IndianSaint
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 9,010
Dislikes:
|
Post by IndianSaint on Oct 10, 2015 9:32:51 GMT -5
Well indiansaint I guess by your logic we should just have anarchy!! It is just common sense to regulate these sales--- law abiding citizens should not have an issue rather respect the responsibility that comes with ownership. No, I'm not against laws. All I'm trying to say is adding additional laws to existing laws that already address harming others may not achieve the diapered outcome. There will always be those who don't respect others or others property. There's already laws against harming people. What's it going to do to add laws that already address harming people? Look, make a law that all guns are illegal for any purpose (even collecting as a hobby) and I'd bet guns crimes continue to happen anyway. Criminals will find a way. Gun laws won't even necessarily reduce in home gun accidents because those relate to improper storage by the owner or the cleverness of the child who gains access to them. Besides there's already background check and waiting periods laws on the books in many states even NY. All I'm saying is you can make a law that no one but police/army/etc can possess guns for any reason and there'll still be gun crimes. i don't care if the gov't continues to make tougher laws, it still won't achieve the desired outcome in the long run. Not until people respect each other or not placed in a position where they feel the have noting to lose. |
|
IndianSaint
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 9,010
Dislikes:
|
Post by IndianSaint on Oct 10, 2015 9:38:34 GMT -5
The issues humanity face (or will face) go way beyound tougher laws on top of existing laws that address the same outcome of the newer laws. Killing is wrong, in most cases, no matter what weapon you use or how you do it. I'm sure some can argue killing is not wrong in certain situations (self defense, wars, assisted suicide, etc).
|
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Oct 10, 2015 9:54:00 GMT -5
If the government confiscates all guns, the rate of death by guns with go down eventually to zero, excluding deaths by law enforcement. Your argument Indiansaint isn't logical, I do agree with many of your positions though.
The issue is what the government can do to mitigate the deaths caused by the illegal use of guns without infringing on the rights protected by the Constitution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2015 19:22:28 GMT -5
Constantly making your straw man arguments - I guess that's the only way you can win. I'm not against regulations but they have to be efficacious, otherwise we just have more laws that dilute our freedom. You don't appreciate the correlation between bigger government and less freedom. You are a big government lib. I get it. Fundamentally we probably agree on very little. Automatic weapons are not sold anymore and are illegal. Semiautomatic weapons describes many hunting guns. The only thing that distinguishes the assault rifle from a non assault rifle is the stock! In fact, many who owned them in NY simply changed the stock on the guns to make them compliant. How many young children died in Chicago this month, in a gun free zone, from gun violence? Probably with illegal guns no doubt - where is the outrage? The ban on assault weapons lapsed on 9/13/2004. An assault rifle is fully automatic - the stock has nothing to do with its lethality. I doubt many hunters would buy a fully automatic assault rifle to hunt any time of game. You will likely cite the rights of target shooters. True, they can be and have been used to shoot " cans" as in Mexi cans, Puerto Ri cans, Afri cans and even Ameri cans! Ditto for the semi-automatic AR-15 and AK-47! |
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Oct 11, 2015 4:39:44 GMT -5
Let me concede one point. Automatic guns are not illegal, but are highly regulated, not sure why I wrote that. My mistake. Nonetheless, I don't know of any civilian deaths in a non-military setting that have occurred from these weapons. So start your google search, but I'm sure you will concede these guns are not the issue and not the cause of the massacre killings across the country.
The "assault rifles" are semi-automatic and they are distinguished by the stock and color of the weapon. The firing mechanism is identical to other guns that are NOT classified as "assault rifles". "Assault" rifles are typical black with pistol grip stocks. Go to a gun shop and one of the guys behind the counter can educate you. You can't learn everything from Google.
