RE: Defending the House with Guns! (Full Version)

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



Message


joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 5:29:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

First off, your 'position' is to attack me on any topic and subject, irrelevent of the topic or subject.

I don't even read most of your posts, joether. You're not that important to me, and they usually make my eyes bleed.


Notice the bold part? You just proved my point. Anything you say after that is just bullshit. In fact, if what you stated was true, you would NEVER reply. That you can not even admit the evidence shows just how intellectually dishonest you are!

You are one of the people that undermine's BamaD's viewpoints on firearms. I wonder if he realizes that?





joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 5:40:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
This would be the result of a society that ignores the reality for a fantasy. Its been well documented that one does not need a mental or emotional disorder to sudden erupt and kill people (including their loved ones).


Just because someone has not been diagnosed with a mental or emotional disorder does not mean they do not have one.

The absence of a diagnosis of illness does not mean you are proven to have good health. Think about how many people don't go to the doctor when they feel a lump, for fear of a diagnosis of cancer. It doesn't mean they don't have it.


When you get a lump, do you go on firearm shooting sprees?

There are many US Citizens that either know they have Depression or do not. How many of then are going on gun shooting sprees? Most of them, if they had a gun (and depending on the level of severity of their condition), will used the gun on themselves. Hence, why the medical community often asks someone they are treating for possible Depression "Do you have access to a firearm". Because when it comes to suicide, a person with a firearm is 90% likely to be successful with the process. That's compared to all other methods that measure in the teens for percentages.

Which is why I argue that if someone wants a firearm, they are checked. Physically, mentally and emotionally. Before they obtain the firearm. And after every three years, they are rechecked. Police officers by contrast are checked several times during that three year period of time. You want the protections of the 2nd amendment that police officers enjoy? You get the limitations as well.







Kirata -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 5:48:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

First off, your 'position' is to attack me on any topic and subject, irrelevent of the topic or subject.

I don't even read most of your posts, joether. You're not that important to me, and they usually make my eyes bleed.

Notice the bold part? You just proved my point. Anything you say after that is just bullshit. In fact, if what you stated was true, you would NEVER reply. That you can not even admit the evidence shows just how intellectually dishonest you are!

Focus your attention on the pretty red words. For further assistance, see here.

K.




BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 6:12:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
This would be the result of a society that ignores the reality for a fantasy. Its been well documented that one does not need a mental or emotional disorder to sudden erupt and kill people (including their loved ones).


Just because someone has not been diagnosed with a mental or emotional disorder does not mean they do not have one.

The absence of a diagnosis of illness does not mean you are proven to have good health. Think about how many people don't go to the doctor when they feel a lump, for fear of a diagnosis of cancer. It doesn't mean they don't have it.


When you get a lump, do you go on firearm shooting sprees?

There are many US Citizens that either know they have Depression or do not. How many of then are going on gun shooting sprees? Most of them, if they had a gun (and depending on the level of severity of their condition), will used the gun on themselves. Hence, why the medical community often asks someone they are treating for possible Depression "Do you have access to a firearm". Because when it comes to suicide, a person with a firearm is 90% likely to be successful with the process. That's compared to all other methods that measure in the teens for percentages.

Which is why I argue that if someone wants a firearm, they are checked. Physically, mentally and emotionally. Before they obtain the firearm. And after every three years, they are rechecked. Police officers by contrast are checked several times during that three year period of time. You want the protections of the 2nd amendment that police officers enjoy? You get the limitations as well.





How many thousand dollars do you want it to cost just to exercise your right to bear arms?

And yes, it is an individual right, the courts have ruled so repeatedly , not just Heller. So we are back to your wanting to destroy a right by pretending it does not exist.




Kirata -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 7:56:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

the availability of firearms is so pathetic in this nation, that we are allowing more problems to exist.

Nonsense. Guns are easily available here. [:D]

But joking aside, I do agree that we're allowing problems to exist. Why is it, do you suppose, that gun-control proponents seem always to want laws that primarily affect the law-abiding, instead of demanding increased penalties and more aggressive prosecution of firearms possession and trafficking offenses?

K.







thompsonx -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/13/2015 5:48:24 AM)

quote:

Yes, I think I understand SCOUTUS and how they operate....better than you!


Opinions vary




thompsonx -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/13/2015 5:51:33 AM)

quote:

Which is why I argue that if someone wants a firearm, they are checked. Physically, mentally and emotionally. Before they obtain the firearm. And after every three years, they are rechecked. Police officers by contrast are checked several times during that three year period of time. You want the protections of the 2nd amendment that police officers enjoy? You get the limitations as well.


