Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
Eureka, I think I've discovered THEE biggest pussy on the entire planet. Boo freaking hoo.
Arizona Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) Shot During Public Event
- Thread starter mykevermin
- Start date
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Owning a gun is a right. Driving is a privilege. You know the difference right? Should you have to pay language insurance for the stupid bullshit you say?[/QUOTE]
If you want to get back to "things the founding fathers didn't think of when they drafted the constitution", what better thing to point at?
Do you think driving would be a privilege if cars were around back then?
If you want to get back to "things the founding fathers didn't think of when they drafted the constitution", what better thing to point at?
Do you think driving would be a privilege if cars were around back then?
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
Hard to say. They certainly didn't make it a right for you to travel by horse and buggie. Then again, one could argue that our ability to travel helps us in our quest for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but I personally think that's a bit of a stretch.
So I guess my answer is, "I don't know."
So I guess my answer is, "I don't know."
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Temporaryscars']You guys all lose credibility when you push for giving more money to insurance companies. What a joke. So I have to pay money because other people are insane/irresponsible? Give me a break.[/QUOTE]
I'll tackle the first of the two strawmen you made in one post. This is not true, but the idea of insurance is one proposal (which may or may not be perfect) to lay out, quite explicitly, that there are risks and costs of owning firearms. Those who enhance those risks are those who own firearms, and therefore they should shoulder a portion of that enhanced risk.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Owning a gun is a right. Driving is a privilege. You know the difference right? Should you have to pay language insurance for the stupid bullshit you say?[/QUOTE]
You're falling back on making an essentialist second amendment argument again, which is already something you admitted you are not. Owning a gun is a right, but that's doesn't negate the possibility of paying for insurance on said right. There are costs to that right, otherwise it would logically follow that firearms and ammunition should be free of any cost. So why not make a portion of that cost insurance for the incidental damage, injuries, and fatalities that occur because people exercise that right?
Much of what you say seems unwilling to recognize that there are substantial collateral costs to the second amendment right. It's insincere for you to evoke the strawman that we want to take all your guns. That's not true. Have your guns, please. But also accept responsibility for the collective consequences of your freedom. You seem to act as if there are no negative ramifications of second amendment rights. You don't truly believe that, however.
Lastly, the dividing line b/w "right" and "privilege" is not the dividing line b/w "not insurable" and "insurable." It's yet another logical fallacy to assume so.
More to the point, the idea of insurance is one that emphasizes responsible gun ownership and use. Responsibility is already one thing you've admitted to (indirectly) as a proxy for defining who should and should not be permitted to exercise their second amendment rights to owning arms. Despite the fact that the Constitution does not place any limits on the second amendment, you (and many others) already admit that persons such as ex-felons and those diagnosed with certain mental disorders fall outside the purview of the second amendment. While you may be making a sensible claim there (and I think to some degree you are), the line that separates who you think should and should not own guns boils down to responsibility: those who have it and those who lack it, demonstrated either from their willfull disregard of it (ex-felons) and those who may lack the cognitive ability, legally, to be responsible for themselves. So it stands to reason that the idea of insurance is compliant with your own views on the second amendment: a view that deviates from originalist Constitutional thought, and one that requires those who exercise their second amendment rights demonstrate a modicum of responsibility for exercising that right.
I know you don't like the idea of paying more - but if so, state that. Because, ideologically, the idea of insurance matches up quite nicely with your views on who the second amendment applies to.
I'll tackle the first of the two strawmen you made in one post. This is not true, but the idea of insurance is one proposal (which may or may not be perfect) to lay out, quite explicitly, that there are risks and costs of owning firearms. Those who enhance those risks are those who own firearms, and therefore they should shoulder a portion of that enhanced risk.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Owning a gun is a right. Driving is a privilege. You know the difference right? Should you have to pay language insurance for the stupid bullshit you say?[/QUOTE]
You're falling back on making an essentialist second amendment argument again, which is already something you admitted you are not. Owning a gun is a right, but that's doesn't negate the possibility of paying for insurance on said right. There are costs to that right, otherwise it would logically follow that firearms and ammunition should be free of any cost. So why not make a portion of that cost insurance for the incidental damage, injuries, and fatalities that occur because people exercise that right?
Much of what you say seems unwilling to recognize that there are substantial collateral costs to the second amendment right. It's insincere for you to evoke the strawman that we want to take all your guns. That's not true. Have your guns, please. But also accept responsibility for the collective consequences of your freedom. You seem to act as if there are no negative ramifications of second amendment rights. You don't truly believe that, however.
Lastly, the dividing line b/w "right" and "privilege" is not the dividing line b/w "not insurable" and "insurable." It's yet another logical fallacy to assume so.
More to the point, the idea of insurance is one that emphasizes responsible gun ownership and use. Responsibility is already one thing you've admitted to (indirectly) as a proxy for defining who should and should not be permitted to exercise their second amendment rights to owning arms. Despite the fact that the Constitution does not place any limits on the second amendment, you (and many others) already admit that persons such as ex-felons and those diagnosed with certain mental disorders fall outside the purview of the second amendment. While you may be making a sensible claim there (and I think to some degree you are), the line that separates who you think should and should not own guns boils down to responsibility: those who have it and those who lack it, demonstrated either from their willfull disregard of it (ex-felons) and those who may lack the cognitive ability, legally, to be responsible for themselves. So it stands to reason that the idea of insurance is compliant with your own views on the second amendment: a view that deviates from originalist Constitutional thought, and one that requires those who exercise their second amendment rights demonstrate a modicum of responsibility for exercising that right.
I know you don't like the idea of paying more - but if so, state that. Because, ideologically, the idea of insurance matches up quite nicely with your views on who the second amendment applies to.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Hard to say. They certainly didn't make it a right for you to travel by horse and buggie. Then again, one could argue that our ability to travel helps us in our quest for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but I personally think that's a bit of a stretch.
So I guess my answer is, "I don't know."[/QUOTE]
That's the exact thing I am trying to get across. They had no idea that the horse and buggy could be replaced by a machine. They had no idea technology would give us a mode of transportation that could easily reach 100 mph. It just didn't cross their mind because at the time, it was if you owned a horse, you could ride that horse. I don't think there was a limitation on who could ride a horse or a requirement other than owning a horse.
Same thing with guns. When they wrote that, did they have any idea what would happen with the evolution of the gun? That the rifle would hold so many bullets/become automatic and that a handgun could become so accurate? That the price of entry would become so low (the Glock-19 Jared bought was $500 plus $60 for the extended clip and I don't know how much for the bullets)? That, like somebody posted earlier, the gap between the effectiveness of weaponry owned by citizens compared to the government would become so wide?
Nobody can say for sure but they are things that need to be addressed in the future.
Regarding "you just want to ban all guns", personally, I think all handguns should be banned and we should be limited to rifles (for hunting) and shotguns (for home self-defense)...and that's coming from a guy who grew up with a NRA lifetime member who carries his handgun everywhere and has enough guns to arm my entire neighborhood. (-edit Although, obviously, I don't really care that much about the whole thing one way or another)
So I guess my answer is, "I don't know."[/QUOTE]
That's the exact thing I am trying to get across. They had no idea that the horse and buggy could be replaced by a machine. They had no idea technology would give us a mode of transportation that could easily reach 100 mph. It just didn't cross their mind because at the time, it was if you owned a horse, you could ride that horse. I don't think there was a limitation on who could ride a horse or a requirement other than owning a horse.
Same thing with guns. When they wrote that, did they have any idea what would happen with the evolution of the gun? That the rifle would hold so many bullets/become automatic and that a handgun could become so accurate? That the price of entry would become so low (the Glock-19 Jared bought was $500 plus $60 for the extended clip and I don't know how much for the bullets)? That, like somebody posted earlier, the gap between the effectiveness of weaponry owned by citizens compared to the government would become so wide?
Nobody can say for sure but they are things that need to be addressed in the future.
Regarding "you just want to ban all guns", personally, I think all handguns should be banned and we should be limited to rifles (for hunting) and shotguns (for home self-defense)...and that's coming from a guy who grew up with a NRA lifetime member who carries his handgun everywhere and has enough guns to arm my entire neighborhood. (-edit Although, obviously, I don't really care that much about the whole thing one way or another)
[quote name='Sporadic']
Same thing with guns. When they wrote that, did they have any idea what would happen with the evolution of the gun? That the rifle would hold so many bullets/become automatic and that a handgun could become so accurate? That the price of entry would become so low (the Glock-19 Jared bought was $500 plus $60 for the extended clip and I don't know how much for the bullets)? That, like somebody posted earlier, the gap between the effectiveness of weaponry owned by citizens compared to the government would become so wide?
Nobody can say for sure but they are things that need to be addressed in the future.
[/QUOTE]
And they had no idea that things like tanks, airplanes and missiles would make the notion of "the right to bear arms" being any sort of protection from government tyranny a complete farce.
Same thing with guns. When they wrote that, did they have any idea what would happen with the evolution of the gun? That the rifle would hold so many bullets/become automatic and that a handgun could become so accurate? That the price of entry would become so low (the Glock-19 Jared bought was $500 plus $60 for the extended clip and I don't know how much for the bullets)? That, like somebody posted earlier, the gap between the effectiveness of weaponry owned by citizens compared to the government would become so wide?
Nobody can say for sure but they are things that need to be addressed in the future.
[/QUOTE]
And they had no idea that things like tanks, airplanes and missiles would make the notion of "the right to bear arms" being any sort of protection from government tyranny a complete farce.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']I'll tackle the first of the two strawmen you made in one post. This is not true, but the idea of insurance is one proposal (which may or may not be perfect) to lay out, quite explicitly, that there are risks and costs of owning firearms. Those who enhance those risks are those who own firearms, and therefore they should shoulder a portion of that enhanced risk.
