Page 31 of 35

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2013 11:01 am
by Woodruff
Night Strike wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Evil Semp wrote:And just for the record I am not in favor of taking guns away from citizens. I just think there should background checks and cooling off periods before someone walks out with a gun.


But that implies that everyone is out to kill someone with the gun they're buying. Why should all citizens be assumed to be killers just because they want a gun? What if people actually need the gun quickly?


It doesn't imply or assume any such thing.

And if someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest they should instead head for the local police station.


The police don't hand out or sell guns for personal protection. And it's highly doubtful they'll send an officer to be someone's personal security for a while.


If someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest to you that there is absolutely something the police can do regarding the situation. Otherwise, that individual really doesn't "need a gun that quickly".

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2013 1:31 pm
by Evil Semp
Phatscotty wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
And if someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest they should instead head for the local police station.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

wow! yeah, just tell the criminal to hold on while you get your shoes on and grab your car keys...but don't tell the burglar/rapist you are going to the police station. Tell them you are going for a stroll


Tell the burglar/rapist to hold on while you run down to the gun store. I am sure he will wait for your return.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2013 2:13 pm
by Phatscotty
Joe Scarborough, Piers Morgan: Obama Scandals Prove Gun Advocates Aren’t Crazy

Image

How big of a wake-up call are the Obama scandals, especially the ones surrounding the seizing of phone records from the Associated Press and the IRS’s targeting of conservatives? So big that two of the media’s most shameful and shameless gun control advocates — Joe Scarborough and Piers Morgan — have finally conceded that arguments made by pro-Second Amendment activists against the expanding of background checks might not be so ridiculous.

In a roundtable discussion on Friday’s “Morning Joe,” Scarborough said that because of the IRS scandal, “My argument is less persuasive today because of these scandals.” He added: “People say, ‘Hey, if they do this with the IRS, asking people what books you read, then how can I trust them with information about my Second Amendment rights?’”

Mika agreed completely: “That is a really, really good point.” Even the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein agreed.



Scarborough added that when it comes to both background checks and immigration reform, the IRS scandal is “devastating,” because both of those pieces of legislation ask us to trust the kind of government that would seize the media’s phone records and use the IRS to target a president’s political foes.

Also courtesy of NRO, here is no-less than Piers Morgan conceding he was wrong to ridicule gun-rights activists (including our own Ben Shapiro) for making the argument that a legitimate fear of government tyranny is what makes the Second Amendment so crucial:




Though I was appalled by the media’s relentless and shameless push last month to pass the Toomey-Manchin bill that would have tightened background checks, I did support its passage, and said so many times while criticizing the media for their disgusting behavior. But this chilling reminder of how corrupt the federal government is has changed my mind completely.

Moreover, our government is not only corrupt, it is vigorously protected by a media that is just as corrupt (NEVER forget the media ignored, dismissed, and even defended the IRS targeting conservatives).


Image

Image

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2013 7:12 pm
by Night Strike
Woodruff wrote:If someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest to you that there is absolutely something the police can do regarding the situation. Otherwise, that individual really doesn't "need a gun that quickly".


Why do you have the right to decide the reason a person needs a gun and when they need it? Or even want it? Why are people who want to buy a gun presumed guilty until proven innocent? Background checks and waiting periods only presume the buyer is guilty and forces them to prove their own innocence before exercising their Constitutional rights.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2013 8:42 pm
by AndyDufresne
Night Strike wrote:Why do you have the right to decide...

Is something more should take to heart, about all sorts of things. :D


--Andy

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2013 10:21 pm
by kentington
Woodruff wrote:If someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest to you that there is absolutely something the police can do regarding the situation. Otherwise, that individual really doesn't "need a gun that quickly".


I am in favor of innocent until proven guilty. However, I don't see the harm in waiting a week to receive a firearm. I also know that I would whine if something were to happen to me, in that waiting period, that could have been prevented with a firearm.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2013 10:33 pm
by Phatscotty
Tis better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have one.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2013 10:35 pm
by kentington
Phatscotty wrote:Tis better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have one.