Since the number of murders by cops keeps increasing that "check" that is done several times a year seems not to work very well.




thompsonx -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/13/2015 5:53:31 AM)

quote:

Because when it comes to suicide, a person with a firearm is 90% likely to be successful with the process. That's compared to all other methods that measure in the teens for percentages.


Might want to look into the suicide of mr. meriweather lewis.




thompsonx -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/13/2015 6:14:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

As much as it discomfits many today, it's incredibly obvious the 2nd Amendment didn't legalize an armed militia, it allowed an Armed Citizenry.


In the anti-federalist papers we see this theme raised over and over citing the constitutions provisions for an army and navy (which would be armed) and the slave owners whose ability to arm themseves for protection against their slaves was not specified in the constitution.Thus the demand for a "right to bear arms".

quote:

Even the briefest of acquaintance of the history of life of the times means it was inconceivable for much of the population OR the communities at every level to survive without firearms. Most lived in rural settings,


No, most(50%+1) people did not live in rural settings.


quote:

conflict with the First Nations was still ongoing, and actual wars had been fought recently.




George washington lamented that the militias would rather raid native american villages than fight the britts...less danger for a bigger payday.


quote:

Wild animals were seen as constant dangers outside of urban settings, food depended on hunting for many during Winters and the British/French imperial conflict was part of most colony's direct experience.


It was govonor lee/geroge washington's invasion of the ohio valley that started that conflict on this continent.


quote:

Local histories show many militias were basically all the local white males with ownership of a firearm as well as some others. (Community protective organization in Quaker and similar communities would be interesting study) Current focus on militias as military organizations ignores how that was very dependent on current threats. The situation of each community led to various existing arrangements to provide mutual assistance where no other government was often present. War, fires, natural disasters, common infrastructure and ecostructure efforts all were a continuum with armed combat at one extreme. Drilling with weapons and military discipline was absent for most areas and regions till a imminent threat emerged.


I believe it was lincolns who when he was an officer in the militia was so "unsoldierly" that he was given a wooden sword so he would not hurt himself...his men were well known as whiskey thieves





thompsonx -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/13/2015 6:16:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Nonsense. Guns are easily available here. [:D]



Yes but have you priced an automag?




BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/13/2015 10:02:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

the availability of firearms is so pathetic in this nation, that we are allowing more problems to exist.

Nonsense. Guns are easily available here. [:D]

But joking aside, I do agree that we're allowing problems to exist. Why is it, do you suppose, that gun-control proponents seem always to want laws that primarily affect the law-abiding, instead of demanding increased penalties and more aggressive prosecution of firearms possession and trafficking offenses?

K.





Because the law-abiding will follow the laws, and they can tell themselves and the voters that they did something. Besides it never hurts to have the people more dependent on the government.




Real0ne -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/13/2015 10:38:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Yet another sad tragedy....

Yeap, bet that gun (and any others) were purchased for defending the house and the family from would-be attackers. The firearm legally purchased. Anyone want to say how well that 'defense system' protected them?

That guy was a 'honest and law abiding citizen' with a firearm. Right up to the moment that he started shooting. So two adults and three teens are dead, because Minnesota (and the nation) has crappy firearm regulations!

I can only speculate that the guy felt he was up against the wall. Couldn't live with events nor see his kids suffer due to his financial problems and actions. An example of the ugly side of capitalism in America!

How many have to die, before we decide to take steps to rein in the bullshit from the gun lobby and the lunatic right?





quote:

The father of a Minnesota family found dead in an apparent murder-suicide was the one who shot and killed his three children, his wife and then himself, according to a published report.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune, citing an official close to the investigation, reported Friday that Brian Short, the 45-year-old home owner, grabbed a shotgun and stormed into the bedrooms of his three teenage children and killed them. Short’s wife, Karen, heard the noise and began to call the police before Short tracked her down in another bedroom and shot her in the head, the newspaper reports.

ADVERTISEMENT

Short, then went into the garage and turned the gun on himself, according to the Star Tribune.



Joe its time you stop blaming guns and the gun lobby for shit it did not do.

You should be thankful that he used a gun instead of the many common household materials that he could have mixed together that would have leveled the house and endangered the neighborhood, where any miscalculation would have leveled their homes as well.






BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/13/2015 10:52:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Yet another sad tragedy....

