quade 4 #76 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteI'm not saying you can't or shouldn't do what you think is best for any specific situation. Where'd you get that? So you are opposed to laws which can potentially restrict our ability to defend ourselves with a firearm? I'm opposed to histrionics. That was my first thought when I saw the subject line the original poster made.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #77 February 24, 2009 I think the 2nd amendmend should not be restricted at all, in any way shape or form. The 2nd Amendmend does not put limits on what types of guns or weapons can be owned. Everything and anything should be available. If a person can afford it, they should be allowed to buy it. There shouldn't be any background checks. If that was the intent of the 2nd Amendmend, they would have put it right in there. If they have the money, they should be able to buy it. Free market forces will do the rest. If a company ends up selling a gun to a deranged person, who ends up killing 40 people with it, well common sense will dictate that people won't buy from that store any more and they will go out of business. See, less restrictions is better, we don't need the fucking government to tell us what we can and can't do. We can all make our own decisions, and clearly we will always make the best one possible. That coupled with free market forces will ensure that everything will always be fine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #78 February 24, 2009 Pretty sure some people are going to read the first three graphs of that and think, "Wow, this is exactly right! I agree!" and will fail to see the satire of the last two.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #79 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote (oh, and as a civilian you are not allowed anywhere near calibers beyond .357 magnum) Aside from the 44 mag, and the 50 for the Desert Eagles, which calibers are you talking about? Not much is bigger than the 357mags. The .40 S&W, the .41 Magnum, the .44 Special, the .45 Colt, Auto and GAP, the .454 Casull, the .500 S&W.... I think the magnum trumps the wider diameter on most of these. He said caliber, not power factor. And he used the word "beyond," not bigger then. Since that is open to interpretation, I asked him to clarify. Why are you wasting my time? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #80 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm not saying you can't or shouldn't do what you think is best for any specific situation. Where'd you get that? So you are opposed to laws which can potentially restrict our ability to defend ourselves with a firearm? I'm opposed to histrionics. That was my first thought when I saw the subject line the original poster made. How about answer my question. I think you owe it to me since you eluded to me being confused when I don't think I'm as much confused as you're being dishonest about your position on the subject.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #81 February 24, 2009 Quote You bring up, perhaps inadvertantly ... perhaps not, a related issue: relative incarceration rates. Why is it that the US has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners? [url http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poptotal]Absolute number of prisoners by nation-state: USA 2.3M China 1.6M Russia 0.9M If the comparison is with China, an obvious difference is that China is much much quicker to execute, with Amnesty Intl estimating just under 10,000 executions per year. Meanwhile, California hasn't executed a single person in 3 years because anti death penalty judges have ruled even lethal injection to be a cruel form of punishment. Obviously our policy on drugs contributes greatly to the jailed population, though other countries have even sterner policies. The police force here has the advantage of much better forensics, and (probably) a higher level of oversight, which should make them more effective and less corrupt, but should that lead to more or less prisoners? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the_sarge 0 #82 February 24, 2009 Quote Free market forces will do the rest. If a company ends up selling a gun to a deranged person, who ends up killing 40 people with it, well common sense will dictate that people won't buy from that store any more and they will go out of business. See, less restrictions is better, we don't need the fucking government to tell us what we can and can't do. We can all make our own decisions, and clearly we will always make the best one possible. That coupled with free market forces will ensure that everything will always be fine. How about the guy you're talking about who killed 40 people with his legally bought gun. Did he also make the best decision possible? In my opinion a government absolutely has to tell it's citizens what they can and can't do. That's called legislation. But i realize that especially in relation to the gun-issue, there are enormous differences in culture between Europe and USA. And i don't think that any further discussion on this topic will bring our opinions any closer to each other... ... Which of course doesn't mean that we can't discuss it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #83 February 24, 2009 Quote In my opinion a government absolutely has to tell it's citizens what they can and can't do. That's called legislation. A founding principle here (which doesn't mean it's still fully true) is that the people has to tell the government what it can and can't do. The opposite that you describe, seems more apt for a continent that was ruled by Kings for 500 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #84 February 24, 2009 QuoteHow about answer my question. I think you owe it to me since you eluded to me being confused when I don't think I'm as much confused as you're being dishonest about your position on the subject. Ok, let me make my position clear, which I believe I've done multiple times in the past. I am not opposed at all to a national licensing system for gun use. I see it being absolutely no different than licensing for use of any one of a number of other dangerous items. That said, I'm not 100% sure this is the right bill, but it's certainly not anywhere as odious as the original post in this thread makes it out to be. Does it have the "potential" for gun confiscation? Sure. Who cares? If the government was actually intent on confiscating your guns they'd do it whether or not you had a license anyway. It doesn't make it any "easier" because if the government did start going around confiscating guns they still wouldn't have any idea how many you had stashed away in your doomsday cache and , frankly, there would be a revolt anyway.