RE: Gun control

RE: Gun control (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

caitlyn -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 8:33:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 If the document said firearms,there would be no debate about right to own a gun. How do you know that the founding fathers were not anticipating that a document that was intended to cover the span of many lifetimes, might need to be kept general, in order to include things that had not yet been invented, or even considered?

EvilCrimeLord -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 8:46:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws quote: ORIGINAL: BUW4you ya know...england has a law about the right to keep and bear arms....and they are talking about family devices and coat of arms A friend of mine in England told me what he had to do in order to get the permit to keep a pistol in his home. The gun has to be locked in a box that's attached to a wall the opposite side of the room from his bed. So, if you have an intruder, you have to ask them to give you a minute? They also said in order to get the permit you have to agree to the condition that they can come in at any time to check to see if that's where your gun is. Gun permits are issued in the UK solely for sporting reasons. The box is out of reach so that it can’t be considered as a viable option for self defence. You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself if someone breaks into your home in the UK but you can’t be the aggressor. The finality that firing a weapon only once at an intruder could bring is why it will never be considered as reasonable force in the UK. In South Africa all you have to prove is that the intruder fired first. The police will routinely pick up the gun from a dead intruder and fire it into the wall to falsely prove this on your behalf.

Owner59 -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 8:57:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: petslavennj I can't believe I am posting on this since most of what has been written is out of a passionate belief system that may or may not be based on an open minded reality. Placing blame on an inanimate object does not make sense to me. In the end, as with anything, it is not the gun that harms another, it is the person on the other end of it or the one who should have control of it. Banning guns does nothing to control the stupidity of those who misused the inanimate object to begin with. They will just find another source to use and those who blamed the inanimate object will then shift their concerns to the new object. I have owned guns since 1983. These were the ones purchased in my name. I have had small children in the house. I taught my daughter to shoot at a firing range at the age of 5. I have never had an incident. In the community where I lived for many years, high school boys went to school with guns in their trucks so they could hunt after school. There were never incidences of shootings in the school. If we need to ban guns to eliminate bad human behavior, do we then credit the inanimate object for the good behavior of these boys? With that mentality, we should then provide guns to more kids because of their good behavior and then this would encourage further good behavior. Growing up in an area that had territorial gangs, I saw many other objects used in a deadly way. Guns were not the object of choice at that time. A kid beat until the edge of death with a chain was just as gruesome, did just as much permanent damage, and was just as costly to the community. Why are we not on the bandwagon to outlaw chains in the open community? Common kitchen knives are used in many house break-ins, to perpetrate a rape on the street, and in many domestic incidences. They are readily available. Why are we not trying to outlaw common kitchen utensils (inanimate objects) to protect helpless men and women from humans who have problems? People who have psychotic problems will utilize any inanimate object that is available. If a gun is not available, it will be something else. Perhaps they will turn to making bombs as in the Oklahoma City incident. But rest assured, they will find something to suit their purposes. Taking one object away only leads them to look for something else. It certainly does not change the behavior. And, in the end, it is the psychotic behavior that is a danger to society. That said, parents who are not responsible with their guns, probably are not responsible in other areas of parenting as well. It is only a sign of bigger issues. The problems start at home. Perhaps we should look there. It is like blaming the candy in the store for a child shoplifting. Is it the candy, the child, the parent? The least likely perpetrator is the inanimate object. If we are going to expel energy in such a passionate way, then use it to do something that will make a difference. Be a Big Brother or Sister, volunteer to work with kids in the community, make a real difference. My best friend takes inner city junior high kids on a survival camping trip every year. She teaches them ways to depend on one another, she teaches them team efforts. They are not looking for guns to solve problems, they are looking to each other. I currently am working with high schoolers to help them explore career opportunities. I show them how they can succeed and I facilitate that process. They learn life skills they can use for the rest of their life. These type of efforts will help the issues we fear in society. Pet It`s not just as simple as saying guns are inanimate objects.That`s not the point. Guns are different from other inanimate objects. Compare a gun to a knife.Both are deadly,both are inanimate.One though,is a bit more deadly......quite a bit more. If I was confronted by a boy with a knife,I know I could take it and kick his ass.If I was confronted by a man w/ a knife,I`m pretty sure I could escape.At least I wouldn`t get shot in the back. If I was confronted by a boy with a gun,I`m not so sure I`d survive trying to take it.And I could be shot while retreating. There is a huge difference in the degree of lethality. A knife,even in a Navy Seal`s hands,is only so affective. A child w/ a gun,can kill even the most elite fighter. See the difference? True, the two are inanimate objects ,but the difference in their lethality,is both quantitative and qualitative. And there`s other down sides to owning deadly weapons.They can be stolen and used against LIOs and innocent folks.How would you feel,if you found out that a gun you owned,was used to hurt someone?As a gun owner,I fear that more then getting muged myself.But that`s me. Good to see you on the boards,pet.

