It's May 11, 2024, 08:50:58 AM
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
Quote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 29, 2013, 02:48:17 AMQuote from: Do Buy Albums on January 29, 2013, 02:40:45 AMQuote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 29, 2013, 01:23:16 AMQuote from: Do Buy Albums on January 29, 2013, 12:40:40 AMHow 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
Quote from: Do Buy Albums on January 29, 2013, 02:40:45 AMQuote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 29, 2013, 01:23:16 AMQuote from: Do Buy Albums on January 29, 2013, 12:40:40 AMHow 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?
Quote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 29, 2013, 01:23:16 AMQuote from: Do Buy Albums on January 29, 2013, 12:40:40 AMHow 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?
Quote from: Do Buy Albums on January 29, 2013, 12:40:40 AMHow 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
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.
Quote from: Do Buy Albums on January 29, 2013, 02:55:15 AMQuote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 29, 2013, 02:48:17 AMQuote from: Do Buy Albums on January 29, 2013, 02:40:45 AMQuote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 29, 2013, 01:23:16 AMQuote from: Do Buy Albums on January 29, 2013, 12:40:40 AMHow 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.
Quote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 28, 2013, 10:36:09 PMThose 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
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?
Quote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 30, 2013, 12:45:14 AMQuote from: Do Buy Albums on January 29, 2013, 02:55:15 AMQuote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 29, 2013, 02:48:17 AMQuote from: Do Buy Albums on January 29, 2013, 02:40:45 AMQuote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 29, 2013, 01:23:16 AMQuote from: Do Buy Albums on January 29, 2013, 12:40:40 AMHow 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
Quote from: Do Buy Albums on January 30, 2013, 12:50:05 AMQuote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 30, 2013, 12:45:14 AMQuote from: Do Buy Albums on January 29, 2013, 02:55:15 AMQuote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 29, 2013, 02:48:17 AMQuote from: Do Buy Albums on January 29, 2013, 02:40:45 AMQuote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 29, 2013, 01:23:16 AMQuote from: Do Buy Albums on January 29, 2013, 12:40:40 AMHow 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 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.
Quote from: virtuoso on January 29, 2013, 02:04:10 PMMDogg 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.
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.
Quote from: M Dogg on January 29, 2013, 08:59:25 AMQuote from: Sikunta Kinte on January 28, 2013, 10:36:09 PMThose 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-gasolineThat 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.
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.