RE: Lets make a deal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

jlf1961 -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 10:05:45 AM)

Because Mike, there is not a simple answer to the problem, either problem.

And in both problems, intelligence does not rule, passions do.

I took an extreme solution to both problems because that is what pros and cons take, extreme positions.

You want an intelligent solution to each problem, I will give you one, for each problem.

For the problem of a large number of bullets in a short time, make it a felony to possess large capacity magazines, anything over five rounds, at most, logically, the maximum of ten rounds. Hell even the military uses ten round magazines, and when I was in the army, the max was 15, so no one can tell me that they need a 20 or 30 rounds in a rifle is full of shit.

For the problem of abortion, while it wont eliminate abortions, it will cut the number down significantly, make birth control readily available, without parental consent in the case of teenagers of any income level, and free to women of lower income levels.

There, logical and reasonable solution to both problems.



tazzygirl -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 10:17:41 AM)

quote:

For the problem of a large number of bullets in a short time, make it a felony to possess large capacity magazines, anything over five rounds, at most, logically, the maximum of ten rounds. Hell even the military uses ten round magazines, and when I was in the army, the max was 15, so no one can tell me that they need a 20 or 30 rounds in a rifle is full of shit.


Which is great..... after the fact.



OsideGirl -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 10:20:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


For the problem of a large number of bullets in a short time, make it a felony to possess large capacity magazines, anything over five rounds, at most, logically, the maximum of ten rounds. Hell even the military uses ten round magazines, and when I was in the army, the max was 15, so no one can tell me that they need a 20 or 30 rounds in a rifle is full of shit.


In CA, it's illegal to possess a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, unless you owned that magazine prior to the year 2000.



jlf1961 -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 10:37:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


For the problem of a large number of bullets in a short time, make it a felony to possess large capacity magazines, anything over five rounds, at most, logically, the maximum of ten rounds. Hell even the military uses ten round magazines, and when I was in the army, the max was 15, so no one can tell me that they need a 20 or 30 rounds in a rifle is full of shit.


In CA, it's illegal to possess a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, unless you owned that magazine prior to the year 2000.




I would not make that exception. All existing large capacity magazines in the hands of non-military or non-low enforcement personnel, to be turned in within 30 days of the law going into effect.

Tazzy, you keep harping on after the fact.

Please, get real. If someone wants to kill a large number of people and does not have the capability with a gun to do it, then there is the Timothy McVeigh approach and the information is to fucking easy to obtain on how to do just that.

And in the case of a bomb made of homemade explosives, the body count is going to be in the hundreds. What will you do then, ban ammonia nitrate fertilizer and every possible fuel additive to mix with it?



OsideGirl -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 10:44:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


I would not make that exception. All existing large capacity magazines in the hands of non-military or non-low enforcement personnel, to be turned in within 30 days of the law going into effect.


How are you planning to enforce collecting all magazines over 10 rounds from people that refuse to turn in?

Magazines don't get registered, so the only way to check would be to check the home of every single registered owner. (without a search warrant) And there's no way to check on the criminals that own a weapon illegally.

The cost would be immense, raise taxes, violate Constitutional rights and suck up our law enforcement's attention away from other places.





freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 11:30:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Because Mike, there is not a simple answer to the problem, either problem.

And in both problems, intelligence does not rule, passions do.

I took an extreme solution to both problems because that is what pros and cons take, extreme positions.

You want an intelligent solution to each problem, I will give you one, for each problem.

For the problem of a large number of bullets in a short time, make it a felony to possess large capacity magazines, anything over five rounds, at most, logically, the maximum of ten rounds. Hell even the military uses ten round magazines, and when I was in the army, the max was 15, so no one can tell me that they need a 20 or 30 rounds in a rifle is full of shit.

For the problem of abortion, while it wont eliminate abortions, it will cut the number down significantly, make birth control readily available, without parental consent in the case of teenagers of any income level, and free to women of lower income levels.

There, logical and reasonable solution to both problems.


Jeff, why are you persistently linking abortions with guns??
It doesn't make any sense other than to fit into your personal agenda as a catholic anti-abortionist.

And why you seem to think that banning abortions will have any effect whatsoever on the availability of birth control really beats me. Again, they have nothing to do with each other.
If anything, those that reject abortions, like the catholic faith, will also want to outlaw any form of birth control for the same reason and thus reduce the amount and choice of birth control.

Sometimes you make excellent posts.
Other times, like this 'rights' trade-off, you just don't make any sense at all.




jlf1961 -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 12:22:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Because Mike, there is not a simple answer to the problem, either problem.