Yeap, bet that gun (and any others) were purchased for defending the house and the family from would-be attackers. The firearm legally purchased. Anyone want to say how well that 'defense system' protected them?

That guy was a 'honest and law abiding citizen' with a firearm. Right up to the moment that he started shooting. So two adults and three teens are dead, because Minnesota (and the nation) has crappy firearm regulations!

I can only speculate that the guy felt he was up against the wall. Couldn't live with events nor see his kids suffer due to his financial problems and actions. An example of the ugly side of capitalism in America!

How many have to die, before we decide to take steps to rein in the bullshit from the gun lobby and the lunatic right?





quote:

The father of a Minnesota family found dead in an apparent murder-suicide was the one who shot and killed his three children, his wife and then himself, according to a published report.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune, citing an official close to the investigation, reported Friday that Brian Short, the 45-year-old home owner, grabbed a shotgun and stormed into the bedrooms of his three teenage children and killed them. Short’s wife, Karen, heard the noise and began to call the police before Short tracked her down in another bedroom and shot her in the head, the newspaper reports.

ADVERTISEMENT

Short, then went into the garage and turned the gun on himself, according to the Star Tribune.



Joe its time you stop blaming guns and the gun lobby for shit it did not do.

You should be thankful that he used a gun instead of the many common household materials that he could have mixed together that would have leveled the house and endangered the neighborhood, where any miscalculation would have leveled their homes as well.




Like the case last month were two boys killed their parents and a couple of their siblings with knives. BTW butcher knives are much easier to get ahold of than guns, most things are.

Oh yes, the current Job Corps murder in FL where they used a machete, those are real hard to get ahold of.




MercTech -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/13/2015 12:35:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Yet another sad tragedy....

Yeap, bet that gun (and any others) were purchased for defending the house and the family from would-be attackers. The firearm legally purchased. Anyone want to say how well that 'defense system' protected them?

That guy was a 'honest and law abiding citizen' with a firearm. Right up to the moment that he started shooting. So two adults and three teens are dead, because Minnesota (and the nation) has crappy firearm regulations!

I can only speculate that the guy felt he was up against the wall. Couldn't live with events nor see his kids suffer due to his financial problems and actions. An example of the ugly side of capitalism in America!

How many have to die, before we decide to take steps to rein in the bullshit from the gun lobby and the lunatic right?




Interesting leap of logic equating a murder/suicide to firearm ownership. I guess my obesity is caused by owning spoons.




BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/13/2015 12:37:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Yet another sad tragedy....

Yeap, bet that gun (and any others) were purchased for defending the house and the family from would-be attackers. The firearm legally purchased. Anyone want to say how well that 'defense system' protected them?

That guy was a 'honest and law abiding citizen' with a firearm. Right up to the moment that he started shooting. So two adults and three teens are dead, because Minnesota (and the nation) has crappy firearm regulations!

I can only speculate that the guy felt he was up against the wall. Couldn't live with events nor see his kids suffer due to his financial problems and actions. An example of the ugly side of capitalism in America!

How many have to die, before we decide to take steps to rein in the bullshit from the gun lobby and the lunatic right?




Interesting leap of logic equating a murder/suicide to firearm ownership. I guess my obesity is caused by owning spoons.

Same mentality that has lead to people suing McDonalds because they are fat.




joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/13/2015 12:44:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
This would be the result of a society that ignores the reality for a fantasy. Its been well documented that one does not need a mental or emotional disorder to sudden erupt and kill people (including their loved ones).

Just because someone has not been diagnosed with a mental or emotional disorder does not mean they do not have one.

The absence of a diagnosis of illness does not mean you are proven to have good health. Think about how many people don't go to the doctor when they feel a lump, for fear of a diagnosis of cancer. It doesn't mean they don't have it.


When you get a lump, do you go on firearm shooting sprees?

There are many US Citizens that either know they have Depression or do not. How many of then are going on gun shooting sprees? Most of them, if they had a gun (and depending on the level of severity of their condition), will used the gun on themselves. Hence, why the medical community often asks someone they are treating for possible Depression "Do you have access to a firearm". Because when it comes to suicide, a person with a firearm is 90% likely to be successful with the process. That's compared to all other methods that measure in the teens for percentages.

Which is why I argue that if someone wants a firearm, they are checked. Physically, mentally and emotionally. Before they obtain the firearm. And after every three years, they are rechecked. Police officers by contrast are checked several times during that three year period of time. You want the protections of the 2nd amendment that police officers enjoy? You get the limitations as well.

