With gun control thread's being so rare here, I find that my only option for an answere is to make a new thread to ask this one question: How many gun ( shootings/ violence ) crimes are committed by law abiding citizens vrs mentally unstable/ criminals and how will gun control stop the mentally unstable/ criminals from hurting people? Seems like EVERY gun crime I have seen are committed by gangs, criminals and defective people. In CA we already have background checks, right or wrong or indifferent, this system is all I know and would change a few things about it, but for the most part I am OK with it. How is restricting my rights to own guns going to stop criminals from doing harm to others?
It's not about stopping the violence, it's about disarmament.It always has been. The second amendment is a thorn in the side of the UN. The politicians fear the teeth of the constitution, it makes thier enslavery of the citizenry impossible.
Sure, you could shoot down those silent black UN helicopters.
Man, you're paranoid...
Yes actually i can. I work on blackhawks and chinooks. I know thier weekness. It's the meat servo, also know as a pilot. The glass also isnt bullet proof. Just saying. You would be suprised what an armed imbeded force with military training is capable of. Look at afganistan vs russia, Afganistan vs America. Don't dismiss it or else be a fool.
Yes actually i can. I work on blackhawks and chinooks. I know thier weekness. It's the meat servo, also know as a pilot. The glass also isnt bullet proof. Just saying. You would be suprised what an armed imbeded force with military training is capable of. Look at afganistan vs russia, Afganistan vs America. Don't dismiss it or else be a fool.
Always refreshing when an expert can educate a fool.
handle them like cars register & re-register every year with updated ballistics checks carry insurance on them to pay for the damage they will do licenses to aquire licenes can be revoked keys to use them
anyways - you will NEVER stop someone from getting a gun, because a gun is super simple machine, that ANYONE with basic skills can fabricate.
Yes actually i can. I work on blackhawks and chinooks. I know thier weekness. It's the meat servo, also know as a pilot. The glass also isnt bullet proof. Just saying. You would be suprised what an armed imbeded force with military training is capable of. Look at afganistan vs russia, Afganistan vs America. Don't dismiss it or else be a fool.
Note to self: I really have to start using those [sarcasm]...[/sarcasm] tags.
Of course one can shoot down a helicopter. IMO the UN as an institution doesn't care much about the 2nd amendment of the US constitution. About as much as it cares about what the constitutions of other countries say. That's why I think you're paranoid.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 06-19-2014).]
You have to realize that the laws promulgated by the Feds are the minimum. Most states have additions to what the Federal government has. As well, not every state has an analogue of the 2nd amendment within their respective constitutions...New York being an excellent example. The irony here is that it is also the birthplace of the NRA.
If all of the multitude of laws pertaining to the ownership of firearms were enforced, it would exclude a number of "IFFY" individuals from legally obtaining firearms. Unfortunately, the different laws appear to be enforced unevenly across the country and then in some cases, information which could make a difference is not provided to the database which keeps track of people who shouldn't have access to weapons. (Yes I said it). Not all law enforcement agencies submit information to the federal database and because of HIPAA, medical information relating to mental stability or lack there of doesn't always get input into the system. In fact, one Federal court, (I want to say the Supreme Court, but I'm not 100% sure of that),has stated that filling out the information on the "Yellow Sheet" can constitute a 5th amendment issue if a felon or one who has been confined to a mental institution or has been served with a domestic abuse charge fills it out completly.
Whenever you see comments about the "Gun Show" loophole, what they are referring to is the sale of a firearm from one individual to another, outside the confines of a gunshow. Dealers can't afford to not have all the paperwork matching the guns in their inventories. And any individual who sells more than a couple of guns a year IS a dealer. Person to person transactions have to rely on the seller having good instincts and being very careful with who they sell to.
Despite what some individuals on here seem to believe, there is actually very good cause for the ownership of firearms by citizens. The most recent "Militia Act" specifies 3 bodies, 1. The Federal Forces( To include Active and Reserve), 2. The State Guard forces(The Organized Militia) and 3, The Unorganized Militia composed of those individuals between 17 and 45 (Could extend that out to 55) who are not legally prohibited from possesing a firearm.