|
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Oct 11, 2015 5:01:25 GMT -5
Constantly making your straw man arguments - I guess that's the only way you can win. I'm not against regulations but they have to be efficacious, otherwise we just have more laws that dilute our freedom. You don't appreciate the correlation between bigger government and less freedom. You are a big government lib. I get it. Fundamentally we probably agree on very little. Automatic weapons are not sold anymore and are illegal. Semiautomatic weapons describes many hunting guns. The only thing that distinguishes the assault rifle from a non assault rifle is the stock! In fact, many who owned them in NY simply changed the stock on the guns to make them compliant. How many young children died in Chicago this month, in a gun free zone, from gun violence? Probably with illegal guns no doubt - where is the outrage? You will likely cite the rights of target shooters. True, they can be and have been used to shoot " cans" as in Mexi cans, Puerto Ri cans, Afri cans and even Ameri cans! Ditto for the semi-automatic AR-15 and AK-47! It's you that cited the rights of target shooters, I referenced the second amendment and the fact that it has nothing to do with protecting target shooters or collectors. You remember, the argument you lost repeatedly? The "can" stuff is more straw man demagoguery, I expect nothing less from an emotional liberal like yourself. Aren't you embarrassed to write stuff like that. Is this a racial issue for you? I don't know the ethnic backgrounds of the latest massacre victims, it's not relevant to me. People are people. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 11:02:38 GMT -5
You will likely cite the rights of target shooters. True, they can be and have been used to shoot " cans" as in Mexi cans, Puerto Ri cans, Afri cans and even Ameri cans! Ditto for the semi-automatic AR-15 and AK-47! It's you that cited the rights of target shooters, I referenced the second amendment and the fact that it has nothing to do with protecting target shooters or collectors. You remember, the argument you lost repeatedly? The "can" stuff is more straw man demagoguery, I expect nothing less from an emotional liberal like yourself. Aren't you embarrassed to write stuff like that. Is this a racial issue for you? I don't know the ethnic backgrounds of the latest massacre victims, it's not relevant to me. People are people. When our forefathers amended the Constitution with the addition of the 2nd amendment it was done recognizing the fact that a large standing army was not on the books and that local militias must be preserved. Target shooting, although not specifically called out as such, was an implied necessity as they wanted those in local militias to continue training. The guns that were in possession by citizens were used for domestic uses - hunting. Confiscation was a reality under British rule when local uprisings took place or were rumored to be in planning stages. Fast forward to today - there is no real need for the vast majority of citizens to possess firearms. Some choose to have them for a measure of personal security. Often we read about home invasion or similar acts of violence in homes where guns existed but were not accessed or used to prevent whatever was happening. We also rarely ever hear of an encounter where a crime was prevented because the potential victim was carrying. Today, we have a more than adequate standing military, a reserve system and the National Guard so the reason for the 2nd Amendment is no longer a valid justification for citizens to have guns in their homes. The whacko fringe militia like groups in our country would not fare well when confronted by elements of a modern, well trained, equipped and armed. Fear of a Government going sour and acting in ways that would promote a need for armed resistance from the public at large are fear mongering at best or indicators of severe mental disorder at worst. Even the most well armed home would provide no obstacle to our military. This in no way should be read as me saying guns should be taken away. I support gun ownership but feel it is only prudent to control access and types of weapons allowed. The view that the Constitution is a living document was envisioned by our forefathers and this view is supported by two major features - the ability to amend, i.e., change via addition or correction, exists and has been used over our history, and the US Supreme Court which spends a portion of its energies on interpreting the Constitution as our society continues to evolve. I had mentioned collectors and you commented that you wanted their rights preserved. Target shooters and collectors are often cited as being adversely impacted by gun regulation and arguments are put forth supporting the idea that these folks need protection with no added regulation. The addition of requirements for gun registration and background checks are absent or in place to varying degrees across our many states. The lack of a consistent set of those requirements across the entire country contributes to the reality that local restrictions do not solve the problems we have. In NY if you buy from a dealer you must go through background checks - buy on a person to person basis at a gun show and no such requirement exists. Guns purchased in states with no restrictions are continually brought into NY to be sold at a profit to whomever wants them. The idea that added regulation is somehow masking a liberal plan to remove guns is, IMO, offered at the point when no valid counter argument can be put forth to support the no restrictions, literal reading of the 2nd amendment viewpoint and is ludicrous/nonsensical. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2015 17:08:59 GMT -5
Let me concede one point. Automatic guns are not illegal, but are highly regulated, not sure why I wrote that. My mistake. Nonetheless, I don't know of any civilian deaths in a non-military setting that have occurred from these weapons. So start your google search, but I'm sure you will concede these guns are not the issue and not the cause of the massacre killings across the country. The "assault rifles" are semi-automatic and they are distinguished by the stock and color of the weapon. The firing mechanism is identical to other guns that are NOT classified as "assault rifles". "Assault" rifles are typical black with pistol grip stocks. Go to a gun shop and one of the guys behind the counter can educate you. You can't learn everything from Google. Assault rifles are in fact selective fire weapons - they can fire in either semi-automatic or fully automatic mode depending on the flip of a switch at the discretion of the user. They are further characterized by a detachable magazine. Neither the color of the weapon or style of its stock has any bearing on its being classified as an assault rifle. The Newtown shooter used an AR15, a Glock and Sig Sauer - all semi auto with large capacity magazines. The Aurora shooter used a version of the M16 military weapon with a 100 round magazine - fortunately the gun jammed due to rapid (semi autos fire as rapidly as the trigger is pulled) fire that resulted in overheating. Hard to rationalize not regulating these weapons but we can all thank the Republicans (NRA pawns) for allowing the assault weapon ban under the last Bush. |
|
gorvy
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,047
Dislikes:
|
Post by gorvy on Oct 11, 2015 17:58:58 GMT -5
4 more shot in Albany this weekend, but just a few legs, no big whoop.
