RE: Why is it?

RE: Why is it? (Full Version)

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

Message

joether -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 1:06:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Why is it that when there is a terrorist attack by a Muslim group, the liberals scream that we should not judge a group by a small number of fanatics. Why is it that when there is a terrorist attack by a Conservative group, the conservatives scream that we should not judge a group by a small number of fanatics? Haven't seen very many conservative apologize for April 19, 1995, in fact it seems many of them agree with the events taken against the USA on that date. Should I drag up all the incidents in which doctors performing abortions were attacked on up to and including being murdered? Or the climics themselves been at the least vandized and at worst, blown to pieces. By Christians no less? quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Now, when some angry or mentally unstable individual uses a gun, all gun owners are judged as irrational, immoral and they should not be allowed to own guns. Yes, the 'gun nut' argument of the millennium teens. Only mentally or emotionally unstable individuals use guns to kill people. So tell me, George Zimmeran killed someone; is he mentally or emotionally unstable? We can play these games left and right but the fact remains....most people in the USA are deeply unqualified to be medical doctors, psychologists, and psychiatrists. An yet, we all seem to think were experts in the fields of neuroscience, medicine, psychology and a bunch of other science areas related to the human condition. However, there are not very many laws on the books that directly prevent an undiagnosed individual whom is angry, mentally/emotionally unstable, or just plain dumb/foolish, from using a gun. How do you measure what is 'acceptable' anger verse 'unacceptable' anger? Since that definition would need to be in the law, spelled out in exacting terms for any law on firearm management to be effective. There are plenty of gun owners, whom right now suffer an assortment mental and emotional conditions. They do not get help due to a number of factions: no health coverage, mature enough to admit they have a problem, the 'Gov'ment taking their gun away, etc. The average Tea Party member would not qualify to get a gun nor keep one if we were to restrict angry citizens from having firearms! quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 There are over 8 million gun owners in this country. And everyone one of us are judged on the actions of an individual. We are told that our right to own firearms should be eliminated. That we are barbaric and dangerous. There are over 10 million illegal immigrants in the country. And everyone of them ARE judged on the actions of an individual. Usually by gun owners who speed over the posted limited on the roadways of America.... The majority of liberals do NOT wish to 'take ur guns away'. Liberals do not feel children should have guns. Whether they are physically or behave mentally/emotionally like they are under the age of 18. How many town hall like meetings have we seen when conservatives behave like little children rather than as adults? An you want these people to have access to very dangerous resources that are easy to conceal, transport, and use in violent actions against the population? Did you ever stop and consider that liberals feel they are judged by the actions of an individual by conservatives? Its not "...barbaric and dangerous..." to suggest firearms are removed/restricted from a civilized society. Oh, forgot, only those people with guns should be allowed to have a 1st amendment right. From my experience, most gun owners could not explain the 2nd amendment without getting it 95% wrong. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 If we are not to judge all Muslims on the actions of a few, then by god give gun owners the same respect, or shut the fuck up. Ok, what 'latest' action by those liberals' do now to get your panties in a bundle? Here is one of the central underlying problems in this argument: trust, or should I be more specific, the lack of it! You distrust the government and liberals about firearms and control of them. But the distrust has turned from a healthy 'distrust' to a paranoid schizophrenia. Either of those by itself is a very deadly mental/emotional illness; both of them combine is REALLY bad. To make your 'argument' worst, gun nuts DEMAND (not ask) unconditional trust from liberals. How often do gun owners give liberals unconditional trust? Why should liberals do it? You don't want to build trust? Fine, turn in your guns own and save yourself the aggravation twenty years down the road (less if we have more horrible school shootings). If you want your guns, then your going to build trust in a fair and honest manner. No crap, no B.S., no games. There will be set backs. Liberals are not going to just trust you. After all, they have learned from you to being distrustful of the 'other side of the argument'. You brought this level of 'super-sized' distrust onto America; an now your going to repair that damage. If you dont want to be an adult mentally/emotionally, repairing the damage of distrusting towards your fellow Americans......FINE.....you really don't need the guns. That level has not been reached (praise small blessings), but its rapidly approaching.