Hope this helps out. Jim H
[This message has been edited by J-Holland (edited 06-19-2014).]
IMO the UN as an institution doesn't care much about the 2nd amendment of the US constitution. About as much as it cares about what the constitutions of other countries say. That's why I think you're paranoid.
I think his point is that our countries founding documents and our honoring of their meaning is what keeps American citizens armed.
quote
Originally posted by FIEROPHREK: The politicians fear the teeth of the constitution, it makes thier enslavery of the citizenry impossible.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 06-19-2014).]
Seems like EVERY gun crime I have seen are committed by gangs, criminals and defective people.
That is a trick statement. Every crime is committed by a criminal.
Now while i dont have the % ( you can look it up on the NRA site if you like ) the % of gun crimes committed by people who originally legally purchased and could possess their firearm is extremely low. I my understanding is that its easily in the single digit %r range. The % is even lower when you compare legally owned 'non-crime' to legally owned 'pre-crime'. Less than a percent there. Most people with bad intent wont bother with legal routes, it only generates a paper trail they dont want.
Since a background check cant predict intent down the road ( perhaps decades ), changing them from how they work now now wont help any.
Yes actually i can. I work on blackhawks and chinooks. I know thier weekness. It's the meat servo, also know as a pilot. The glass also isnt bullet proof. Just saying. You would be suprised what an armed imbeded force with military training is capable of. Look at afganistan vs russia, Afganistan vs America. Don't dismiss it or else be a fool.
I agree, give me a 50, a bit of practice ( rusty little demand skills ) and a bit of warning that its coming ( well, we did say silent ) and i could take one out too. Problem is they can get to me before i can see them, with those damned rockets.
With gun control thread's being so rare here, I find that my only option for an answere is to make a new thread to ask this one question: How many gun ( shootings/ violence ) crimes are committed by law abiding citizens vrs mentally unstable/ criminals and how will gun control stop the mentally unstable/ criminals from hurting people? Seems like EVERY gun crime I have seen are committed by gangs, criminals and defective people. In CA we already have background checks, right or wrong or indifferent, this system is all I know and would change a few things about it, but for the most part I am OK with it. How is restricting my rights to own guns going to stop criminals from doing harm to others?
Works out well as most I associate with don't care about the UN or its fantasy authority.
As far as paranoid goes I think history and the state of affairs in this country and the world say we are not paranoid as much as you are delusional.
More to your point... I would say the vast majority of America could give two shits about UN's fantasy authority. We see them mostly as a joke that WE stood up. They act like a circus by including warlords and dictators to various humanitarian and socio-economic boards. When a violent dictator or a warlord AGREES that we need international gun confiscation, then you have your answer as to the legitimacy of the UN.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: More to your point... I would say the vast majority of America could give two shits about UN's fantasy authority. We see them mostly as a joke that WE stood up. They act like a circus by including warlords and dictators to various humanitarian and socio-economic boards. When a violent dictator or a warlord AGREES that we need international gun confiscation, then you have your answer as to the legitimacy of the UN.
Kind of like the Nobel Piece prize being given to someone who did not deserve it?
Kind of like the Nobel Piece prize being given to someone who did not deserve it?
Exactly, but liberals are VERY emotional... and almost always lack any kind of logic when it comes to a free market society. Giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize was because they wanted SO BADLY to be part of the "the first black president in America" that they just awarded it to him on the assumption he would make-happen the socialist liberal utopia around the world. We see now that it's simply NOT worked that way (again) and everyone can't seem to figure out why.
Works out well as most I associate with don't care about the UN or its fantasy authority.
So why are people such as FIEROPHREK so worried about it? That reminds me of the two-faced position that I see on this forum (and not only on here) about the president and the current administration: they are portrayed to be completely incompetent and idiotic and at the same time seemingly able to control pretty much everything and everybody in minute detail. Which is it now?
So why are people such as FIEROPHREK so worried about it? That reminds me of the two-faced position that I see on this forum (and not only on here) about the president and the current administration: they are portrayed to be completely incompetent and idiotic and at the same time seemingly able to control pretty much everything and everybody in minute detail. Which is it now?