|
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Oct 11, 2015 18:30:17 GMT -5
4 more shot in Albany this weekend, but just a few legs, no big whoop. If it doesn't involve an assault rifle most libs don't care. I do. So what is your point? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2015 5:43:30 GMT -5
If it doesn't involve an assault rifle most libs don't care. I do.? ... most libs don't care... - not your best work Rat. Here's a little ditty that fits the thread...enjoy  "Hit Me With Your Best Shot" Well you're the real tough rightie with the long history Of throwing personal darts like the ones at me That's OK, let’s see how you do it Let’s see how you slant it Hit me with your best shot Why don't you hit me with your best shot Hit me with your best shot Fire Away You come on with a "put down" you can’t debate with a flair But that's OK, see if I care Insult me again, it's really all in vain I'll get right back on my feet again Hit me with your best shot Why don't you hit me with your best shot Hit me with your best shot Fire Away Well, you're the real tough rightie with the long history Of throwing personal darts like the ones at me Before I post another word in your self-righteous face You better make sure you put me in my place Hit me with your best shot Come On, hit me with your best shot Hit me with your best shot Fire Away Hit me with your best shot Why don't you hit me with your best shot Hit me with your best shot Fire Away |
|
gorvy
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,047
Dislikes:
|
Post by gorvy on Oct 12, 2015 7:11:34 GMT -5
Nowl that we are singing a happy tune, indiansaint might want to check out this article about a first world nation willing to face its gun problems www.businessinsider.com/australia-gun-control-shootings-2015-10Note the before and after chart in the middle of the page regarding what happens after laws are changed--- no need for guess work now... |
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Oct 12, 2015 8:21:17 GMT -5
Nowl that we are singing a happy tune, indiansaint might want to check out this article about a first world nation willing to face its gun problems www.businessinsider.com/australia-gun-control-shootings-2015-10Note the before and after chart in the middle of the page regarding what happens after laws are changed--- no need for guess work now... I guess this proves my point, you and most on your side of the aisle support confiscation much like what was done in Australia and the U.K. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2015 12:16:25 GMT -5
Nowl that we are singing a happy tune, indiansaint might want to check out this article about a first world nation willing to face its gun problems www.businessinsider.com/australia-gun-control-shootings-2015-10Note the before and after chart in the middle of the page regarding what happens after laws are changed--- no need for guess work now... I guess this proves my point, you and most on your side of the aisle support confiscation much like what was done in Australia and the U.K. Where in the article did you read "confiscation" - my read showed tough licensing laws for new applicants and a gun buyback program? I didn't see a "what if" clause for current holders who opted out of the buy back. Further, what are the pitfalls in the actions taken by the Aussies? Do you not agree that removing as many guns from the street as possible on a voluntary basis is a good thing? We've had many local buy backs in our area and I don't recall any 2nd amendment outcry or NRA demonstrations. What are you afraid of Rat? |
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Oct 12, 2015 13:52:09 GMT -5
I guess this proves my point, you and most on your side of the aisle support confiscation much like what was done in Australia and the U.K. Where in the article did you read "confiscation" - my read showed tough licensing laws for new applicants and a gun buyback program? I didn't see a "what if" clause for current holders who opted out of the buy back. Further, what are the pitfalls in the actions taken by the Aussies? Do you not agree that removing as many guns from the street as possible on a voluntary basis is a good thing? We've had many local buy backs in our area and I don't recall any 2nd amendment outcry or NRA demonstrations. What are you afraid of Rat? MP I know you have a lot of time on your hands, I unfortunately do not. It's been a long time since I read what the Aussies did, but I recall they have very strict gun laws and also retroactively made certain guns illegal and essentially paying citizens the value of the guns. Additionally, I believe you have to give a reason to buy a gun, essentially stating why you want it. And I believe self protection isn't an acceptable answer. It was essentially confiscation. It wouldn't fly in this country because of the second amendment. I think you are mischaracterizing the Aussie law. I also remember the uk doing something similar. Regarding the statistics, I have no doubt that deaths by gun went down, a good thing for sure, but at what price. (Also those deaths counts include, suicide by gun, legal homicide, hunting accidents etc.. ) In this country it would be at the cost of our 2nd amendment protected freedom. It doesn't mean much to you. You continue to not accept the meaning behind it - even though you provided a link that supported my argument. |
|