[/QUOTE]
That's absurd. You could say that about anything you own. You could argue that were are costs to owning knifes, baseball bats, chairs, step ladders, roller blades, plastic bags, chainsaws, hammers, etc, etc, but should you be expected to pay some sort of insurance on EVERY SINGLE THING!? Just because there are morons out there that misuse things DOESN'T mean that those who use them properly have to pay for those that don't.
[quote name='mykevermin']
You're falling back on making an essentialist second amendment argument again, which is already something you admitted you are not. Owning a gun is a right, but that's doesn't negate the possibility of paying for insurance on said right. There are costs to that right, otherwise it would logically follow that firearms and ammunition should be free of any cost. So why not make a portion of that cost insurance for the incidental damage, injuries, and fatalities that occur because people exercise that right?
Much of what you say seems unwilling to recognize that there are substantial collateral costs to the second amendment right. It's insincere for you to evoke the strawman that we want to take all your guns. That's not true. Have your guns, please. But also accept responsibility for the collective consequences of your freedom. You seem to act as if there are no negative ramifications of second amendment rights. You don't truly believe that, however.[/QUOTE]
Again, why do I have to cover the costs of people who don't exercise good judgment? I go the extra mile when it comes to gun ownership. I purchase the guns, I buy the ammo that increases in price on an almost daily basis, I bought the gun safe, I track down and buy overpriced prebans, I paid my $300+ to get my handgun permit and I pay the $3 freaking dollars every time I have one added to my permit.
Owning a gun is a right, but that doesn't mean that you can't have those rights revoked. If you're somebody who has demonstrated that they have no regard for the rights of others (ie criminals), then you LOSE your rights. In some cases, it's fair, in some it's not, but you have to realize that those rules came about as a way of tightening gun laws.
[quote name='mykevermin']
Lastly, the dividing line b/w "right" and "privilege" is not the dividing line b/w "not insurable" and "insurable." It's yet another logical fallacy to assume so.[/QUOTE]
Of course it is. You could argue that speech leads to violence and death. So should we be required to pay speech insurance? Why not? I mean, THERE ARE COSTS BY GOLLY!
Making it so you have to pay insurance does two things. One, it creates a registry for gun owners which the courts have already defined as unconstitutional. Second, you're pretty much saying that only those with money have the right to protect themselves. You're like all those anti-gun politicians who want to ban guns for everyone...except, of course, themselves or their security detail. Only those who can afford security guards have the right to protect themselves.
Insurance is already available. If somebody wants it, by all means. But to force people to continually pay for the right to protect themselves goes against all logic and, once again, only punishes law abiding citizens and does NOTHING to stem illegal use.
Oh, you edited your post. I never said you had to be responsible to own a gun. Just not insane or a criminal. You should be responsible, but the risks you take is between you and your local law enforcement agencies.
[/QUOTE]
That's absurd. You could say that about anything you own. You could argue that were are costs to owning knifes, baseball bats, chairs, step ladders, roller blades, plastic bags, chainsaws, hammers, etc, etc, but should you be expected to pay some sort of insurance on EVERY SINGLE THING!? Just because there are morons out there that misuse things DOESN'T mean that those who use them properly have to pay for those that don't.
[quote name='mykevermin']
You're falling back on making an essentialist second amendment argument again, which is already something you admitted you are not. Owning a gun is a right, but that's doesn't negate the possibility of paying for insurance on said right. There are costs to that right, otherwise it would logically follow that firearms and ammunition should be free of any cost. So why not make a portion of that cost insurance for the incidental damage, injuries, and fatalities that occur because people exercise that right?
Much of what you say seems unwilling to recognize that there are substantial collateral costs to the second amendment right. It's insincere for you to evoke the strawman that we want to take all your guns. That's not true. Have your guns, please. But also accept responsibility for the collective consequences of your freedom. You seem to act as if there are no negative ramifications of second amendment rights. You don't truly believe that, however.[/QUOTE]
Again, why do I have to cover the costs of people who don't exercise good judgment? I go the extra mile when it comes to gun ownership. I purchase the guns, I buy the ammo that increases in price on an almost daily basis, I bought the gun safe, I track down and buy overpriced prebans, I paid my $300+ to get my handgun permit and I pay the $3 freaking dollars every time I have one added to my permit.
Owning a gun is a right, but that doesn't mean that you can't have those rights revoked. If you're somebody who has demonstrated that they have no regard for the rights of others (ie criminals), then you LOSE your rights. In some cases, it's fair, in some it's not, but you have to realize that those rules came about as a way of tightening gun laws.
[quote name='mykevermin']
Lastly, the dividing line b/w "right" and "privilege" is not the dividing line b/w "not insurable" and "insurable." It's yet another logical fallacy to assume so.[/QUOTE]
Of course it is. You could argue that speech leads to violence and death. So should we be required to pay speech insurance? Why not? I mean, THERE ARE COSTS BY GOLLY!
Making it so you have to pay insurance does two things. One, it creates a registry for gun owners which the courts have already defined as unconstitutional. Second, you're pretty much saying that only those with money have the right to protect themselves. You're like all those anti-gun politicians who want to ban guns for everyone...except, of course, themselves or their security detail. Only those who can afford security guards have the right to protect themselves.
Insurance is already available. If somebody wants it, by all means. But to force people to continually pay for the right to protect themselves goes against all logic and, once again, only punishes law abiding citizens and does NOTHING to stem illegal use.
Oh, you edited your post. I never said you had to be responsible to own a gun. Just not insane or a criminal. You should be responsible, but the risks you take is between you and your local law enforcement agencies.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='Sporadic']That's the exact thing I am trying to get across. They had no idea that the horse and buggy could be replaced by a machine. They had no idea technology would give us a mode of transportation that could easily reach 100 mph. It just didn't cross their mind because at the time, it was if you owned a horse, you could ride that horse. I don't think there was a limitation on who could ride a horse or a requirement other than owning a horse.
Same thing with guns. When they wrote that, did they have any idea what would happen with the evolution of the gun? That the rifle would hold so many bullets/become automatic and that a handgun could become so accurate? That the price of entry would become so low (the Glock-19 Jared bought was $500 plus $60 for the extended clip and I don't know how much for the bullets)? That, like somebody posted earlier, the gap between the effectiveness of weaponry owned by citizens compared to the government would become so wide?
Nobody can say for sure but they are things that need to be addressed in the future. Regarding "you just want to ban all guns", personally, I think all handguns should be banned and we should be limited to rifles (for hunting) and shotguns (for home self-defense)[/QUOTE]
This just proves that you're once again ignoring the reason why the second amendment was created. It was to empower the people against the threat of a government that becomes tyrannical. Technological advances have no bearing on that what-so-ever. Our government has magazines that hold 30 rounds. So should we. Jefferson said it best when he said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
We don't need nukes or tanks or any of that other stuff for the government to fear us. But to be armed with shotguns and hunting rifles? Give me a break.
[quote name='Sporadic']
...and that's coming from a guy who grew up with a NRA lifetime member who carries his handgun everywhere and has enough guns to arm my entire neighborhood. (-edit Although, obviously, I don't really care that much about the whole thing one way or another)[/QUOTE]
Ah, so we get to the heart of the issue. You're still rebelling against daddy. How old are you?
Same thing with guns. When they wrote that, did they have any idea what would happen with the evolution of the gun? That the rifle would hold so many bullets/become automatic and that a handgun could become so accurate? That the price of entry would become so low (the Glock-19 Jared bought was $500 plus $60 for the extended clip and I don't know how much for the bullets)? That, like somebody posted earlier, the gap between the effectiveness of weaponry owned by citizens compared to the government would become so wide?
Nobody can say for sure but they are things that need to be addressed in the future. Regarding "you just want to ban all guns", personally, I think all handguns should be banned and we should be limited to rifles (for hunting) and shotguns (for home self-defense)[/QUOTE]
This just proves that you're once again ignoring the reason why the second amendment was created. It was to empower the people against the threat of a government that becomes tyrannical. Technological advances have no bearing on that what-so-ever. Our government has magazines that hold 30 rounds. So should we. Jefferson said it best when he said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
We don't need nukes or tanks or any of that other stuff for the government to fear us. But to be armed with shotguns and hunting rifles? Give me a break.
[quote name='Sporadic']
...and that's coming from a guy who grew up with a NRA lifetime member who carries his handgun everywhere and has enough guns to arm my entire neighborhood. (-edit Although, obviously, I don't really care that much about the whole thing one way or another)[/QUOTE]
Ah, so we get to the heart of the issue. You're still rebelling against daddy. How old are you?
[quote name='Temporaryscars']You could argue that were are costs to owning knifes, baseball bats, chairs, step ladders, roller blades, plastic bags, chainsaws, hammers, etc, etc, but should you be expected to pay some sort of insurance on EVERY SINGLE THING!? Just because there are morons out there that misuse things DOESN'T mean that those who use them properly have to pay for those that don't. [/QUOTE]
Not really since all of those thing have legitimate uses besides injuring other people.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Again, why do I have to cover the costs of people who don't exercise good judgment? I go the extra mile when it comes to gun ownership. I purchase the guns, I buy the ammo that increases in price on an almost daily basis, I bought the gun safe, I track down and buy overpriced prebans, I paid my $300+ to get my handgun permit and I pay the $3 freaking dollars every time I have one added to my permit.
[/QUOTE]
Again, why do you feel the need to purchase so many guns? How many do you have to have before it is enough for you? Why pay the premium for "prebans"?
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Insurance is already available. If somebody wants it, by all means. But to force people to continually pay for the right to protect themselves goes against all logic and, once again, only punishes law abiding citizens and does NOTHING to stem illegal use.[/QUOTE]
Does nothing to stem illegal use but the money can be put towards useful programs like a victim compensation fund, law enforcement, gun safety/training programs like dmaul said.
Not really since all of those thing have legitimate uses besides injuring other people.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Again, why do I have to cover the costs of people who don't exercise good judgment? I go the extra mile when it comes to gun ownership. I purchase the guns, I buy the ammo that increases in price on an almost daily basis, I bought the gun safe, I track down and buy overpriced prebans, I paid my $300+ to get my handgun permit and I pay the $3 freaking dollars every time I have one added to my permit.
