Guests may browse all the site, but only registered users can post in the main forums.
Unregistered users may post in the Free Range Talk Forum

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gun Rights and Violence
#11
(07-11-2014, 03:35 PM)'Number Two' Wrote: Do you hold Pres. Clinton responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis during the sanctions/embargo of the 90's? Do you hold Sadam responsible?


 

I never thought about it, but we should have been killing Husseins soldiers instead of the kids in Iraq - if we had reason to.  I suppose universally it's easier to beat down women and children than soldiers with guns.

Now, for something completely different.

   

 

 
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#12
There's an interesting term "senseless" restrictions.  Many disagree about that interpretation of various ideas.

"I'll fight every law, including laws I like, if the democrats propose them".

That's the essence of what's wrong with our system right now (you can of course substitute republican, or independent, or any other political group).






 
Reply
#13
Quote:There's an interesting term "senseless" restrictions.  Many disagree about that interpretation of various ideas.
The AWB made it illegal to have a pistol grip on a rifle.  Is a rifle with no pistol grip less deadly?  No.  It was a senseless reason for banning a gun.  A flash suppressor is supposed to help avoid being spotted by the enemy, but how many instances of snipers do we see?   Flash suppresors were banned, now you give me a good reason for that.  My M16 had a flash suppressor and my only interest in guns is to maybe own a Colt AR15 that is a semi-auto clone of my Army weapon - something to remind me of what I was doing at 17.
Quote:That's the essence of what's wrong with our system right now

A principled stand for your beliefs is never wrong with anything.  
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#14
I don't know about those specific examples, but it's clear that "senseless" is a subjective term, and different people may disagree about whether or not something is senseless, or serves a useful purpose.

But, you're not standing up for your principles - you're opposing things you actually support, which is sort of the opposite of that. It's the essence of "partisan politics", which to me is clearly a major problem right now with American politics. It probably doesn't matter that much that you do it, but many elected officials are engaging in it, and that causes serious problems.






 
Reply
#15
Was there a good reason for banning rifles with pistol grips - other than such rifles "look" militaristic?

Yes, I am standing up for my principals.  I believe a non-felon, non-mentally unstable citizen has the right to own any semi-automatic rifle under .50 cal.  Those are sensible limits in my opinion  If you want something bigger or full auto, you get permits.  I don't believe there exists another reason to ban a rifle other than action and caliber.  In the recent past, the democrats banned rifles for reasons that are cosmetic.  That demonstrates their main goal is BANNING weapons, not protecting people.  Now they want to trot out what may be perfectly legitimate ways of keeping guns out of the wrong hands, and that would be OK - except the last time we trusted democrats to make laws regarding guns, they ignored the problem and banned cosmetic features.  I cannot trust that they will stop at keeping guns from the hands of felons without trying to ban more weapons, therefore, I'm against giving them even a chance to talk about the law.

You are feeling the pushback across America from the AWB.  Sandy Hook was one of the largest tragedies in recent decades in America, and conversation about guns was shut down by the American people because of the AWB (Assault Weapons Ban).  

To this day the left in general still doesn't understand the concept of auto vs. semi-auto and use the words "assault weapon" incorrectly.   They don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip.

They don't even know what the words mean and we are supposed to let them use those words to write laws?  

Yes, I'm standing up for what I believe, and I am prepared to suspend some of the things I think should happen until a majority in government that I trust on this issue can write the law.

Similarly,  I don't want republican writing laws regarding homosexuality and abortion.   I don't trust them to do it in a fair way because they have demonstrated they will legislate the way god tells them to and that isn't acceptable given the first and 14th amendment.


 
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#16
The government doesn't need a license for .50 cal or bigger or automatic weapons, why should the people?  Also, we should be VERY careful about laws written about mental stability.  Who gets to chose who and what are considered mentally stable?  That is a very dangerous slippery slope. 

The problem isn't guns but culture... you can read that rant in the "bazzoka" thread as I won't type it out twice.
Reply
#17
You're right - you know more about guns than I do, and generally speaking, the right probably knows more about guns than the left.  I'd say that the various things you don't like are more a matter of lack of knowledge than anything else.

That's not a reason to shut down the conversation, it's a reason to work together to craft meaningful and substantive legislation.