Yachtie -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 1:12:36 PM)
[at] joether Nice rant [:D] Emotionalism runs strong there. Short on anything else, but the emotionalism is definitely of a NY supersized variety.

jlf1961 -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 1:41:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic A three year old just shot herself in a state park, thanks to the wonderful rule freeing up guns http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/mother_reports_daughter_3_fata.html and a 1 year old shot in a strolller http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/child-shot-head-brownsville-brooklyn-article-1.1443212 and an 188 yr old dies playing a prank http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/girl-18-shot-dead-friend-2261461 and a 12 yr old shot playing outside for "jealousy" from a 33 yr old http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/kenis-green-detroit-killed-alvin-conwell_n_3881546.html?utm_hp_ref=crime add those to your figures but hey... its a right not a privilige right? First we have negligence, already dealt with. The real target in the Brooklyn incident was the father. As for the 18 year old girl shot playing a prank, the shooter is in custody facing a number of charges. Everyone is screaming about gun owners being negligent, fine. I admit there are idiots who own guns. There are idiots that own cars. I did notice you did not address the much higher numbers that are deaths attributed to automobiles, sober, and negligent.

lovmuffin -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 2:06:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Get back to me after your adventure in the woods. Unless you don't really believe the stupid dumbass shit you're slinging. Get back to me when you figure out that not all gun owners are hunters. But rest first, it's difficult. In case you're still stuck after giving it a good try, here's the deal. Only about 1 in 6 gun owners hunts. So (follow me closely now) even if every single hunter was a total and complete idiot, that still wouldn't be anywhere near being "most" gun owners. Thanks for playing. K. So? Go to a shooting range or trap or anywhere else the public shoots and observe the goings on. You'll see that the people who obey the safety rules for firearms are in the minority. I've been to public ranges 100 or more times and only twice have seen anything unsafe. Once there was a little kid who was learning to shoot with his dad. Dad let him hold a loaded .22 handgun and the kid turned sideways when dad was fuckin around with something on the bench not payin attention. He noticed and quickly turned the gun down range and took it from the kid. Another time it was a friend of mine I was with who would tend to allow his revolver to go sideways when cocking the hammer. That was the first and last time I ever went shooting with him. One time at a public range a guy shot his AR what ever it was full auto on the pistol range. I don't think that was legal even if the gun was, though he didn't do anything unsafe he got a strange look from everyone. Every time at the public ranges all shooters have verbally acknowledged cease fires to set up or check targets. They all unload, unchamber and either holster or lay thier guns on the bench. I've never seen anything unsafe at a gun club in the gajillion times I've been to those ranges. So based on my experience I don't believe you. The only thing unsafe I've seen hunters do is drink beer though I know second hand of a few dumb ass things they've done over the years among disrespecting property (dont freakin be seen littering in Canada, even a gum wrapper) and I've seen a whole lot of signs shot up including "No Trespassing". And another thing, what trap shooter says "go to a trap" ? I've never heard or read that phrase in my entire life until now.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 2:10:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So? Go to a shooting range or trap or anywhere else the public shoots and observe the goings on. You'll see that the people who obey the safety rules for firearms are in the minority. Absolute utter bullshit. I've spent hundreds of hours on ranges.

Kirata -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 2:18:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether The majority of liberals do NOT wish to 'take ur guns away'. Liberals do not feel children should have guns. Some so-called "liberals" (not mentioning any names here, of course) seem to believe that everyone who disagrees with them is either cognitively impaired or immature. K.

DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 2:54:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So? Go to a shooting range or trap or anywhere else the public shoots and observe the goings on. You'll see that the people who obey the safety rules for firearms are in the minority. Absolute utter bullshit. I've spent hundreds of hours on ranges. So have I and I've seen numerous instances of weapons uncased with loaded magazines, weapons not cleared before being pointed away from the targets, weapons put away while still loaded, weapons handed off to another person without being cleared and long arms fired on pistol ranges.