Criminality is a crime. I am for background checks and the sorts. Not everyone should possess a firearm.
It is our government as a whole. Not just this administration. This is a well thought out process. Smarter folks than us are working.
So why are people such as FIEROPHREK so worried about it? That reminds me of the two-faced position that I see on this forum (and not only on here) about the president and the current administration: they are portrayed to be completely incompetent and idiotic and at the same time seemingly able to control pretty much everything and everybody in minute detail. Which is it now?
Their actions on the face of them are idiotic; how does raising taxes improve an economy? Why does a law supposed to reduce costs provide for subsidies? Why is mandating an article with features half the owners will never use a good idea? How does that help anyone? The point isn't to help, isn't to improve lives. It is to steer the country in a particular direction, toward more government control and less individual freedom. Like in the EU.
When the President answers questions with an obviously stupid statement, " I didn't know until I saw it in the paper, " but says openly , " I have a pen and a phone and will use them, " it becomes easy to understand the two positions. Not a contradiction at all.
Originally posted by heybjorn: It is to steer the country in a particular direction, toward more government control and less individual freedom. Like in the EU.
Before living in the US since 2008 (and before in 1994-95) I have lived in several European countries for years (Sweden, UK, Spain, Germany) and visited most of the others. Based on that experience I can tell you that in everyday life there's no less freedom there (except the gun issue, of course, which I personally don't mind). What experience do you base your opinion on?
(Cue the "go back" replies.....now!)
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 06-20-2014).]
Before living in the US since 2008 (and before in 1994-95) I have lived in several European countries for years (Sweden, UK, Spain, Germany) and visited most of the others. Based on that experience I can tell you that in everyday life there's no less freedom there (except the gun issue, of course, which I personally don't mind). What experience do you base your opinion on?
(Cue the "go back" replies.....now!)
If we want to remain as free as we are, are you saying we are wrong?
If we want to remain as free as we are, are you saying we are wrong?
Of course not. I just have the impression that actual knowledge of what "European style of government" is (if there is such a thing, we're talking up to 50 different countries here, depending on the geographical definition) is quite limited, somewhat diffuse and tainted by prejudice.
Of course not. I just have the impression that actual knowledge of what "European style of government" is (if there is such a thing, we're talking up to 50 different countries here, depending on the geographical definition) is quite limited, somewhat diffuse and tainted by prejudice.
Many average people dont think about other countries freedoms, they just see theirs in their own country disappear one by one and want that to stop. Even comparing ourselves to Canada I'd like to remain as free as we are, (more free than Canada.)
Many average people dont think about other countries freedoms, they just see theirs in their own country disappear one by one and want that to stop. Even comparing ourselves to Canada I'd like to remain as free as we are, (more free than Canada.)
And I think that's mostly a case of the "good old times". I would also argue that for a sizable part of the population the US today is a much freer country than it was just 1-2 generations ago.
Of course not. I just have the impression that actual knowledge of what "European style of government" is (if there is such a thing, we're talking up to 50 different countries here, depending on the geographical definition) is quite limited, somewhat diffuse and tainted by prejudice.
Originally posted by yellowstone: And I think that's mostly a case of the "good old times". I would also argue that for a sizable part of the population the US today is a much freer country than it was just 1-2 generations ago.
So you dont think any freedoms are really at risk, you think its a mental thing? I'm mostly referring to laws and taxes, etc that affect all Americans. Sure you could argue racial discrimination is better than it was in 1940.
So you dont think any freedoms are really at risk, you think its a mental thing? I'm mostly referring to laws and taxes, etc that affect all Americans. Sure you could argue racial discrimination is better than it was in 1940.
I could and I do (and it's probably much better than it was in 1965, too) and I think it makes a huge difference for the people affected by it. Plus, I don't think taxes are in the same ballpark as racial discrimination when it comes to personal freedoms.
I could and I do (and it's probably much better than it was in 1965, too) and I think it makes a huge difference for the people affected by it. Plus, I don't think taxes are in the same ballpark as racial discrimination when it comes to personal freedoms.