And in both problems, intelligence does not rule, passions do.

I took an extreme solution to both problems because that is what pros and cons take, extreme positions.

You want an intelligent solution to each problem, I will give you one, for each problem.

For the problem of a large number of bullets in a short time, make it a felony to possess large capacity magazines, anything over five rounds, at most, logically, the maximum of ten rounds. Hell even the military uses ten round magazines, and when I was in the army, the max was 15, so no one can tell me that they need a 20 or 30 rounds in a rifle is full of shit.

For the problem of abortion, while it wont eliminate abortions, it will cut the number down significantly, make birth control readily available, without parental consent in the case of teenagers of any income level, and free to women of lower income levels.

There, logical and reasonable solution to both problems.


Jeff, why are you persistently linking abortions with guns??
It doesn't make any sense other than to fit into your personal agenda as a catholic anti-abortionist.

And why you seem to think that banning abortions will have any effect whatsoever on the availability of birth control really beats me. Again, they have nothing to do with each other.
If anything, those that reject abortions, like the catholic faith, will also want to outlaw any form of birth control for the same reason and thus reduce the amount and choice of birth control.

Sometimes you make excellent posts.
Other times, like this 'rights' trade-off, you just don't make any sense at all.





Why the link, because of the simple fact that both have passionate supporters and detractors in the US. They are the two most polarizing issues in this country.

And in my opinion, one can and does result in the death of a human being depending on who uses it, and the other does result in the death of a human being regardless of how it is done.

The common element life.

There is my link. And the reason that so many Americans are against abortion, our definition of when life begins. Granted that for most of the pregnancy, the fetus is not viable outside the womb, but if you take organisms out of their environment they are evolved to live in, do they live or die.

For that matter, an amoeba never has the potential to become a world class doctor, but as a single cell it is considered life. A fetus has the potential to be a living, thinking, emotional human being.




angelikaJ -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 12:50:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

On the table is the 2nd amendment.



No, on the table is a ban of semi-automatic and automatic weapons (aka mass killing machines), and closing the gun show check loop hole along with a ban of magazines that hold so many bullets.

Also on the table is setting up much better accessibility of treatment for people who have mental illness.

No one is really discussing banning guns all together.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 12:50:54 PM)

Just because each are devisive and polarising doesn't really make a link.
You are clutching at straws, methinks.

One kills when you point and pull the trigger and anyone of any adult age or sex can do that.
Abortions only affect women, not you, so you feel that is a perfectly acceptable exchange.

The same can be said of cars and trucks, yet you don't bring that up even though it is the singularly highest numerical death statistic.
Now, if you were Amish instead of catholic, who are also anti-abortion, you'd probably go for banning cars because it would fit your agenda better.
But, you want and love your precious wheels so you don't go for it - so you pick abortion instead because it fits your agenda and doesn't affect you personally.
What about the women that don't want to give up guns but are also forced to give up abortions as well??
That's a double whammy for them but doesn't affect you in the slightest.

All I can see is you putting these two particular topics as an "exchange" because you happen to be a catholic anti-abortionist.
Nothing else.

As I've said before, there is no need for any "exchange" at all - that's brattish, narrow-minded and selfish on your part.
Just because you can't play with your toys doesn't mean someone else has to have their toys taken away to "compensate" what you lose.

Since when are laws and statutes ever done in balance where one law has another law balancing it?
Or when one law is repealed or changed that they have to change another to balance it??
The whole notion is just absurd.

As has been said before - guns are the issue here, not abortions or any other 'rights' you can think of.
That is what needs addressing in the US... nothing else.




jlf1961 -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 1:21:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

On the table is the 2nd amendment.



No, on the table is a ban of semi-automatic and automatic weapons (aka mass killing machines), and closing the gun show check loop hole along with a ban of magazines that hold so many bullets.

Also on the table is setting up much better accessibility of treatment for people who have mental illness.

No one is really discussing banning guns all together.



Want to hear something that will really scare the shit out of you? There are at least 150,000 privately owned full auto weapons in the Untied States.

The street value of a fully automatic AK47 in the US can be as low as $200. The availability of the AK47 in full auto mode, in the millions. And gun smugglers and arms dealers are going to supply the demand where ever it exists.

Take away privately owned semi-automatic weapons (the definition of an assault weapon is any weapon with semi and full auto capability) and you save at most 2000 lives a year, and that is taking into consideration the random mass shooting.