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #85 February 24, 2009 Quote Quote Come on, it is abundently clear that guns have made the US safe. And, as originally intendend it has kept rogue governments out of governing...okay, well maybe that one is open for debate... Anyways, can't you see that having guns around has clearly made the US much safer than most if not all other Western Countries. Just go to, lets say an area in LA with the highest number of guns in circulations, like south central and go for a nice summer evening after dinner stroll at around 10 pm. Don't you all know that an armed society is a polite society? Hmmmm, a survey of Speakers Corner participants exploring correlations between polite behavior and gun ownership. Number & frequency of warnings or bannings might serve as a stand-in metric for "politeness." Any speculations on what that correlation would look like? One might be hard-pressed to argue that posters in Speakers Corner are indicative of the wider population, tho' ... If one compares 3 nation-states: Netherlands, Norway, & USA (see Table 2): Households w/firearms: 1.9%, 32.0%, & 41.0% Gun homicides per 1M: 2.7, 3.6, & 62.4. There is a huge disparity btw Netherlands and Norway w/r/t gun possession but the homicides rate are close (if not w/in statistical variance by year; data not given), which strongly suggests presence or absence of guns is not the sole variable w/r/t homicide rate. Oslo population 544073. Hardly comparable with Dallas/Ft. Worth, Chicago or NYC in any respect. What fraction of Norway's guns are handguns? In the USA the fraction of homicides committed with long guns is fairly small.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the_sarge 0 #86 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuote In my opinion a government absolutely has to tell it's citizens what they can and can't do. That's called legislation. A founding principle here (which doesn't mean it's still fully true) is that the people has to tell the government what it can and can't do. The opposite that you describe, seems more apt for a continent that was ruled by Kings for 500 years. Well... The two don't rule each other out. They are both founding principles. And BTW... Bear in mind that democracy was invented in ancient Greece. And not in the US, as your post implies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #87 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuote In my opinion a government absolutely has to tell it's citizens what they can and can't do. That's called legislation. A founding principle here (which doesn't mean it's still fully true) is that the people has to tell the government what it can and can't do. The opposite that you describe, seems more apt for a continent that was ruled by Kings for 500 years. Very funny. Tell the government to allow you to smoke crack and see how far you get. US Code of Federal Regulations Title 1: General Provisions Title 2: Grants and Agreements Title 3: The President Title 4: Accounts Title 5: Administrative Personnel Title 6: Homeland Security Title 7: Agriculture Title 8: Aliens and Nationality Title 9: Animals and Animal Products Title 10: Energy Title 11: Federal Elections Title 12: Banks and Banking Title 13: Business Credit and Assistance Title 14: Aeronautics and Space (aka the Federal Aviation Regulations, administered by the Federal Aviation Administration) Title 15: Commerce and Foreign Trade Title 16: Commercial Practices Title 17: Commodity and Securities Exchanges Title 18: Conservation of Power and Water Resources Title 19: Customs Duties Title 20: Employees' Benefits Title 21: Food and Drugs (administered by the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Drug Enforcement Administration) Title 22: Foreign Relations Title 23: Highways Title 24: Housing and Urban Development Title 25: Indians Title 26: Internal Revenue Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms Title 28: Judicial Administration Title 29: Labor Title 30: Mineral Resources Title 31: Money and Finance: Treasury Title 32: National Defense Title 33: Navigation and Navigable Waters Title 34: Education Title 35: Reserved (formerly Panama Canal) Title 36: Parks, Forests, and Public Property Title 37: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights Title 38: Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief Title 39: Postal Service Title 40: Protection of Environment (administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency) Title 41: Public Contracts and Property Management Title 42: Public health Title 43: Public Lands: Interior Title 44: Emergency Management and Assistance Title 45: Public Welfare Title 46: Shipping Title 47: Telecommunication Title 48: Federal Acquisition Regulations System Title 49: Transportation Title 50: Wildlife and FisheriesIf you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #88 February 24, 2009 lol I like how you still didn't answer my question yet you elude to me being confused. BTW we already have to pass an extensive background check to own a firearm so what good will additional licensing do? Will this somehow make you feel safer in you "average most everybody" life style? And how exactly do you hide a gun from a tyrannical governement when they know exactly which guns you won thanks to gun registration? Unless of course your a criminal with a stolen, unregistered hand gun.