West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: virtuoso on January 27, 2013, 02:41:47 PM
-
Want to take away (because that is ultimately what they want to do) someones right to defend themselves against the threats that they may face particularly from people who themselves are breaking into their home armed under the pretext that guns are the problem and that if people were disarmed there would be a big drop in deaths and serious injuries and yet most f these people are staunchly pro war and or sit on the fence and claim that "we don't want to, but we have to"
In other words they are not against metal machines blowing a family to bits, not against 10lb bombs being dropped out of the sky blowing up apartment buildings, not against missiles destroying the water suppliers and electricity supplies, don't have anything to say about heavy guns tearing holes through the flesh of women and children when the soldiers go into berserk mode or go trigger happy, don't bat an eyelid that parents in Fallujah have been told NOT to have any children because their children run a very high risk of cancer or deformity because of the chemical weapons which have been employed, or the many deaths in which white phosphorous has caramelised the skin of young children, nope, they just shrug their shoulders and say I support the troops and they are there fighting for me.
They will take a figure like a million Iraqis have been killed and say "that's the price for freedom, or that is what happens during a war" Yet they don't respect that the price for rights is that there will be incidents involving shootings and killings of the innocent
Now I don't believe it's because these people are completely devoid of morality, worse, I think they are entirely empty shells who have been so brain damaged by the culture which they have allowed themselves to be submerged in, so brain damaged by the refusal to educate themselves and to question things, that they simply parrot whatever it is they hear being conveyed as the established line of thinking. They are the real life zombies who would repeat how important it was to for a person to be able to fight for their life with a weapon, how repugnant it was to be launching these unprovoked wars, if that is what the politicians and thus by extension the media was conveying.
I have more respect for a principled war monger, a racist, then I do with so many of these mindless cretinous individuals.
-
Funny, most gun control people actually don't want to take away guns. Why are gun owners so worried about people taking away guns? There are 300 million guns in private ownership, the idea that anyone can disarm American citizens is absurd. Seriously, the mere fact that you think this way is frustrating beyond belief. The vast majority of people don't want to take away your guns, they just want to make sure you will not shoot them with it.
I have learned this about Americans, they are okay with me being a Latino, as long as I'm not around them to make them feel uncomfortable. Americans are okay with war until it reaches that point were it affects them (which is why I'm for bringing back the draft because we'd never have another war again). And Americans don't want to take anyone's gun away unless they think that person will shoot them. Also, those that choose not to own a gun, they don't want someone forcing them to buy a gun either.
-
Okay, I will take the points you raised in no particular order, I think that your suggestion concerning bringing back the draft is a very good one. The shit would really hit the fan when the very reaches of power are being trashed literally, by people of all persuasions and political beiiefs. Concerning your next point, what frustrates me is how you can't see the obvious, that America is on a downward path towards fascism. Look, they already have the laws in place Mdogg, this is no longer a "conspiracy theory" or a paranoia, since you claim to know your history, then this shouldn't even be a point of opinion, those laws are aimed at everyone, an attack on an individual is an attack on everyone. However the reality is that these laws passed or these crimes passed into law are a terror tactic. Now.....taking away the guns, what I said was gun control people want to take this right away from people, now how will they do that? well let me think....make you register your gun, then insist that in order to continue carrying a gun that you undergo regular firearms tests, and or psychological tests and oh that party that you have a membership of, that's not conducive to owning a firearm, those bullets that you want to buy, I am afraid you can only buy so many bullets and you must register yourself on the system when you do.
Well we believe this man is a threat, so we are taking away his right to carry guns, remember now, it's a privilege to own a gun not a right. As for gun control advocates..."they should keep their guns at a gun club" and yes mdogg, there are a lot of gun control advocates who are advocates of wars. I need only listen to your average democrat supporter who turned from pro war to I shut the fuck up about war because it's no longer a political issue.
-
The thing is, these laws don't take away guns, they don't even begin to start. Hell, they don't even close the gun show loop hole yet. They may put stuff in the way, but the people who own guns have guns and all laws are not retroactive. The question is, do you own guns? You know why, I do. I own guns, I own a 30-30 and a .22. I have these guns registered with the state of California, and they've been in my position since I was a teenager. Guess what, no government agent has ever came after my guns. Ever. If the government comes after peoples guns, it would be more blood shed than the Civil War. I hope you understand that. I personally am not worried about the government, I am worried about the people who are getting strokes worrying about the government.
-
Funny, most gun control people actually don't want to take away guns. Why are gun owners so worried about people taking away guns? There are 300 million guns in private ownership, the idea that anyone can disarm American citizens is absurd. Seriously, the mere fact that you think this way is frustrating beyond belief. The vast majority of people don't want to take away your guns, they just want to make sure you will not shoot them with it.
I have learned this about Americans, they are okay with me being a Latino, as long as I'm not around them to make them feel uncomfortable. Americans are okay with war until it reaches that point were it affects them (which is why I'm for bringing back the draft because we'd never have another war again). And Americans don't want to take anyone's gun away unless they think that person will shoot them. Also, those that choose not to own a gun, they don't want someone forcing them to buy a gun either.