How many thousand dollars do you want it to cost just to exercise your right to bear arms?


To get a firearm in Australia, it costs a few tens of thousands of dollars. How many mass shootings do they see on a weekly basis? Their rate of accidents, attacks, and suicides with firearms is far less than the United States per 100K. That investing in a firearm is like investing in a car. An like an expensive car, one would likely treat a firearm well. Make sure it is handled carefully, stored securely, and not misused. That if the firearm is sold, there exists a transaction on the books (be they private or public due to circumstances).

To artificially increase the cost of firearms, would be in the form of a tax. So the most obvious question is: What do we do with the money generated?

Maybe offer FBI firearm safety classes. I found the FBI trainers more enjoyable to learn from than the NRA. The NRA guys were bitching about liberals every third word; the FBI guys were professional and mature. Not just in the normal process but add in more advance training (i.e. handing a firearm in close quarters like a house).

Helping medical folks handle the cost of gunshot and related injuries. Maybe even offset the high costs to become a medical doctor.

I'm sure we could arrive at many good ways the funding generate to help Americans out.

The part your not understand in all this, is how society will eventually deal with the problem. We can deal with things now in a sane manner; or later on after something....BIGGER...than Sandy Hook takes place. I gurantee you, after that moment, no one will want to make a deal with your viewpoints. It'll be, 'this is how things are now; go along with it, our we'll remove the 2nd'.

I've said it before and I'll say it now, so that we are crystal clear: I have trouble imagining what will be worst than Sandy Hook and enough to get this nation to deal with firearms. As is normal human nature, we will go to one side of madness and they slingshot rapidly to the other side of the extreme. Neither side is healthy. So why wait for that moment? Why not restore the good faith firearm owners have lost with the American people?

Since we are on that path right now. Sooner or later, some event will take place. It will be horror beyond horror. It'll make Sandy Hook look like a murder-suicide in comparison. It'll be worst if the perpetrators hold conservative viewpoints and its domestic terrorism (which I fail to see how it could be anything else).

Understand, I am not wishing this hell on anyone! That this nation gains more by concern citizens and firearm owners working together. Its the gun nuts and gun controllers (the two extremes) that have and will do everything they can to undermine that process.

You ask for a dollar cost. I can not give you a realistic and informed answer. Only speculation. Yet, we get this nation off its current path of destruction, by Americans working together on different sides of one view (i.e. concern citizens and firearm owners); perhaps we could make honest headway on the other issues facing this nation for which the political chasm is far and deep?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And yes, it is an individual right, the courts have ruled so repeatedly , not just Heller. So we are back to your wanting to destroy a right by pretending it does not exist.


Yes, an 'individual' right according to people that like the 2nd amendment corrupted. They can financially, politically, and dare I say it, spiritually. All in a selfish manner! You have in the past stated a dislike for corrupted laws allowing things the original law was never meant to handle. Yet, on a subject like this one, you ignore it. Your afraid that if you do not defend it with fanatical devotion, you'll lose the right. Yet, fanatics are individual that will not listen to reason or common sense. Even when the evidence shows their viewpoint is twisted and fucked up beyond a shadow of doubt; they stick to their viewpoint. Your really want to stay on the current path, BamaD? I understand your situation (as far as you have told me). I think your more afraid to move this nation from its current path, than an actual intruder. I'm asking you to simply think and consider.




joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/13/2015 1:06:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
the availability of firearms is so pathetic in this nation, that we are allowing more problems to exist.

Nonsense. Guns are easily available here. [:D]

But joking aside, I do agree that we're allowing problems to exist. Why is it, do you suppose, that gun-control proponents seem always to want laws that primarily affect the law-abiding, instead of demanding increased penalties and more aggressive prosecution of firearms possession and trafficking offenses?


Allow me to play Devil's Advocate here....

How do the guns get into the criminal system? Does Colt or Smith & Wesson sell firearms directly to criminals (publicly or privately)?

Do gun shop owners sell firearms to criminals or those stating intentions to perform a crime?

At any of the conventions (state or federal level) involving firearms, with a booth that will sell any of the firearms on the floor to criminals or the aspiring criminal?

An the answer is 'No'. We can agree here?