The actual percentage of a semi automatic rifle being used in the commission of a crime, less than 20%. The percentage of a pistol of any kind, revolver and semi automatic used in the commission of a crime, close to 80%

The number of men, women and children killed by kids and adults in street gangs, 30,000 a year.

Now tell me, just what in the hell have you accomplished in the face of the big picture? Nothing

Will it prevent some kid with a 9mm Beretta form taking it to school with half a dozen ten round magazines, fuck no.

You want to target one specific style of weapon.

I have grand kids and great nieces and nephews going to those same public schools, I want to keep every gun from a muzzle loading single shot pistol to a 50 cal desert eagle out of every school in the country.

The problem is not the weapon of choice, the problem is keeping the damn things out of schools, malls, and every place else people gather.

Keep guns out of our schools will stop this from happening, but realistically, it is not going to prevent the other option none of you have thought about.

Google school sniper. It happened in 1997.

On Grenada I kept a Cuban platoon tied up with a bolt action sniper rifle and a spotter. I killed at least seven and wound a few more.

Charles Whitman killed sixteen and wounded dozens more.

Now, get scared.



tazzygirl -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 1:30:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

On the table is the 2nd amendment.



No, on the table is a ban of semi-automatic and automatic weapons (aka mass killing machines), and closing the gun show check loop hole along with a ban of magazines that hold so many bullets.

Also on the table is setting up much better accessibility of treatment for people who have mental illness.

No one is really discussing banning guns all together.



He isnt listening because you arent saying what he wants to hear.



stef -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 1:31:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Want to hear something that will really scare the shit out of you? There are at least 150,000 privately owned full auto weapons in the Untied States.

You can count on one hand the number of times an NFA registered full-auto weapon has been used in a crime. Clearly they need to be banned.

forget that nonsense, I want to hear more about this gun show loophole! I'm tired of dealers at gun shows making me fill out paperwork and show them my permit when I'm shopping. Are there special super secret gun shows I don't know about?



tazzygirl -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 1:35:40 PM)

It is called the gun show "loophole" and as it exists, anyone can buy a gun from a private dealer without a background check.

Democrats Jim Moran, Bobby Scott and Gerald Conolly sent a letter to members of the House of Representatives asking them to support a bill requiring private sellers to perform background checks on buyers at gun shows.

One year ago ABC News followed Reema's brother Omar to a gun show in Richmond, Va. Within a few minutes of arriving, Omar was able to purchase a glock handgun, the same make of gun used to kill at Virginia Tech.

After one hour at the show, Omar walked away with a handful of guns, all purchased without one single background check.

Watching the entire transaction was former ATF agent Jerry Nunziato.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/gun-show-loophole-closed/story?id=10404727#.UM-PeeTAfv4



jlf1961 -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 1:52:51 PM)

Want to end the gun show loophole, half a dozen moderate gun owners groups has told congress repeatedly how to do it.

First, make it so that the private individual has to sell his guns the way I did. There is a local shop that sells on consignment, the background check is done, I pay a 10% fee for every firearm sold, I get my money and the law is met.

Most venues where gun shows are held have wifi. Legitimate dealers at these shows use it to run background checks, as for the illegitimate dealers, to get a booth one most provide the ATF issued dealer license, and the organizer of the show must verify that the license is in effect. No license, no booth.

Loophole closed.

It even prevents John Q. Gunowner from selling a gun out of his house on craig's list.

And this is not my idea. It has been floated repeatedly since Clinton was in office. At most it gets a paragraph deep in some national paper and none on the national news or local papers.

Why has it not been made the law of the land?

Who the fuck knows, maybe it is because it is too damn simple. Christ politicians could and probably do complicate a wet dream.



tazzygirl -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 1:58:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Want to end the gun show loophole, half a dozen moderate gun owners groups has told congress repeatedly how to do it.

First, make it so that the private individual has to sell his guns the way I did. There is a local shop that sells on consignment, the background check is done, I pay a 10% fee for every firearm sold, I get my money and the law is met.

Most venues where gun shows are held have wifi. Legitimate dealers at these shows use it to run background checks, as for the illegitimate dealers, to get a booth one most provide the ATF issued dealer license, and the organizer of the show must verify that the license is in effect. No license, no booth.

Loophole closed.

It even prevents John Q. Gunowner from selling a gun out of his house on craig's list.

And this is not my idea. It has been floated repeatedly since Clinton was in office. At most it gets a paragraph deep in some national paper and none on the national news or local papers.

Why has it not been made the law of the land?

Who the fuck knows, maybe it is because it is too damn simple. Christ politicians could and probably do complicate a wet dream.


Can you show me NRA support for your proposal?