I think their point was that someone with a clean background and is generally mentally stable may at one point become overwhelmed with their situation and decide to get a gun for a wrong reason. The cool down time would allow said person to come back to their senses.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2013 11:27 pm
by Night Strike
kentington wrote:
Woodruff wrote:If someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest to you that there is absolutely something the police can do regarding the situation. Otherwise, that individual really doesn't "need a gun that quickly".


I am in favor of innocent until proven guilty. However, I don't see the harm in waiting a week to receive a firearm. I also know that I would whine if something were to happen to me, in that waiting period, that could have been prevented with a firearm.


So you'll also be okay with someone being detained without charges or Miranda rights for a week?

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2013 11:31 pm
by Woodruff
Night Strike wrote:
Woodruff wrote:If someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest to you that there is absolutely something the police can do regarding the situation. Otherwise, that individual really doesn't "need a gun that quickly".


Why do you have the right to decide the reason a person needs a gun and when they need it? Or even want it? Why are people who want to buy a gun presumed guilty until proven innocent? Background checks and waiting periods only presume the buyer is guilty and forces them to prove their own innocence before exercising their Constitutional rights.


Yeah, I didn't think you'd have a response to that either.

As for your Constitutional rights, Night Strike, THEY ALL HAVE REASONABLE LIMITATIONS ON THEM. All of them. Every single one of them. And they MUST have those limitations. There is nothing wrong with that.

Background checks do NOT "only presume the buyer is guilty" and anyone who holds to that hardline position is trying to twist the perspective quite badly.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2013 11:32 pm
by Woodruff
Night Strike wrote:
kentington wrote:
Woodruff wrote:If someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest to you that there is absolutely something the police can do regarding the situation. Otherwise, that individual really doesn't "need a gun that quickly".


I am in favor of innocent until proven guilty. However, I don't see the harm in waiting a week to receive a firearm. I also know that I would whine if something were to happen to me, in that waiting period, that could have been prevented with a firearm.


So you'll also be okay with someone being detained without charges or Miranda rights for a week?


So you'll be okay with creating strawman arguments in the hopes it will distract from the issue being discussed?

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2013 11:38 pm
by Night Strike
Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
kentington wrote:
Woodruff wrote:If someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest to you that there is absolutely something the police can do regarding the situation. Otherwise, that individual really doesn't "need a gun that quickly".


I am in favor of innocent until proven guilty. However, I don't see the harm in waiting a week to receive a firearm. I also know that I would whine if something were to happen to me, in that waiting period, that could have been prevented with a firearm.


So you'll also be okay with someone being detained without charges or Miranda rights for a week?


So you'll be okay with creating strawman arguments in the hopes it will distract from the issue being discussed?


How is that a strawman? They're both Constitutional rights, so why aren't they both treated the same?

Woodruff wrote:Background checks do NOT "only presume the buyer is guilty" and anyone who holds to that hardline position is trying to twist the perspective quite badly.


But waiting times do assume guilt, which I clearly included in my statement.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2013 11:43 pm
by Woodruff
Night Strike wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
kentington wrote:
Woodruff wrote:If someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest to you that there is absolutely something the police can do regarding the situation. Otherwise, that individual really doesn't "need a gun that quickly".


I am in favor of innocent until proven guilty. However, I don't see the harm in waiting a week to receive a firearm. I also know that I would whine if something were to happen to me, in that waiting period, that could have been prevented with a firearm.


So you'll also be okay with someone being detained without charges or Miranda rights for a week?


So you'll be okay with creating strawman arguments in the hopes it will distract from the issue being discussed?


How is that a strawman? They're both Constitutional rights, so why aren't they both treated the same?


Because they're different rights that do different things. It's a pretty basic idea.

Night Strike wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Background checks do NOT "only presume the buyer is guilty" and anyone who holds to that hardline position is trying to twist the perspective quite badly.


But waiting times do assume guilt, which I clearly included in my statement.


I removed "waiting times" from your statement, because I agree with you that they do presume guilt, thus it wasn't relevant to the portion of your statement that I disagreed with. So then, if "waiting times" was your only issue, why did you include "background checks" with it?

