Conquer Club

Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:03 pm

crispybits wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
crispybits wrote:Aren't you basing your "right to own a gun" on that same "fantastical notion" that people want to hurt you? (note - not the constitutional statement, that's not an argument at all but merely a legal statement, I'm talking about the reasoning behind that legal statement)


I'm basing my right to own a gun on the fact that it is a Constitutional right. I do not have to provide any further justification than that. Same way no person has to justify what they're going to say in order to have the freedom or speech. Or how no person must justify they are innocent to avoid unlawful searches and seizures or self-incrimination. Constitutional rights are natural rights that do not need justification to exercise, that's why the government is instructed to protect that right instead of infringe on it.


You are correct in that you need no further justification to own a gun in the USA right now than the consttution.

But the constitution isn't in and of itself an absolute moral authority in an argument about whether you *should* own a gun. If it was a moral authority then why has it needed so many amendments? Why have parts of it been changed, and parts added and removed? And if parts have been changed or added or removed, then why should this particular part of it be removed entirely from that possibility?

That's what I mean by the fact it's a statement rather than an argument, and that statement only holds true while the argument fails to evoke the action to make a further change. After that, the constitution may in the future say that you are not allowed to own a gun, yet more than one of the people that wrap themselves in the constitutional right here are saying that if it's made illegal they will still keep their guns. This only further undermines it's authority, because these people (and I forget if you've posted that sentiment or not NS so I'm not going to claim anything about you perosnally) are only happy to follow it as long as it agrees with them and have clearly stated that sentiment in this thread or the other one.


Crispy, how qualified are you to comment on and interpret the US Constitution?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby crispybits on Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:07 pm

I'm not interpretting anything - I'm saying that it's simply a document that's been changed several times since it was written, and while it currently says you can own a gun, it is possible that it will be changed and it will say that you can't own a gun. Therefore it's not a moral authority, but simply a legal statement, and should be seen as such. In a legal arguument about whether somehting is currently alowed it's powerful. In an ethical argument about whether something should be allowed it's meaningless.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:13 pm

crispybits wrote:I'm not interpretting anything - I'm saying that it's simply a document that's been changed several times since it was written, and while it currently says you can own a gun, it is possible that it will be changed and it will say that you can't own a gun. Therefore it's not a moral authority, but simply a legal statement, and should be seen as such. In a legal arguument about whether somehting is currently alowed it's powerful. In an ethical argument about whether something should be allowed it's meaningless.


the day anyone tries to change our second amendment, is the first day of America's second civil war
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby crispybits on Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:21 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That is all

This is your house:

Image

This is your house at war:



(edit to get rid of stupidly big picture and fix video link)
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:27 pm

crispybits wrote::lol: :lol: :lol:

That is all

This is your house:

Image

This is your house at war:



(edit to get rid of stupidly big picture and fix video link)


Spoken like a true tyrant. Funny how you are so concerned with a class of children being massacred, but seem to encourage and even use it as a threat in your support of government sponsored genocide

That is all
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby crispybits on Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:33 pm

Hey I'm not the one declaring war on my own government armed with only a few handguns and rifles against missiles you don't even see coming for you.

Regardless of that, I see you nicely changed the subject away from admitting that the constitution isn't a valid argument for guns staying legal.

Would you like me to go through the points against defence vs government I went through with TGD? Or would you rather I bring out some stats from your own government that any given gun is much, much more likely to be used offensively rather than in legitimate self-defence? Or is there some other flawed argument you want to wheel out about why it's right that untrained civilians should own lethal weaponry?
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:35 pm

crispybits wrote:Hey I'm not the one declaring war on my own government armed with only a few handguns and rifles against missiles you don't even see coming for you.


You are the one that has it backwards(understandably). If the government takes away our most important rights, then it's the government acting against the people.

Our government exists to protect our rights.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby crispybits on Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:39 pm

And no reply to the actual points of debate. Somehow I suspected as much.