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #89 February 24, 2009 QuoteHow about the guy you're talking about who killed 40 people with his legally bought gun. Did he also make the best decision possible? First of all, the 40 people are just collateral damage and just a small price to pay for our beautiful constitution. Plus, if any of those forty were armed with a gun, none of this would have happened. Who cares that a deranged guy could get guns? Bad guys will always have guns, so the point is that we need bigger guns to defend ourselves. Secondly, market forces will obviously make sure that the store that sold those guns will go bankrupt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #90 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuote A founding principle here (which doesn't mean it's still fully true) is that the people has to tell the government what it can and can't do. The opposite that you describe, seems more apt for a continent that was ruled by Kings for 500 years. Very funny. Tell the government to allow you to smoke crack and see how far you get. A majority of Americans still oppose legalization. If we get to the point where the puritans are outnumbered, we might get better headway on the subject. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #91 February 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote In my opinion a government absolutely has to tell it's citizens what they can and can't do. That's called legislation. A founding principle here (which doesn't mean it's still fully true) is that the people has to tell the government what it can and can't do. The opposite that you describe, seems more apt for a continent that was ruled by Kings for 500 years. Well... The two don't rule each other out. They are both founding principles. And BTW... Bear in mind that democracy was invented in ancient Greece. And not in the US, as your post implies. My post implied no such thing. Funny though, how long it took Europe to make use of that invention. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 0 #92 February 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't do what you think is best for any specific situation. Where'd you get that? So you are opposed to laws which can potentially restrict our ability to defend ourselves with a firearm? I'm opposed to histrionics. That was my first thought when I saw the subject line the original poster made. Well if I were a Histrionic (which I am not) I would have a raging hard on right now! Sure seems like this posting has sparked some good debate, from both sides. That was all it was intended to do, as with any post here. Its safe to assume that we ALL here suffer from a bit of the disorder...how many times have you responded to this post? Maybe you suffer from a touch of hypocrite-itis??? Lighten upGently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goofyjumper 0 #93 February 24, 2009 Quote Man I love Texas. That explains a lot!----------------- I love and Miss you so much Honey! Orfun #3 ~ Darla Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #94 February 24, 2009 Your ability to use the language astounds me.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeheelbillie 0 #95 February 24, 2009 Your lack of humor is equally astonishing...Gently pushing comfort zones since 1976... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Laszloimage 0 #96 February 25, 2009 QuoteFirst of all, the 40 people are just collateral damage and just a small price to pay for our beautiful constitution. Plus, if any of those forty were armed with a gun, none of this would have happened. Who cares that a deranged guy could get guns? Bad guys will always have guns, so the point is that we need bigger guns to defend ourselves. Man did you really think this statement through??? Imagine if everybody was aremed when that crazy guy ran into the class room and opened fire. By the time when the 5th person would have pulled his/her gun as a deffense the number six guy wouldn't have known in the chaos who was the first "bad guy". The sixth person who would have tried to defend him/her self would have had a very good chance to shoot at the wrong person (for example the 2nd or 3rd person who pulled their guns for deffense). Have you ever been on an airplane when things don't exactly go the way as it planned and you had to bail out??? All those licensed" and "trained" skydivers can do very stupid non sense things very quickly. I know because I've seen it! Now imagine if a whole class of panicing people all of the sudden try to save them selves with guns in the class room. Then we would have talked about real blood bath!!! Look up "the herd effect" in some psychological studies for reference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #97 February 25, 2009 Yeah, that's exactly what would have happened.... "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 362 #98 February 25, 2009 Apparently your sarcasm meter is broken. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #99 February 25, 2009 Quote .500 S&W.... I got to shoot one of those today.. MAN what a beast... Little big for concealed carry though... but makes a great purse gun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #100 February 25, 2009 Quote Plus, if any of those forty were armed with a gun, none of this would have happened. Who cares that a deranged guy could get guns? The probability that had even a few legal gun owners that were concealed carry were there in those classrooms is that the nut with the guns would have been very dead long before he could have shot very many people. Then again.. when you have a bunch of people who are so afraid of guns that they rely on the police to be their only form of protection from the nuts... is... well just nuts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