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2013 11:53 pm
by kentington
Night Strike wrote:
kentington wrote:
Woodruff wrote:If someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest to you that there is absolutely something the police can do regarding the situation. Otherwise, that individual really doesn't "need a gun that quickly".


I am in favor of innocent until proven guilty. However, I don't see the harm in waiting a week to receive a firearm. I also know that I would whine if something were to happen to me, in that waiting period, that could have been prevented with a firearm.


So you'll also be okay with someone being detained without charges or Miranda rights for a week?


Did you read my post?
I am not advocating for the wait time. I haven't made up my mind about it. I can see the merits of both sides.
I am in favor of background checks though.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 2:04 pm
by isaiah40
Woodruff wrote:And if someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest they should instead head for the local police station.

So there is a burglar holding me at gun point, I need a gun that quickly. Are you suggesting that i take a chance with a gun pointed at me to leave my house and head down to the local police station which is 3 miles away? RIGHT! In the process of attempting to leave the burglar shoots me. Of course I will take a chance on getting my gun that is in the house, and if I am able to get it, that bullet will respond a whole hell of a lot quicker than dialing 911 and waiting for the police to get there.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 2:21 pm
by isaiah40
isaiah40 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:And if someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest they should instead head for the local police station.

So there is a burglar holding me at gun point, I need a gun that quickly. Are you suggesting that i take a chance with a gun pointed at me to leave my house and head down to the local police station which is 3 miles away? RIGHT! In the process of attempting to leave the burglar shoots me. Of course I will take a chance on getting my gun that is in the house, and if I am able to get it, that bullet will respond a whole hell of a lot quicker than dialing 911 and waiting for the police to get there.


in other news, a burglars break into a house and then gets shoves the man into a closet. End of story right? (Then again, maybe this man who needed a gun that quickly should have just went down to the local police station). It wasn't, read further!

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 2:50 pm
by Evil Semp
isaiah40 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:And if someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest they should instead head for the local police station.

So there is a burglar holding me at gun point, I need a gun that quickly. Are you suggesting that i take a chance with a gun pointed at me to leave my house and head down to the local police station which is 3 miles away? RIGHT! In the process of attempting to leave the burglar shoots me. Of course I will take a chance on getting my gun that is in the house, and if I am able to get it, that bullet will respond a whole hell of a lot quicker than dialing 911 and waiting for the police to get there.


isaiah40 try reading a couple of pages back for context on the quote above. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=188997&start=720

Here is the post I am referring to.

Evil Semp wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Evil Semp wrote:And just for the record I am not in favor of taking guns away from citizens. I just think there should background checks and cooling off periods before someone walks out with a gun.


But that implies that everyone is out to kill someone with the gun they're buying.


And where did I say that? You and PS have an ability to stretch things.

Night Strike wrote:Why should all citizens be assumed to be killers just because they want a gun?


Why do you assume that a background check is because of assumed killers? What about convicted felons who aren't allowed to own guns or even handle them?

Night Strike wrote:What if people actually need the gun quickly?


If you need a gun that quickly the police might be a better option. I would think that part of a cooling off period would prevent someone who had an argument from running out and buying a gun and confronting the person they had an argument with. Possibly preventing a murder.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 4:10 pm
by Woodruff
isaiah40 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:And if someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest they should instead head for the local police station.


So there is a burglar holding me at gun point, I need a gun that quickly. Are you suggesting that i take a chance with a gun pointed at me to leave my house and head down to the local police station which is 3 miles away? RIGHT! In the process of attempting to leave the burglar shoots me. Of course I will take a chance on getting my gun that is in the house, and if I am able to get it, that bullet will respond a whole hell of a lot quicker than dialing 911 and waiting for the police to get there.


Which part of that scenario allows you to run to the gun store to purchase a gun, Isaiah? Are you even paying attention to your own arguments?

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 4:11 pm
by Woodruff
isaiah40 wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:And if someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest they should instead head for the local police station.