Your government won't be "your government" any more the seocond you declare war on it, you'll be a traitor, an enemy of the state. They won't have to protect you at all once hat happens
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:49 pm

crispybits wrote:And no reply to the actual points of debate. Somehow I suspected as much.

Your government won't be "your government" any more the seocond you declare war on it, you'll be a traitor, an enemy of the state. They won't have to protect you at all once hat happens


You already know where I stand, and frankly I'm wasting my time arguing about it with a foreigner that does not live in or even understand America.

Whatever point you got, mine is better, and whatsmore I have very likely already said so here previously.

If the government takes away the second amendment, that the exact tyranny the second amendment was intended to resist in the first place...which is a point I'm pretty sure you have already conceded as valid.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby comic boy on Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:54 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
crispybits wrote:I'm not interpretting anything - I'm saying that it's simply a document that's been changed several times since it was written, and while it currently says you can own a gun, it is possible that it will be changed and it will say that you can't own a gun. Therefore it's not a moral authority, but simply a legal statement, and should be seen as such. In a legal arguument about whether somehting is currently alowed it's powerful. In an ethical argument about whether something should be allowed it's meaningless.


the day anyone tries to change our second amendment, is the first day of America's second civil war


Spoken like the pathetic piece of shit we all know you are ,fucking lot of good you would be in an armed struggle , wetting yourself every 5 minutes :(
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:56 pm

comic boy wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
crispybits wrote:I'm not interpretting anything - I'm saying that it's simply a document that's been changed several times since it was written, and while it currently says you can own a gun, it is possible that it will be changed and it will say that you can't own a gun. Therefore it's not a moral authority, but simply a legal statement, and should be seen as such. In a legal arguument about whether somehting is currently alowed it's powerful. In an ethical argument about whether something should be allowed it's meaningless.


the day anyone tries to change our second amendment, is the first day of America's second civil war


Spoken like the pathetic piece of shit we all know you are ,fucking lot of good you would be in an armed struggle , wetting yourself every 5 minutes :(


that's just pure hate speech...a lot of good that does?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:10 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
CreepersWiener wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
CreepersWiener wrote:Here is the divide...Arm everybody or Arm nobody. Which solution would have less deaths by firearms? The answer is blatantly clear towards an intelligent person.



Piers Morgan got fuggin WORKED! Why would you even want people to see this?

LMFAO! OMG thank you for this. I had not seen the entire clip.

So cherry. It deserves it's own thread



Wow, you are a conservative nutcase, aren't you? Why on earth would you agree to arming all the teachers in a public school? That is the most absurd answer us liberal nutcases have ever heard!

Now, people are buying more guns? The people buying "more" guns are the same paranoid people that already own a hundred guns!

It just doesn't make any sense to arm teachers and school staff with firearms within such a tight conglomeration of young children, I thought Piers made that point quite clear. You just can't justify this idiotic position of arming all the teachers with concealed weapons...you just can't!


Anybody who thinks the plan is to arm "all" teachers is highly uninformed, and I move to strike their banter from all records!

All across America, people's eyes are being opened up. More and more schools are going to start having an armed presense to protect the children. Gun free zones have been exposed by mass psychos for far too long, and we are seeing the Emperor truly has no clothes.



The inappropriateness of this post is staggering.

-TG
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 2699
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby comic boy on Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:12 pm

Hate speech , no just plain speaking based on anecdotal evidence. Internet Rambos dont impress me , especially ones that struggle to get the day of the week correct and think that dissing 'foreigners' proves a point. Well it does but hardly the point you wish to make , rather it proves your inability to respond to a reasoned argument , better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than spew a load of nonsense and confirm the fact,
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:55 pm

comic boy wrote:Internet Rambos dont impress me


nice avatar though...
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby comic boy on Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:56 pm

So in summary , the mouthy internet tough guy , you know the one who brags about his beautiful girlfriend , is at 10.00 pm on the last Friday before Xmas ,peddling his usual bullshit on a gaming site forum :lol:
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Phatscotty on Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:58 pm

comic boy wrote:So in summary , the mouthy internet tough guy , you know the one who brags about his beautiful girlfriend , is at 10.00 pm on the last Friday before Xmas ,peddling his usual bullshit on a gaming site forum :lol:


Oh great. Another foreigner who is probably an expert on the US Constitution....

