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".
I agree with you. No extreme makes sense or is even practical. I'd also like to point out that no (western/democratic) country with strict gun legislation is without (legal civilian) guns.
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
[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.
I dont think it has an ice cubes chance in hell of becoming law. They would be granting the authority to any and every untrained persons to clinically diagnos other persons as mentally unstable, and as a result taking away that persons Constitutional rights. No, not gona happen like that. BUT, what this IS is a wake up call for election time. IF CA votes them back in, THEN we could see another attempt at gun confiscation that could be more affective.
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".
Not so much the good old days as the loss of rights, in this country we don't like people trampling on our rights or the constitution,.
I dont think it has an ice cubes chance in hell of becoming law..
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities: 1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose. 2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I go out with you", and take into account the fact that I went out with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.
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".
I think your missing the point? Few people are advocating for total unrestricted gun freedom. And I would say the same is true on the other end of gun restriction laws, few are advocating for total bans. Lets please be a bit more realistic about this. As I see this age old debate, people in America have a Constitutional right to own them. We as Americans do not need to give as reason to ANYBODY as to WHY we want them, OR how mant we want to own. That would be like asking "what do you want a car for and why do you need more than one?" Those questions are pointless, because we Americans have a RIGHT to own them.
The difference be between good guys having them and bad guys having rhem is huge. If you dont see the difference, then it truly is a waste of time discussing it here on PFF. This topic is around often enough to have shed light on even the most dence minds.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-20-2014).]
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I go out with you", and take into account the fact that I went out with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.
LOL, I have to give you credit for patience and a sense of humor. This sounds A LOT like Clinton explaining that he did not have sex.......
Originally posted by yellowstone: I'd also like to point out that no (western/democratic) country with strict gun legislation is without (legal civilian) guns.
That does affect the price of tea in China. When legal trumps Constitutional, we have a problem.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: LOL, I have to give you credit for patience and a sense of humor. This sounds A LOT like Clinton explaining that he did not have sex.......
This is why I titled this thread as it is. It is VERY DIFFICULT to stay on topic.
Yet it is analyzed and mentiond that they are tied together, so sort of are on topic in some folks view. So bringing them together hypothetically... the question is does the point of view work? The concept of the question even jives and links well to your OP.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 06-20-2014).]
Laws are based on "constitutional", it is a foundation you could say. Legal doesnt define constitutional. .. But what are your thoughts on my last question?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 06-20-2014).]
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: I think your missing the point? Few people are advocating for total unrestricted gun freedom. And I would say the same is true on the other end of gun restriction laws, few are advocating for total bans. Lets please be a bit more realistic about this. As I see this age old debate, people in America have a Constitutional right to own them. We as Americans do not need to give as reason to ANYBODY as to WHY we want them, OR how mant we want to own. That would be like asking "what do you want a car for and why do you need more than one?" Those questions are pointless, because we Americans have a RIGHT to own them.
The difference be between good guys having them and bad guys having rhem is huge. If you dont see the difference, then it truly is a waste of time discussing it here on PFF. This topic is around often enough to have shed light on even the most dence minds.
yup, yet - it always ends up the same place. I thru out suggestions earlier - not a peep. always comes back to "They wanna take away our guns!"
anyone who thinks bad guys are NOT gonna get guns if they want them is being silly. I can almost understand trying to reduce the pool of guns available to the "bad guys", but, at a pretty hefty cost to the "good guys". tho - I must say, I do not see that many who claim to be "the good guys" as actually being "good guys". but, thats not really the point either.
for me, treating guns like cars is a fine answer. register yearly, carry insurance, prove competency.
Originally posted by 2.5: 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?
Can't answer that because I don't understand your reasoning.
It was this question, right? Can't answer that because I don't understand your reasoning.
That is interesting because I think the question and the only answer I can fathom invalidates your reasoning. I'm not sure how else I can rephrase it. I am asking you to take your understanding of letting the government take freedoms from people in order to elevate minorities to the subject of gun control.
..The government basically takes over functions from families, informal social organizations and churches. ..
Is this something people actaully want? I just cannot get past this. This is so un-American. This is the opposite of what America should be. What the government will need to do in order to accomplish this is remove anything the citizen can use against it. Make them powerless, hold all control over them.
Originally posted by yellowstone: I can subscribe to that. Plus maybe a mechanism that prevents others than the registered owner firing the weapon.
That has been tried and to be honest I don't like the idea, many a time when an officer of the law runs out of ammo he may take a fallen comrades weapon and use it in his own defense or even one from a perp.
May sound fine in your mind but doesn't really work in the real world.
Is this something people actaully want? I just cannot get past this. This is so un-American. This is the opposite of what America should be. What the government will need to do in order to accomplish this is remove anything the citizen can use against it. Make them powerless, hold all control over them.
I was stating what I think is happening.
My personal opinion: - From churches: definitely - From informal social organizations: depends on the individual organization - From families: depends on the individual case
I think governments are more open to scrutiny (in principle) than the other entities and that's a good thing IMO.
That has been tried and to be honest I don't like the idea, many a time when an officer of the law runs out of ammo he may take a fallen comrades weapon and use it in his own defense or even one from a perp.
May sound fine in your mind but doesn't really work in the real world.
