| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| keycocker wrote: | | The chance of getting shot in a robbery is almost zero because there are no guns for criminals to steal or gun shows to buy them. |
<sarcasm>
WHAT?? No guns means nobody gets shot with a gun? How crazy is that?
</sarcasm>
I sure that Mikey and the dingbat rabid righties think that is an absurd, stupid, senseless, pointless, and crazy idea. And probably illegal, too.
They think that if EVERYBODY had several dozen AR-15s and tons of ammo, then nobody would get shot.
It's kinda the Laffer curve of gun ownership. Each end equals zero, but in between means dead kids in the streets.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevenbard wrote: | | None of us will stand for bullying tactics. |
Sorry, Steven, but the archives of every WSing forum, including this so-called "moderated" one, have contradicted that many times every day for decades. The vast majority of decent people DO stand for it, thus encouraging and enabling the bullies, everywhere from the internet to college fraternities to Nazi Germany. I recall only 4 or 5 people in this forum, such as Johnl, who have spoken out against it. Even lawyers here do it, despite most of its being against the law in the state many of us live in and much of it being against libel laws in almost every state. A very liberal friend in another forum is probably the nicest guy I've ever encountered online, and he is astounded to hear very generally of the nature and extent of the behavior of this group, especially given the bond we should have here. Their behavior is 100% responsible for my 90% reversal in the 1990s of my lifelong paradigm, from "Most people are good people until they prove otherwise" to "most liberals online are vile until they prove otherwise." Sad, that, especially given that I didn't even know what a "liberal" was until less than 20 years ago. Worse yet, and I hate to admit thinking something so laughably stupid, I actually thought it implied tolerance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| beaglebuddy wrote: | | Does this sound alarmist, irrational, tinfoil hat stuff? |
In the short term large scale ... nationwide within several decades? ... I vote "Yes". In some parts of some states, I vote, "No" regarding some of the asinine recent gun laws passed or seriously proposed:
• All assault weapons will be confiscated (Missouri bill, despite its clear and Supreme Court-vetted violation of the Constitution).
• 7 cartridge magazine limits (NY).
• 10, re Boxer. (Tell that to your bodyguards, you freak.)
• Disarming coeds.
• "Any military feature", re Boxer. (Anyone who doesn't think that will include, at some point, any semiautomatic handgun is even dumber than she is.)
• COUNTLESS comparable purely political overreaches.
• Obama's college statement that he doesn't think any civilian should be allowed to own guns. You just watch where he tries to take that if he can get Pelosi back in charge in '14.
• Damn near any tightened laws, in places like the Idaho panhandle.
Even background checks on private sales bothers me. How does that differ from making us wear helmets in automobiles, for example? OOh, ooh, I know: the latter would save more lives, bring in more revenue, and cost Democrat politicians more votes. Fortunately, private sale background checks and helmets in autos are about as far fetched as the idea of some loon telling us we can't consume junk food or smoke in public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevenbard wrote: | | Must agree with many of your thoughts BeagleBuddy, however, rational and simple tests and rules for the ownership of semi auto weapons, so the crackheads, and psychologically challenged don't easily get them. |
Google that idea. It's very ineffective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9299
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
The reason I believe that regular folks should be able to own the same weapons as police forces use is as follows:
We recently had an ex-cop go out on a shooting rampage here in Cal. Statistically, I believe police to be even more brutal than the common man. However, just like police, more training and psychological exams are in order for semi auto ownership. Iso, it would be as simple as a hunter safety course and background check to verify that you had not recently beat your wife, commited a felony, could read, and hadn't had a restraining order or made threats.
How can cops who are some brutal be allowed to carry weapons, and we the people not? This isn't right, however, we must all be trained to use the weapon. They don't even have a learners permit to own a semi auto weapon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beaglebuddy
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 1120
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes of course we need an effective background check system and more needs to be done to keep mentally ill from owning guns.
That's the point, they can't even get this right yet they want to take the guns from sane law abiding folks, punish us and give the crazies and criminals more rights to wander our streets and even obtain guns.
