RE: Part of the problem with guns,

RE: Part of the problem with guns, (Full Version)

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

Message

PeonForHer -> RE: Part of the problem with guns, (3/6/2013 5:49:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Well for starters, that would have to be someone who knows what a non-sequitur is. 'Non sequitur'. No hyphen. I hope that helps. [:)]

Kirata -> RE: Part of the problem with guns, (3/6/2013 6:04:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer 'Non sequitur'. No hyphen. I hope that helps. [:)] Yes, thanks. Heh. Touché. K.

Kirata -> RE: Part of the problem with guns, (3/6/2013 7:29:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Just out of curiosity can we support this it is even by a Republication? http://news.yahoo.com/senators-seek-tougher-gun-background-checks-mentally-ill-010354773.html I don't know any "Republications" personally, but I wouldn't have a problem with denying someone like Alice Boland, or individuals convicted of violent crimes, legal access to firearms. My concern with a background check system lies with how it's implemented. As I commented elsewhere: There was a time when I would have trusted the government to destroy the records, but I don't anymore, and I'm not sure it would matter if they did, because it's clear from what we now know about the signal gathering capabilities of our intelligence agencies (and their record of high moral excellence) that there is no way to assure the system's traffic wouldn't be stored in case it might be "needed" some day. If the background check system was implemented by publishing a list for firearms dealers to access using their browser, and search in their browser, without sending any information to the agency maintaining the list, then I'd feel comfortable with it. The only other thing I would like to see is a way for someone whose name appears on the list to find out why, and appeal their inclusion if they dispute the information cited. K.

BamaD -> RE: Part of the problem with guns, (3/6/2013 7:44:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Just out of curiosity can we support this it is even by a Republication? http://news.yahoo.com/senators-seek-tougher-gun-background-checks-mentally-ill-010354773.html I don't know any "Republications" personally, but I wouldn't have a problem with denying someone like Alice Boland, or individuals convicted of violent crimes, legal access to firearms. My concern with a background check system lies with how it's implemented. As I commented elsewhere: There was a time when I would have trusted the government to destroy the records, but I don't anymore, and I'm not sure it would matter if they did, because it's clear from what we now know about the signal gathering capabilities of our intelligence agencies (and their record of high moral excellence) that there is no way to assure the system's traffic wouldn't be stored in case it might be "needed" some day. If the background check system was implemented by publishing a list for firearms dealers to access using their browser, and search in their browser, without sending any information to the agency maintaining the list, then I'd feel comfortable with it. The only other thing I would like to see is a way for someone whose name appears on the list to find out why, and appeal their inclusion if they dispute the information cited. K. sounds fair

cloudboy -> RE: Part of the problem with guns, (3/7/2013 7:31:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven as described in the Denver Post, is that city people can't see any use for guns except to kill people, while for rural Americans, guns are a tool just like a hammer or a wrench. I still like the term gun-nut. There's no rural person in American who views a military grade, assault rifle as a "tool."

Kirata -> RE: Part of the problem with guns, (3/7/2013 7:39:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I still like the term gun-nut. There's no rural person in American who views a military grade, assault rifle as a "tool." Actually, there are not that many people, rural or otherwise, who have the FFL they would need to legally own one. But there sure does seem to be an awful lot of fools screaming about "assault rifles" who don't have the faintest clue what they're talking about. K.

YN -> RE: Part of the problem with guns, (3/7/2013 7:51:24 AM)
Realistically, a military assault rifle, like a sword, has only the legitimate purposes, of war or for the police usage in suppressing criminals who have armed with such weapons. Even those practicing with them are but ensuring their proficiency in these activities. Other firearms have several uses, much like a machete. Shotguns, normal rifles, and even certain handguns have legitimate purposes outside of warfare or criminal activities and homicides, even China, which has the strictest firearms laws on the planet recognizes this, and has their military issue firearms to their citizens who have the legitimate need for them.

BamaD -> RE: Part of the problem with guns, (3/7/2013 7:59:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YN Realistically, a military assault rifle, like a sword, has only the legitimate purposes, of war or for the police usage in suppressing criminals who have armed with such weapons. Even those practicing with them are but ensuring their proficiency in these activities. Other firearms have several uses, much like a machete. Shotguns, normal rifles, and even certain handguns have legitimate purposes outside of warfare or criminal activities and homicides, even China, which has the strictest firearms laws on the planet recognizes this, and has their military issue firearms to their citizens who have the legitimate need for them. Realistically if the guns that look like assault weapons are so effective then they would be great for defending ones home against multipule intruders. Said as a non owner of a gun that looks like an assault weapon.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875