So how do guns get into the system? From the end user. You buy a firearm by legitimate processes. Your house is robbed while your at the store one day. Among the items stolen are your seven guns (3 pistols, 1 shotgun, 1 rifle, 1 assault rifle). And a pile of ammo for each of the types. Where do you think that all goes? Most criminals with half a brain will sell the items. In fact while fleeing your house in their car, they'll be the safety driver on the road. They'll obey all traffic laws and never draw suspicion.

So if we make it harder on the end user to obtain guns, it will make it harder on the criminal underworld to obtain guns. They'll obtain firearms, but at a very reduced rate. Also as time pushes forth in this manner, the availability of obtaining an illegal firearm decreases, thus, increasing the black market cost for a firearm (supply and demand). As the price for a legal firearm rises, the black market's price rises as well (often more than the legal version's rate of change). Yet, the criminal's 'paycheck' does not rise by equal levels. What is the result? A reduction in the number of criminals with guns. That is what we want, right? For the criminals to have less access to arms?

So the end result is....

Legal Citizens have an easier time obtaining a firearm (its sounds like it wouldn't, but it would). To which they will handle with care and be very vigilant in how its stored. Criminals have to search more often to obtain firearms; with that in mind I would expect a reduction in 'NRA' stickers on people's vehicles. Nothing says you have guns like an NRA sticker on your bumper! Likewise, with no indication if a particular house has guns; how daring will the criminals become? If criminals are as cowardly as the NRA likes to state so often; there might be a reduction in attacks.

There is much more I could add here. But lets keep it basic and simple and move up from there.




joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/13/2015 1:15:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Which is why I argue that if someone wants a firearm, they are checked. Physically, mentally and emotionally. Before they obtain the firearm. And after every three years, they are rechecked. Police officers by contrast are checked several times during that three year period of time. You want the protections of the 2nd amendment that police officers enjoy? You get the limitations as well.


Since the number of murders by cops keeps increasing that "check" that is done several times a year seems not to work very well.


Using your 'logic', we should ban all firearms right now, because a few US Citizens are stupid with guns?

When a police officer kills someone....FOR ANY REASON....there is an investigation. Every little detail is examined. To see if the police officer followed the training and practices the department and law requires/demands. The officers mental and emotional state are examined. Both what it might have been during the encounter and afterward (i.e. PTSD-like episodes).

Yes, it does happen. An thanks to good laws and requirements; it doesn't happen more often. The police in my town have to pass one particular test: fire or not. They have a split second or two to decide if the target before than is to be fired upon. To say the test is not a cake walk, is an understatement! But then, my town pays well to have professionally educated (most hold a BS/BA degree) police officer. Not many towns and states require that high level of training/education.

Perhaps those getting into the media spotlight for doing something dumb or foolish is the result of little to no good education and training?




joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/13/2015 1:23:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Because when it comes to suicide, a person with a firearm is 90% likely to be successful with the process. That's compared to all other methods that measure in the teens for percentages.


Might want to look into the suicide of mr. meriweather lewis.


I have. Comes from several sources. The America Medical Journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, the American Psychological Association Journal, etc. These are the ones most likely to study Depression, its effects, and how patients handle the illness. When it comes to a firearm as the method of killing oneself, the individual has a 90% chance of successfully ending their existence. Compare that to all the other forms of suicide. You'll find that while someone could be successful, there are many instances in which the person was not successful and landed themselves in the ER.

Yes, people have survived falling for a 200 foot cliff. From landing on the pavement during rush hour. Taking what they thought would be enough pills to kill them. Slicing their wrists the wrong way (yes there is a wrong way). Trying to drown and forgetting how oxygen works while inside a human body. Yes, people die of these things. Just not as easily as with a firearm.

Maybe you should try staying informed before trying to belittle people whom are more so! That way you don't look to much like a total moron!




BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/13/2015 1:28:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
This would be the result of a society that ignores the reality for a fantasy. Its been well documented that one does not need a mental or emotional disorder to sudden erupt and kill people (including their loved ones).

Just because someone has not been diagnosed with a mental or emotional disorder does not mean they do not have one.

The absence of a diagnosis of illness does not mean you are proven to have good health. Think about how many people don't go to the doctor when they feel a lump, for fear of a diagnosis of cancer. It doesn't mean they don't have it.


When you get a lump, do you go on firearm shooting sprees?

There are many US Citizens that either know they have Depression or do not. How many of then are going on gun shooting sprees? Most of them, if they had a gun (and depending on the level of severity of their condition), will used the gun on themselves. Hence, why the medical community often asks someone they are treating for possible Depression "Do you have access to a firearm". Because when it comes to suicide, a person with a firearm is 90% likely to be successful with the process. That's compared to all other methods that measure in the teens for percentages.