Our system doesn't work as intended if treated like a competitive sport - that's not shared governance with checks and balances.






 
Reply
#18
(07-13-2014, 09:21 AM)jafs Wrote: You're right - you know more about guns than I do, and generally speaking, the right probably knows more about guns than the left.  I'd say that the various things you don't like are more a matter of lack of knowledge than anything else.

That's not a reason to shut down the conversation, it's a reason to work together to craft meaningful and substantive legislation.

Our system doesn't work as intended if treated like a competitive sport - that's not shared governance with checks and balances.






 

We literally have thousands of gun laws on the books. Those who commit gun crimes in most cases have committed a felony in obtaining their guns. Again... all gun restrictions do is hurt the law abiding citizen. I think Kansas should be a national model... we leave the law abiding citizen alone but if you commit a gun crime, we lock your ass up for a long time and you lose your right to own a gun (Kansas is usually 2nd or 3rd in the nation every year when it comes to actually prosecuting gun crimes). The laws we have, we enforce.
Reply
#19
(07-13-2014, 08:54 AM)'labmonkey' Wrote: The government doesn't need a license for .50 cal or bigger or automatic weapons, why should the people?  Also, we should be VERY careful about laws written about mental stability.  Who gets to chose who and what are considered mentally stable?  That is a very dangerous slippery slope. 

The problem isn't guns but culture... you can read that rant in the "bazzoka" thread as I won't type it out twice.


 

I think .50 and semi-auto with no permit is an appropriate concession to the other side which would prefer to make every gun require a permit.  That's constitutional.  You can have a gun, come get your $20 permit, oh, and we'll need the serial number too and your name and SSN.  And we'll fire off 10 rounds into the water tank and keep the bullets just so we know your barrel in case your gun is used in a questionable way. <--- that is why you concede at caliber and action.  The government noses out completely below those limits, but gets a little bit of information if you want bigger toys.  They are hard and fast limits with exact meanings which cannot be manipulated or corrupted.

The mental illness part is easy. If a judge is convinced you have mental defects which make you prone to violence, no gun for you.  That is also a concession to those that would prefer a doctor make the decision.  A doctor can't, so we go the constitutional way.    I know that most of that falls under keeping guns from felons already, but their are times when a person may become delusional and get into a fight.  If both people are OK with the fight, then you let them go at it until the cops come, then if under routine questioning one guy admits his dog told him to go beat up the other guy, maybe we don't let him have a gun.  We look a little closer at him because if he owns a gun his dog might say, go shoot someone.  He's committed no felony, but it's almost guaranteed he will and I'd rather him not have a gun.  Even if a judge is convinced, a ruling can be appealed, then if the illness is cured, we return his right.

The current background check system needs some improvement and it needs to exist outside of the hands of government so that information regarding a purchase can only be accessed by government with a warrant.

That's why Jafs is wrong.  Not because I know what "Rock and Roll" means, but because I have already conceded more than I feel is appropriate, and now I'd like to see intelligent improvement which the democrats have no interest in as they have plainly showed their agenda of obstructing our 2nd amendment rights with the AWB.  I know a lot of you social liberals like guns.  You were raised with them.  I'm not talking about you, but I am talking about the people you elected.

Ultimately, if you have the ability to secure the weapon properly and you pass a background check which may vary with regard to the weapon, you should be able to own anything that is not labeled "secret" by our government.  That includes missiles and such.  That's really how it is already.  Here's an ICBM minus the secret warhead:





 

 

 
Winner.
Winner.

Chicken Dinner.


Reply
#20
There are some who believe that just wanting to own a gun makes you prone to acts of violence. It has gotten so bad in Commiefornia that people who might need to seek help dont because they lose their second amendment rights.

I agree that we have made way too many concessions... and banning of things makes people want them even more. The EPA has dictated this week that it is illegal to coal-roll in your diesel truck. I bet this actually increases Priuses (Prii?) and bicycle riders getting coal-rolled. Hell, I wanted an FN 5.7 for awhile because the liberals wanted to ban those last year (but I dont need another $1/round firearm).

Enforce the laws on the books, overturn the stupid ones, and maybe start encouraging a culture where we value good fathers, we are in our children's lives, and we engage them instead of feeding them prescription drugs.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Our Amazon Picks


Donate With PayPal