I'll take a stab at one of your points mdogg.
In a nation like ours, taking guns away would never never ever happen all at once. The idea that it could be done slowly is feasible, especially when they seem to be willing to chip away with this here, and that there.
-
Those new laws proposed don't do jack shit to stop a mass shooting or prevent a "criminal" from possessing a gun.
The only thing that law does is further restrict the responsible gun owner. They get punished for everyone else's transgressions.
So what was the purpose of this law then if it wasn't to further restrict the 2nd amendment?
-
Those new laws proposed don't do jack shit to stop a mass shooting or prevent a "criminal" from possessing a gun.
The only thing that law does is further restrict the responsible gun owner. They get punished for everyone else's transgressions.
So what was the purpose of this law then if it wasn't to further restrict the 2nd amendment?
Havent really heard a response to this one yet, either.
-
How about being required to provide evidence of safer storage of guns and amunition when you have a mentally handicapped person living in your care?
C'mon guys, it's not rocket science ;)
-
How about being required to provide evidence of safer storage of guns and amunition when you have a mentally handicapped person living in your care?
Yes, because every single potential homicidal maniac is a retard related to a gun owner.
Will's right, it's not rocket science ;).
-
How about being required to provide evidence of safer storage of guns and amunition when you have a mentally handicapped person living in your care?
C'mon guys, it's not rocket science ;)
Yes, let's force everyone to cater to a particular scenario that occurs 0.001% of the time.That's efficient governing, right?
-
How about being required to provide evidence of safer storage of guns and amunition when you have a mentally handicapped person living in your care?
C'mon guys, it's not rocket science ;)
Yes, let's force everyone to cater to a particular scenario that occurs 0.001% of the time.That's efficient governing, right?
Ok let's forget the Lanza case then, so it doesn't cloud things.
By your response you think it's ok to generally let mentally handicapped people have free access to guns.
-
How about being required to provide evidence of safer storage of guns and amunition when you have a mentally handicapped person living in your care?
C'mon guys, it's not rocket science ;)
Yes, let's force everyone to cater to a particular scenario that occurs 0.001% of the time.That's efficient governing, right?
Ok let's forget the Lanza case then, so it doesn't cloud things.
By your response you think it's ok to generally let mentally handicapped people have free access to guns.
Well you read my response wrong because that's a wild conclusion to come to.
As wild as restricting gun rights to responsible gun owners just because there are a few retards that exist.
-
How about being required to provide evidence of safer storage of guns and amunition when you have a mentally handicapped person living in your care?
C'mon guys, it's not rocket science ;)
Yes, let's force everyone to cater to a particular scenario that occurs 0.001% of the time.That's efficient governing, right?
Ok let's forget the Lanza case then, so it doesn't cloud things.
By your response you think it's ok to generally let mentally handicapped people have free access to guns.
Well you read my response wrong because that's a wild conclusion to come to.
As wild as restricting gun rights to responsible gun owners just because there are a few retards that exist.
But you still think it's an inconvenience for parents/carers of handicapped children or adults to have to keep their weapons safely stored?
-
By your response you think it's ok to generally let mentally handicapped people have free access to guns.
No, my response is saying that to me you're a fool for thinking that only the mentally handicapped who are (somehow) related to gun owners are responsible for gun shootings.
It's not just the mentally handicapped who commit all those shootings, a lot of the time they're average folks that just break down and lose their minds. I've heard, read and seen many stories where people close to the criminals, like their family members or friends, say they'd never thought (insert criminal's name here) could do such a horrible act and that they appeared to be normal everyday citizens.
Plus there's this thing called the black market, everyone has access to a gun there.
-
By your response you think it's ok to generally let mentally handicapped people have free access to guns.
No, my response is saying that to me you're a fool for thinking that only the mentally handicapped who are (somehow) related to gun owners are responsible for gun shootings.
It's not just the mentally handicapped who commit all those shootings, a lot of the time they're average folks that just break down and lose their minds. I've heard, read and seen many stories where people close to the criminals, like their family members or friends, say they'd never thought (insert criminal's name here) could do such a horrible act and that they appeared to be normal everyday citizens.
Plus there's this thing called the black market, everyone has access to a gun there.
No Iveus I gave just one example off the dome of legislation that could've saved 26 innocent lives last year alone.
But you read it as 'I WANT TO TAKE ALL THE GUNS FROM AMERICA'
-
How about being required to provide evidence of safer storage of guns and amunition when you have a mentally handicapped person living in your care?
C'mon guys, it's not rocket science ;)
Yes, let's force everyone to cater to a particular scenario that occurs 0.001% of the time.That's efficient governing, right?
Ok let's forget the Lanza case then, so it doesn't cloud things.
By your response you think it's ok to generally let mentally handicapped people have free access to guns.