substobbws -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 8:58:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EvilCrimeLord quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws quote: ORIGINAL: BUW4you ya know...england has a law about the right to keep and bear arms....and they are talking about family devices and coat of arms A friend of mine in England told me what he had to do in order to get the permit to keep a pistol in his home. The gun has to be locked in a box that's attached to a wall the opposite side of the room from his bed. So, if you have an intruder, you have to ask them to give you a minute? They also said in order to get the permit you have to agree to the condition that they can come in at any time to check to see if that's where your gun is. Gun permits are issued in the UK solely for sporting reasons. The box is out of reach so that it can’t be considered as a viable option for self defence. You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself if someone breaks into your home in the UK but you can’t be the aggressor. The finality that firing a weapon only once at an intruder could bring is why it will never be considered as reasonable force in the UK. In South Africa all you have to prove is that the intruder fired first. The police will routinely pick up the gun from a dead intruder and fire it into the wall to falsely prove this on your behalf. That firing into a wall to help someone is great. Couldn't disagree with that UK policy more. You're telling people "You're truly more than on your own, and just hope that the intruder isn't better armed than you are." The intruder already has the advantages of having planned his or her act, along with knowing what they're able and prepared to do, which you couldn't possibly know. That's giving way to much power to the criminal, IMO. Just intruding or attempting to should permit a citizen to do whatever they deem to be necessary at the time, again, IMO. I remember something about a law somewhere in which, whether you got off as the defender depended on whether their body fell inside or outside your home. Across the doorway? LOL. Personally, if you chased them down the street and shot them in the back, that's one more that everyone else doesn't have to worry about. [:)]

Owner59 -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 9:05:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 If the document said firearms,there would be no debate about right to own a gun. How do you know that the founding fathers were not anticipating that a document that was intended to cover the span of many lifetimes, might need to be kept general, in order to include things that had not yet been invented, or even considered? They were,and they did.They were brilliant. That`s why they set up an amendment system,so the document could change with the times.It was designed to not be rigid,or unchangeable.Of course changing the constitution takes quite a bit of effort,but that also,is by design. That`s why I scoff when people compare today`s situation w/ the 1700s,forgetting that the laws have evolved for over 200 years,to where they are today.

Owner59 -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 9:08:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EvilCrimeLord quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws quote: ORIGINAL: BUW4you ya know...england has a law about the right to keep and bear arms....and they are talking about family devices and coat of arms A friend of mine in England told me what he had to do in order to get the permit to keep a pistol in his home. The gun has to be locked in a box that's attached to a wall the opposite side of the room from his bed. So, if you have an intruder, you have to ask them to give you a minute? They also said in order to get the permit you have to agree to the condition that they can come in at any time to check to see if that's where your gun is. Gun permits are issued in the UK solely for sporting reasons. The box is out of reach so that it can’t be considered as a viable option for self defence. You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself if someone breaks into your home in the UK but you can’t be the aggressor. The finality that firing a weapon only once at an intruder could bring is why it will never be considered as reasonable force in the UK. In South Africa all you have to prove is that the intruder fired first. The police will routinely pick up the gun from a dead intruder and fire it into the wall to falsely prove this on your behalf. I believe that the South African police would do something like that.I wouldn`t put anything past them.

