RE: Another church shooting

RE: Another church shooting (Full Version)

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

Message

apiercedkitty -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 2:48:00 PM)
Well, that's where we have to agree to disagree. Maybe you should try target shooting with a handgun - a bit more challenging than a rifle with a scope. But that's just my "kink." Doesn't mean it's wrong.

DomKen -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 2:52:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: apiercedkitty Well, that's where we have to agree to disagree. Maybe you should try target shooting with a handgun - a bit more challenging than a rifle with a scope. But that's just my "kink." Doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't use a scope. I use a scope on my deer rifle but not on my target rifle. That's strictly mechanical sights.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 2:59:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Yes Firm,unwilling to change a position that took me the 40 some years I have walked this earth to arrive at,sorry if your oh so eloquent arguments will not change what I have taken a lifetime arriving at And what is my position BTW or have you already moved me to the "he's trying to take my gun's"category...you claim to be a law abiding citizen ,fine I will take you at your word...what is the problem with complying with additional laws designed to keep guns out of the wrong hands...we accept the government regulating who drives a car ,why should there not be more stringent regulations as to who owns a firearm...I don't want to take away your guns,I just want a society where there are less of them floating around on the street.... I gave my basic beliefs and position in post 152 (linked). I've arrived at my position that took me the 40 some years I have walked this earth to arrive at, as well. To expound a bit, I'm not against proper regulation of guns, but I do think that the "slippery slope" argument is valid, and should be taken into account when formulating new gun policy. I think the "anti-gun" lobby has done more to encourage ignorance of firearms than anything else, making many people take a view of them that discourages education and familiarity. It has polarized the issue quite a bit, and then attempts to take the moral high ground. I sympathize with their stated intent (reduce violence) but believe that they ignore the unintended consequences, and fail to grasp the political impact of making guns difficult to obtain, and making them an area of specialized knowledge, which encourages more ignorance, and therefore makes it easier to later pass even more restrictive laws. Again ... required education while a child. Strict penalties if used inappropriately, and encouragement for as many people as possible to carry and maintain as possible. Firm PS. Never said I was "a law abiding citizen". Sometimes I'm not. [:D]

apiercedkitty -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 3:05:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I don't use a scope. I use a scope on my deer rifle but not on my target rifle. That's strictly mechanical sights. Still a lil less of a challenge than sighting down a 4" barrel - with no sights. But that's just my opinion on it.

slvemike4u -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 3:15:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: apiercedkitty .... i don't know about you - but i've been in a courtroom a time or two for tickets and i've witnessed quite a few people there that were driving without a license, driving on a suspended license, etc... hell, i have even known a few that have done it. Ya think more "driving" laws would change that? Nope - just like more gun laws won't change how/where criminals obtain them. This is of course the most spurious and empty argument the pro-gun crowd puts forth.The idea that only laws that will not be broken need be codified,folks if people wouldn't break the law we would have no need of the law.There are penalties and sentencing awiating those that get caught breaking the law.

apiercedkitty -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 3:17:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: apiercedkitty .... i don't know about you - but i've been in a courtroom a time or two for tickets and i've witnessed quite a few people there that were driving without a license, driving on a suspended license, etc... hell, i have even known a few that have done it. Ya think more "driving" laws would change that? Nope - just like more gun laws won't change how/where criminals obtain them. This is of course the most spurious and empty argument the pro-gun crowd puts forth.The idea that only laws that will not be broken need be codified,folks if people wouldn't break the law we would have no need of the law.There are penalties and sentencing awiating those that get caught breaking the law. And there are already both state and federal laws in place regarding gun ownership. Seems to me it'd be better to strictly enforce those already in existence than to try to heap more on top.

slvemike4u -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 3:26:02 PM)
laws made ineffective by neighboring states lax position on the subject....Take New York for instance,how well served are they by the liberal laws of Virginia...no it will take Federal legislation to make any inroads in this area

philosophy -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 3:44:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy The thing is, in the US, gun culture is just that....part of the culture. It has nothing to do with whether or not guns make you safe (pay for your own study and trumpet its findings), nothing to do with preventing crime, nothing to do with anything really. It all hinges on the fact that some people want their guns and will go to any lengths to keep them. Imagine some government in the UK trying to ban football. Or a government in Russia trying to ban vodka. Come up with any arguments you like, but the US will not be giving up guns any time soon. While I might disagree with some fine points, overall I think you are correct. However, you will often hear the term "culture war" over here, because changing the culture is exactly what some are attempting. Firm ......and this is why for me this is an issue where the ethical metal hits the road. i'm committed to multi-culturalism. Not everyone is, but i am. By defining this as a cultural issue rather than, say, public health or law and order, it gives the issue a far less black and white complexion. If i accept that a Sikh without his knife is, in a very real and cultural way, dishonoured......then i have to accept that, to some Americans, the right to own a firearm acts in the same way.