joether -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 3:05:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie [at] joether Nice rant [:D] Emotionalism runs strong there. Short on anything else, but the emotionalism is definitely of a NY supersized variety. This thread started as an emotional rant. The topic is of a very emotional level. Funny that your attacking me for posting in what could be an emotional view because you disagree with it, but can not admit that those that might agree with you have done the same both now and in the past. I explain what one of the real problems, to answer jlf1961 in an honest manner and you feel it 'ok' to slam me for it. I'm talking about a concept you never seem to learn in life....trust. Which is ironic, given your posting on a website devoted to BDSM. Last I checked, 'whipping' and 'flogging' someone in most states could be considered 'battery'. Holding someone against their will is a federal violation. An that is were trust comes into play with those that do BDSM. I can not make even an educated guess on what percentage of those that do BDSM on a serious level are also firearm owners. But the bottom line is trust is a very big component of both two individuals doing BDSM in the same manner (metaphorically speaking) as large groups of US Citizens trying to come to terms with an ever present discussion that does not hold easy answers to its solution. The topic of 'firearms' from a legal point of view has never been nor will be an easy topic to discuss. But it becomes extremely prone to flaring tempers, heated arguments and in some situations....violence. But if the sides tried their best to put trust in the other side, good things have a better chance at working. It is a long road that serves all interests. It will have set backs on both sides and moments when all previous efforts are about to fail. Trust itself can not happen without another component: faith. An I do not mean faith from a religious perspective but from a purely elementary level. Both sides gain faith that the other side will not screw them in a moment of weakness; and you'll find liberals less likely to create firearm laws. In fact, you'll also see a number of conservatives who are firearm owners sitting down with their liberal and moderate counter parts (some of them will be firearm owners) to discuss the issue, hash out details and come to a fair agreement. When this happens, we get good laws. Good laws are not being produced. Laws that all three groups on the political spectrum can both live with and maintain in society. We get to observe first hand what happens when faith is not allow to flourish to create trust in all sides on this topic and many others within the nation; we suffer as a people. I believe that we as a nation can learn from this topic to help solve many of the other deadlocks we face on other subjects.

DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 3:09:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin The only thing unsafe I've seen hunters do is drink beer though I know second hand of a few dumb ass things they've done over the years among disrespecting property (dont freakin be seen littering in Canada, even a gum wrapper) and I've seen a whole lot of signs shot up including "No Trespassing". Then why do you think the blaze orange laws were passed? Do you really think it wasn't a problem? Do you not see the news stories every hunting season about a person, who was wearing orange, getting shot? http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Western-Washington-hunter-killed-by-gunfire-in-Okanogan-County-222194261.html And since when is handling a firearm while intoxicated not a safety issue?

BitYakin -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 3:28:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic could have something to do with the fact that dumbarse people using guns, kill more americans every year than ANY terrorist attack in the US has. How many times over? had to add something and punctuation. Adding that...... by that I mean people that get killed by dumbarse people with guns, not that all gun owners are dumbarses.... yano just for the sticklers just so I understand, WHICH regulation are they trying to pass thats going to PREVENT this from happening? also how bout we compare apples to apples as opposed to apples and oranges dumbasrse killing people with guns are ACCIDENTS, terrorist acts are DELIBERATE how bout we compare gun accidents to say another ACCIDENTAL injury or death like ohhh AUTO accidents when 50 people are killed in say a buss accident I don't hear anyone talking about banning high capacity vehicles when a sports car causes a huge pileup with mutiple vehicles and the death/injury rate is high I don't hear anyone talking about banning FAST CARS BTW, in 2011 the fatalities by gun & auto were both 10.3 per 100K of population coming to roughly 32K total, so I think thats a more fair comparison Oh dear oh dear oh dear, again you pretend to understand to know what I mean Dumbarse people also deliberately kill and maim people, yanno, like I mentioned in another post about a chap shooting an 8 year old in the mouth. If I had meant accidental gun death I would have said accidental, I didnt say it , so I dont mean it. Please stop trying to bypass the dumbarsedness of people to turn into killers. One word about accidents by car...when a gun has to go through as many safety checks to be safe, get back to me. When a bus accident kills 50 or so people it is examined by safety people to reduce it happening again. When a car causes a multi car crash, you can bet that the car is examined to find out if it was user error, environmental actions in play(fog, slick roads, ice etc) or an issue with the car itself, plus there are laws covering driving, yearly or two yearly tests on the machine for safety reasons..there are laws against driving drunk, using a cell phone, etc etc etc There was a series of deaths caused by truck wheels causing death and mayhem on the roads a few years back, you bet your life there are regulations in place now about tyre safety right now. Recently there was a great hullabaloo about a car being driven into a crowd deliberately, it made the news for weeks. I haven't followed the story , but if the person who did it made a claim that the car made him do it, you can bet that car was gone over with a fine toothcomb. From your claim about the regulations they are trying to pass...I'll let you look up the states that are trying to pass laws. And the people who are blocking them. sweet mother of pearl... I guess it was your wording that made me think you meant ALL gun fatalities, you said dumbarses, which lead me to beleive you mean they made DUMBARSE MISTAKES. what you really meant was not dumbarses but murders, who from what I understand aren't dumb, becayse they did not make a DUMB MISTAKE and kill someone they did it intentionally. that may make them alot of things, but I see no connection to intelligence or the lack of it. as for the regulations, I asked you a question, and I suppose since you know of no regulations that would prevent these things from happening that are being proposed you pretend there are and that I am just INCAPABLE of finding them