Well you read my response wrong because that's a wild conclusion to come to.
As wild as restricting gun rights to responsible gun owners just because there are a few retards that exist.
But you still think it's an inconvenience for parents/carers of handicapped children or adults to have to keep their weapons safely stored?
LOL @ this guy. I would love for you to show me where I ever said that.
-
How about being required to provide evidence of safer storage of guns and amunition when you have a mentally handicapped person living in your care?
C'mon guys, it's not rocket science ;)
Yes, let's force everyone to cater to a particular scenario that occurs 0.001% of the time.That's efficient governing, right?
-
How about being required to provide evidence of safer storage of guns and amunition when you have a mentally handicapped person living in your care?
C'mon guys, it's not rocket science ;)
Yes, let's force everyone to cater to a particular scenario that occurs 0.001% of the time.That's efficient governing, right?
And how do you expect an already bankrupt government to pay people to go into hundreds of millions of homes to inspect their gun security?
-
How about being required to provide evidence of safer storage of guns and amunition when you have a mentally handicapped person living in your care?
C'mon guys, it's not rocket science ;)
Yes, let's force everyone to cater to a particular scenario that occurs 0.001% of the time.That's efficient governing, right?
And how do you expect an already bankrupt government to pay people to go into hundreds of millions of homes to inspect their gun security?
I dont have the figues, but im guessing there arent hundreds of millions of households with mentally handicapped people living in, in America.
Be serious for a minute here
-
By your response you think it's ok to generally let mentally handicapped people have free access to guns.
No, my response is saying that to me you're a fool for thinking that only the mentally handicapped who are (somehow) related to gun owners are responsible for gun shootings.
It's not just the mentally handicapped who commit all those shootings, a lot of the time they're average folks that just break down and lose their minds. I've heard, read and seen many stories where people close to the criminals, like their family members or friends, say they'd never thought (insert criminal's name here) could do such a horrible act and that they appeared to be normal everyday citizens.
Plus there's this thing called the black market, everyone has access to a gun there.
No Iveus I gave just one example off the dome of legislation that could've saved 26 innocent lives last year alone.
But you read it as 'I WANT TO TAKE ALL THE GUNS FROM AMERICA'
You never mentioned the part about 26 innocent lives that could've been saved last year.
Just like you never mentioned why you love generic gangsta rap which glorifies guns to a point where it's pure fiction yet demand that guns be taken away in a country that you don't even live in.
-
By your response you think it's ok to generally let mentally handicapped people have free access to guns.
No, my response is saying that to me you're a fool for thinking that only the mentally handicapped who are (somehow) related to gun owners are responsible for gun shootings.
It's not just the mentally handicapped who commit all those shootings, a lot of the time they're average folks that just break down and lose their minds. I've heard, read and seen many stories where people close to the criminals, like their family members or friends, say they'd never thought (insert criminal's name here) could do such a horrible act and that they appeared to be normal everyday citizens.
Plus there's this thing called the black market, everyone has access to a gun there.
No Iveus I gave just one example off the dome of legislation that could've saved 26 innocent lives last year alone.
But you read it as 'I WANT TO TAKE ALL THE GUNS FROM AMERICA'
You never mentioned the part about 26 innocent lives that could've been saved last year.
Just like you never mentioned why you love generic gangsta rap which glorifies guns to a point where it's pure fiction yet demand that guns be taken away in a country that you don't even live in.
I know you're trying to be clever dude but its boring
Did you know Godfather pt II is just a movie?
-
By your response you think it's ok to generally let mentally handicapped people have free access to guns.
No, my response is saying that to me you're a fool for thinking that only the mentally handicapped who are (somehow) related to gun owners are responsible for gun shootings.
It's not just the mentally handicapped who commit all those shootings, a lot of the time they're average folks that just break down and lose their minds. I've heard, read and seen many stories where people close to the criminals, like their family members or friends, say they'd never thought (insert criminal's name here) could do such a horrible act and that they appeared to be normal everyday citizens.
Plus there's this thing called the black market, everyone has access to a gun there.
No Iveus I gave just one example off the dome of legislation that could've saved 26 innocent lives last year alone.
But you read it as 'I WANT TO TAKE ALL THE GUNS FROM AMERICA'
You never mentioned the part about 26 innocent lives that could've been saved last year.
Just like you never mentioned why you love generic gangsta rap which glorifies guns to a point where it's pure fiction yet demand that guns be taken away in a country that you don't even live in.
I know you're trying to be clever dude but its boring
Did you know Godfather pt II is just a movie?
Did you know that you're attempts at trying to avoid my questions are always the same?
-
Those new laws proposed don't do jack shit to stop a mass shooting or prevent a "criminal" from possessing a gun.
The only thing that law does is further restrict the responsible gun owner. They get punished for everyone else's transgressions.
So what was the purpose of this law then if it wasn't to further restrict the 2nd amendment?
By an unwritten rule I don't debate Sik, but I will just this once.
