precedent to start playing with others, so if you take away the right to bear arms, for example, there's legal precedent for the government to take away the right to free speech. However, being the utopian dreamer that I am, I can't see a country where freedom of speech is as widely allowed as America - more so than pretty much any country in the world, I reckon, probably for the worse sometimes but what can you do? - taking those rights away without there being some kind of political/economic/military intervention. Perhaps it's that scenario that people cling so to their right to defend themselves. But I can't ever imagine any president being able to pull that off. I mean, the amount of time it would take to put that bill through, there'd be another election and a different president would be elected in a landslide if someone tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 Ha. That's putting an awful lot of faith into a bureaucracy. Indeed. Now you have an idea of why I typically choose not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 Of course, there's still going to be violent crime. But if you have a guy with a baseball (or cricket) bat, it's a bit harder for him to go on a rampage than if he's got a gun. I agree, plenty of people want to see guns banned - myself included, at least partially, and not immediately obviously, but as soon as feasibly possible. classic lib thinking.... People will commit crime, even mass murders using all sorts of means. Look at the Boston Marathon Bombings. No guns used. 9/11, no guns used. People will find a way to assault, commit crimes and murder with our without guns. But I also believe that there should be a way, where we can legislate gun ownership to those who meet certain criteria. Background checks are the first step, but it's not the solution, just a part of it. And maybe there isn't an absolute solution. You can legislate morality. There will be evil and those who commit atrocities. Each time we try and prevent the smallest incidents, even in the playgrounds at school, we are taking our freedoms. you mean can't right? This country was founded on certain rights. And we are seeing our government ever slowly creep up on many of those rights. Government was to be small and serve the people. Each thing we give them, the more power and control they have. and common sense thinking - careful you will be outed as a tea party patriot! and this board cant have that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 classic lib thinking.... Which, the wanting to have fewer guns around or wanting to not waste time in doing so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 And yes, I assume BK meant can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 Some say yes, these amendments should be held sacrosanct - if you start playing with on of the bill of rights, you have precedent to start playing with others, so if you take away the right to bear arms, for example, there's legal precedent for the government to take away the right to free speech. The 1st 10 Amendments are collectively known as The Bill of Rights (as you acknowledge here). They were written to explicitly specify rights and freedoms that were not explicitly specified in the Constitution. They were not and are not an admittance of fault in the Constitution as you seem to suggest. Let that sink in. Rights and freedoms are not amendable. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 Chris - Essentially - the Constitution framed the mechanics/logistics of our Government. The Bill Of Rights are a reminder of who the Government is working for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 Which, the wanting to have fewer guns around or wanting to not waste time in doing so? the waffling to a decision that is neither helpful in the long run - and is damaging to the rights of responsible gun owners... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 Is the Constitution set in stone? Is it completely infallible? Are you saying nothing has changed in over 200 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 Is the Constitution set in stone? Is it completely infallible? Are you saying nothing has changed in over 200 years? The Constitution is a framework. Plenty has changed in the world. Rights and freedoms do not. Go read the Bill of Rights (I imagine it's been a while, if at all). Then propose what should change. Same with the Constitution. I really don't believe you have a grasp of what is contained in it. (hint: it's not 'Merica) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 In terms of the second amendment, the part about an armed militia being necessary for a well run country - do we really need that in the 21st century? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's fairly open to interpretation. You could read it as "we need a militia, therefore the people need to keep and bear arms" or you could read it as "we need a militia, this cannot be infringed; separately, the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed" Personally I read it the first way - since a militia is needed, obviously the people need to be armed. But then, do we (you) need a militia any more? It's not like there's a minutemen call to arms any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 In terms of the second amendment, the part about an armed militia being necessary for a well run country - do we really need that in the 21st century?Actually what would be different today? In revolutionary times the richest men in America decided to fuck the king out of his taxes. Decided that the way King George ran the joint wasn't to their liking and staged and armed take over. So what's different today? Aren't there plenty of people who think they are being overtaxed and that tax money is spent on things they vehemently oppose? I'm being the devil's advocate here of course but why is right and wrong today different than it was during the fairy tale period of the Revolutionary War? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.