joether -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 3:38:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether The majority of liberals do NOT wish to 'take ur guns away'. Liberals do not feel children should have guns. Some so-called "liberals" (not mentioning any names here, of course) seem to believe that everyone who disagrees with them is either cognitively impaired or immature. K. Yes, I find many gun owners that have not even an ounce of a clue how to understand the 2nd Amendment. You can not ignore the parts of a law you want because it impedes how you feel the law should read and be interpreted. In the 2nd, the first and second parts are often ignored. The third is corrupted while the fourth is mistakenly interpreted as giving someone an unlimited right. I just want the whole 2nd amendment to be followed. Is that to much to ask? The answer is: it is! You want your firearm to be protected from the government's laws on such a future law? I'm 'ok' so long as your part of "A Well Regulated Militia....". An that's to much to ask of many of these firearm owners. Just the idea that they would belong to such a concept brings out the raw rage, and temper tantrums common observed in very young children. Hence, the perception they are "...cognitively impaired or immature." to use your words. Why should I trust any differently? An what is a 'Well Regulated Militia' in 2013 terms? A ) A command structure that defines the chain of command from the lowest militia member on up to the Governor of the state. If you can not handle the idea of a liberal democrat as your governor, giving you orders. Then your gun is not protected under the 2nd amendment. That is a LIMIT. Just like your not protected under the 1st from going into a crowded theater and shouting out 'Fire". B ) Every part of that militia member duty is defined. If they have a uniform, there is a well defined glossary for it. How their arm(s) is/are kept, used, and maintain as part of their militia duties. C ) A well defined understanding of their role within society very much like the local police department. D ) A well defined listing of penalties when one in the militia fails in their duties and what happens. This part of the 2nd amendment is ignored by gun owners. Now why is that Kirata? If they were mature, intelligent, educated and wise, this would not be an issue. Because its ignored, its an issue. When its brought up, the immature gun owners out number the mature ones. You want an unlimited right to a firearm without obeying the whole amendment? Move to southern Somalia...

