Page 6 of 8 [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

07 Oct 2009, 2:18 pm

Yep...whenever you get enough people together, eventually you get into those lowest common denominator types who are best off locked in a zoo to throw their own feces than do it in society.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

07 Oct 2009, 2:55 pm

skafather84 wrote:
As far as getting gun control out of the way: I'd be glad to give up a lot of control laws that go too far in exchange for a law that required the reporting of missing or stolen weapons. Legal weapons are fine but illegal weapons aren't. I think we both agree on that point but you seem to want to resist any method of being able to track and prevent the illegal ones from going too far or being able to be as easily traced. If you have a better suggestion, I'd love to hear it but all I've heard is a very weak "people have to be more responsible" line and no methodology of either making the people more responsible or preventing the irresponsible ones from getting weapons. I'd rather make them responsible on the tail-end of after the gun is gone because the front end is too much trouble and too many questionable lines to be drawn. The gun rights community seem to be able to offer no productive solutions to this problem of illegal weapons...only offer up a very adolescent resistance to any such measures to try to control the weapons that get into the hands of criminals.


Like Zero has already pointed out, what does reporting a gun stolen accomplish? All it means is that the serial number goes in a database so that pawnshops won't accept it, and presumably if the gun is ever recovered it can be returned to you, I don't see anything about protecting society in there. What needs to happen is for society to forget about the guns entirely and focus on the root causes of violence, regulating the tools is the wrong approach entirely. I saw your post about the effect of market forces on the Mexican drug cartels, so I know you're probably with me on drug legalization, which in and of itself would help society far more than any amount of gun control, but there are other measures that could be undertaken to combat violence itself without messing with guns at all.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

07 Oct 2009, 3:37 pm

Dox47 wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
As far as getting gun control out of the way: I'd be glad to give up a lot of control laws that go too far in exchange for a law that required the reporting of missing or stolen weapons. Legal weapons are fine but illegal weapons aren't. I think we both agree on that point but you seem to want to resist any method of being able to track and prevent the illegal ones from going too far or being able to be as easily traced. If you have a better suggestion, I'd love to hear it but all I've heard is a very weak "people have to be more responsible" line and no methodology of either making the people more responsible or preventing the irresponsible ones from getting weapons. I'd rather make them responsible on the tail-end of after the gun is gone because the front end is too much trouble and too many questionable lines to be drawn. The gun rights community seem to be able to offer no productive solutions to this problem of illegal weapons...only offer up a very adolescent resistance to any such measures to try to control the weapons that get into the hands of criminals.


Like Zero has already pointed out, what does reporting a gun stolen accomplish? All it means is that the serial number goes in a database so that pawnshops won't accept it, and presumably if the gun is ever recovered it can be returned to you, I don't see anything about protecting society in there. What needs to happen is for society to forget about the guns entirely and focus on the root causes of violence, regulating the tools is the wrong approach entirely. I saw your post about the effect of market forces on the Mexican drug cartels, so I know you're probably with me on drug legalization, which in and of itself would help society far more than any amount of gun control, but there are other measures that could be undertaken to combat violence itself without messing with guns at all.


I know very well what needs to be done. It won't be done. So, gun legislation has to be done instead.

We'll be lucky if they do what needs to be done to bring the economy back from the brink of pure fiction.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Oct 2009, 7:32 pm

skafather84 wrote:


Nope. They meant the people.


They meant what the courts say they meant. Our Constitution is somewhat of a joke.

ruveyn



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

07 Oct 2009, 10:19 pm

^

Why is gun legislation so necessary? It certainly does nothing to curb crime, so what makes it so important? Like I said before, America's collective gun owners and I are far more determined to hold onto our firearms than the anti-gun forces are to restrict them, and our long political reach and memory can clearly be seen in the 1994 congressional elections and the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Al Gore couldn't even win his own state due to his association with the pathetic "assault weapons" ban, even 6 years after the fact.

You seem aware that gun control is not the proper approach to reducing violence, but continue to support it to the detriment of what you consider you own political priorities, as far as I can tell out of spite as much as anything. All your doing is shooting yourself in the foot here, to use a rather appropriate metaphor, since there are millions of us out here who simply won't compromise on guns, and it's your priorities that will suffer.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Last edited by Dox47 on 08 Oct 2009, 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KingKermit
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 4 Oct 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 16
Location: Kyoto

08 Oct 2009, 7:24 am

number5 wrote another interpretation does indeed exist. Many believe that the term "people" in the 2nd amendment refers to people within the well regulated Militia, as in soldiers. It is very possible that the founding fathers had no desire whatsoever to see millions of Joe Shmo's running around with guns. [/quote]

Read the writings of Jefferson, or any of the founding fathers and you would know how wrong you are. Furthermore the Supreme Court disagreed with that opinion recently.
As far as the guy who thinks the constitution is a joke we can all just not give that statement any consideration or merit.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Oct 2009, 8:07 am

KingKermit wrote:
number5 wrote another interpretation does indeed exist. Many believe that the term "people" in the 2nd amendment refers to people within the well regulated Militia, as in soldiers. It is very possible that the founding fathers had no desire whatsoever to see millions of Joe Shmo's running around with guns.