The law does nothing to restrict current gun owners and it does everything to restrict future gun owners. With 300 million guns in position and 360 million people, we may have to rethink who is buying guns. The number of gun owners are actually going down, but the number of guns bought is going up. Meaning those that own guns are buying more. My father owns between 15-20 guns, if that is not over kill I don't know what is.
The gradual take away of the 2nd amendment also can't happen even within 2-3 generations. There is way too much to take away. The only way the 2nd amendment can be taken away is to either rewrite the constitution, which would NEVER happen, or an all out civil war, which the American government knows it will lose. There are more armed people than soldiers, there are more former vets than current military personal and there are more guns in position of American citizens hands than in the position of the military. The 2nd Amendment is so strong in the US that there is no way in the world it can be fazed out by "the powers that be" within 2-3 generations. There are also millions of illegally own guns in the inner cities. Like Immortal Technique said, there will be war on the streets. Unless that kind of drastic measures are taken, your guns are safe. And these laws don't punish you. It only puts into place laws that should have not been taken out.
As for who is America's real criminal, check out this link. I think there is something to this. What does it mean, I'm not sure. But it is a very interesting read.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline
-
By your response you think it's ok to generally let mentally handicapped people have free access to guns.
No, my response is saying that to me you're a fool for thinking that only the mentally handicapped who are (somehow) related to gun owners are responsible for gun shootings.
It's not just the mentally handicapped who commit all those shootings, a lot of the time they're average folks that just break down and lose their minds. I've heard, read and seen many stories where people close to the criminals, like their family members or friends, say they'd never thought (insert criminal's name here) could do such a horrible act and that they appeared to be normal everyday citizens.
Plus there's this thing called the black market, everyone has access to a gun there.
No Iveus I gave just one example off the dome of legislation that could've saved 26 innocent lives last year alone.
But you read it as 'I WANT TO TAKE ALL THE GUNS FROM AMERICA'
You never mentioned the part about 26 innocent lives that could've been saved last year.
Just like you never mentioned why you love generic gangsta rap which glorifies guns to a point where it's pure fiction yet demand that guns be taken away in a country that you don't even live in.
I know you're trying to be clever dude but its boring
Did you know Godfather pt II is just a movie?
Did you know that you're attempts at trying to avoid my questions are always the same?
Avoiding what, somehow making a connection with Gangsta Rap and real life issues?
You sound like pro censorship groups now.
-
By your response you think it's ok to generally let mentally handicapped people have free access to guns.
No, my response is saying that to me you're a fool for thinking that only the mentally handicapped who are (somehow) related to gun owners are responsible for gun shootings.
It's not just the mentally handicapped who commit all those shootings, a lot of the time they're average folks that just break down and lose their minds. I've heard, read and seen many stories where people close to the criminals, like their family members or friends, say they'd never thought (insert criminal's name here) could do such a horrible act and that they appeared to be normal everyday citizens.
Plus there's this thing called the black market, everyone has access to a gun there.
No Iveus I gave just one example off the dome of legislation that could've saved 26 innocent lives last year alone.
But you read it as 'I WANT TO TAKE ALL THE GUNS FROM AMERICA'
You never mentioned the part about 26 innocent lives that could've been saved last year.
Just like you never mentioned why you love generic gangsta rap which glorifies guns to a point where it's pure fiction yet demand that guns be taken away in a country that you don't even live in.
Let's break it down a bit.
We are supporters of the 2nd Amendment, which means you can't restrict gun rights. At the same time, you pick on Gangsta Rap, ironically enough of a Westcoast Rap forum. Also, Gangsta Rap has been dead for a while, BUT Rap Music is protected under the 1st Amendment. So your argument is irrelevant. You can't take away one right just to protect another.
-
By your response you think it's ok to generally let mentally handicapped people have free access to guns.
No, my response is saying that to me you're a fool for thinking that only the mentally handicapped who are (somehow) related to gun owners are responsible for gun shootings.
It's not just the mentally handicapped who commit all those shootings, a lot of the time they're average folks that just break down and lose their minds. I've heard, read and seen many stories where people close to the criminals, like their family members or friends, say they'd never thought (insert criminal's name here) could do such a horrible act and that they appeared to be normal everyday citizens.
Plus there's this thing called the black market, everyone has access to a gun there.
No Iveus I gave just one example off the dome of legislation that could've saved 26 innocent lives last year alone.
But you read it as 'I WANT TO TAKE ALL THE GUNS FROM AMERICA'
You never mentioned the part about 26 innocent lives that could've been saved last year.
Just like you never mentioned why you love generic gangsta rap which glorifies guns to a point where it's pure fiction yet demand that guns be taken away in a country that you don't even live in.
Let's break it down a bit.
We are supporters of the 2nd Amendment, which means you can't restrict gun rights. At the same time, you pick on Gangsta Rap, ironically enough of a Westcoast Rap forum. Also, Gangsta Rap has been dead for a while, BUT Rap Music is protected under the 1st Amendment. So your argument is irrelevant. You can't take away one right just to protect another.