BitYakin -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 3:59:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether The majority of liberals do NOT wish to 'take ur guns away'. Liberals do not feel children should have guns. Some so-called "liberals" (not mentioning any names here, of course) seem to believe that everyone who disagrees with them is either cognitively impaired or immature. K. Yes, I find many gun owners that have not even an ounce of a clue how to understand the 2nd Amendment. You can not ignore the parts of a law you want because it impedes how you feel the law should read and be interpreted. In the 2nd, the first and second parts are often ignored. The third is corrupted while the fourth is mistakenly interpreted as giving someone an unlimited right. I just want the whole 2nd amendment to be followed. Is that to much to ask? The answer is: it is! You want your firearm to be protected from the government's laws on such a future law? I'm 'ok' so long as your part of "A Well Regulated Militia....". An that's to much to ask of many of these firearm owners. Just the idea that they would belong to such a concept brings out the raw rage, and temper tantrums common observed in very young children. Hence, the perception they are "...cognitively impaired or immature." to use your words. Why should I trust any differently? An what is a 'Well Regulated Militia' in 2013 terms? A ) A command structure that defines the chain of command from the lowest militia member on up to the Governor of the state. If you can not handle the idea of a liberal democrat as your governor, giving you orders. Then your gun is not protected under the 2nd amendment. That is a LIMIT. Just like your not protected under the 1st from going into a crowded theater and shouting out 'Fire". B ) Every part of that militia member duty is defined. If they have a uniform, there is a well defined glossary for it. How their arm(s) is/are kept, used, and maintain as part of their militia duties. C ) A well defined understanding of their role within society very much like the local police department. D ) A well defined listing of penalties when one in the militia fails in their duties and what happens. This part of the 2nd amendment is ignored by gun owners. Now why is that Kirata? If they were mature, intelligent, educated and wise, this would not be an issue. Because its ignored, its an issue. When its brought up, the immature gun owners out number the mature ones. You want an unlimited right to a firearm without obeying the whole amendment? Move to southern Somalia... I am only going to deal with the statment of "This part of the 2nd amendment is ignored by gun owners." because I feel its you that does not understand the 2nd amendment as well as you claim to As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[23] A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. now lets discuss the ACTUAL words here a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. no where in there does it say, that the right to keep and bear arms is limited to those in a militia, it says, people have the right to keep and bear arms so that when necessary a militia can be formed, and people will already be armed and ready to form it lets consider the frame of mind of the people who wrote this, they were people who had just very recently finished a war, a war that was fought mostly by state militias whose members brought thier OWN WEAPONS to the fields... the right was established so when a militia is needed, it wouldn't take week or longer to equip people, they show up WITH THIER OWN WEAPONS ready to fight! I am sorry but I beleive you have it backwards, the right is so militia can be QUICKLY FORMED when NEEDED, it not a right LIMITED to people already IN A MILITIA these people were pretty smart and wrote things pretty clearly, and if what you was what they meant it would read more like this A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. sorry if they had meant MILITIAS ONLY they would have clearly said that! but they chose the word PEOPLE, people being EVERYONE, not ONLY people IN A MILITIA!

Kirata -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 4:01:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Some so-called "liberals" (not mentioning any names here, of course) seem to believe that everyone who disagrees with them is either cognitively impaired or immature. Yes... The rest of your post is garbage and a perfect example of what I said. Thanks. K.

lovmuffin -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 4:04:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin The only thing unsafe I've seen hunters do is drink beer though I know second hand of a few dumb ass things they've done over the years among disrespecting property (dont freakin be seen littering in Canada, even a gum wrapper) and I've seen a whole lot of signs shot up including "No Trespassing". Then why do you think the blaze orange laws were passed? Do you really think it wasn't a problem? Do you not see the news stories every hunting season about a person, who was wearing orange, getting shot? http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Western-Washington-hunter-killed-by-gunfire-in-Okanogan-County-222194261.html And since when is handling a firearm while intoxicated not a safety issue? I didn't say drinking wasn't a safety issue. I was just honestly relating my experiences. However I've hunted from the time I was 12 up until about age 35. I don't hunt much these days but I've never seen near the numbers of safety violations that you seem to think there are. I'm not sayin that shit never happens at all.

PeonForHer -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 4:13:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Some so-called "liberals" (not mentioning any names here, of course) seem to believe that everyone who disagrees with them is either cognitively impaired or immature. I want to distance myself from those liberals of whom you speak and would like to state, categorically, that I think you talk about guns in a very mature way, by American pro-gun standards, Kirata. I'm sure you can appreciate just what level of respect is contained in that statement.

PeonForHer -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 4:31:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin sorry if they had meant MILITIAS ONLY they would have clearly said that! but they chose the word PEOPLE, people being EVERYONE, not ONLY people IN A MILITIA! Does that 'EVERYONE' include children, BitYakin? I ask because whenever I've brought up this matter of schoolkids toting guns and what the Constitution says about it, there's always been a strange silence from the gun-fans on your side of the Pond. Are children not people, then? Is there some reason, clearly stated in, or at least implied by, the wording of the Constitution, that kids shouldn't go to school armed, for instance? Or does the Constitution define some age at which children become 'people'? Just asking, you know.