Read the writings of Jefferson, or any of the founding fathers and you would know how wrong you are. Furthermore the Supreme Court disagreed with that opinion recently.
As far as the guy who thinks the constitution is a joke we can all just not give that statement any consideration or merit.[/quote]

Keep in mind that the militia at the time of the Revolution was a construct of the People. It was how the able bodied males in a community organized for the common defense and safety of the community (life in those days was not totally safe). Now, we think of the military and a Government Entity. But that is not how it was during Jefferson's time.

ruveyn



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

08 Oct 2009, 5:45 pm

U.S. Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The people are the militia, so either way, the people have a right to bear arms.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


KingKermit
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 4 Oct 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 16
Location: Kyoto

08 Oct 2009, 6:50 pm

John_Browning wrote:
U.S. Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The people are the militia, so either way, the people have a right to bear arms.


I agree with the above statement completely.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

09 Oct 2009, 9:23 am

KingKermit wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
U.S. Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311


Careful with that....statutes can be re-written at will.

The militia was not a codified entity when the Founding Fathers made reference to them.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Oct 2009, 11:22 am

zer0netgain wrote:
KingKermit wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
U.S. Code TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311


Careful with that....statutes can be re-written at will.

The militia was not a codified entity when the Founding Fathers made reference to them.


Right. The militia was a creature of the The People, not of the government.

ruveyn



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

09 Oct 2009, 5:35 pm

Let's just take a step back from the debate for a second and enjoy some bullets being shattered and shot through things at 1,000,000 frames per second.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]



Physics guys will probably love this the most.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

10 Oct 2009, 4:24 pm

And now back to the show:

WINTER SPRINGS, Fla. - A man who thought there was an intruder in his house shot and killed his fiancee the day before they were to be married, police said Friday.

"Right now everything points to a tragic accident," Police Chief Kevin Brunelle told The Associated Press, adding investigators were awaiting forensic results.

John Tabutt, 62, told investigators he got his gun when he thought he heard an intruder, then fired at a figure in the hallway, according to Brunelle. It was Tabutt's live-in fiancee, 62-year-old Nancy Dinsmore, who family members say he was going to marry Saturday. Tabutt told authorities he thought she was next to him in bed the whole time.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

A message left for a phone number listed for the house was not returned.

Brunelle said no charges have been filed against Tabutt, adding the information he provided has been verified and he appeared "very distraught."

Tabutt was "very concerned about her well-being," standing by while she was pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics, Brunelle added.

'They loved each other'
The couple planned to wed in a small ceremony Saturday at St. Stephen Catholic Church in Winter Springs, Dinsmore's son-in-law Scott Sposato, of Vero Beach, told the Orlando Sentinel.

"They loved each other," he said. "It was quite apparent."

Tabutt called 911 shortly after 2:30 a.m. Friday, moaning and sobbing, the newspaper reported.

"I thought I had an intruder in the house," he told the emergency dispatcher. "Honest to God, she looks dead."

He then thought he heard her take a breath.

"Hang in there, Honey. Hang in there," he said.

Winter Springs is about 15 miles north of Orlando.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33251920/ns ... ?GT1=43001


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

10 Oct 2009, 7:47 pm

^
What's your point? Accidents happen, and they may be tragic when they occur, but they certainly don't warrant further restrictions on law abiding citizens. This is on exactly the same level as using fear of terrorism as an excuse to trample civil liberties, scare tactics.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

10 Oct 2009, 8:26 pm

Dox47 wrote:
^
What's your point? Accidents happen, and they may be tragic when they occur, but they certainly don't warrant further restrictions on law abiding citizens.

Probably not, but some people consider that risk of that potentially happening, enough a reason for their preference to not own a gun, especially if children are around. But being that a strong reason for advocating for stricter laws, probably not, the Virgina Tech massacre would seem a stronger reason for that, stricter laws with psychiatric evaluations, although aspies probably wouldn't pass them, which would be amusing to see.

Quote:
What's your point?

That many people are idiots to be trusted with guns.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

10 Oct 2009, 9:11 pm

Dox47 wrote:
^
What's your point? Accidents happen, and they may be tragic when they occur, but they certainly don't warrant further restrictions on law abiding citizens. This is on exactly the same level as using fear of terrorism as an excuse to trample civil liberties, scare tactics.


Media loves to run stories of tragic gun accidents.

They hardly ever report how many people's lives were saved because the gun owner held off or shot an intruder who planned to rob/rape/murder their victim.