Which is why I argue that if someone wants a firearm, they are checked. Physically, mentally and emotionally. Before they obtain the firearm. And after every three years, they are rechecked. Police officers by contrast are checked several times during that three year period of time. You want the protections of the 2nd amendment that police officers enjoy? You get the limitations as well.

How many thousand dollars do you want it to cost just to exercise your right to bear arms?


To get a firearm in Australia, it costs a few tens of thousands of dollars. How many mass shootings do they see on a weekly basis? Their rate of accidents, attacks, and suicides with firearms is far less than the United States per 100K. That investing in a firearm is like investing in a car. An like an expensive car, one would likely treat a firearm well. Make sure it is handled carefully, stored securely, and not misused. That if the firearm is sold, there exists a transaction on the books (be they private or public due to circumstances).

To artificially increase the cost of firearms, would be in the form of a tax. So the most obvious question is: What do we do with the money generated?

Maybe offer FBI firearm safety classes. I found the FBI trainers more enjoyable to learn from than the NRA. The NRA guys were bitching about liberals every third word; the FBI guys were professional and mature. Not just in the normal process but add in more advance training (i.e. handing a firearm in close quarters like a house).

Helping medical folks handle the cost of gunshot and related injuries. Maybe even offset the high costs to become a medical doctor.

I'm sure we could arrive at many good ways the funding generate to help Americans out.

The part your not understand in all this, is how society will eventually deal with the problem. We can deal with things now in a sane manner; or later on after something....BIGGER...than Sandy Hook takes place. I gurantee you, after that moment, no one will want to make a deal with your viewpoints. It'll be, 'this is how things are now; go along with it, our we'll remove the 2nd'.

I've said it before and I'll say it now, so that we are crystal clear: I have trouble imagining what will be worst than Sandy Hook and enough to get this nation to deal with firearms. As is normal human nature, we will go to one side of madness and they slingshot rapidly to the other side of the extreme. Neither side is healthy. So why wait for that moment? Why not restore the good faith firearm owners have lost with the American people?

Since we are on that path right now. Sooner or later, some event will take place. It will be horror beyond horror. It'll make Sandy Hook look like a murder-suicide in comparison. It'll be worst if the perpetrators hold conservative viewpoints and its domestic terrorism (which I fail to see how it could be anything else).

Understand, I am not wishing this hell on anyone! That this nation gains more by concern citizens and firearm owners working together. Its the gun nuts and gun controllers (the two extremes) that have and will do everything they can to undermine that process.

You ask for a dollar cost. I can not give you a realistic and informed answer. Only speculation. Yet, we get this nation off its current path of destruction, by Americans working together on different sides of one view (i.e. concern citizens and firearm owners); perhaps we could make honest headway on the other issues facing this nation for which the political chasm is far and deep?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And yes, it is an individual right, the courts have ruled so repeatedly , not just Heller. So we are back to your wanting to destroy a right by pretending it does not exist.


Yes, an 'individual' right according to people that like the 2nd amendment corrupted. They can financially, politically, and dare I say it, spiritually. All in a selfish manner! You have in the past stated a dislike for corrupted laws allowing things the original law was never meant to handle. Yet, on a subject like this one, you ignore it. Your afraid that if you do not defend it with fanatical devotion, you'll lose the right. Yet, fanatics are individual that will not listen to reason or common sense. Even when the evidence shows their viewpoint is twisted and fucked up beyond a shadow of doubt; they stick to their viewpoint. Your really want to stay on the current path, BamaD? I understand your situation (as far as you have told me). I think your more afraid to move this nation from its current path, than an actual intruder. I'm asking you to simply think and consider.

As always you start with a bogus comparison. The murder rate in Austraila has not gone down as a result of their draconian gun laws. Still you use the fact that they have never had much of a murder rate to want policies that will put firearm ownership out of reach of most people. Also firearm ownership is not a protected right in Austraila as the courts and the writters of the 2nd have affirmed it to be in the U S.
You rant about the crime rate in the U S as if it is skyrocketing when the truth is that it is dropping faster than in any western country.
Also there are safty programs avaliable all over, that is the reason for the drop in accidents. You, however, want the one which will make for the most difficuties in taking one. You may not like the NRA instructors but down here talking bad about liberals won't turn people off.
To bad, you are just blowing smoke as usual.




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

Valid CSS!




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