Lucylastic -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 4:44:59 PM)
They're all dead.. by a gun .....dead. and yes i did mention car dangers on post 34

Lucylastic -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 5:07:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic could have something to do with the fact that dumbarse people using guns, kill more americans every year than ANY terrorist attack in the US has. How many times over? had to add something and punctuation. Adding that...... by that I mean people that get killed by dumbarse people with guns, not that all gun owners are dumbarses.... yano just for the sticklers just so I understand, WHICH regulation are they trying to pass thats going to PREVENT this from happening? also how bout we compare apples to apples as opposed to apples and oranges dumbasrse killing people with guns are ACCIDENTS, terrorist acts are DELIBERATE how bout we compare gun accidents to say another ACCIDENTAL injury or death like ohhh AUTO accidents when 50 people are killed in say a buss accident I don't hear anyone talking about banning high capacity vehicles when a sports car causes a huge pileup with mutiple vehicles and the death/injury rate is high I don't hear anyone talking about banning FAST CARS BTW, in 2011 the fatalities by gun & auto were both 10.3 per 100K of population coming to roughly 32K total, so I think thats a more fair comparison Oh dear oh dear oh dear, again you pretend to understand to know what I mean Dumbarse people also deliberately kill and maim people, yanno, like I mentioned in another post about a chap shooting an 8 year old in the mouth. If I had meant accidental gun death I would have said accidental, I didnt say it , so I dont mean it. Please stop trying to bypass the dumbarsedness of people to turn into killers. One word about accidents by car...when a gun has to go through as many safety checks to be safe, get back to me. When a bus accident kills 50 or so people it is examined by safety people to reduce it happening again. When a car causes a multi car crash, you can bet that the car is examined to find out if it was user error, environmental actions in play(fog, slick roads, ice etc) or an issue with the car itself, plus there are laws covering driving, yearly or two yearly tests on the machine for safety reasons..there are laws against driving drunk, using a cell phone, etc etc etc There was a series of deaths caused by truck wheels causing death and mayhem on the roads a few years back, you bet your life there are regulations in place now about tyre safety right now. Recently there was a great hullabaloo about a car being driven into a crowd deliberately, it made the news for weeks. I haven't followed the story , but if the person who did it made a claim that the car made him do it, you can bet that car was gone over with a fine toothcomb. From your claim about the regulations they are trying to pass...I'll let you look up the states that are trying to pass laws. And the people who are blocking them. sweet mother of pearl... I guess it was your wording that made me think you meant ALL gun fatalities, you said dumbarses, which lead me to beleive you mean they made DUMBARSE MISTAKES. Of course, it would what you really meant was not dumbarses but murders, who from what I understand aren't dumb, becayse they did not make a DUMB MISTAKE and kill someone they did it intentionally. that may make them alot of things, but I see no connection to intelligence or the lack of it. Murders, accidents, negligence, they are still dumbarses because they took a human life, if you want me to say murdering dumbarse scum..... go for it, ask nice and I will consider it. Best not to assume, eh??? as for the regulations, I asked you a question, and I suppose since you know of no regulations that would prevent these things from happening that are being proposed you pretend there are and that I am just INCAPABLE of finding them I didnt say anything about your capability, yet here you are...empty handed

tazzygirl -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 5:40:15 PM)
quote: If you are over the age of 21 in many states, you dont need driver training to get a license. In many states you dont need a gun permit to get a gun, even under the age of 21. quote: When you buy a gun you fill out the registration form at POS, that is sent to the state government, placed in a database, which is why if you are a suspect in a shooting they already know you own a gun. Private gun sales negate your response. quote: Just what do you hope to achieve with physical inspection of a firearm? The fact that you still possess it, the fact that its still in working order. The fact that its still maintained in a legal manner. quote: Unlike cars which need working lights, brakes, windshield wipers, turn signals etc, a firearm is a fairly simple construction, you know, point and shoot. With alterations, with filed off numbers (on some), and some are missing and no one reports because "too many people ask questions". quote: As for registration renewals, if you park your car and dont drive it, it dont need tags, they dont come and take it from you, they just ticket you for driving with expired tags. And the minute you pull out a gun to use it? No different than taking out a car to use it. quote: The registration fees are usually used for road maintenance, what do you propose to use registration fees on a gun? What ARE gun registrations used for? SOME are registered. WHO gets that money and what is it used for? Concealed carry? The registration by those lucky individuals who are allowed to possess fully automatics?

thompsonx -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 5:55:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Lets compare cars to guns [image]http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/guns-vs-cars.jpg[/image] The problem with that is, driving and car ownership is a privilege, not a right. Is it your belief that the constitution only gives you the right to walk and not to ride?

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.054688E-02