EvilCrimeLord -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 9:08:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws That firing into a wall to help someone is great. They don't do it for free. quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws Couldn't disagree with that UK policy more. I don’t really want to comment on the rights and wrongs of gun ownership as most here have decided for themselves and won’t be swayed anyway. No law is perfect and that’s just life. I simply wanted to clarify that BUW4you’s friend may have been permitted to have a gun but on no basis should this be considered as the UK law stating that guns are ok for self defence. A misinterpretation of the law like this is how people fall foul of the law.

substobbws -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 9:15:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EvilCrimeLord quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws That firing into a wall to help someone is great. They don't do it for free. That (intentional mispelling disclaimer) figgers. Always follow the money. [:D]

Owner59 -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 9:19:40 AM)
SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIAL Lynyrd Skynyrd Two feets they come a creepin like a black cat do and two bodies are layin' naked. Creeper think he got nothin' to lose. So he creeps into this house, yeah and unlocks the door and as a man's reaching for his trousers shoots him full of thirty-eight holes. It's the Saturday night special got a barrel that's blue and cold ain't good for nothin but put a man six feet in a hole Big Jim's been drinkin' whiskey and playin' poker on a losin' night and pretty soon ol' Jim starts a thinkin somebody been cheatin' and lyin'. So big Jim commence to fightin', I wouldn't tell you no lie. Big Jim done pulled his pistol, shot his friend right between the eyes. It's the Saturday night special got a barrel that's blue and cold ain't good for nothin but put a man six feet in a hole Hand guns are made for killin', they ain't no good for nothin' else. And if you like to drink your whiskey you might even shoot yourself. So why don't we dump 'em people to the bottom of the sea before some ol' fool come around here, wanna shoot either you or me. It's the Saturday night special you got a barrel that's blue and cold you ain't good for nothin but put a man six feet in a hole It's the saturday night special and I'd like to tell you what you could do with it and that's the end of the song

substobbws -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 9:26:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIAL Lynyrd Skynyrd Two feets they come a creepin like a black cat do and two bodies are layin' naked. Creeper think he got nothin' to lose. So he creeps into this house, yeah and unlocks the door and as a man's reaching for his trousers shoots him full of thirty-eight holes. It's the Saturday night special got a barrel that's blue and cold ain't good for nothin but put a man six feet in a hole Big Jim's been drinkin' whiskey and playin' poker on a losin' night and pretty soon ol' Jim starts a thinkin somebody been cheatin' and lyin'. So big Jim commence to fightin', I wouldn't tell you no lie. Big Jim done pulled his pistol, shot his friend right between the eyes. It's the Saturday night special got a barrel that's blue and cold ain't good for nothin but put a man six feet in a hole Hand guns are made for killin', they ain't no good for nothin' else. And if you like to drink your whiskey you might even shoot yourself. So why don't we dump 'em people to the bottom of the sea before some ol' fool come around here, wanna shoot either you or me. It's the Saturday night special you got a barrel that's blue and cold you ain't good for nothin but put a man six feet in a hole It's the saturday night special and I'd like to tell you what you could do with it and that's the end of the song If dumping them ALL in the sea were POSSIBLE, along with keeping more from being produced, I'd agree. We want the same end result/both have good intentions. Just disagree on what works and what doesn't. That's why I attack what you say, but not you. LOL, you're pulling Skynyrd out on someone from the Southeast? You might wanna holster THAT gun! [:D]

EvilCrimeLord -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 9:27:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws Just intruding or attempting to should permit a citizen to do whatever they deem to be necessary at the time, again, IMO. I’ll give you an example of why shooting someone in your house is never going to be that cut and dried as far as the police are concerned, not even in the US. I’m a disgruntled husband and my wife is having an affair, although I have found out without her knowing. I invite the boyfriend around to my house pretending to be my wife and I may make the seemingly bizarre request that the boyfriend play the role of an intruder. Once he steps foot inside my house I can then shoot him dead. The wife may suspect I knew about the affair and killed him on purpose but how can this be proven? As far as anyone knows I mistakenly killed what I thought was a criminal intent on hurting me. The police will always investigate your links to people in shooting cases and dig up your history to make sure what I just described doesn’t occur. Just one more thing, I love Columbo…