Alumbrado -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 4:00:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I think the best 'solution' I ever hear came from a comedian (Chris Rock?) who said - make bullets cost $100/each and gun violence would go down dramatically. Chris rocks, but I already hear the litany of pro-guns nutters as they whine against that too. Is there a Constitutional argument to be made for affordable ammunition? Only if one agrees with the US Supreme Court's recent opinion very specifically saying that an unloaded weapon is not what the 2nd amendment means by 'the right to keep and bear arms'.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 4:11:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ......and this is why for me this is an issue where the ethical metal hits the road. i'm committed to multi-culturalism. Not everyone is, but i am. By defining this as a cultural issue rather than, say, public health or law and order, it gives the issue a far less black and white complexion. If i accept that a Sikh without his knife is, in a very real and cultural way, dishonoured......then i have to accept that, to some Americans, the right to own a firearm acts in the same way. Damn. The first time that "multi-culturalism" has ever done something in my favor .... [:D] Not to change the subject ... but multiculturalism is another fine topic (for another thread) ... if we can keep all the rhetoric down, and discuss it calmly. But any time I've tried, I get loads of "true believers" coming in, and making a hash of everything. Oh, yeah ... and disrespecting my culture as well. [:D] Firm

slvemike4u -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 4:30:09 PM)
Al how is that a constitutional argument for affordable ammunition?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 4:38:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Al how is that a constitutional argument for affordable ammunition? That's an easy one. Without ammo, a gun is just apiece of refined metal. Firm

Alumbrado -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 4:41:57 PM)
Ask Scalia, he's the one who wrote that it was obvious that government regulations which resulted in the people having guns but not the ammo needed to use those guns, was contrary to the intent of the amendment... I can see where the government imposing exorbitant taxes to make ammo unaffordable to any except the elite few would fall afoul of that.

slvemike4u -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 4:48:16 PM)
All I asked is if affordable ammunition was a Constitutional issue in response to a Chris Rock joke,not suggesting the government control guns by means of the back door...

Thadius -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 4:54:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u All I asked is if affordable ammunition was a Constitutional issue in response to a Chris Rock joke,not suggesting the government control guns by means of the back door... As I have said before, the way they will backdoor ammunition sales is through defining which ammunition is banned. I mean who could be against a ban of ammo designed to pierce body armor? The tricky part comes in a year later when the definition of body armor is made to include common clothing (it does protect the body against the elements).

philosophy -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 4:55:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Oh, yeah ... and disrespecting my culture as well. [:D] Firm ....even you have a culture...[;)].... and multi-culturalism ought to work for you as well as anyone else.......heh......oddly enough, the event that sparked the OP of this thread is as good an example of cultural non-tolerence as any......i sincerely wish it hadn't spiraled into a gun control thread. Multi-culturalism may actually be a way to unhijack the thread.........

Thadius -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 4:59:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Oh, yeah ... and disrespecting my culture as well. [:D] Firm ....even you have a culture...[;)].... and multi-culturalism ought to work for you as well as anyone else.......heh......oddly enough, the event that sparked the OP of this thread is as good an example of cultural non-tolerence as any......i sincerely wish it hadn't spiraled into a gun control thread. Multi-culturalism may actually be a way to unhijack the thread......... I think both would be considered on topic... as gun control is one suggested solution to these incidents in the future (not one I subscribe too, but still a valid point of discussion). I am still waiting for the protective bubbles to become more affordable [8D]

Alumbrado -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 5:10:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u All I asked is if affordable ammunition was a Constitutional issue in response to a Chris Rock joke,not suggesting the government control guns by means of the back door... It isn't a Consitutional issue if only comedians are joking about it... when politicians start seriously suggesting it, they are trying the famous 'end run' around the Bill of Rights....like literacy tests... OK in school...not OK at the polling place.

slvemike4u -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 5:12:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u All I asked is if affordable ammunition was a Constitutional issue in response to a Chris Rock joke,not suggesting the government control guns by means of the back door... As I have said before, the way they will backdoor ammunition sales is through defining which ammunition is banned. I mean who could be against a ban of ammo designed to pierce body armor? The tricky part comes in a year later when the definition of body armor is made to include common clothing (it does protect the body against the elements). As a good a definition of the slippery slope argument as I have heard,and just as rediculous as all others.....

Thadius -> RE: Another church shooting (7/30/2008 5:15:34 PM)
Not so rediculous, take a look at some of the bills that were written during the Clinton years... thank god none of them made it to his desk. There was at least one that did exactly what I described, banned all ammo capable of piercing body armor.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875