I am at home hanging out with my conservative buddies.

We are laughing at you, not with you
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby maxfaraday on Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:12 am

Phatscotty wrote:
comic boy wrote:So in summary , the mouthy internet tough guy , you know the one who brags about his beautiful girlfriend , is at 10.00 pm on the last Friday before Xmas ,peddling his usual bullshit on a gaming site forum :lol:


Oh great. Another foreigner who is probably an expert on the US Constitution....

I am at home hanging out with my conservative buddies.

We are laughing at you, not with you


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182514

Oh great. Another stupid American who is probably an expert on french politics (even though he probably couldn't tell where France is on a world map...)
From: Karl_R_Kroenen
To: maxfaraday

I have noted this post and if it continues, there will be consequences for you.
Sergeant 1st Class maxfaraday
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 2:48 am

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby chang50 on Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:46 am

maxfaraday wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
comic boy wrote:So in summary , the mouthy internet tough guy , you know the one who brags about his beautiful girlfriend , is at 10.00 pm on the last Friday before Xmas ,peddling his usual bullshit on a gaming site forum :lol:


Oh great. Another foreigner who is probably an expert on the US Constitution....

I am at home hanging out with my conservative buddies.

We are laughing at you, not with you


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182514

Oh great. Another stupid American who is probably an expert on french politics (even though he probably couldn't tell where France is on a world map...)


The same one who had soooo much to say about Norway when Breivik went on his killing spree.So it's ok for North Americans to comment on Europe,but not vice versa,hypocrisy and fatuousness in equal measure.Anything but come to terms with the sheer dumbness of allowing a situation to develop where there are so many guns about(the ratio is nearly 1 gun per citizen)that it is nearly impossible to stop the bad guys accessing them easily.The rest of the developed world is not laughing at people who think like you PS,things have gone way past that,this joke is too sick.. :!:
Last edited by chang50 on Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:56 am

maxfaraday wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
comic boy wrote:So in summary , the mouthy internet tough guy , you know the one who brags about his beautiful girlfriend , is at 10.00 pm on the last Friday before Xmas ,peddling his usual bullshit on a gaming site forum :lol:


Oh great. Another foreigner who is probably an expert on the US Constitution....

I am at home hanging out with my conservative buddies.

We are laughing at you, not with you


http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=182514

Oh great. Another stupid American who is probably an expert on french politics (even though he probably couldn't tell where France is on a world map...)


Don't need to be an expert to observe results...

see how ya are?

Image
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:31 am

Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:And YOUR attitude is a big reason why it will be those utterly opposed to guns making the decision. Because, when push comes to shove, the safety of my child supercedes your right to have a gun... period. And when you refuse to accept that there is a threat, when there is, then you are part of the problem, not the solution and you leave the solution to those who see the problem as simplistic, that is those who see guns as the problem.


Excuse me? I don't want to harm your child, so why do you magically get the authority to take away my guns? Same for all the other law-abiding citizens out there. I have a Constitutional right to own a gun and your child has a Constitutional right to be alive (well, since you didn't kill him/her prior to birth). You're just going to have to deal with the fact that both rights can and must live in harmony. You do NOT get to take away my rights just because you think I'm going to try to take away yours.

And isn't it telling that not only do I have to work to pay for your health care and birth control, buy only the more expensive products and energy sources that you mandate, I then also have to surrender my right to self-protection just because you have some fantastical notion that people want to hurt you?! How full of yourself can you become?