[/QUOTE]
Again, why do you feel the need to purchase so many guns? How many do you have to have before it is enough for you? Why pay the premium for "prebans"?
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Insurance is already available. If somebody wants it, by all means. But to force people to continually pay for the right to protect themselves goes against all logic and, once again, only punishes law abiding citizens and does NOTHING to stem illegal use.[/QUOTE]
Does nothing to stem illegal use but the money can be put towards useful programs like a victim compensation fund, law enforcement, gun safety/training programs like dmaul said.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='Sporadic']Not really since all of those thing have legitimate uses besides injuring other people.
[/QUOTE]
That's funny. I own guns and I haven't used a single one to injure anyone. Who gets to decide what has a legitimate use and what doesn't? Why do you need a knife? Can't you use scissors? Why do you need a hammer? Can't you just use a rock?
[quote name='Sporadic']
Again, why do you feel the need to purchase so many guns? How many do you have to have before it is enough for you? Why pay the premium for "prebans"?
[/QUOTE]
I don't feel a "need" to purchase so many guns, I purchase them because I like them. Why do you feel the need to purchase to many video games? How many do you have to have before you've had enough?
While owning a gun is a right guaranteed by our governing documents, it's also a hobby. Keep that in mind.
As far as prebans go, I have to, it's the law if I want anything over 10 rounds.
[quote name='Sporadic']
Does nothing to stem illegal use but the money can be put towards useful programs like a victim compensation fund, law enforcement, gun safety/training programs like dmaul said.[/QUOTE]
So because I want to be able to go to the range and target shoot and protect my family and use my guns in otherwise legals ways as guaranteed to me by our constitution, that means I have to pay money to people who are victimized by criminals? Yeah, that makes total sense. Should we pay reparations too? I mean, I've never owned slaves, but some white people used to and since I'm white, I have to pay for their shit.
[/QUOTE]
That's funny. I own guns and I haven't used a single one to injure anyone. Who gets to decide what has a legitimate use and what doesn't? Why do you need a knife? Can't you use scissors? Why do you need a hammer? Can't you just use a rock?
[quote name='Sporadic']
Again, why do you feel the need to purchase so many guns? How many do you have to have before it is enough for you? Why pay the premium for "prebans"?
[/QUOTE]
I don't feel a "need" to purchase so many guns, I purchase them because I like them. Why do you feel the need to purchase to many video games? How many do you have to have before you've had enough?
While owning a gun is a right guaranteed by our governing documents, it's also a hobby. Keep that in mind.
As far as prebans go, I have to, it's the law if I want anything over 10 rounds.
[quote name='Sporadic']
Does nothing to stem illegal use but the money can be put towards useful programs like a victim compensation fund, law enforcement, gun safety/training programs like dmaul said.[/QUOTE]
So because I want to be able to go to the range and target shoot and protect my family and use my guns in otherwise legals ways as guaranteed to me by our constitution, that means I have to pay money to people who are victimized by criminals? Yeah, that makes total sense. Should we pay reparations too? I mean, I've never owned slaves, but some white people used to and since I'm white, I have to pay for their shit.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']This just proves that you're once again ignoring the reason why the second amendment was created. It was to empower the people against the threat of a government that becomes tyrannical. Technological advances have no bearing on that what-so-ever. Our government has magazines that hold 30 rounds. So should we. Jefferson said it best when he said "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
We don't need nukes or tanks or any of that other stuff for the government to fear us. But to be armed with shotguns and hunting rifles? Give me a break. [/QUOTE]
Bullshit, the government doesn't fear us at all. They are currently
ing us pretty hard and nobody is doing nothing. Minimal protests, which get minimal media coverage, at the most. Why aren't in you in the streets fighting when the courts say it is ok for them to put a GPS tracker on your car or that they don't need a warrant to get your text messages? Where were you three years ago when this was going on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy Your fourth amendment rights are being eroded every single day.
Where is the fight? Where is the government's fear?
And don't get me wrong, I don't want you to actually pick up arms but I do want to poke a massive hole in your bullshit "I need that 30 bullet clip for my handgun so the government stays in check. It fears its citizens!" fantasy you have going in your head.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Ah, so we get to the heart of the issue. You're still rebelling against daddy. How old are you?[/QUOTE]
lol yeah right captain
i just don't see the point of having a weapon that can be concealed so easily and cause so much damage
if jared had a rifle or a shotgun (since arizona is an open carry state) would he have been able to get so close to the congresswomen or kill so many people? i doubt it
We don't need nukes or tanks or any of that other stuff for the government to fear us. But to be armed with shotguns and hunting rifles? Give me a break. [/QUOTE]
Bullshit, the government doesn't fear us at all. They are currently
ing us pretty hard and nobody is doing nothing. Minimal protests, which get minimal media coverage, at the most. Why aren't in you in the streets fighting when the courts say it is ok for them to put a GPS tracker on your car or that they don't need a warrant to get your text messages? Where were you three years ago when this was going on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy Your fourth amendment rights are being eroded every single day. Where is the fight? Where is the government's fear?
And don't get me wrong, I don't want you to actually pick up arms but I do want to poke a massive hole in your bullshit "I need that 30 bullet clip for my handgun so the government stays in check. It fears its citizens!" fantasy you have going in your head.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Ah, so we get to the heart of the issue. You're still rebelling against daddy. How old are you?[/QUOTE]
lol yeah right captain
i just don't see the point of having a weapon that can be concealed so easily and cause so much damage
if jared had a rifle or a shotgun (since arizona is an open carry state) would he have been able to get so close to the congresswomen or kill so many people? i doubt it
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
Oh, and on a final note, I already pay a shit ton of TAXES on all that shit I buy. Guns, ammo and accessories. That tax money goes to pay for police and all that other bullshit. So there you go. There's your money. After all, this is a money grab.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='Sporadic']Bullshit, the government doesn't fear us at all. They are currently ing us pretty hard and nobody is doing nothing. Minimal protests, which get minimal media coverage, at the most. Why aren't in you in the streets fighting when the courts say it is ok for them to put a GPS tracker on your car or that they don't need a warrant to get your text messages? Where were you three years ago when this was going on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy Your fourth amendment rights are being eroded every single day.
Where is the fight? Where is the government's fear?
And don't get me wrong, I don't want you to actually pick up arms but I don't want to poke a massive hole in your bullshit "the government fears its citizens" fantasy you have going in your head.
[/QUOTE]
Because there are too many slack-jawed sheep like you who will just take it up the ass. Maybe things just aren't bad enough yet. Maybe people are still waiting for that straw that breaks the camel's back before they can be bothered enough to get off their ass and do something, but disarming the people will only make things worse, not better. Disarm the people, and when things are bad enough to where we NEED to do something about it, we'll be even weaker.
[quote name='Sporadic']
lol yeah right captain
i just don't see the point of having a weapon that can be concealed so easily and cause so much damage
if jared had a rifle or a shotgun (since arizona is an open carry state) would he have been able to get so close to the congresswomen or kill so many people? i doubt it[/QUOTE]
Yes, you're right. If handguns were illegal, he probably would have said "shucks...handguns are illegal. I guess I'll take up knitting instead...
Wrong. He would have just picked up a gun illegally and done the same thing. Or he would get into a car and mow down the crowd of people. Would you be calling for stricter car laws? If laws fix things, I know, lets just make murder illegal. Then it will stop everyone from doing those things, right? Oh wait...
Again, gun laws only hurts law abiding citizens and empowers criminals. If criminals know that guns are illegal, and that they can just commit crimes with the guns they'll get regardless of the law without the fear that the law abiding citizen is packing, then what's to stop them from being so brazen? It's not made up when people say that gun control causes more crime, common sense and statistics will tell you that it does.
Look, if you don't like guns, that's cool, don't buy them. You can rely on the police and military to teleport into your living room to protect you and rely on your government to always have your best interest in mind. I on the other hand would rather rely on myself, so don't you dare stand in the way of my rights.
ing us pretty hard and nobody is doing nothing. Minimal protests, which get minimal media coverage, at the most. Why aren't in you in the streets fighting when the courts say it is ok for them to put a GPS tracker on your car or that they don't need a warrant to get your text messages? Where were you three years ago when this was going on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy Your fourth amendment rights are being eroded every single day. Where is the fight? Where is the government's fear?
And don't get me wrong, I don't want you to actually pick up arms but I don't want to poke a massive hole in your bullshit "the government fears its citizens" fantasy you have going in your head.
[/QUOTE]
Because there are too many slack-jawed sheep like you who will just take it up the ass. Maybe things just aren't bad enough yet. Maybe people are still waiting for that straw that breaks the camel's back before they can be bothered enough to get off their ass and do something, but disarming the people will only make things worse, not better. Disarm the people, and when things are bad enough to where we NEED to do something about it, we'll be even weaker.
[quote name='Sporadic']
lol yeah right captain
i just don't see the point of having a weapon that can be concealed so easily and cause so much damage
if jared had a rifle or a shotgun (since arizona is an open carry state) would he have been able to get so close to the congresswomen or kill so many people? i doubt it[/QUOTE]
Yes, you're right. If handguns were illegal, he probably would have said "shucks...handguns are illegal. I guess I'll take up knitting instead...
Wrong. He would have just picked up a gun illegally and done the same thing. Or he would get into a car and mow down the crowd of people. Would you be calling for stricter car laws? If laws fix things, I know, lets just make murder illegal. Then it will stop everyone from doing those things, right? Oh wait...
Again, gun laws only hurts law abiding citizens and empowers criminals. If criminals know that guns are illegal, and that they can just commit crimes with the guns they'll get regardless of the law without the fear that the law abiding citizen is packing, then what's to stop them from being so brazen? It's not made up when people say that gun control causes more crime, common sense and statistics will tell you that it does.