Exactly thats why I differentiated them from what I am referring to. You are talking about gains and I am talking about losses of freedom. You are the one who mentioned "good old days", my only deduction is that you are trying to infer that both gains and losses must occur at the same time?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 06-20-2014).]
You are talking about gains and I am talking about losses of freedom. You are the one who mentioned "good old days", my only deduction is that youi are trying to infer that both gains and losses must occur at the same time?
Yes, I believe that much of is perception. There's a reason the "good old times" are such a recurring and never ending theme. It's not true that "before" was always better but the older generation somehow always seems to think so. I think they equate "different" with "worse".
I also think that a lot has to do with the fact that life has gotten more complex. "Before", people "knew their place" in society. White males were on top by default (and not by any individual merit) and if you were female, gay or lesbian, black, of a religion other than the mainstream or a foreigner (especially non-white), you knew to better keep your head down or else...
The increase of individual freedoms for all those groups (together comprising a majority of the population BTW) and the resulting breakdown of traditional societal norms require more government action to keep things running smoothly. The government basically takes over functions from families, informal social organizations and churches.
Since the norms enforced by those entities are very often completely arbitrary, outdated and highly discriminatory I personally prefer government taking over those functions, as long as that government is accountable to the population on a local, regional and national level.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 06-20-2014).]
Its always been about confiscation. In Calif. there passing a law where all someone has to do is accuse you of being a nut and there go's your investment in guns.
Yes, I believe that much of is perception. There's a reason the "good old times" are such a recurring and never ending theme. It's not true that "before" was always better but the older generation somehow always seems to think so. I think they equate "different" with "worse".
I also think that a lot has to do with the fact that life has gotten more complex. "Before", people "knew their place" in society. White males were on top by default (and not by any individual merit) and if you were female, gay or lesbian, black, of a religion other than the mainstream or a foreigner (especially non-white), you knew to better keep your head down or else...
The increase of individual freedoms for all those groups (together comprising a majority of the population BTW) and the resulting breakdown of traditional societal norms require more government action to keep things running smoothly. The government basically takes over functions from families, informal social organizations and churches.
Since the norms enforced by those entities are very often completely arbitrary, outdated and highly discriminatory I personally prefer government taking over those functions, as long as that government is accountable to the population on a local, regional and national level.
I was going to reply that we should be able to talk about this while leaving racism and prejudice out. If we treated people equally it should be possible. Your analysis really points to why people who wish to remain free can easily be labelled racist. I am very much against the government taking over functions from families, informal social organizations and churches.
Originally posted by yellowstone: .. I also think that a lot has to do with the fact that life has gotten more complex. "Before", people "knew their place" in society. White males were on top by default (and not by any individual merit) and if you were female, gay or lesbian, black, of a religion other than the mainstream or a foreigner (especially non-white), you knew to better keep your head down or else...
The increase of individual freedoms for all those groups (together comprising a majority of the population BTW) and the resulting breakdown of traditional societal norms require more government action to keep things running smoothly. The government basically takes over functions from families, informal social organizations and churches. ..
If we are linking this with prejudice and racism... How do we bring this back to the gun subject, how does limiting, making difficult, or removing legal access to guns fit with the 'empowering the minorities' agenda? Wouldn't that equate to the agenda pushers making a point that minorities are a large part of the criminal element?
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: How is restricting my rights to own guns going to stop criminals from doing harm to others?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 06-20-2014).]
so, the only options here are complete abolishment or complete free for all?
no wonder y'all are so fu(ked up.
on the one side, complete abolishment, in order to reduce the pool of available weapons to imbeciles. on the other side, complete free-for-all, in the hopes that the imbeciles can be captured/killed in the act
what the common thread? imbeciles. the guns are irrelevant. its the imbeciles. the OPINION on guns is actually pointless. no one is "right".
You would be suprised what an armed imbeded force with military training is capable of. Look at afganistan vs russia, Afganistan vs America. Don't dismiss it or else be a fool.
) and i could take one out too. Problem is they can get to me before i can see them, with those damned rockets.