Owner59 -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 9:37:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EvilCrimeLord quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws That firing into a wall to help someone is great. They don't do it for free. quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws Couldn't disagree with that UK policy more. I don’t really want to comment on the rights and wrongs of gun ownership as most here have decided for themselves and won’t be swayed anyway. No law is perfect and that’s just life. I simply wanted to clarify that BUW4you’s friend may have been permitted to have a gun but on no basis should this be considered as the UK law stating that guns are ok for self defence. A misinterpretation of the law like this is how people fall foul of the law. I heard a story about a guy in Texas,who regularly carried a deer gun in his gun rack.He was working in a boarder crossing town,and got stuck on a ramp that took him into the crossing area,by mistake.He claimed he could back out or turn around,and ended up going through Mexican customs,totally by mistake.He would have been fine,but with the rifle in the truck,he was arrested and spent months in Mexican jail. How`s that for bad luck. I agree that every country and state should be able to make their own laws and rules.That`s always a given. You`re absolutely correct,that one should know the laws and rules of any given area,so one doesn`t get caught up by a mistake. Here in NJ,if you transport a gun,it has to be put in the trunk and un-loaded.And you better be able to produce the proper papers,if the police find the gun in your car.If not,say hello to a jail cell and a world of shit.

substobbws -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 9:38:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EvilCrimeLord quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws Just intruding or attempting to should permit a citizen to do whatever they deem to be necessary at the time, again, IMO. I’ll give you an example of why shooting someone in your house is never going to be that cut and dried as far as the police are concerned, not even in the US. I’m a disgruntled husband and my wife is having an affair, although I have found out without her knowing. I invite the boyfriend around to my house pretending to be my wife and I may make the seemingly bizarre request that the boyfriend play the role of an intruder. Once he steps foot inside my house I can then shoot him dead. The wife may suspect I knew about the affair and killed him on purpose but how can this be proven? As far as anyone knows I mistakenly killed what I thought was a criminal intent on hurting me. The police will always investigate your links to people in shooting cases and dig up your history to make sure what I just described doesn’t occur. Just one more thing, I love Columbo… Which goes to what you said before, which I've also said many times, that there will never be a perfect policy. What if you had two countries side-by-side with the exact same population numbers, economic systems, etc. The only difference was the gun control laws, or lack of them in one. What if, in a year, one more person died due to accidental shootings where they're allowed? I'd still be against a government telling that I can't be at least as well armed as the criminals are. I don't think they have the right to. I try to base every belief I have in reasoning, not on what Dan Rather, Fox News, or anyone else preaches. The Republicans are too fiscally liberal for me, and the Democrats are too socially conservative. [:)]

michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 9:40:24 AM)
the redneck version of gun control is learning how to aim and shoot a gun while drunk...LOL

caitlyn -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 9:40:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 They were,and they did. You were there? You might want to look at the opinions, as expressed in the Federalist Papers. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html (There are many links available for those that want to look, including the actual text, this one is just more "to the point.") They seem to clearly articulate their intent. So, unless you were there, and perhaps your signature was trimmed off the bottom of the final document, then what you express is only opinion: both poorly supported and contradictory. No offense intended, of course. [:D]

Owner59 -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 9:43:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelOfGeorgia the redneck version of gun control is learning how to aim and shoot a gun while drunk...LOL Bwaah! The northern version of gun control,is to shoot while holding a latte from Starbucks.

michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 9:44:31 AM)
that works too...LOL

substobbws -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 9:45:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: EvilCrimeLord quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws That firing into a wall to help someone is great. They don't do it for free. quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws Couldn't disagree with that UK policy more. I don’t really want to comment on the rights and wrongs of gun ownership as most here have decided for themselves and won’t be swayed anyway. No law is perfect and that’s just life. I simply wanted to clarify that BUW4you’s friend may have been permitted to have a gun but on no basis should this be considered as the UK law stating that guns are ok for self defence. A misinterpretation of the law like this is how people fall foul of the law. I heard a story about a guy in Texas,who regularly carried a deer gun in his gun rack.He was working in a boarder crossing town,and got such on a ramp that took him into the crossing area,by mistake.He claimed he could back out or turn around,and ended up going through Mexican customs,totally by mistake.He would have been fine,but with the rifle in the truck,he was arrested and spent months in Mexican jail. How`s that for bad luck. I agree that every country and state should be able to make their own laws and rules.That`s always a given. You`re absolutely correct,that one should know the laws and rules of any given area,so one doesn`t get caught up by a mistake. Here in NJ,if you transport a gun,it has to be put in the truck and un-loaded.And you better be able to produce the proper papers,if the police find the gun in your car.If not,say hello to a jail cell and a world of shit. And that's exactly where I have problems with legal systems that punish based on results instead of intentions. How many times do they wait around to see if someone will die so they can go for murder? Two people can commit the exact same offense, such as shooting someone in the process of robbery in the same town, and you know the punishments will differ if one victim dies and one doesn't. What that really says is "If you're an incompetent criminal, we're going to give you a break." What if one WAS trying to kill their victim, the other wasn't, and they both screwed up? They're both getting each other's sentences based on luck, IMO. Ten people can get drunk driving charges on the same night, but if one is UNLUCKY enough to have killed someone in the process? What I'm saying is that it's only dumb luck that the other nine made it home without it happening, though they all commited the same offenses/took the same chances.