Look, if you don't like guns, that's cool, don't buy them. You can rely on the police and military to teleport into your living room to protect you and rely on your government to always have your best interest in mind. I on the other hand would rather rely on myself, so don't you dare stand in the way of my rights.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Because there are too many slack-jawed sheep like you who will just take it up the ass. Maybe things just aren't bad enough yet. Maybe people are still waiting for that straw that breaks the camel's back before they can be bothered enough to get off their ass and do something, but disarming the people will only make things worse, not better. Disarm the people, and when things are bad enough to where we NEED to do something about it, we'll be even weaker. [/QUOTE]
So, I guess the two big questions I have for you are, what have you done in protest of those type of situations I posted (besides hoarding guns and having fantasies where you overthrow the government...even though gun owning is just a fun hobby for you, a responsible law-abiding citizen) and what will it take before you decide " them, enough is enough" and start blasting people you feel are responsible?
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Yes, you're right. If handguns were illegal, he probably would have said "shucks...handguns are illegal. I guess I'll take up knitting instead...[/QUOTE]
No, he would have still tried with something else that was legal (like a rifle or shotgun) but would he have been as successful? That's the big thing.
I know you will say "he could have just bought a black market handgun" but he clearly didn't have the means. If he did, why didn't he just buy a handgun illegally in the first place?
- edit And I did update part of my last post so I'll repost it so you see it.
[quote name='Sporadic']And don't get me wrong, I don't want you to actually pick up arms but I do want to poke a massive hole in your bullshit "I need that 30 bullet clip for my handgun so the government stays in check. It fears its citizens!" fantasy you have going in your head. [/QUOTE]
So, I guess the two big questions I have for you are, what have you done in protest of those type of situations I posted (besides hoarding guns and having fantasies where you overthrow the government...even though gun owning is just a fun hobby for you, a responsible law-abiding citizen) and what will it take before you decide "
them, enough is enough" and start blasting people you feel are responsible?[quote name='Temporaryscars']Yes, you're right. If handguns were illegal, he probably would have said "shucks...handguns are illegal. I guess I'll take up knitting instead...[/QUOTE]
No, he would have still tried with something else that was legal (like a rifle or shotgun) but would he have been as successful? That's the big thing.
I know you will say "he could have just bought a black market handgun" but he clearly didn't have the means. If he did, why didn't he just buy a handgun illegally in the first place?
- edit And I did update part of my last post so I'll repost it so you see it.
[quote name='Sporadic']And don't get me wrong, I don't want you to actually pick up arms but I do want to poke a massive hole in your bullshit "I need that 30 bullet clip for my handgun so the government stays in check. It fears its citizens!" fantasy you have going in your head. [/QUOTE]
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Temporaryscars']That's absurd. You could say that about anything you own. You could argue that were are costs to owning knifes, baseball bats, chairs, step ladders, roller blades, plastic bags, chainsaws, hammers, etc, etc, but should you be expected to pay some sort of insurance on EVERY SINGLE THING!? Just because there are morons out there that misuse things DOESN'T mean that those who use them properly have to pay for those that don't.[/quote]
1) Your "everything is risky" argument is a circular way of trying to imply that there is no increased risk of gun violence from owning a gun. Which is fallacious.
2) You've moved the goalpost. You initially argue that because it's a right, it shouldn't be subject to insurance. Now you're dropping that in favor of the "anything can kill you" argument.
The word is "risk pool." I use good judgment on things that I am either required or select to insure. That's an irrelevant point.
Then you're mitigating your risk, but not eliminating it. This is not a good means of arguing against insruance, but rather, a sensible claim that you should have lower premiums.
The second amendment doesn't provide cases for revoking those rights. Your claim is unconstitutional.
More about this in a second, as you get back to it at the very end.
You're not really addressing, logically, that right v privilege correlates to insurable vs non-insurable. Below you do, but the above quote has nothing to do with anything.
Then make it a state-based registry, unless that's been deemed unconstitutional as well. If so, do you recall the case(s)?
Like I said before, there are already costs to gun ownership. You have to pay for them, don't you? I imagine guns, ammunition, and registration costs money (are those registrations unconstitutional as well?). So it's incorrect to make the claim that "only those with money have the right to protect." That's illogical in the face of the costs you pay already to protect yourself.
You choose to incur the cost of exercising your right to purchase a gun. This is not about "protecting yourself," as firearms as just one means of doing so. You choose to incur those costs, you choose to add to the risk pool. Therefore, you should be liable for that risk pool.
This is what I'm coming back to regarding losing your rights. What is it about the behavior or aptitude about ex-felons and the mentally ill that means they should not be permitted to possess firearms? You name them by category, but what is it about those categories that should exclude them from Constitutional rights?
1) Your "everything is risky" argument is a circular way of trying to imply that there is no increased risk of gun violence from owning a gun. Which is fallacious.
2) You've moved the goalpost. You initially argue that because it's a right, it shouldn't be subject to insurance. Now you're dropping that in favor of the "anything can kill you" argument.
The word is "risk pool." I use good judgment on things that I am either required or select to insure. That's an irrelevant point.
Then you're mitigating your risk, but not eliminating it. This is not a good means of arguing against insruance, but rather, a sensible claim that you should have lower premiums.
The second amendment doesn't provide cases for revoking those rights. Your claim is unconstitutional.
More about this in a second, as you get back to it at the very end.
You're not really addressing, logically, that right v privilege correlates to insurable vs non-insurable. Below you do, but the above quote has nothing to do with anything.
Then make it a state-based registry, unless that's been deemed unconstitutional as well. If so, do you recall the case(s)?
Like I said before, there are already costs to gun ownership. You have to pay for them, don't you? I imagine guns, ammunition, and registration costs money (are those registrations unconstitutional as well?
). So it's incorrect to make the claim that "only those with money have the right to protect." That's illogical in the face of the costs you pay already to protect yourself.You choose to incur the cost of exercising your right to purchase a gun. This is not about "protecting yourself," as firearms as just one means of doing so. You choose to incur those costs, you choose to add to the risk pool. Therefore, you should be liable for that risk pool.
This is what I'm coming back to regarding losing your rights. What is it about the behavior or aptitude about ex-felons and the mentally ill that means they should not be permitted to possess firearms? You name them by category, but what is it about those categories that should exclude them from Constitutional rights?
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='Sporadic']So, I guess the two big questions I have for you are, what have you done in protest of those type of situations I posted (besides hoarding guns and having fantasies where you overthrow the government...even though gun owning is just a fun hobby for you) and what will it take before you decide " them, enough is enough" and start blasting people you feel are responsible?
[/QUOTE]
Well, your first question is quite easy. I vote.
And to be clear, I have no fantasies of overthrowing the government. I want nothing more than to live in peace and just live out my life the best way I know how. I would tell you to stop trying to pigeonhole me, but I'm probably guilty of the same so I won't go there.
I don't get why it has to be so black and white for you. I can't have guns for anything other than it just being a hobby or to overthrow the government? Why can't it be both and more? Again, going back to cars as an example. Are they just for driving? Why would anyone have more than one or two cars? I mean, it seems to me that to you and your ilk, unless something fits some sort of need, then it's not worth having and should be outlawed.
[quote name='Sporadic']
No, he would have still tried with something else that was legal (like a rifle or shotgun) but would he have been as successful? That's the big thing.
I know you will say "he could have just bought a black market handgun" but he clearly didn't have the means. If he did, why didn't he just buy a handgun illegally in the first place?[/QUOTE]
Do you really want to see what happens when you turn a 12 gauge on a crowd of people? They don't call them "riot guns" for nothing. He would have probably done even more damage.
He didn't buy a handgun illegally because he didn't have to. You're acting like he made some sort of conscious choice. The guy wanted to do damage and he was going to do it no matter what. He did it legally because he could. Had he not been able to, he would have done it illegally. Had he not been able to do that either, he would have used a car, or a bomb or who knows what else.
them, enough is enough" and start blasting people you feel are responsible?[/QUOTE]
Well, your first question is quite easy. I vote.
And to be clear, I have no fantasies of overthrowing the government. I want nothing more than to live in peace and just live out my life the best way I know how. I would tell you to stop trying to pigeonhole me, but I'm probably guilty of the same so I won't go there.
I don't get why it has to be so black and white for you. I can't have guns for anything other than it just being a hobby or to overthrow the government? Why can't it be both and more? Again, going back to cars as an example. Are they just for driving? Why would anyone have more than one or two cars? I mean, it seems to me that to you and your ilk, unless something fits some sort of need, then it's not worth having and should be outlawed.
[quote name='Sporadic']
No, he would have still tried with something else that was legal (like a rifle or shotgun) but would he have been as successful? That's the big thing.
I know you will say "he could have just bought a black market handgun" but he clearly didn't have the means. If he did, why didn't he just buy a handgun illegally in the first place?[/QUOTE]
Do you really want to see what happens when you turn a 12 gauge on a crowd of people? They don't call them "riot guns" for nothing. He would have probably done even more damage.
He didn't buy a handgun illegally because he didn't have to. You're acting like he made some sort of conscious choice. The guy wanted to do damage and he was going to do it no matter what. He did it legally because he could. Had he not been able to, he would have done it illegally. Had he not been able to do that either, he would have used a car, or a bomb or who knows what else.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']1) Your "everything is risky" argument is a circular way of trying to imply that there is no increased risk of gun violence from owning a gun. Which is fallacious.
2) You've moved the goalpost. You initially argue that because it's a right, it shouldn't be subject to insurance. Now you're dropping that in favor of the "anything can kill you" argument.
The word is "risk pool." I use good judgment on things that I am either required or select to insure. That's an irrelevant point.
Then you're mitigating your risk, but not eliminating it. This is not a good means of arguing against insruance, but rather, a sensible claim that you should have lower premiums.
The second amendment doesn't provide cases for revoking those rights. Your claim is unconstitutional.
More about this in a second, as you get back to it at the very end.
You're not really addressing, logically, that right v privilege correlates to insurable vs non-insurable. Below you do, but the above quote has nothing to do with anything.
