RE: Why is it?

RE: Why is it? (Full Version)

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

Message

DomKen -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 6:16:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin 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. Again, if gun hunters are so safe and careful why did the blaze orange laws come about? In reality they were passed because dumbass hunters kept shooting at movement without clearly identifying what they were shooting at.

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 6:19:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Lets compare cars to guns [image]http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/guns-vs-cars.jpg[/image] You would need federal permission to own a car In DC, Ca. , and several other places the government would tell you what color you car could be. The state government would tell you what size gas tank you could have After the government gave you permission to buy a car you would have to get separate and more restricted permission to drive it off of your property The government would track every automobile from the factory to the owner

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 6:30:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin 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! And at the time the militia was every able bodied man between 18 and 50

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 6:39:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You would need federal permission to own a car In DC, Ca. , and several other places the government would tell you what color you car could be. The state government would tell you what size gas tank you could have After the government gave you permission to buy a car you would have to get separate and more restricted permission to drive it off of your property The government would track every automobile from the factory to the owner Don't forget your car wouldn't be allowed to be skeery looking.

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 6:49:55 PM)
In many states you dont need a gun permit to get a gun, even under the age of 21. Since 1968 it has been a Federal offense for someone under 21 to own a handgun

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 6:53:58 PM)
Is it your belief that the constitution only gives you the right to walk and not to ride? Your mode of transportation was not addressed by the constitution. But those who say that modern firearms wouldn't be covered car weren't invented yet either.

jlf1961 -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 6:54:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic They're all dead.. by a gun .....dead. and yes i did mention car dangers on post 34 More people die by negligent drivers than by negligent gun owners. People are just as dead, but why dont everyone raise hell about those deaths? People killed by negligent drivers never hit the national news, are those people worth less? Yet one accidental shooting or one person going off the deep end with a gun, and the national news is all over it. I think the appropriate word that applies is Hypocrite. . ..

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 6:57:12 PM)
fr insurance on guns would only pay for accidental shootings so every gun owner should have insurance because of 851 cases a year?

Lucylastic -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 6:58:48 PM)
you obviously didnt read my post Your original question was about terrorist vs gun deaths, now you change it to cars..... I think the term I would for your change in goalposts is against TOS...

jlf1961 -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 7:41:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic you obviously didnt read my post Your original question was about terrorist vs gun deaths, now you change it to cars..... I think the term I would for your change in goalposts is against TOS... I was not the one that brought up the comparison of cars and guns, you can thank tazzy for that one. I just posted the facts as in numbers. Now, concerning terrorists, when a Muslim blows something up, or attempts to blow something up in the US, and the Islamaphobia hits the fan, I notice quite a few of the liberals on these boards screaming out about not judging the entire world population for the acts of a few. According to the FBI, of the 300 American deaths from political violence and mass shootings since 9/11, only 33 have come at the hands of Muslim-Americans. In truth non-Muslims commit 90% of the terrorist acts world wide. Of course we dont see that number because it is politically expedient to concentrate on just those acts committed by Muslims. Then the conservatives can come out screaming about all the Muslims are terrorists, plotting to destroy all Christians... It is estimated that only about five percent of Muslims are extremists or hold extremist views, and about 2% of that number are actual terrorists. Lets say that there are 290 million guns in the us, the average between the highest and lowest estimates. In 2011 there were 851 deaths due to negligent gun use, and that gives us a percentage of 2.934482758620689655172437931034x10^-6% of all guns in the us were the reason for the negligent deaths. If you want the percentage of gun owning households involved in deaths due to negligent gun use, it is 1.5472727272727x10^-5% And you people really want to scream that there needs to be more regulations on guns? Answer the following: How is mandatory gun safety training going to prevent some person from being an idiot with a gun? Seriously, you would have to come up with a test to actually show the person buying the gun is terminally stupid. Most of gun safety is common sense. Most of the safety measures for various power tools are common sense, that does not prevent a high number of accidental amputations, or even deaths by power tools every year. As for liability insurance, that kind of exist already, the criminal charges of negligent homicide and negligent manslaughter pretty much cover that. My point on negligent deaths is simple, it is not limited to guns, and the number is far less for guns than many other negligent deaths, so why are gun owners so special they need special attention?