Owner59 -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 9:59:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws quote: ORIGINAL: EvilCrimeLord quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws Just intruding or attempting to should permit a citizen to do whatever they deem to be necessary at the time, again, IMO. I’ll give you an example of why shooting someone in your house is never going to be that cut and dried as far as the police are concerned, not even in the US. I’m a disgruntled husband and my wife is having an affair, although I have found out without her knowing. I invite the boyfriend around to my house pretending to be my wife and I may make the seemingly bizarre request that the boyfriend play the role of an intruder. Once he steps foot inside my house I can then shoot him dead. The wife may suspect I knew about the affair and killed him on purpose but how can this be proven? As far as anyone knows I mistakenly killed what I thought was a criminal intent on hurting me. The police will always investigate your links to people in shooting cases and dig up your history to make sure what I just described doesn’t occur. Just one more thing, I love Columbo… Which goes to what you said before, which I've also said many times, that there will never be a perfect policy. What if you had two countries side-by-side with the exact same population numbers, economic systems, etc. The only difference was the gun control laws, or lack of them in one. What if, in a year, one more person died due to accidental shootings where they're allowed? I'd still be against a government telling that I can't be at least as well armed as the criminals are. I don't think they have the right to. I try to base every belief I have in reasoning, not on what Dan Rather, Fox News, or anyone else preaches. The Republicans are too fiscally liberal for me, and the Democrats are too socially conservative. [:)] If you truly want to see a side by side,country to country comparison,watch "Bowling for Columbine",where Moore compares the US to Canada. The theories of the NRAers fall apart,just on the face of it,when one just runs the numbers. Of course the NRAers scoff at Moore,but not for being incorrect,but for telling the truths and realities of guns. Not saying you`ll be swayed,but at least you won`t be going on opinion when it comes to who has the more effective laws Gun crime in Canada is far ,far lower then ours.And the real difference is the laws.You can legally own a gun in Canada,but they are stricter then say Utah,or North Dakota,or Michigan,just south of them.

Owner59 -> RE: Gun control (8/11/2007 10:12:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: substobbws quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIAL Lynyrd Skynyrd Two feets they come a creepin like a black cat do and two bodies are layin' naked. Creeper think he got nothin' to lose. So he creeps into this house, yeah and unlocks the door and as a man's reaching for his trousers shoots him full of thirty-eight holes. It's the Saturday night special got a barrel that's blue and cold ain't good for nothin but put a man six feet in a hole Big Jim's been drinkin' whiskey and playin' poker on a losin' night and pretty soon ol' Jim starts a thinkin somebody been cheatin' and lyin'. So big Jim commence to fightin', I wouldn't tell you no lie. Big Jim done pulled his pistol, shot his friend right between the eyes. It's the Saturday night special got a barrel that's blue and cold ain't good for nothin but put a man six feet in a hole Hand guns are made for killin', they ain't no good for nothin' else. And if you like to drink your whiskey you might even shoot yourself. So why don't we dump 'em people to the bottom of the sea before some ol' fool come around here, wanna shoot either you or me. It's the Saturday night special you got a barrel that's blue and cold you ain't good for nothin but put a man six feet in a hole It's the saturday night special and I'd like to tell you what you could do with it and that's the end of the song If dumping them ALL in the sea were POSSIBLE, along with keeping more from being produced, I'd agree. We want the same end result/both have good intentions. Just disagree on what works and what doesn't. That's why I attack what you say, but not you. LOL, you're pulling Skynyrd out on someone from the Southeast? You might wanna holster THAT gun! [:D] Man, I saw Skynyrd like 15 times.Along w/ the Outlaws and 38 Special.Damm! those were good days.<sigh> I was heart broken and very sad when their jet crashed. I was a senior in high school.I still miss them.I like the new band also,but.......... Ronnie VanZant,...rest in peace.....

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875