Then make it a state-based registry, unless that's been deemed unconstitutional as well. If so, do you recall the case(s)?
Like I said before, there are already costs to gun ownership. You have to pay for them, don't you? I imagine guns, ammunition, and registration costs money (are those registrations unconstitutional as well?). So it's incorrect to make the claim that "only those with money have the right to protect." That's illogical in the face of the costs you pay already to protect yourself.
You choose to incur the cost of exercising your right to purchase a gun. This is not about "protecting yourself," as firearms as just one means of doing so. You choose to incur those costs, you choose to add to the risk pool. Therefore, you should be liable for that risk pool.
This is what I'm coming back to regarding losing your rights. What is it about the behavior or aptitude about ex-felons and the mentally ill that means they should not be permitted to possess firearms? You name them by category, but what is it about those categories that should exclude them from Constitutional rights?[/QUOTE]
Oh my god. This is exhausting. Ok, hang on. I'll respond to this but then I'm calling it quits.
2) You've moved the goalpost. You initially argue that because it's a right, it shouldn't be subject to insurance. Now you're dropping that in favor of the "anything can kill you" argument.
The word is "risk pool." I use good judgment on things that I am either required or select to insure. That's an irrelevant point.
Then you're mitigating your risk, but not eliminating it. This is not a good means of arguing against insruance, but rather, a sensible claim that you should have lower premiums.
The second amendment doesn't provide cases for revoking those rights. Your claim is unconstitutional.
More about this in a second, as you get back to it at the very end.
You're not really addressing, logically, that right v privilege correlates to insurable vs non-insurable. Below you do, but the above quote has nothing to do with anything.
Then make it a state-based registry, unless that's been deemed unconstitutional as well. If so, do you recall the case(s)?
Like I said before, there are already costs to gun ownership. You have to pay for them, don't you? I imagine guns, ammunition, and registration costs money (are those registrations unconstitutional as well?
). So it's incorrect to make the claim that "only those with money have the right to protect." That's illogical in the face of the costs you pay already to protect yourself.You choose to incur the cost of exercising your right to purchase a gun. This is not about "protecting yourself," as firearms as just one means of doing so. You choose to incur those costs, you choose to add to the risk pool. Therefore, you should be liable for that risk pool.
This is what I'm coming back to regarding losing your rights. What is it about the behavior or aptitude about ex-felons and the mentally ill that means they should not be permitted to possess firearms? You name them by category, but what is it about those categories that should exclude them from Constitutional rights?[/QUOTE]
Oh my god. This is exhausting. Ok, hang on. I'll respond to this but then I'm calling it quits.
[quote name='mykevermin']
This is what I'm coming back to regarding losing your rights. What is it about the behavior or aptitude about ex-felons and the mentally ill that means they should not be permitted to possess firearms? You name them by category, but what is it about those categories that should exclude them from Constitutional rights?[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I think some don't realize that it's not just violent felons that lose their rights to buy guns in most states. But any felon. Why should someone who committed a property crime felony or a drug felony or a white collar crime lose their right to bear arms when they've not done anything violent or misused a firearm?
I'd rather the recovered drug addict have a gun, than the nut case who'll shoot anyone who trespasses on their farm, or the moron that leaves loaded guns in unlocked drawers etc.
But this is all a bit off topic and could be a thread of its own. Why in a nation so focused on individual rights do ex-felons often times not get certain rights back like right to bear arms, rights to vote etc. And why are we surprised that 2/3's or so released from prisons end up arrested again within 3 years when they are treatd like 2nd class citizens even after serving their time?
But on topic, it's a great point you raise. If a non-violent felon can lose right to bear arms, why can't someone who's kid takes their gun to school, or has a gun stolen and doesn't report it end up used in a crime, or has an accidental shooting occur because they left a loaded weapon laying around the house lose their rights?
Once we've okayed taking rights away from anyone, for any reasons, we've established that the right to bear arms (or vote etc.) are not absolute rights. But rather are more something along the lines of protected privileges.
This is what I'm coming back to regarding losing your rights. What is it about the behavior or aptitude about ex-felons and the mentally ill that means they should not be permitted to possess firearms? You name them by category, but what is it about those categories that should exclude them from Constitutional rights?[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I think some don't realize that it's not just violent felons that lose their rights to buy guns in most states. But any felon. Why should someone who committed a property crime felony or a drug felony or a white collar crime lose their right to bear arms when they've not done anything violent or misused a firearm?
I'd rather the recovered drug addict have a gun, than the nut case who'll shoot anyone who trespasses on their farm, or the moron that leaves loaded guns in unlocked drawers etc.
But this is all a bit off topic and could be a thread of its own. Why in a nation so focused on individual rights do ex-felons often times not get certain rights back like right to bear arms, rights to vote etc. And why are we surprised that 2/3's or so released from prisons end up arrested again within 3 years when they are treatd like 2nd class citizens even after serving their time?
But on topic, it's a great point you raise. If a non-violent felon can lose right to bear arms, why can't someone who's kid takes their gun to school, or has a gun stolen and doesn't report it end up used in a crime, or has an accidental shooting occur because they left a loaded weapon laying around the house lose their rights?
Once we've okayed taking rights away from anyone, for any reasons, we've established that the right to bear arms (or vote etc.) are not absolute rights. But rather are more something along the lines of protected privileges.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']
This is what I'm coming back to regarding losing your rights. What is it about the behavior or aptitude about ex-felons and the mentally ill that means they should not be permitted to possess firearms? You name them by category, but what is it about those categories that should exclude them from Constitutional rights?[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I think some don't realize that it's not just violent felons that lose their rights to buy guns in most states. But any felon. Why should someone who committed a property crime felony or a drug felony or a white collar crime lose their right to bear arms when they've not done anything violent or misused a firearm?
I'd rather the recovered drug addict have a gun, than the nut case who'll shoot anyone who trespasses on their farm, or the moron that leaves loaded guns in unlocked drawers etc.
But this is all a bit off topic and could be a thread of its own. Why in a nation so focused on individual rights do ex-felons often times not get certain rights back like right to bear arms, rights to vote etc. And why are we surprised that 2/3's or so released from prisons end up arrested again within 3 years when they are treated like 2nd class citizens even after serving their time?
This is what I'm coming back to regarding losing your rights. What is it about the behavior or aptitude about ex-felons and the mentally ill that means they should not be permitted to possess firearms? You name them by category, but what is it about those categories that should exclude them from Constitutional rights?[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I think some don't realize that it's not just violent felons that lose their rights to buy guns in most states. But any felon. Why should someone who committed a property crime felony or a drug felony or a white collar crime lose their right to bear arms when they've not done anything violent or misused a firearm?
I'd rather the recovered drug addict have a gun, than the nut case who'll shoot anyone who trespasses on their farm, or the moron that leaves loaded guns in unlocked drawers etc.
But this is all a bit off topic and could be a thread of its own. Why in a nation so focused on individual rights do ex-felons often times not get certain rights back like right to bear arms, rights to vote etc. And why are we surprised that 2/3's or so released from prisons end up arrested again within 3 years when they are treated like 2nd class citizens even after serving their time?
[quote name='dmaul1114']
But this is all a bit off topic and could be a thread of its own. Why in a nation so focused on individual rights do ex-felons often times not get certain rights back like right to bear arms, rights to vote etc. And why are we surprised that 2/3's or so released from prisons end up arrested again within 3 years when they are treatd like 2nd class citizens even after serving their time?[/QUOTE]
Probably because belief in individual rights often correlates with a belief in purely dispositional causes of behavior (in this country anyway). If someone is arrested for a crime it's because they're a criminal, it's part of their DNA. Hence the reason why they go back into prison is because they're bad people, which is why we need to take their rights away when they're not in prison anymore (which in no way causes anything).
But this is all a bit off topic and could be a thread of its own. Why in a nation so focused on individual rights do ex-felons often times not get certain rights back like right to bear arms, rights to vote etc. And why are we surprised that 2/3's or so released from prisons end up arrested again within 3 years when they are treatd like 2nd class citizens even after serving their time?[/QUOTE]
Probably because belief in individual rights often correlates with a belief in purely dispositional causes of behavior (in this country anyway). If someone is arrested for a crime it's because they're a criminal, it's part of their DNA. Hence the reason why they go back into prison is because they're bad people, which is why we need to take their rights away when they're not in prison anymore (which in no way causes anything).
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Well, your first question is quite easy. I vote.
[/QUOTE]
But what if there were no real choices? That it was just a choice between shit and shit that were both united to rollback your freedoms? What if the current leader suspends elections? What if a military coup happened?
[quote name='Temporaryscars']And to be clear, I have no fantasies of overthrowing the government. I want nothing more than to live in peace and just live out my life the best way I know how. I would tell you to stop trying to pigeonhole me, but I'm probably guilty of the same so I won't go there.
I don't get why it has to be so black and white for you. I can't have guns for anything other than it just being a hobby or to overthrow the government? Why can't it be both and more? Again, going back to cars as an example. Are they just for driving? Why would anyone have more than one or two cars? I mean, it seems to me that to you and your ilk, unless something fits some sort of need, then it's not worth having and should be outlawed.[/QUOTE]
Well, the biggest issue between us is that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth and I am now trying to see just how far you will go. You say you are just a law-abiding gun enthusiast. You enjoy shooting them at the range, you like the feeling of being able to protect your home, you like having a variety of guns to choose from...but when I post things like "well, aren't rifles (for hunting) or shotguns (for home defense) enough?", you are the one that keeps bringing up that the true meaning behind the second amendment is to keep the government in check or even overthrow it if the moment calls for it.
So, which one is it? (-edit And I'm not a fan of "it's both and more" doublespeak)
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Do you really want to see what happens when you turn a 12 gauge on a crowd of people? They don't call them "riot guns" for nothing. He would have probably done even more damage.