She has a point actually, and this is what I was trying to tell you earlier. Look back on American history at all the political factions who refused to compromise. How many of them are left today? Even the women's leagues who passed a new Constitutional amendment -prohibition - have disappeared, and each time it was because they refused to compromise. Right up to the end the prohibitioners were asked to compromise, and they wouldn't. And now they are dust. You can keep some things, but if you refuse to budge an inch you'll lose everything. Another example of this is the issue of "state's rights." The South refused to compromise, and now everyone is under Federal authority.
I was just trying to warn you.

Phatscotty wrote:FBI data suggests that the average American is more likely to be killed by “hands, fists” or “feet” than a rifle. That includes assault rifles


This is why my target is hand guns. I'm also from northern Illinois though, and I'm sick of reading about people being shot by hand guns.

I also think that military-style rifles and riot guns should also be banned without extra-special permits, but I'd be willing to listen to arguments.

stahrgazer wrote:Simply stated, this appears to be the divisive argument:

a) Pro-gun-ownership: don't tread on me, I'm not one of the people who caused the problem and any gun is innocent in the right hands, in a closet, in a drawer, in a safe, or in the back of a pickup truck.

b) Anti-gun-ownership: eliminating guns eliminates the problem.

I understand the emotion behind thought b) but the people, not the guns, that are the problem; I could have a cannon or a bazooka instead of my .38 or .45 derringer, and I'd still not be tempted to go massacre an elementary school. Nutsoids, on the other hand, could have a bowling ball and be tempted to bash people with it. Because it's the people, not the guns, that are the problem. And the sad fact is, it's mighty difficult to weed out the "emotionally disturbed" or "mentally challenged" or whatever p.c. term you want to give... people who WILL snap to that level, from those who won't, until they do snap. That's why having an emotional disorder has a "stigma" attached. If people KNOW you have something a little different, they cannot know if that difference is dangerous to them or not.

So do we lock up everyone who acts a little abnormal, knowing that there are millions of people who act a little different but still have no urge to massacre an elementary school? At one time, we did, in places called Asylums, where anyone a little abnormal could be locked away just in case they were "that" type.

The ACLU came along and said, "no, you can't do that," and they had a point.
So, you can't lock the people away

Locking away all the guns might "feel" good to some but it doesn't address the base problem of sudden violent acts and so, doesn't fix the problem.

But who want's to see our government "do nothing" about things like this?

Me.

I want them to "do nothing" if they can't fix the base problem - and we're not scientifically advanced enough yet to see from a brain scan who will and who won't snap to lock only those away.

I disagree completely. Doing nothing is intellectually lazy. John Adams, were he here, would not just look away from a national problem. Now I'm certain that most people with psychological disorders of the violent kind are label as such at an early age by the time they get to high school. It wouldn't be hard to put their names into the national database as non-felons who can't own guns. I know it's not their fault that they were born that way, but I'm sure that someone with violent tendancys would also understand why. But that doesn't solve a lot, since it seems like most of these mass-killers just "snap" at some point, so I would also propose-

2) Ban dealer sales of new handguns. Very very few people hunt with them, and so in private hands they pretty much only exist for killing other people. And! If you can't protect your property with a shotgun or rifle, then you shouldn't have a gun anyway. Anyone who owns a handgun can still sell, trade, gift/inherit theirs. Pretty much just like the '86 ban.

3) Ban large clips, and armor-piercing jackets. Let's not have any repeats of the LA shooting. Why would we even tolerate an arms race between civilians and the police?

4) Eliminate gun shows entirely or allow citizens to directly sue gun manufacturer's who knowingly sell their guns to criminals through gun shows.

5) License guns owners the same way you license cars. With instructor-present tests! How many hours do we make our soldiers spend training with their assault rifles and reverse engineering before they even fire their first bullet?

6) Nationalize our "no sale" list and create penalties for any dealers who sell extraordinary amounts of guns or ammunition without notifying the FBI and screening the purchaser first. Nobody is going to care if a shooting range buys 6000 rounds of "type A " ammo, or even if a civilian does. Just make a little note somewhere that Davie in Illinois is trigger happy sometimes and we're good.
I just think there should be a screening process so that we can check this stuff out before another Batman shooting happens. Nobody should just walk in to a shop, but two pistols and 6000 rounds of ammo without a couple questions being asked.