It's less academic than that. Dude was claiming I can't have an opinion on guns simply because I like Gangsta music.
-
By your response you think it's ok to generally let mentally handicapped people have free access to guns.
No, my response is saying that to me you're a fool for thinking that only the mentally handicapped who are (somehow) related to gun owners are responsible for gun shootings.
It's not just the mentally handicapped who commit all those shootings, a lot of the time they're average folks that just break down and lose their minds. I've heard, read and seen many stories where people close to the criminals, like their family members or friends, say they'd never thought (insert criminal's name here) could do such a horrible act and that they appeared to be normal everyday citizens.
Plus there's this thing called the black market, everyone has access to a gun there.
No Iveus I gave just one example off the dome of legislation that could've saved 26 innocent lives last year alone.
But you read it as 'I WANT TO TAKE ALL THE GUNS FROM AMERICA'
You never mentioned the part about 26 innocent lives that could've been saved last year.
Just like you never mentioned why you love generic gangsta rap which glorifies guns to a point where it's pure fiction yet demand that guns be taken away in a country that you don't even live in.
Let's break it down a bit.
We are supporters of the 2nd Amendment, which means you can't restrict gun rights. At the same time, you pick on Gangsta Rap, ironically enough of a Westcoast Rap forum. Also, Gangsta Rap has been dead for a while, BUT Rap Music is protected under the 1st Amendment. So your argument is irrelevant. You can't take away one right just to protect another.
It's less academic than that. Dude was claiming I can't have an opinion on guns simply because I like Gangsta music.
LOL... OH WOW! Oh well... That's funny on a Westcoast Rap board, where people come together to talk about, you know, Gangsta music... hahahaha
-
MDogg why do you try and rationalise something which wasn't there? is it so you can convince yourself that things are better than what I am portraying? I never said they would try and take the guns in one fell swoop in the dead of night did I? You are creating a straw man from the fundamental point I made concerning the fact that YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS, at least according to these criminal laws. Everything is done piece meal, you will be gently acclimated into this new normal and before too long your stance will have altered, softened, as you stray further away from the ground in which you held. As for the premise of my original post, the fact that none of these gun control fans has even addressed what I wrote, speaks volumes to the irony.
-
Also, Gangsta Rap has been dead for a while
Whoa pal, don't you dare tell dubcc that.
-
MDogg why do you try and rationalise something which wasn't there? is it so you can convince yourself that things are better than what I am portraying? I never said they would try and take the guns in one fell swoop in the dead of night did I? You are creating a straw man from the fundamental point I made concerning the fact that YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS, at least according to these criminal laws. Everything is done piece meal, you will be gently acclimated into this new normal and before too long your stance will have altered, softened, as you stray further away from the ground in which you held. As for the premise of my original post, the fact that none of these gun control fans has even addressed what I wrote, speaks volumes to the irony.
Look at who suppliers gun control here, Europeans. They can't reply because they don't know the whole Story, but I do. Which is why it always comes down to us.
You say its piece meal, but I tell you that you are wrong. There is no way the government can keep that up. The government changes to much. But the greatest threat to freedom is the very thing we are communicating with. You see, the internet is the greatest way to track people. It's amazing what the government could do when they finally convince Google to gain access to their data. Guns are the last thing you need to worry about, the establishment could careless about your guns, they want your privacy. They can pick off people, but they can't win a war against its own people.
-
So Will how do we decide who has a mental problem great enough to do what youre talking about. Who decides, at what point, we begin to restrict people's fundamental rights based upon a supposition. I think you could see how thats a slippery slope to consider going down. This is a nation that uses precedents in court to decide how our rights are interpreted, that kind of decision would greatly restrict all rights, not just in the arena of gun rights.
-
LOL... OH WOW! Oh well... That's funny on a Westcoast Rap board, where people come together to talk about, you know, Gangsta music... hahahaha
I can't remember the last time I read a thread on DUBCC that was about westcoast hip hop that's not in some way or form gangsta music.
You know them Euros only wanna talk about them Dogg Pound Gangstas or 2Pacs... hahahaha
-
How about being required to provide evidence of safer storage of guns and amunition when you have a mentally handicapped person living in your care?
C'mon guys, it's not rocket science ;)
Yes, let's force everyone to cater to a particular scenario that occurs 0.001% of the time.That's efficient governing, right?
And how do you expect an already bankrupt government to pay people to go into hundreds of millions of homes to inspect their gun security?
I dont have the figues, but im guessing there arent hundreds of millions of households with mentally handicapped people living in, in America.
Be serious for a minute here
That was a serious question you just ignored.
-
So Will how do we decide who has a mental problem great enough to do what youre talking about. Who decides, at what point, we begin to restrict people's fundamental rights based upon a supposition. I think you could see how thats a slippery slope to consider going down. This is a nation that uses precedents in court to decide how our rights are interpreted, that kind of decision would greatly restrict all rights, not just in the arena of gun rights.