He didn't buy a handgun illegally because he didn't have to. You're acting like he made some sort of conscious choice. The guy wanted to do damage and he was going to do it no matter what. He did it legally because he could. Had he not been able to, he would have done it illegally. Had he not been able to do that either, he would have used a car, or a bomb or who knows what else.[/QUOTE]
More damage maybe but don't you think people would have started scattering when they saw a crazy looking bald guy with a rifle or shotgun started getting close to the front of the store? Hell, would the taxi driver have even given him a ride to the event if he knew the guy was packing? Even in an open carry state, that would have to raise some massive red flags.
Which one is it? That he could have gotten one illegally if they were banned or "welp, he would have hurt people no matter what"? He didn't have a car (and I doubt he had the know-how to steal one). Even if he did, a car doing 40+ mph in a parking lot would have been pretty easy to notice. Same with a bomb. I doubt the guy had the connections to get the material or the know-how on how to put it all together without blowing himself up in the process.
It's pretty clear that Jared took the easiest route in this case and that it is the same in alot of other cases.
[/QUOTE]
But what if there were no real choices? That it was just a choice between shit and shit that were both united to rollback your freedoms? What if the current leader suspends elections? What if a military coup happened?
[quote name='Temporaryscars']And to be clear, I have no fantasies of overthrowing the government. I want nothing more than to live in peace and just live out my life the best way I know how. I would tell you to stop trying to pigeonhole me, but I'm probably guilty of the same so I won't go there.
I don't get why it has to be so black and white for you. I can't have guns for anything other than it just being a hobby or to overthrow the government? Why can't it be both and more? Again, going back to cars as an example. Are they just for driving? Why would anyone have more than one or two cars? I mean, it seems to me that to you and your ilk, unless something fits some sort of need, then it's not worth having and should be outlawed.[/QUOTE]
Well, the biggest issue between us is that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth and I am now trying to see just how far you will go. You say you are just a law-abiding gun enthusiast. You enjoy shooting them at the range, you like the feeling of being able to protect your home, you like having a variety of guns to choose from...but when I post things like "well, aren't rifles (for hunting) or shotguns (for home defense) enough?", you are the one that keeps bringing up that the true meaning behind the second amendment is to keep the government in check or even overthrow it if the moment calls for it.
So, which one is it? (-edit And I'm not a fan of "it's both and more" doublespeak)
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Do you really want to see what happens when you turn a 12 gauge on a crowd of people? They don't call them "riot guns" for nothing. He would have probably done even more damage.
He didn't buy a handgun illegally because he didn't have to. You're acting like he made some sort of conscious choice. The guy wanted to do damage and he was going to do it no matter what. He did it legally because he could. Had he not been able to, he would have done it illegally. Had he not been able to do that either, he would have used a car, or a bomb or who knows what else.[/QUOTE]
More damage maybe but don't you think people would have started scattering when they saw a crazy looking bald guy with a rifle or shotgun started getting close to the front of the store? Hell, would the taxi driver have even given him a ride to the event if he knew the guy was packing? Even in an open carry state, that would have to raise some massive red flags.
Which one is it? That he could have gotten one illegally if they were banned or "welp, he would have hurt people no matter what"? He didn't have a car (and I doubt he had the know-how to steal one). Even if he did, a car doing 40+ mph in a parking lot would have been pretty easy to notice. Same with a bomb. I doubt the guy had the connections to get the material or the know-how on how to put it all together without blowing himself up in the process.
It's pretty clear that Jared took the easiest route in this case and that it is the same in alot of other cases.
Last edited by a moderator:
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']1) Your "everything is risky" argument is a circular way of trying to imply that there is no increased risk of gun violence from owning a gun. Which is fallacious.
[/QUOTE]
Says who? Are you saying that by owning a gun, I have a higher chance of being shot by an intruder or somebody on the street or are you saying that my chances of being shot by my own gun is higher?
If it's the former, that's just insane. Do criminals become psychics? Do I become more of a target based on my increased ability to defend myself? That flies in the face of logic.
If it's the latter, then I would agree. How could I not. By owning a gun, I open myself up to being accidentally shot by my own gun. Statistics alone would tell you that's true. But again, why is this just limited to a gun? By owning a knife, you're more likely to be injured by knife violence. That doesn't stop you from owning one, does it? It doesn't stop me from owning guns, just like anything else that has any kind of inherent risk.
So once again, you're wrong, It's not a circular way of saying that there's no increased risk, it's my way of saying that the increased risk doesn't stop me from owning one, just like it doesn't stop me from owner other potentially dangerous things.
[quote name='mykevermin']
2) You've moved the goalpost. You initially argue that because it's a right, it shouldn't be subject to insurance. Now you're dropping that in favor of the "anything can kill you" argument.
[/QUOTE]
And how did I do that exactly? I still believe rights shouldn't require insurance (do you?!). I didn't drop anything. The "anything can kill you" argument is just another aspect of pointing out what a dumb idea that is. I'm asking "why pick and choose?" Why guns and not all those other things that kill more people on a yearly basis?
[quote name='mykevermin']
The word is "risk pool." I use good judgment on things that I am either required or select to insure. That's an irrelevant point.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, but again, those things aren't rights. Gun ownership is, and I do believe that rights shouldn't require insurance to openly practice them. I'd quote Franklin's famous words on liberty that those that would sacrafice it for safety, but you already know it, so just pretend that I posted it here so i don't have to look it up.
[quote name='mykevermin']
Then you're mitigating your risk, but not eliminating it. This is not a good means of arguing against insruance, but rather, a sensible claim that you should have lower premiums.
[/QUOTE]
Again, rights that require insurance? Why do I have to pay for rights that are guaranteed to me? Where in the constitution or any other document does it say that I have to pay for them? What if you're poor and can't pay, does that mean the rich have more rights than everyone else?
[quote name='mykevermin']
The second amendment doesn't provide cases for revoking those rights. Your claim is unconstitutional.
More about this in a second, as you get back to it at the very end.
[/QUOTE]
The constitution also doesn't mention anything about separation of church and state, but it's just one of those things that we have followed since the birth of our nation. Revoking the rights of criminals is the same thing. Would you claim that it's unconstitutional to keep them locked up in prisons? I doubt it.
[quote name='mykevermin']
You're not really addressing, logically, that right v privilege correlates to insurable vs non-insurable. Below you do, but the above quote has nothing to do with anything.
[/QUOTE]
Sure it does, and if you've read what I've already posted here, I'm sure you'll agree. I've read your posts in this section before. I wouldn't say it's a regular thing, but something I do from time to time. I notice that you like to jump around and use really pompous and smug language as a way of confusing and making it sound like you know what you're really talking about. Anything I've said before this was in direct response to things you've brought up. If they have nothing to do with anything, then why did you bring it up in the first place?
[quote name='mykevermin']
Then make it a state-based registry, unless that's been deemed unconstitutional as well. If so, do you recall the case(s)?
[/QUOTE]
How is a state-based violation of ones rights any better than a federal violation? I don't recall the cases. In fact, thinking about it now, I don't think it every came to that. It's just one of those things that hasn't ever been implemented because it had been deemed unconstitutional before it even came to a trial. I know that it was attempted in Canada and thrown out there as well. Governments usually try to avoid doing things done by the Nazis. It's one of those "political suicide" things.
[quote name='mykevermin']
Like I said before, there are already costs to gun ownership. You have to pay for them, don't you? I imagine guns, ammunition, and registration costs money (are those registrations unconstitutional as well?). So it's incorrect to make the claim that "only those with money have the right to protect." That's illogical in the face of the costs you pay already to protect yourself.
You choose to incur the cost of exercising your right to purchase a gun. This is not about "protecting yourself," as firearms as just one means of doing so. You choose to incur those costs, you choose to add to the risk pool. Therefore, you should be liable for that risk pool.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but the costs are minimal. Let me give you an example as a way to separate the costs of owning a firearm vs the cost of owning one AND paying insurance on it.
You can buy a firearm for under $100. A box of ammo can be had for under $5. Right there, you're done. You now have the means to protect yourself for under $100. With even the bare minimum of maintenance, those things will function until the day you die. So even if you're poor, the vast majority of people can afford that one time payment of under $100.
Now, add on to that insurance premiums. You now have a recurring cost to go along with that one time payment. Not only that, but, like every other insurance that ever existed, those costs will go up and up and up and up as time goes on. You now have what was once affordable to everyone, now only affordable to a portion of the population.
Now why is that bad? It's bad because poor people now have to resort to other ways of protecting themselves. What's left? Baseball bats? Knifes? Well, take into account that CRIMINALS won't be paying that insurance. They still have guns. Now, these poor slobs have to protect themselves with baseball bats against armed thugs because mykevermin thought it was a good idea for people to have to pay insurance. I'm sure they'll be very thankful for that.
[quote name='mykevermin']
This is what I'm coming back to regarding losing your rights. What is it about the behavior or aptitude about ex-felons and the mentally ill that means they should not be permitted to possess firearms? You name them by category, but what is it about those categories that should exclude them from Constitutional rights?[/QUOTE]
Because we're a civilized nation. We have rules and in order to continue to be a civilized nation, we have to abide by those rules. If you DON'T abide by those rules. If you actively work to deny people their basic human rights (which criminals do), then you, in turn, don't deserve those same rights. This isn't a new concept, which puzzles me as to why you're having such a hard time grasping it. It's something that has been going on since the beginning of civilization. If you commit a crime, you will be punished. The punishment may be a violation of your rights, but you lost those rights as soon as you decide to deny somebody else of their rights. By your argument, criminals shouldn't be put in jail because it's a violation of their freedom, which is absolutely ridiculous.
Ok, that's it. I'm done. I'll read any response you may have, and I welcome any response, but I'm not replying. I can't spend my life writing books in response to your books.
MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!! Ok, one more thing, just a quick response to dmaul who can't see this anyway but I'm a glutton for punishment. I said before that it's not always fair (in regards to white collar, reformed addict, blah blah blah), but that's the way it is. When you commit a crime, be it small or big, you have to know the risks involved and what you stand to lose. Personally, I think small crimes should be overlooked when it comes to gun ownership, but that's just me...