This is a pretty good compromise I think. You can still buy all the guns and ammo you like, just no new handguns or extended magazines.

stahrgazer wrote:But the reason the assault ban got lifted is because anti-gun folks were trying to push really hard for "more more more" bans, so the pro-gun folks pushed back harder to ensure the 2nd Amendment stays intact.

That's not true. The NRA has infinity lobby dollars, while nobody even knows the name of a single member of the anti-gun lobby. And I would say that this all started in 1959 when 60% of Americans wanted a ban on handguns.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:51 am

If you want to stop a corrupt or bad government, then you have to participate in politics. And that's the bottom line. This Red Dawn rambo bullsh*t is just a fantasy. So is protecting your home from an intruder with a handgun. That's a fantasy too. This country isn't full of roving bandits just waiting to enter your home and ruin your life. You're far more likely to kill a family member with your weapon than any intruders.


Image



What's telling is, the pro-gun enthusiasts (& NRA) don't have any answer for this violence. What I've been hearing is "do nothing" or "put police or armed guards in all the schools." So a few months ago conservatives were complaining about teacher's unions, now they want to arm them. A few months ago they were freaking out about the national debt. Now they want to put an extra police officer in every school.
What a great step towards that national police state that you need your guns to save America from. "I propose the US government employ armed security forces at all public buildings." ok guys. You're going to be pushed aside during the discussion if you can't be more serious. We've arrived at a crossroads where we understand that this isn't going to go away, and that owning a gun takes a lot of responsibility. And that kind of responsibility should be earned, not just given. We can't just go down the path of irrationally ignoring a problem where every so often a madman starts shooting our kids. That's not the price of constitutional freedom.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:07 am

Cnt'd
Fair warning that it's a liberal site, upworthy, but they show their work.

Click image to enlarge.
image

http://www.upworthy.com/10-terrifying-f ... e-us?c=bl3


And what should we do about this?
"Nothing because we may need our guns to overthrow the government, just like 1885!"
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:30 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:And YOUR attitude is a big reason why it will be those utterly opposed to guns making the decision. Because, when push comes to shove, the safety of my child supercedes your right to have a gun... period. And when you refuse to accept that there is a threat, when there is, then you are part of the problem, not the solution and you leave the solution to those who see the problem as simplistic, that is those who see guns as the problem.


Excuse me? I don't want to harm your child, so why do you magically get the authority to take away my guns? Same for all the other law-abiding citizens out there. I have a Constitutional right to own a gun and your child has a Constitutional right to be alive (well, since you didn't kill him/her prior to birth). You're just going to have to deal with the fact that both rights can and must live in harmony. You do NOT get to take away my rights just because you think I'm going to try to take away yours.

And isn't it telling that not only do I have to work to pay for your health care and birth control, buy only the more expensive products and energy sources that you mandate, I then also have to surrender my right to self-protection just because you have some fantastical notion that people want to hurt you?! How full of yourself can you become?


She has a point actually, and this is what I was trying to tell you earlier. Look back on American history at all the political factions who refused to compromise. How many of them are left today? Even the women's leagues who passed a new Constitutional amendment -prohibition - have disappeared, and each time it was because they refused to compromise. Right up to the end the prohibitioners were asked to compromise, and they wouldn't. And now they are dust. You can keep some things, but if you refuse to budge an inch you'll lose everything. Another example of this is the issue of "state's rights." The South refused to compromise, and now everyone is under Federal authority.
I was just trying to warn you.

Thank you Juan. NIghtstrike.. I STARTED by saying that my family owns guns, I am raising kids who know guns, etc.

BUT.. unless you are willing to even consider what folks who disagree with you are saying, then you will lose. You will lose because the other side sees this as "you want people to have guns" versus "I want to protect my child". And, a LOT more people out there could care less about owning guns than have children!