You want me to give your nation the ideas and the solutions? Does a Euro have to do everything himself? :laugh:
Nah I'd imagine if your kids registered 'special needs' on your local healthcare database (however the fuck you do it there) that could get flagged up when applying for a firearms licence. Someone from the local council or police makes a call to check you got a gun safe and store the keys and ammunition separately and out of reach of the kid.
If this saves 1 life its worth it in the long run.
-
How about being required to provide evidence of safer storage of guns and amunition when you have a mentally handicapped person living in your care?
C'mon guys, it's not rocket science ;)
Yes, let's force everyone to cater to a particular scenario that occurs 0.001% of the time.That's efficient governing, right?
And how do you expect an already bankrupt government to pay people to go into hundreds of millions of homes to inspect their gun security?
I dont have the figues, but im guessing there arent hundreds of millions of households with mentally handicapped people living in, in America.
Be serious for a minute here
That was a serious question you just ignored.
Don't bullshit :D
-
Those new laws proposed don't do jack shit to stop a mass shooting or prevent a "criminal" from possessing a gun.
The only thing that law does is further restrict the responsible gun owner. They get punished for everyone else's transgressions.
So what was the purpose of this law then if it wasn't to further restrict the 2nd amendment?
By an unwritten rule I don't debate Sik, but I will just this once.
The law does nothing to restrict current gun owners and it does everything to restrict future gun owners. With 300 million guns in position and 360 million people, we may have to rethink who is buying guns. The number of gun owners are actually going down, but the number of guns bought is going up. Meaning those that own guns are buying more. My father owns between 15-20 guns, if that is not over kill I don't know what is.
The gradual take away of the 2nd amendment also can't happen even within 2-3 generations. There is way too much to take away. The only way the 2nd amendment can be taken away is to either rewrite the constitution, which would NEVER happen, or an all out civil war, which the American government knows it will lose. There are more armed people than soldiers, there are more former vets than current military personal and there are more guns in position of American citizens hands than in the position of the military. The 2nd Amendment is so strong in the US that there is no way in the world it can be fazed out by "the powers that be" within 2-3 generations. There are also millions of illegally own guns in the inner cities. Like Immortal Technique said, there will be war on the streets. Unless that kind of drastic measures are taken, your guns are safe. And these laws don't punish you. It only puts into place laws that should have not been taken out.
As for who is America's real criminal, check out this link. I think there is something to this. What does it mean, I'm not sure. But it is a very interesting read.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline
That is an interesting article.
And even if the law limits future gun owners, it's still pointless.
It still does nothing to limit illegal gun ownership. And it will do nothing to prevent another mass shooting, which is the initial event that lead to these new laws.
So if these laws are not there to limit criminal gun possession or to prevent further mass shooting tragedies, what is it's real purpose other than to restrict the 2nd amendment to those who are law abiding and responsible gun owners? Personally, I'll take a person with 15-20 guns who is law abiding and responsible with his weapons over some thug or nutcase with just a single gun. The majority of registered gun owners are not the problem, and the new laws proposed only target them. Simply put, the laws won't fix anything. It's just a diversion to make it look like Obama is actually doing something.
-
How about being required to provide evidence of safer storage of guns and amunition when you have a mentally handicapped person living in your care?
C'mon guys, it's not rocket science ;)
Yes, let's force everyone to cater to a particular scenario that occurs 0.001% of the time.That's efficient governing, right?
And how do you expect an already bankrupt government to pay people to go into hundreds of millions of homes to inspect their gun security?
I dont have the figues, but im guessing there arent hundreds of millions of households with mentally handicapped people living in, in America.
Be serious for a minute here
That was a serious question you just ignored.
Don't bullshit :D
No seriously: you want the government to inspect the homes of gun owners that have mentally unstable people living under their roofs.
Well, how do you intend on making that a reality? Hire thousands of inspectors on the government's dime when the government is trillions of dollars in debt? How are you going to convince gun owners to allow inspectors into theirs homes without a warrant? Do you propose that hundreds of millions of warrants be issued? How many judges and how much MORE money will that cost the taxpayers?
Not to mention what Russell Bell said above. And on top of that, the issue of discrimination that will ultimately come up from gun owners who happened to have a handicapped child or family member living with them.
Please, discuss your plans with us, President Will lol.
-
How about being required to provide evidence of safer storage of guns and amunition when you have a mentally handicapped person living in your care?
C'mon guys, it's not rocket science ;)
Yes, let's force everyone to cater to a particular scenario that occurs 0.001% of the time.That's efficient governing, right?
And how do you expect an already bankrupt government to pay people to go into hundreds of millions of homes to inspect their gun security?
I dont have the figues, but im guessing there arent hundreds of millions of households with mentally handicapped people living in, in America.
Be serious for a minute here
That was a serious question you just ignored.
Don't bullshit :D
No seriously: you want the government to inspect the homes of gun owners that have mentally unstable people living under their roofs.