Steve
There are pros and cons to everything and they have to be weighted against each other. No solution is ever the perfect one. We can hopefully settle on the least bad one at some point.
yup, yet - it always ends up the same place. I thru out suggestions earlier - not a peep. always comes back to "They wanna take away our guns!"
words who thinks bad guys are NOT gonna get guns if they want them is being silly. I can almost understand trying to reduce the pool of guns available to the "bad guys", but, at a pretty hefty cost to the "good guys". tho - I must say, I do not see that many who claim to be "the good guys" as actually being "good guys". but, thats not really the point either.
for me, treating guns like cars is a fine answer. register yearly, carry insurance, prove competency.
So, hypothetically speaking, If I fulfill all of those demands, I could buy full automatic machine guns with belt feed 1000 round ammo boxs. 50 cal Sniper rifle for hobby and a full auto compact 9mm with two 30 round mags for cary conceal?
There are pros and cons to everything and they have to be weighted against each other. No solution is ever the perfect one. We can hopefully settle on the least bad one at some point.
There are pros and cons to everything and they have to be weighted against each other. No solution is ever the perfect one. We can hopefully settle on the least bad one at some point.
We already have a system like this. Guns arnt legally sold to the "bad guys ". Making laws to restrict law abiding citizens IS the extreme.
Originally posted by pokeyfiero: I agree! **** that stupid 2nd Amendment!
the 2nd has nothing to do with it. the 2nd does not say ANYTHING about someone else firing the arms which you bear. which means that area is wholly open to ANY and ALL infringements.
and as to the scenario of the cop running out, and grabbing a fallen cops weapon - I would think with transponder based keys you could easily have squad keys, and so on.
and, as to 50 cal with belt fed mega rounds - yes - by the 2nd - you should be able to have that as is anyways. as with chemical, atomic, biological & nuclear arms.
the 2nd allows for personal acquisition of WMDs. and, it also makes no mention of people who are jailed from bearing arms. seems like that would be the place you'd want one the most, eh?
the 2nd has nothing to do with it. the 2nd does not say ANYTHING about someone else firing the arms which you bear. which means that area is wholly open to ANY and ALL infringements.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing you?
What is your argument?
That my neighbor can't use my gun if I allow it?
Does the 2nd Amendment not apply to him also. Is he somehow different. He didn't steal my gun. No crime has been committed. Your Logic seems to be everything is a crime unless you state it isn't.
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
This is why we need sarcasm tags. With as loony as some people are I can't tell if you're serious about those "suggestions".
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.
The problem I see with your view of that "European style of government" is that it's based on the snap shots in time when you were there. Had your experiences in Sweden, UK, Spain and Germany taken place when they were under totalitarian rule or attack, your views might be different. Even your experiences in Cuba, I'm sure the day to day lives of people go on without much complaint - but within the restrictions imposed upon them by the Castro regime and affects of the embargo.
I try to take a long view with regard to governments. Today's administration may be benevolent, but that doesn't mean tomorrow's will. We hear outrage over deaths in places like Sandy Hook, and ignore the weekly death totals in places like Chicago. Both Sandy Hook and Chicago have laws in place to prevent those crimes, but all a law can really do is provide for punishment after it's been broken. Where is the outrage about the ongoing death toll in Chicago? It's only mentioned when prompted by an incident somewhere else.
the 2nd has nothing to do with it. the 2nd does not say ANYTHING about someone else firing the arms which you bear. which means that area is wholly open to ANY and ALL infringements.
and as to the scenario of the cop running out, and grabbing a fallen cops weapon - I would think with transponder based keys you could easily have squad keys, and so on.
and, as to 50 cal with belt fed mega rounds - yes - by the 2nd - you should be able to have that as is anyways. as with chemical, atomic, biological & nuclear arms.
the 2nd allows for personal acquisition of WMDs. and, it also makes no mention of people who are jailed from bearing arms. seems like that would be the place you'd want one the most, eh?
Not sure what I would do with mustard gas or a nuke but I dont think I could afford a nuke anyways, But I sense a little sarcasm in your comment?
I could never afford one either, nor would i actually want it, but its my right ...
I would differ with you on this, but at this piont nukes are an unrealistic analogy. Chemical and biological weapons (sole purpose of killing masses of people) IS NOT a right granted to us by the 2nd. Guns CAN kill in mass, but can be argued that it is not their sole purpose.
Chemical and biological weapons (sole purpose of killing masses of people) IS NOT a right granted to us by the 2nd.
Care to show me where it mentions limits in the 2nd amendment? ( well, except for limits on the government.. you know what i'm asking )
Also, the 2nd amendment does NOT grant us the right. We already have it. THe amendment prohibits the government from infringing on it. Claiming that it grants us anything is liberal speak.
[This message has been edited by Nurb432 (edited 06-20-2014).]
Care to show me where it mentions limits in the 2nd amendment? ( well, except for limits on the government.. you know what i'm asking )
Also, the 2nd amendment does NOT grant us the right. We already have it. THe amendment prohibits the government from infringing on it. Claiming that it grants us anything is liberal speak.
It's not up to me to prove or show you that we have the "right" to kill masses of people. I already know this IS NOT true.
This a VERY simple case of deduction. A weapon that only has one purpose (mass killing) IS not a right. I would be up to YOU to convince me and others that the Constitution grants Americans the right to own possess weapons that have a sole purpose of killing indescriminatly masses of people.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-20-2014).]
It's not up to to prove or show you that we have the "right" to kill masses of people. I already know this IS NOT true.
This a VERY simple case of deduction. A weapon that only has one purpose (mass killing) IS not a right.
I could say so much, but i did promise not to be an ass. Ill just leave it at this, and move on: You are clueless about the concept of rights. Our founding fathers would be ashamed.