All I see on their site is complaints that there are no gun show loopholes.



jlf1961 -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 2:21:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Want to end the gun show loophole, half a dozen moderate gun owners groups has told congress repeatedly how to do it.

First, make it so that the private individual has to sell his guns the way I did. There is a local shop that sells on consignment, the background check is done, I pay a 10% fee for every firearm sold, I get my money and the law is met.

Most venues where gun shows are held have wifi. Legitimate dealers at these shows use it to run background checks, as for the illegitimate dealers, to get a booth one most provide the ATF issued dealer license, and the organizer of the show must verify that the license is in effect. No license, no booth.

Loophole closed.

It even prevents John Q. Gunowner from selling a gun out of his house on craig's list.

And this is not my idea. It has been floated repeatedly since Clinton was in office. At most it gets a paragraph deep in some national paper and none on the national news or local papers.

Why has it not been made the law of the land?

Who the fuck knows, maybe it is because it is too damn simple. Christ politicians could and probably do complicate a wet dream.


Can you show me NRA support for your proposal?

All I see on their site is complaints that there are no gun show loopholes.


I never said the NRA is perfect. And yes they scream there is no such thing.

By the way two pro gun senators are openly talking restrictions, saying we need more but not saying what.

What I am saying is that there are moderate groups that are just as active as the NRA but without the money.

My opinion is that the moderate members of the NRA need to make a fucking effort to clean house. the NRA is giving all gun owners a bad rep.

I even got blasted of face book for suggesting we limit the capacity of magazines. The person doing the blasting even mentioned the Zombie Apocalypse like it was a real threat to them.

The extreme gun owner that thinks they need 15, 20 or thirty round magazines are the very vocal minority, they are the ones that are sitting in the governing body of the NRA. Like any moderate anywhere, the moderate members of the NRA dont want to rock the fucking boat.

IMO the boat needs sunk and the extremists need fed to the sharks, piranha or as it happened in a Austin Powers movie, sea trout with lasers on their heads. Something.



stef -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 2:26:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

All I see on their site is complaints that there are no gun show loopholes.

Probably because there are no such loopholes? If a state does not require background checks before allowing the transfer of a firearm then that's not a really a loophole, it's just their policy. Loopholes are ways one can exploit the system to get around existing rules or policies. Some states have a very literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment and their laws reflect this, but it's erroneous to call them loopholes.



jlf1961 -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 2:40:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

All I see on their site is complaints that there are no gun show loopholes.

Probably because there are no such loopholes? If a state does not require background checks before allowing the transfer of a firearm then that's not a really a loophole, it's just their policy. Loopholes are ways one can exploit the system to get around existing rules or policies. Some states have a very literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment and their laws reflect this, but it's erroneous to call them loopholes.


Uh, some of us gun owners are screaming for a set standard for firearms laws across the country.

I mean Texas has an open carry law, which means I can carry a weapon in plain view, without a permit or attending any kind of firearms training course.

That scares me.



stef -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 2:49:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Uh, some of us gun owners are screaming for a set standard for firearms laws across the country.

Yes, I'm well aware of this. Not that it's likely to ever happen, especially with that whole state's rights thing. It's been brought up countless times regarding a national CCW system but getting states to agree on anything is worse than getting forum members to agree.

quote:

I mean Texas has an open carry law, which means I can carry a weapon in plain view, without a permit or attending any kind of firearms training course.

Yes, I'm also perfectly aware what open carry is.

quote:

That scares me.

Lots of things scare me. Willful ignorance and blind zealotry more than most.



tazzygirl -> RE: Lets make a deal (12/17/2012 2:55:55 PM)

A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. Loopholes are searched for and used strategically in a variety of circumstances, including taxes, elections, politics, the criminal justice system, or in breaches of security.

Someone with a conviction of DV isnt allowed to buy one.. yet they go to a gun show to get one from a private sale.... loophole.

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2012/may/03/frank-lautenberg/frank-lautenberg-claims-loophole-allows-individual/


The City of New York commissioned an investigation of Internet gun sales. The report said on 10 websites, it found over 25,000 weapons for sale.The report said that over 60 percent of sellers allowed a purchase to move forward even when the alleged buyer said he didn’t believe he would pass a background check. Sellers who used Craigslist were most likely to violate the law, the report said.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/

Loophole.

The 2009 report.......http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdf

Now, you may not view these as "loopholes", but they allow people who would otherwise not be allowed to buy a gun to actually buy one. Term it however you wish. But, when I say gun show loopholes, the above is what I am speaking of.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625