It goes back to my original point, this is what the oligarchy wants, a chaotic situation to exist so the sheeple will beg an over reaching government to step in and take their rights away.
HOW ABOUT ENFORCING THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS, CONTROL THE CRIMINALS AND LOCK UP THE CRAZIES BEFORE TAKING AWAY ANY MORE OF OUR RIGHTS!!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beaglebuddy
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 1120
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote
Here in Bali The chance of getting shot in a robbery is almost zero because there are no guns for criminals to steal or gun shows to buy them.[/quote]
So you are proposing a ban on all firearms and a house to house search to find every one of them?
There are too many guns in the US to effectively ban them, it will only disarm the law abiding.
Mexico doesn't seem to have any problems smuggling people and drugs into our country, I'm sure they would be happy to add guns to the list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevenbard wrote: | The reason I believe that regular folks should be able to own the same weapons as police forces use is as follows:
We recently had an ex-cop go out on a shooting rampage here in Cal. |
That's not a reason. It's a story of A something, and you're making a sweeping conclusion and generalized assertion from that single event.
Yikes! That passes for logic?
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How does a number of reasonable gun control measures get interpreted to be a total ban against gun ownership, and why does it generate irrational fantasies about government confiscation? Watching and listening to gun fanatics manufacture and promote nonsense that isn't true makes me wonder. Why all the heated misrepresentations and lies?
There are no laws in effect or being seriously proposed that would deny responsible citizens the right to own a handgun or rifle to protect themselves, their family and their home. In fact, citizens can own many different types of guns if they want to. Does that mean that everyone should have the right to own any kind weapon that they may desire? No, certain types of military weapons and related components are just too deadly and powerful for general use and consumption. They are made specifically for war. If you really want to carry and use those kinds of weapons, join the military. Yet, even in the military, there are fundamental rules and regulations that must be followed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevenbard wrote: | | Iso, it would be as simple as a hunter safety course and background check to verify that you had not recently beat your wife, commited a felony, could read, and hadn't had a restraining order or made threats. |
Those requirements have been in place for decades. I've had to fill out pages of questions just like those for every firearm I've ever bought, clear back to the '80s. But what did a criminal do when he wanted one and couldn't pass the test you propose? He kicked my front door down and took mine. He didn't even have to wait five days to pick it up. Oppressive
(?) gun laws keep only law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves; they don't do crap for stopping bad guys ... especially with ICE releasing >2,000 of them under the guise of saving money.
Then there's the little problem of losing ever more freedom. Already some states and some federal legislators (and apparently our Nanny In Chief) want to punish us harder for privately selling a legally owned firearm without a background check than they punish a felon for stealing it from us. That's insane. What's next ... gun collectors, automobile owners, Twinkie hoarders ... ?
The U.S. and its Constitution are about balancing freedoms and the attendant risks, not eliminating all risk*. The sole purpose of the Constitution is to protect citizens' inherent birthrights from being trampled by the federal government. Just about the only rights it grants the federal government is taxation for very explicit purposes and establishing a legal structure to achieve those purposes (mostly national defense and a few things state laws CANNOT achieve); everything else is expressly restricted to state laws. Obama and much of his party loudly oppose that paradigm, for several obvious reasons. Fine; they should go F*** up Cuba further rather than wiping our butts for us. The gun toothpaste is out of the tube, plenty of gun laws exist awreddy in most states, criminals can always get whatever weapons they want short of .50 cal machine guns and bazookas, and virtually every new gun law or bill I've heard about is strictly grandstanding, bleeding heart, disproved, demagoguing idiocy with no facts behind it and often many facts against it.
* Even the USAF recognizes that balance; after Viet Nam it changed combat training to make it more realistic, explicitly accepting the higher pilot death rate in stateside training (e.g., Top Gun) to improve their kill ratio in their real world. 100% safe training = the bad guys win. Similarly, disarming our populace (whether overtly by law or covertly by eroding our inherent right to defend ourselves) or our nation (by the nuclear disarmament Obama has expressed as his ultimate armament goal) will cost far more (worthwhile) lives than good guys owning guns and good nations owning nukes. |
|
| 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