Lucylastic -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 8:01:18 PM)
FFS No I want it to be regulated for PEOPLE who USE GUN< but if it touches guns too?terrific Safety? storage, BUT DONT forget the killer.... the PEOPLE. half the people who are adamant about guns on here I dont think should be allowed to have a tortoise let alone a gun, but mental health checks are not being discussed. Im not going to give you a response on your question because you are making assumptions all over the damn pleace. guns only have ONE use Bitch all you wish...Terrorists kill in the US less than gun deaths by americans against americans Cars kill, however that is not their main purpose. Doctors kill, nurses kill big pharma kills, so many things kill, they also have other uses

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 8:11:58 PM)
Im not going to give you a response on your question because you are making assumptions all over the damn pleace. guns only have ONE use So far from reality as to be laughable. Put a squirrel that two cats had ripped up out of it's misery, quit hunting in 73, done a lot of shooting not at anything living but having a gun has gotten me out of three situations while PREVENTING violence.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 8:32:00 PM)
~FR~ Heh. These gun topics are like Groundhog day. Wouldn't it be easier to just save your posts and copy and paste them the next time it comes up?

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 8:51:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic FFS No I want it to be regulated for PEOPLE who USE GUN< but if it touches guns too?terrific Safety? storage, BUT DONT forget the killer.... the PEOPLE. half the people who are adamant about guns on here I dont think should be allowed to have a tortoise let alone a gun, but mental health checks are not being discussed. Im not going to give you a response on your question because you are making assumptions all over the damn pleace. guns only have ONE use Bitch all you wish...Terrorists kill in the US less than gun deaths by americans against americans Cars kill, however that is not their main purpose. Doctors kill, nurses kill big pharma kills, so many things kill, they also have other uses You are right doctors kill more people negligently than all forms of gun deaths combined in fact they are more dangerous than cars a guns combined. Maybe we should require training and licensing of them too. Oh wait we do.

igor2003 -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 9:46:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic guns only have ONE use Guns have only one MAIN purpose, and that is to emit a projectile at high velocity. Where and for what reason that projectile is emitted is dependent upon the person controlling the gun. I used to hunt, but don't any longer. And since quitting hunting I have fired guns thousands of times and never killed a thing. Also, guns have uses in which they don't need to fire a projectile. Simply showing a firearm has the ability, many times, to prevent a crime from happening. That won't happen if you show someone your car or doctor, or threaten someone with what pharmaceutical company your aspirin comes from.

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 10:09:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic guns only have ONE use Guns have only one MAIN purpose, and that is to emit a projectile at high velocity. Where and for what reason that projectile is emitted is dependent upon the person controlling the gun. I used to hunt, but don't any longer. And since quitting hunting I have fired guns thousands of times and never killed a thing. Also, guns have uses in which they don't need to fire a projectile. Simply showing a firearm has the ability, many times, to prevent a crime from happening. That won't happen if you show someone your car or doctor, or threaten someone with what pharmaceutical company your aspirin comes from. That is what happened on those occasions when a firearm allowed me to avoid violence.

tweakabelle -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 10:43:32 PM)
quote: Also, guns have uses in which they don't need to fire a projectile. Simply showing a firearm has the ability, many times, to prevent a crime from happening. Simply producing a gun has the ability to ensure that the crime is successful and the criminal makes his/her escape. I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful. My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over.

tazzygirl -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 10:50:27 PM)
quote: Since 1968 it has been a Federal offense for someone under 21 to own a handgun Who said anything about just handguns? And, as far as that goes, you can pick up a handgun through a private sale and no one has to register squat. So much for your "Federal offense"

BamaD -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 10:51:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: Also, guns have uses in which they don't need to fire a projectile. Simply showing a firearm has the ability, many times, to prevent a crime from happening. Simply producing a gun has the ability to ensure that the crime is successful and the criminal makes his/her escape. I haven't seen any figures comparing the number of times a gun has stopped a crime from occuring vs. the number of times it has ensured the crime is successful. My guess is that the latter exceeds the former many times over. Most studies say that the former exceeds the latter by a margin of between 2 and 4 to 1 In the case of a firearm stopping a crime as long as nobody gets shot it tends to go unreported, I know of about half a dozen such cases none of which were reported, I mean what do you say "I almost was assaulted but they ran screaming into the night when they realized I was armed" ?

tazzygirl -> RE: Why is it? (9/9/2013 10:52:12 PM)
quote: After the government gave you permission to buy a car you would have to get separate and more restricted permission to drive it off of your property To carry a handgun, you need that permission now. To purchase a machine gun, you need that permission now. Unless, of course, you go through a private sale.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.054688E-02