Your response is classic, part of the problem. Let me explain how:
Night Strike wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:And YOUR attitude is a big reason why it will be those utterly opposed to guns making the decision. Because, when push comes to shove, the safety of my child supercedes your right to have a gun... period. And when you refuse to accept that there is a threat, when there is, then you are part of the problem, not the solution and you leave the solution to those who see the problem as simplistic, that is those who see guns as the problem.


Excuse me? I don't want to harm your child, so why do you magically get the authority to take away my guns?
and where, exactly did I even hint that I wanted to take YOUR guns away????? I have little doubt that you are among the responsible gun owners out there, at least if anything you say here can be believed. MY point is twofold. A. that not everyone out there IS a responsible gun owner and B. it behooves those who ARE responsible to be among the fore of coming up with real and reasonable limits.. OR those who could care less about any right you have to own guns will be the only voice heard opposing lunacy and they will be heard as a result.

For example, I highly doubt you are in favor of allowing 6 year olds to buy guns. I believe you have stated that some convicted criminals and true psychopaths don't need to own guns. Those are certainly reasonable limits. So, saying that anyone who wants to talk about limits is moving toward China.. well, look in the mirror. YOU accept limits when they are reasonable.

The problem I have with too many "gun advocates" right now, particular some of the NRA leadership right now, is that they refuse any and all discussion of any kind of limit at all! (OK, they are not in favor of 6 year old or psychopaths owning guns, but when you talk about specifi legislation to mandate those things or ways to create that situation in society, they balk).

Night Strike wrote:Same for all the other law-abiding citizens out there. I have a Constitutional right to own a gun and your child has a Constitutional right to be alive (well, since you didn't kill him/her prior to birth). You're just going to have to deal with the fact that both rights can and must live in harmony. You do NOT get to take away my rights just because you think I'm going to try to take away yours.

OH please. There is a world of difference between saying maybe average people don't need to be able to run off 30 rounds in a minute (even if they might like the idea) and going in and taking people's hunting rifles. To get back to the NRA rhetoric, they have have the gun toting community convinced Obama wants to do just that.. but gun restrictions have been LOOSENED under Obama, not expanded! Where is this honest adovacating group touting THAT????

Your words show why you are part of the problem, not the solution... and as Jaun said, as I said, not being willing to discuss the issue WILL lead to folks talking the opposition. Sorry, but kids dying makes much bigger press than your "right" to shoot targets or defend yourself against some esoteric threat. (particularly when guns do not work for defense unless you are WELL trained in specific defense tactics).

Night Strike wrote:And isn't it telling that not only do I have to work to pay for your health care and birth control, buy only the more expensive products and energy sources that you mandate,

WELL off-topic and definitely NOT what I advocate. ..but we can talk about that in the appropriate threads.
Night Strike wrote:I then also have to surrender my right to self-protection just because you have some fantastical notion that people want to hurt you?! How full of yourself can you become?

Here we go again.

Are you a threat to my child? I doubt it.. even if I were to find you lived very close to me, I highly doubt I would be concerned. So why do you come off with the "you are trying to take my guns" rhetoric? You blow any chance of offering intelligent answers to very real problems by launching into such idiotic and plain ignorant (in the original sense of the word.. not knowing) rhetoric.

In fact, I was talking specifically about my FAMILY. Because we own more than a couple of guns, my kids are all being taught to shoot, etc. All that would stop, even if it meant divorcing my husband or going to jail if I thought my kids were in danger! AND YES... I can gaurantee that a good many people (I did say "women" before, but expand that to "people") feel exactly as I do! If I thought my husband/son/or even perhaps a neighbor were unstable or very unsafe with guns, I would take some sort of action. If my family.. at a minimum the guns would be destroyed! Ironically enough, though you blast me for saying that, I strongly suspect you would do the same.
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:50 am

Nightstrike's rant aside... here are some things that I honestly would like discussed. Note, I am not "sold" on any of these, because they are all fraught with possible problems. The devil is most definitely in the details in this one! BUT.. it is past time for a more open and honest discussion of options. These are in no particular order. (#1 is NOT necessarily the best , just the first I thought to write down)