Well, how do you intend on making that a reality? Hire thousands of inspectors on the government's dime when the government is trillions of dollars in debt? How are you going to convince gun owners to allow inspectors into theirs homes without a warrant? Do you propose that hundreds of millions of warrants be issued? How many judges and how much MORE money will that cost the taxpayers?
Not to mention what Russell Bell said above. And on top of that, the issue of discrimination that will ultimately come up from gun owners who happened to have a handicapped child or family member living with them.
Please, discuss your plans with us, President Will lol.
Here's the thing I can't help you with.
If you live in the UK and your child is unlucky enough have a handicap, the system is set up to help a parent through support from our health service, care workers, grants to subsidise adapting your home or car etc, physiotherapy, free classes for the parents, home visits, welfare benefits, tax breaks, education support, the welfare of the parent too etc etc.
The idea of a parent of such a child asking for a warrant for any official to enter their home is an alien concept. thats just being real. No BS
-
MDogg why do you try and rationalise something which wasn't there? is it so you can convince yourself that things are better than what I am portraying? I never said they would try and take the guns in one fell swoop in the dead of night did I? You are creating a straw man from the fundamental point I made concerning the fact that YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS, at least according to these criminal laws. Everything is done piece meal, you will be gently acclimated into this new normal and before too long your stance will have altered, softened, as you stray further away from the ground in which you held. As for the premise of my original post, the fact that none of these gun control fans has even addressed what I wrote, speaks volumes to the irony.
Look at who suppliers gun control here, Europeans. They can't reply because they don't know the whole Story, but I do. Which is why it always comes down to us.
You say its piece meal, but I tell you that you are wrong. There is no way the government can keep that up. The government changes to much. But the greatest threat to freedom is the very thing we are communicating with. You see, the internet is the greatest way to track people. It's amazing what the government could do when they finally convince Google to gain access to their data. Guns are the last thing you need to worry about, the establishment could careless about your guns, they want your privacy. They can pick off people, but they can't win a war against its own people.
+1, thank you
-
Those new laws proposed don't do jack shit to stop a mass shooting or prevent a "criminal" from possessing a gun.
The only thing that law does is further restrict the responsible gun owner. They get punished for everyone else's transgressions.
So what was the purpose of this law then if it wasn't to further restrict the 2nd amendment?
By an unwritten rule I don't debate Sik, but I will just this once.
The law does nothing to restrict current gun owners and it does everything to restrict future gun owners. With 300 million guns in position and 360 million people, we may have to rethink who is buying guns. The number of gun owners are actually going down, but the number of guns bought is going up. Meaning those that own guns are buying more. My father owns between 15-20 guns, if that is not over kill I don't know what is.
The gradual take away of the 2nd amendment also can't happen even within 2-3 generations. There is way too much to take away. The only way the 2nd amendment can be taken away is to either rewrite the constitution, which would NEVER happen, or an all out civil war, which the American government knows it will lose. There are more armed people than soldiers, there are more former vets than current military personal and there are more guns in position of American citizens hands than in the position of the military. The 2nd Amendment is so strong in the US that there is no way in the world it can be fazed out by "the powers that be" within 2-3 generations. There are also millions of illegally own guns in the inner cities. Like Immortal Technique said, there will be war on the streets. Unless that kind of drastic measures are taken, your guns are safe. And these laws don't punish you. It only puts into place laws that should have not been taken out.
As for who is America's real criminal, check out this link. I think there is something to this. What does it mean, I'm not sure. But it is a very interesting read.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline
That is an interesting article.
And even if the law limits future gun owners, it's still pointless.
It still does nothing to limit illegal gun ownership. And it will do nothing to prevent another mass shooting, which is the initial event that lead to these new laws.
So if these laws are not there to limit criminal gun possession or to prevent further mass shooting tragedies, what is it's real purpose other than to restrict the 2nd amendment to those who are law abiding and responsible gun owners? Personally, I'll take a person with 15-20 guns who is law abiding and responsible with his weapons over some thug or nutcase with just a single gun. The majority of registered gun owners are not the problem, and the new laws proposed only target them. Simply put, the laws won't fix anything. It's just a diversion to make it look like Obama is actually doing something.
Illegal gun owners are the problem. My dad owning 15-20 guns is not the problem. But those are things you can't control. There are things you can control, and that's future gun owners. I personally want to see them prove they can handle a gun before they have a gun. You see too many people own guns who don't respect them. You know what liberals love about gun owners, the fact that stories like these are not in shortage.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/gun-show-shootings_n_2568134.html
My thing is, I somewhat agree on the starting of regulations on gun owners. In reality you can't address the real problem without years of research on illegal guns and mental health issues. But you can stop idiots from getting their hands on more guns.
-
You just invalidated your rebuttal with There is no way the government can keep that up. The government changes to much
This is one of those moments where you are looking to rationalise again while ignoring how the NDAA actually went from being a criminal prlonoposal to a criminal law.