[/QUOTE]
Says who? Are you saying that by owning a gun, I have a higher chance of being shot by an intruder or somebody on the street or are you saying that my chances of being shot by my own gun is higher?
If it's the former, that's just insane. Do criminals become psychics? Do I become more of a target based on my increased ability to defend myself? That flies in the face of logic.
If it's the latter, then I would agree. How could I not. By owning a gun, I open myself up to being accidentally shot by my own gun. Statistics alone would tell you that's true. But again, why is this just limited to a gun? By owning a knife, you're more likely to be injured by knife violence. That doesn't stop you from owning one, does it? It doesn't stop me from owning guns, just like anything else that has any kind of inherent risk.
So once again, you're wrong, It's not a circular way of saying that there's no increased risk, it's my way of saying that the increased risk doesn't stop me from owning one, just like it doesn't stop me from owner other potentially dangerous things.
[quote name='mykevermin']
2) You've moved the goalpost. You initially argue that because it's a right, it shouldn't be subject to insurance. Now you're dropping that in favor of the "anything can kill you" argument.
[/QUOTE]
And how did I do that exactly? I still believe rights shouldn't require insurance (do you?!). I didn't drop anything. The "anything can kill you" argument is just another aspect of pointing out what a dumb idea that is. I'm asking "why pick and choose?" Why guns and not all those other things that kill more people on a yearly basis?
[quote name='mykevermin']
The word is "risk pool." I use good judgment on things that I am either required or select to insure. That's an irrelevant point.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, but again, those things aren't rights. Gun ownership is, and I do believe that rights shouldn't require insurance to openly practice them. I'd quote Franklin's famous words on liberty that those that would sacrafice it for safety, but you already know it, so just pretend that I posted it here so i don't have to look it up.
[quote name='mykevermin']
Then you're mitigating your risk, but not eliminating it. This is not a good means of arguing against insruance, but rather, a sensible claim that you should have lower premiums.
[/QUOTE]
Again, rights that require insurance? Why do I have to pay for rights that are guaranteed to me? Where in the constitution or any other document does it say that I have to pay for them? What if you're poor and can't pay, does that mean the rich have more rights than everyone else?
[quote name='mykevermin']
The second amendment doesn't provide cases for revoking those rights. Your claim is unconstitutional.
More about this in a second, as you get back to it at the very end.
[/QUOTE]
The constitution also doesn't mention anything about separation of church and state, but it's just one of those things that we have followed since the birth of our nation. Revoking the rights of criminals is the same thing. Would you claim that it's unconstitutional to keep them locked up in prisons? I doubt it.
[quote name='mykevermin']
You're not really addressing, logically, that right v privilege correlates to insurable vs non-insurable. Below you do, but the above quote has nothing to do with anything.
[/QUOTE]
Sure it does, and if you've read what I've already posted here, I'm sure you'll agree. I've read your posts in this section before. I wouldn't say it's a regular thing, but something I do from time to time. I notice that you like to jump around and use really pompous and smug language as a way of confusing and making it sound like you know what you're really talking about. Anything I've said before this was in direct response to things you've brought up. If they have nothing to do with anything, then why did you bring it up in the first place?
[quote name='mykevermin']
Then make it a state-based registry, unless that's been deemed unconstitutional as well. If so, do you recall the case(s)?
[/QUOTE]
How is a state-based violation of ones rights any better than a federal violation? I don't recall the cases. In fact, thinking about it now, I don't think it every came to that. It's just one of those things that hasn't ever been implemented because it had been deemed unconstitutional before it even came to a trial. I know that it was attempted in Canada and thrown out there as well. Governments usually try to avoid doing things done by the Nazis. It's one of those "political suicide" things.
[quote name='mykevermin']
Like I said before, there are already costs to gun ownership. You have to pay for them, don't you? I imagine guns, ammunition, and registration costs money (are those registrations unconstitutional as well?
). So it's incorrect to make the claim that "only those with money have the right to protect." That's illogical in the face of the costs you pay already to protect yourself.You choose to incur the cost of exercising your right to purchase a gun. This is not about "protecting yourself," as firearms as just one means of doing so. You choose to incur those costs, you choose to add to the risk pool. Therefore, you should be liable for that risk pool.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but the costs are minimal. Let me give you an example as a way to separate the costs of owning a firearm vs the cost of owning one AND paying insurance on it.
You can buy a firearm for under $100. A box of ammo can be had for under $5. Right there, you're done. You now have the means to protect yourself for under $100. With even the bare minimum of maintenance, those things will function until the day you die. So even if you're poor, the vast majority of people can afford that one time payment of under $100.
Now, add on to that insurance premiums. You now have a recurring cost to go along with that one time payment. Not only that, but, like every other insurance that ever existed, those costs will go up and up and up and up as time goes on. You now have what was once affordable to everyone, now only affordable to a portion of the population.
Now why is that bad? It's bad because poor people now have to resort to other ways of protecting themselves. What's left? Baseball bats? Knifes? Well, take into account that CRIMINALS won't be paying that insurance. They still have guns. Now, these poor slobs have to protect themselves with baseball bats against armed thugs because mykevermin thought it was a good idea for people to have to pay insurance. I'm sure they'll be very thankful for that.
[quote name='mykevermin']
This is what I'm coming back to regarding losing your rights. What is it about the behavior or aptitude about ex-felons and the mentally ill that means they should not be permitted to possess firearms? You name them by category, but what is it about those categories that should exclude them from Constitutional rights?[/QUOTE]
Because we're a civilized nation. We have rules and in order to continue to be a civilized nation, we have to abide by those rules. If you DON'T abide by those rules. If you actively work to deny people their basic human rights (which criminals do), then you, in turn, don't deserve those same rights. This isn't a new concept, which puzzles me as to why you're having such a hard time grasping it. It's something that has been going on since the beginning of civilization. If you commit a crime, you will be punished. The punishment may be a violation of your rights, but you lost those rights as soon as you decide to deny somebody else of their rights. By your argument, criminals shouldn't be put in jail because it's a violation of their freedom, which is absolutely ridiculous.
Ok, that's it. I'm done. I'll read any response you may have, and I welcome any response, but I'm not replying. I can't spend my life writing books in response to your books.
MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!! Ok, one more thing, just a quick response to dmaul who can't see this anyway but I'm a glutton for punishment. I said before that it's not always fair (in regards to white collar, reformed addict, blah blah blah), but that's the way it is. When you commit a crime, be it small or big, you have to know the risks involved and what you stand to lose. Personally, I think small crimes should be overlooked when it comes to gun ownership, but that's just me...
Last edited by a moderator:
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
Ugh...ok here we go.
[quote name='Sporadic']But what if there were no real choices? That it was just a choice between shit and shit that were both united to rollback your freedoms? What if the current leader suspends elections? What if a military coup happened?
[/QUOTE]
You're speaking in hypothetical terms. What if? What if? Well, how the should I know? I guess if those things were to happen, then yes, there would be a second revolution. At least I would ing hope so, wouldn't you?
[quote name='Sporadic']
Well, the biggest issue between us is that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth and I am now trying to see just how far you will go. You say you are just a law-abiding gun enthusiast. You enjoy shooting them at the range, you like the feeling of being able to protect your home, you like having a variety of guns to choose from...but when I post things like "well, aren't rifles (for hunting) or shotguns (for home defense) enough?", you are the one that keeps bringing up that the true meaning behind the second amendment is to keep the government in check or even overthrow it if the moment calls for it.
So, which one is it? (-edit And I'm not a fan of "it's both and more" doublespeak)
[/QUOTE]
Are you insane? Why can't it be more than one thing? That's insanity! Again, going back to cars. I own one because I need one. I also own one because I like to drive. I also own one because I consider myself to be a car enthusiast and if I could afford it, I would probably own more than one because I like them so much. See? It goes beyond just owning one because I need one. Is this really the best you have? At this point, I feel like you're arguing to be argumentative and nothing more.
[quote name='Sporadic']
More damage maybe but don't you think people would have started scattering when they saw a crazy looking bald guy with a rifle or shotgun started getting close to the front of the store? Hell, would the taxi driver have even given him a ride to the event if he knew the guy was packing? Even in an open carry state, that would have to raise some massive red flags.
[/QUOTE]
How should I know? Who's to say he couldn't have just hidden it under a long coat? Do you randomly stop people wearing long coats just in case they might have a shotgun under it? Give me a break. I guarantee you he would have done more damage with five shells of 00 buckshot than he did with 33 rounds of 9mm.
[quote name='Sporadic']
Which one is it? That he could have gotten one illegally if they were banned or "welp, he would have hurt people no matter what"? He didn't have a car (and I doubt he had the know-how to steal one). Even if he did, a car doing 40+ mph in a parking lot would have been pretty easy to notice. Same with a bomb. I doubt the guy had the connections to get the material or the know-how on how to put it all together without blowing himself up in the process.
It's pretty clear that Jared took the easiest route in this case and that it is the same in alot of other cases.[/QUOTE]
You're missing the point. Point is, gun or no gun, people were going to die that day and there's not much anyone could have done to stop it. It's just a fact of life. People kill other people. You don't know that he couldn't get access to a car or bomb making material (pro tip, you can get the stuff to make a bomb at any hardware store) any more than I know that he could have.
If you really want to place blame, blame the school who expelled him for being a danger to himself and others and not getting authorities involved.
[quote name='Sporadic']But what if there were no real choices? That it was just a choice between shit and shit that were both united to rollback your freedoms? What if the current leader suspends elections? What if a military coup happened?
[/QUOTE]
You're speaking in hypothetical terms. What if? What if? Well, how the
should I know? I guess if those things were to happen, then yes, there would be a second revolution. At least I would ing hope so, wouldn't you?[quote name='Sporadic']
Well, the biggest issue between us is that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth and I am now trying to see just how far you will go. You say you are just a law-abiding gun enthusiast. You enjoy shooting them at the range, you like the feeling of being able to protect your home, you like having a variety of guns to choose from...but when I post things like "well, aren't rifles (for hunting) or shotguns (for home defense) enough?", you are the one that keeps bringing up that the true meaning behind the second amendment is to keep the government in check or even overthrow it if the moment calls for it.