So there is a burglar holding me at gun point, I need a gun that quickly. Are you suggesting that i take a chance with a gun pointed at me to leave my house and head down to the local police station which is 3 miles away? RIGHT! In the process of attempting to leave the burglar shoots me. Of course I will take a chance on getting my gun that is in the house, and if I am able to get it, that bullet will respond a whole hell of a lot quicker than dialing 911 and waiting for the police to get there.


in other news, a burglars break into a house and then gets shoves the man into a closet. End of story right? (Then again, maybe this man who needed a gun that quickly should have just went down to the local police station). It wasn't, read further!


Did he have time to run down to the gun store to purchase a gun before he was shoved into a closet? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Please try to make your arguments at least sensical.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 4:19 pm
by kentington
Woodruff wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:And if someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest they should instead head for the local police station.

So there is a burglar holding me at gun point, I need a gun that quickly. Are you suggesting that i take a chance with a gun pointed at me to leave my house and head down to the local police station which is 3 miles away? RIGHT! In the process of attempting to leave the burglar shoots me. Of course I will take a chance on getting my gun that is in the house, and if I am able to get it, that bullet will respond a whole hell of a lot quicker than dialing 911 and waiting for the police to get there.


in other news, a burglars break into a house and then gets shoves the man into a closet. End of story right? (Then again, maybe this man who needed a gun that quickly should have just went down to the local police station). It wasn't, read further!


Did he have time to run down to the gun store to purchase a gun before he was shoved into a closet? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Please try to make your arguments at least sensical.


The robber actually gave him enough warning to go get a gun at a gun store. Unfortunately, he had to go back home empty handed because of the wait time. The burglar then shoved him in the closet.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 3:06 am
by Woodruff
kentington wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:And if someone legitimately "needs a gun that quickly", then I would suggest they should instead head for the local police station.

So there is a burglar holding me at gun point, I need a gun that quickly. Are you suggesting that i take a chance with a gun pointed at me to leave my house and head down to the local police station which is 3 miles away? RIGHT! In the process of attempting to leave the burglar shoots me. Of course I will take a chance on getting my gun that is in the house, and if I am able to get it, that bullet will respond a whole hell of a lot quicker than dialing 911 and waiting for the police to get there.


in other news, a burglars break into a house and then gets shoves the man into a closet. End of story right? (Then again, maybe this man who needed a gun that quickly should have just went down to the local police station). It wasn't, read further!


Did he have time to run down to the gun store to purchase a gun before he was shoved into a closet? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Please try to make your arguments at least sensical.


The robber actually gave him enough warning to go get a gun at a gun store. Unfortunately, he had to go back home empty handed because of the wait time. The burglar then shoved him in the closet.


That's how it works in Canada. They're very thoughtful. But you forgot to mention that he apologized after shoving him into the closet.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 11:08 pm
by isaiah40
Why do we need stricter gun control laws when gun crimes are actually decreasing?? Forbes reports on this a little.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 1:01 am
by Phatscotty
isaiah40 wrote:Why do we need stricter gun control laws when gun crimes are actually decreasing?? Forbes reports on this a little.


so the government can have more control and more power. See, what the government realizes that many citizens do not, is exactly how much money the government has spent recently that it did not have. They understand how much money is going to need to be taken from the citizens in the near future. They understand they better get crackin on preventing as many guns as possible from being owned by citizens.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 5:44 pm
by Woodruff
Phatscotty wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:Why do we need stricter gun control laws when gun crimes are actually decreasing?? Forbes reports on this a little.


so the government can have more control and more power. See, what the government realizes that many citizens do not, is exactly how much money the government has spent recently that it did not have. They understand how much money is going to need to be taken from the citizens in the near future. They understand they better get crackin on preventing as many guns as possible from being owned by citizens.


Because either way, taking the guns or not, is going to make little difference in such an outcome?

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 5:54 pm
by Phatscotty
I think the overall problem with why so many Americans are turning their back on America, which includes the problems of gun control, big government, and Socialism/Progressivism, can be summarized in a more broad and general concept, and that is lack of understanding/communicating Americanism.