So let me remind you......the congress and the senate both unanimously voted in favour of tearing up people's rights i.e. endorse the dictatorial route.
Now this blows out of the water the very cumbersome attempts to blame it on the liberals or the left, or the right.
They are unanimously criminal scum, either through blackmail, witting accomplices, or they rationalise it in their own minds as well they are all scum who have sold their soul, so why shouldn't I get mine?
-
What you are failing to miss is that the NDAA is an annual bill. It has to come up every year for debate because it cannot be permit law. Every two years, in theory, government changes. Right now, instead of focusing on guns, because that's not an issue that can truly be dealt with for a few generations, we should be fighting against the NDAA. So every year when the NDAA comes up, it's up to us to get the people against it. You know who even knows about the NDAA, the tin foil heads. People don't want to listen to them. When you are against something by putting a picture of Obama as Hitler, you are not going to get much positive response. You know what about the NDAA, it will come up again at the end of the year, and at the end of the year it is up to the people to find a true way to move people against it.
Let me put it this way, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X are connected in many people's mind because they were black leaders. But they had a different way of going about their business. At the end, Malcolm was killed by the Nation of Islam because he was a threat to them. Martin was killed by the United States government, because he was a true threat to them. Malcolm thought he was a threat, the same way many libertarians think they are a threat. But people don't see them as a threat, because the movement looks like a put of conspiracy theorist. Now lets take a look at Martin, Martin was a true threat because he changed people's hearts and minds. He was able to focus the attention of the people onto the issues he wanted. Martin eventually turned his attention to going anti-War and workers rights. His movement was successful and becoming bigger. Eventually he was killed as he was getting to important. Right now the Libertarian movement is more Malcolm than Martin, it's only a real threat to the Republican Party and not the US government it's self.
I agree with many things you say, but your tactics will not get anything done.
-
I find the clinging to guns insane and unnecessary. If the people truly did rise up and started winning, the Feds would have absolutely no qualms with nuking their own people. That's why I support California becoming our own nation in theory, but not in practice. The Feds would kill us all and make it seem like it was the right thing to do.
At the same time I don't support gun control, for the same reason I don't support abortion controls or drug laws or anti-gambling/prostitution laws. Just because you make something illegal does NOT make it go away. It's better to keep it legal but regulated.
-
I find the clinging to guns insane and unnecessary. If the people truly did rise up and started winning, the Feds would have absolutely no qualms with nuking their own people. That's why I support California becoming our own nation in theory, but not in practice. The Feds would kill us all and make it seem like it was the right thing to do.
At the same time I don't support gun control, for the same reason I don't support abortion controls or drug laws or anti-gambling/prostitution laws. Just because you make something illegal does NOT make it go away. It's better to keep it legal but regulated.
holy shit that'd be a disaster.
we are a wreck.
-
Not true anymore. The deficit is gone.
-
Just because you make something illegal does NOT make it go away. It's better to keep it legal but regulated.
But 'gun control' as you're calling it, would be legal but more regulated.
Just think about guns in the same context as what you're saying for drugs.
Funny how pro gun groups being very paranoid about regulations, but this guy above is being very open minded about drugs, and prostitution. Why is it a good move to legalise (but regulate) drugs and prostitutes, but to do the same with guns an unthinkable act?
Food for thought
-
Not true anymore. The deficit is gone.
businesses are leaving this state every hour.
school system is fucked.
jobs are nonexistent in some places.
i stand by my statement.
-
Just remember this about California, it took years and years of bad governing for it to get there.
From Pete Wilson blaming everything on immigration and not fixing the economy, while also taking money from the schools, to Grey Davis putting the state in debt trying to save the schools, to Arnold basically fucking the state over in every way possible, to now Jerry Brown finally balancing the budget but cutting services and ending all the business deals that usually keep business in the state. California has been going down hill since 1990 when Pete Wilson was elected. But I will say that California seems to be making a comeback and could be a top economical force again within the next 10 years. But it will take that long for the state to recover.
-
Not true anymore. The deficit is gone.
businesses are leaving this state every hour.
school system is fucked.
jobs are nonexistent in some places.
i stand by my statement.
All of your statements have been said for decades by people that want no schools at all except private schools and no regulations whatsoever on their businesses. They will keep repeating that no matter what the government of our state actually does in the meantime. I disagree with you completely, however I respect your opinion.
-
Not true anymore. The deficit is gone.
businesses are leaving this state every hour.
school system is fucked.
jobs are nonexistent in some places.
i stand by my statement.
All of your statements have been said for decades by people that want no schools at all except private schools and no regulations whatsoever on their businesses. They will keep repeating that no matter what the government of our state actually does in the meantime. I disagree with you completely, however I respect your opinion.
Those arent partisan statements. They are just observations of things that are actually happening (facts).
California is consistently one of the worst business friendly states in the union.
Our schools are absolutely horrible, and if you dont work in them, you really have no idea.
And unemployment is higher here than the rest of the nation.