So, which one is it? (-edit And I'm not a fan of "it's both and more" doublespeak)
[/QUOTE]
Are you insane? Why can't it be more than one thing? That's insanity! Again, going back to cars. I own one because I need one. I also own one because I like to drive. I also own one because I consider myself to be a car enthusiast and if I could afford it, I would probably own more than one because I like them so much. See? It goes beyond just owning one because I need one. Is this really the best you have? At this point, I feel like you're arguing to be argumentative and nothing more.
[quote name='Sporadic']
More damage maybe but don't you think people would have started scattering when they saw a crazy looking bald guy with a rifle or shotgun started getting close to the front of the store? Hell, would the taxi driver have even given him a ride to the event if he knew the guy was packing? Even in an open carry state, that would have to raise some massive red flags.
[/QUOTE]
How should I know? Who's to say he couldn't have just hidden it under a long coat? Do you randomly stop people wearing long coats just in case they might have a shotgun under it? Give me a break. I guarantee you he would have done more damage with five shells of 00 buckshot than he did with 33 rounds of 9mm.
[quote name='Sporadic']
Which one is it? That he could have gotten one illegally if they were banned or "welp, he would have hurt people no matter what"? He didn't have a car (and I doubt he had the know-how to steal one). Even if he did, a car doing 40+ mph in a parking lot would have been pretty easy to notice. Same with a bomb. I doubt the guy had the connections to get the material or the know-how on how to put it all together without blowing himself up in the process.
It's pretty clear that Jared took the easiest route in this case and that it is the same in alot of other cases.[/QUOTE]
You're missing the point. Point is, gun or no gun, people were going to die that day and there's not much anyone could have done to stop it. It's just a fact of life. People kill other people. You don't know that he couldn't get access to a car or bomb making material (pro tip, you can get the stuff to make a bomb at any hardware store) any more than I know that he could have.
If you really want to place blame, blame the school who expelled him for being a danger to himself and others and not getting authorities involved.
[quote name='SpazX']Probably because belief in individual rights often correlates with a belief in purely dispositional causes of behavior (in this country anyway). If someone is arrested for a crime it's because they're a criminal, it's part of their DNA. Hence the reason why they go back into prison is because they're bad people, which is why we need to take their rights away when they're not in prison anymore (which in no way causes anything).[/QUOTE]
Very true, and that's it in a nutshell. People have always believed that criminals are "different" from us "good" people. And people always seem very skeptical of the ability of people to change.
Add in that people are mostly ignorant and uninformed and distrusting of science, and you have just what you described despite a huge body of research showing crime is much more due to environmental factors than dispositional ones (not that disposition doesn't matter), and that people can change and be rehabilitated if given proper treatment and access to a legitimate means of success (i.e. a job that pays at least a living wage) etc.
But it's a vicious cycle as the belief of criminals as "bad" and "different" makes it tough to fund rehabilitation programing, which compounded with the stigma society puts on excons, makes it very hard for them to turn their lives around. Hence the high recidivism rates.
Very true, and that's it in a nutshell. People have always believed that criminals are "different" from us "good" people. And people always seem very skeptical of the ability of people to change.
Add in that people are mostly ignorant and uninformed and distrusting of science, and you have just what you described despite a huge body of research showing crime is much more due to environmental factors than dispositional ones (not that disposition doesn't matter), and that people can change and be rehabilitated if given proper treatment and access to a legitimate means of success (i.e. a job that pays at least a living wage) etc.
But it's a vicious cycle as the belief of criminals as "bad" and "different" makes it tough to fund rehabilitation programing, which compounded with the stigma society puts on excons, makes it very hard for them to turn their lives around. Hence the high recidivism rates.
As I said earlier, I do think the insurance idea is not feasible.
I'd be ok with a license idea though, and require licenses that are issued at time of purchase (after the background check) that could be suspended if there are any incidents with the gun.
Lose the license (and right to own guns) if it's stolen and not reported and subsequently used in a crime, or if their kid gets caught with it somewhere, or there's an accidental shooting because it was left out etc.
That way no one's really being imposed on (no insurance premium to pay yearly etc., maybe a one time license fee to cover printing a license etc.), but it also sends a stronger message of needing to take the proper precautions for safety etc.
Though that too is probably unfeasible given the current ban on any type of gun owner registry. Which I think is a crock of shit. Having your name in a registry isn't an infringement of right to bear arms. Anyone (other than felons etc.) can still have any legal gun they want.
And any privacy arguments are bullshit since we have to have our names in government registries to drive, own a car, vote etc.
I'd be ok with a license idea though, and require licenses that are issued at time of purchase (after the background check) that could be suspended if there are any incidents with the gun.
Lose the license (and right to own guns) if it's stolen and not reported and subsequently used in a crime, or if their kid gets caught with it somewhere, or there's an accidental shooting because it was left out etc.
That way no one's really being imposed on (no insurance premium to pay yearly etc., maybe a one time license fee to cover printing a license etc.), but it also sends a stronger message of needing to take the proper precautions for safety etc.
Though that too is probably unfeasible given the current ban on any type of gun owner registry. Which I think is a crock of shit. Having your name in a registry isn't an infringement of right to bear arms. Anyone (other than felons etc.) can still have any legal gun they want.
And any privacy arguments are bullshit since we have to have our names in government registries to drive, own a car, vote etc.
rumblebear
CAGiversary!
Even the shooting victims, like James Eric Fuller, are blaming the massacre on Sarah Palin and her tea party. Well Palin supporters, ready to finally admit the obvious that Sarah Palin is responsible for the murders?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='rumblebear']Even the shooting victims, like James Eric Fuller, are blaming the massacre on Sarah Palin and her tea party. Well Palin supporters, ready to finally admit the obvious that Sarah Palin is responsible for the murders?[/QUOTE]
...and you were on such a roll. I give you props for getting UB jealous, that is some quality trollage.
...and you were on such a roll. I give you props for getting UB jealous, that is some quality trollage.
http://www.newser.com/story/110032/bomb-found-on-mlk-parade-route.html
Not seeing a lot on this story.
Anyone out there think this wasn't politically y motivated?
Not seeing a lot on this story.
Anyone out there think this wasn't politically y motivated?
[quote name='Msut77']http://www.newser.com/story/110032/bomb-found-on-mlk-parade-route.html
Not seeing a lot on this story.
Anyone out there think this wasn't politically y motivated?[/QUOTE]
Honestly, the article doesn't give any actual info to back up such a claim. "Terrorism" by definition is meant to incur political, religious, of social change through violence or threat of violence.
A bomb at a parade is certainly effective in terms of damage caused and number of casualties sustained if allowed to go off, but it doesn't dictate whether or not someone had issue with the nature of the parade or simply wanted to go for a high score.
Too early to call at this time, in my opinion.
~HotShotX
Not seeing a lot on this story.
Anyone out there think this wasn't politically y motivated?[/QUOTE]
Honestly, the article doesn't give any actual info to back up such a claim. "Terrorism" by definition is meant to incur political, religious, of social change through violence or threat of violence.
A bomb at a parade is certainly effective in terms of damage caused and number of casualties sustained if allowed to go off, but it doesn't dictate whether or not someone had issue with the nature of the parade or simply wanted to go for a high score.
Too early to call at this time, in my opinion.
~HotShotX
h3llbring3r
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 58 (100%)
My guess was some splinter-group/individual from National Socialist Party of America, 88's or Aryan Nation . . et al- but at this point why speculate?
[quote name='SpazX']No sane person would plant a bomb on a parade route.
Insane people can't follow political ideologies.
The bomb was not politically motivated.
Done.[/QUOTE]
Just coinkydinks then:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8317
Insane people can't follow political ideologies.
The bomb was not politically motivated.
Done.[/QUOTE]
Just coinkydinks then:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8317
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
M-80's? What was he gonna do with those? Blow up their action figures?
[quote name='Msut77']Another lone wolf:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/30/michigan_mosque_charges_roger_stockham[/QUOTE]
[quote name='mykevermin']M-80's? What was he gonna do with those? Blow up their action figures?[/QUOTE]
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/30/michigan_mosque_charges_roger_stockham[/QUOTE]
[quote name='mykevermin']M-80's? What was he gonna do with those? Blow up their action figures?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='UncleBob']Lame.[/QUOTE]
the guy wasnt a first responder, his unit was called an hour and a half after the shooting and after all victims were already off scene.
i dunno, maybe he actually was. he says he voted for giffords. it doesnt seem like this is someone who was refusing to help save her life on the basis of his political belief.
the guy wasnt a first responder, his unit was called an hour and a half after the shooting and after all victims were already off scene.
But the Star said Ekstrum gave a statement Wednesday to the Fire Department saying he was distraught over the shootings and was "distracted to the point of not being able to perform my routine station duties to such an extent that I seriously doubted my ability to focus on an emergency call."
i dunno, maybe he actually was. he says he voted for giffords. it doesnt seem like this is someone who was refusing to help save her life on the basis of his political belief.
The impression that I got from the story was that he was "too distraught" to assist, and that at the time, the responding unit did not know that the bodies were removed from the scene.
The point is, regardless of his political or religious leanings (of which political I cannot ascertain, and religion appears to be irrelevant), an emergency responder failed to respond by personal decision.
Decorated veteran of the team or not, the integrity of his entire career will now be called into question and possibly outright terminated. It is a shame, but the nature of his field does not allow for failure by refusing to act.
~HotShotX
The point is, regardless of his political or religious leanings (of which political I cannot ascertain, and religion appears to be irrelevant), an emergency responder failed to respond by personal decision.
Decorated veteran of the team or not, the integrity of his entire career will now be called into question and possibly outright terminated. It is a shame, but the nature of his field does not allow for failure by refusing to act.
~HotShotX
bread's done