1. Better training for ALL guns.
We require people to demonstrate that they can drive a car before they are permitted to do so. Anyone wanting to use a gun, either for sport or protection, ought to have to go through a minimum training program. The NRA has a basic adult training course. Its decent, they advocate it, but balk at requiring it. I say that's a mistake. The people we need to worry about aren't those getting the training, its mostly those who think they "don't need it". I would further like anyone wanting a gun for protection specifically to be given a "Red Jacket" -style lecture/training session on "is this really going to help me". A gun can provide protection, but ONLY in the hands of someone who really knows what they are doing or who is very lucky. You want to tote, fine... show you know how to do so safely!

2. Stricter requirements for hunters. Most, if not all states require young hunters to undergo hunter safety course, but adults are generally exempt from even those very basic courses. I would go further and require some knowledge of regional game issues-- t hings like the biological basis for selecting does versus bucks (and yes, I know its controversial biologically.. that is part of what needs to be taught), habitat needs, impact of artificially supporting a wild population (food dependence, increase disease risks, etc, etc). For that matter, add in a short bit on safe processing and handling of the meat, though that is just good information, not gun safety.


3. Better background checks.
This means not just doing things like closing loopholes (private sales generally don't require checks), but also studying more on which types of charateristics actually lead to dangerous gun ownership. For example, people who willfully hurt animals often go on to hurt people. Maybe people convicted of serious cruelty to animals should have limited gun ownership.

4. Consider limits on specific types of guns, or as a minimum require extended training for specific gun types. This is mostly what is being debated in this thread (by those not offering "knee jerk" reactions, anyway), so I will leave it at that.. a lot of details to work out.



IN addition, though not something that can be or should be mandated through legislation, I would like to see more movement toward GOOD gun education for kids. I long ago came to the conclusion that the best way to keep my kids safe, in an environment where they would be exposed to guns constantly (very few homes in our area are without guns), was to ensure they got proper training. Allowing them closely supervised use was far better than making guns some kind of unkown "forbidden fruit". I have to say, though, that the "Eddie Eagle" program has proven very ineffective. A good intent, but one that did not work. Basically, having a safe gun environment means realizing that up to a certain age, kids just cannot have contact with guns, at least potentially loaded guns. (the actual age varies, but roughly around age 5-6 many kids can begin to learn about BB guns and the like -- before that, they can "use" a gun, but don't have the judgement ability to use them safely in most cases).
I like the Boy scout gun programs, would like to see them expanded, with very clear emphasis on sporting use of guns.

Beyond that, I think some of these programs maybe even need to outreach into places like the inner city, where there is a lot of gun crime. That requires a lot of thought, but if learning to use a gun safely is good for my kids because they are around guns, then maybe it is good for kids in dangerous environments to have such training. (MAYBE?????)

Anyway, those are the types of things I mean when I say we need to engage in real discussion, discussion that involves not just gun haters but gun "lovers" as well.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby codeblue1018 on Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:23 am

The problem I have with all this is really one sided and that is "training". Outside of law enforcement and security personal, the average citizen has minimal to almost zero training once a handgun or rifle is acquired. Like with law enforcement, monthly training and qualification is required; failure to qualify will result in a particular officer to sit the desk until qualification is achieved. Prior to becoming an officer, a recruit in the academy MUST qualify; failure to do so results in failing the academy hence a re-do of the academy will be the next option. Point being; most, not all private citizens do not have to worry about these roadblocks. I respect the constitution and believe citizens have the right to bear arms, however, the people that I have contact with, it's damn scary that they're even allowed to possess such weaponry. Training, training, training; I truly believe that monthly training should be a requirement if a private citizen wishes to possess and carry a firearm. This is a huge responsibility; one tiny mistake can cause another persons life to end. I'd rather error in the side of caution and have more training that really little to none.
Lieutenant codeblue1018
 
Posts: 1016
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee