Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on Feb 9, 2016 20:23:52 GMT -5
@richardintn
I see your point.
However, in my opinion I don't think there is a need for people to have all the weapons that are used in the army in their homes. I mean yes we have mass shootings but I have yet to see in the 2000s an invading army actually take step on the United States land and be killing people that can't defend themselves. That however is happening overseas.
I'm trying to make it clear as well I'm not saying get rid of all the guns but there are certain guns that I do believe that have no need to be in homes. I also do believe it is way too easy to get guns now a days.
But, I withdraw my take on the constitution because I never took it as a 'because the army has these guns we can now' ordeal. I just always took it as a you can have guns to protect yourself...
and I don't personally think that a person needs so many guns to protect themselves or certain types to get the job done with just one to three people invading them if it ever happened to them. But that's just my take.
But i want to make it clear again...which I feel the need to do...because I've seen a few times people think that people are saying all guns need to go...and were trying to take all guns away.
I do NOT think all guns need to be taken away. >.>
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:17:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 20:41:23 GMT -5
The Second Amendment allows personal ownership of guns because of the "necessary to the security of a free state" part. That's why equality with weaponry MUST be allowed to be maintained.
People like to pick and choose parts out of the Second Amendment, but it's only relevance is when it's taken as a whole: "well regulated militia" doesn't mean "constantly under command" it means "functional as expected, when needed". "being necessary for the security of a free state" means to guard against the oppression of oppressive governments... whether they be foreign or domestic. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means well... exactly what it says, that that right, the right to own and carry arms, "shall not be infringed".
Being allowed to use "Arms" for self protection is actually a bonus (as it applies to the Second Amendment).
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on Feb 9, 2016 20:45:59 GMT -5
I still stand by my statement above that I do not believe all guns should be regulated. I'm not saying all guns should be banned but I still believe there is no need for certain guns. And I fully believe that there should be better gun laws and regulations. =P
That's never going to change.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Feb 9, 2016 21:49:23 GMT -5
The Second Amendment allows personal ownership of guns because of the " necessary to the security of a free state" part. That's why equality with weaponry MUST be allowed to be maintained. People like to pick and choose parts out of the Second Amendment, but it's only relevance is when it's taken as a whole: "well regulated militia" doesn't mean "constantly under command" it means "functional as expected, when needed". "being necessary for the security of a free state" means to guard against the oppression of oppressive governments... whether they be foreign or domestic. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means well... exactly what it says, that that right, the right to own and carry arms, "shall not be infringed". Being allowed to use "Arms" for self protection is actually a bonus (as it applies to the Second Amendment). That's just silly- equality with weaponry. Not going to happen ever. But if for some reason the 2nd amendment gets re-interpereted by some crazy Supreme Court in the future- I still think parents that keep their anti-tank rockets on the coffee table and grenades in the junk drawer should go to jail when their kids get a hold of them and kill someone
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:17:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 22:23:46 GMT -5
The Second Amendment allows personal ownership of guns because of the " necessary to the security of a free state" part. That's why equality with weaponry MUST be allowed to be maintained. People like to pick and choose parts out of the Second Amendment, but it's only relevance is when it's taken as a whole: "well regulated militia" doesn't mean "constantly under command" it means "functional as expected, when needed". "being necessary for the security of a free state" means to guard against the oppression of oppressive governments... whether they be foreign or domestic. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means well... exactly what it says, that that right, the right to own and carry arms, "shall not be infringed". Being allowed to use "Arms" for self protection is actually a bonus (as it applies to the Second Amendment). That's just silly- equality with weaponry. Not going to happen ever. But if for some reason the 2nd amendment gets re-interpereted by some crazy Supreme Court in the future- I still think parents that keep their anti-tank rockets on the coffee table and grenades in the junk drawer should go to jail when their kids get a hold of them and kill someone I can agree with that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:17:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2016 12:51:50 GMT -5
I still stand by my statement above that I do not believe all guns should be regulated. I'm not saying all guns should be banned but I still believe there is no need for certain guns. And I fully believe that there should be better gun laws and regulations. =P That's never going to change. You would have to describe for me what a "better" gun law/regulation is.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:17:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2016 13:01:57 GMT -5
The Second Amendment allows personal ownership of guns because of the " necessary to the security of a free state" part. That's why equality with weaponry MUST be allowed to be maintained. People like to pick and choose parts out of the Second Amendment, but it's only relevance is when it's taken as a whole: "well regulated militia" doesn't mean "constantly under command" it means "functional as expected, when needed". "being necessary for the security of a free state" means to guard against the oppression of oppressive governments... whether they be foreign or domestic. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means well... exactly what it says, that that right, the right to own and carry arms, "shall not be infringed". Being allowed to use "Arms" for self protection is actually a bonus (as it applies to the Second Amendment). That's just silly- equality with weaponry. Not going to happen ever. But if for some reason the 2nd amendment gets re-interpereted by some crazy Supreme Court in the future- I still think parents that keep their anti-tank rockets on the coffee table and grenades in the junk drawer should go to jail when their kids get a hold of them and kill someone Of course parents can go to jail for enabling their minor offspring to murder some one with weapons of any type (not just guns). What country have you been living in ?
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 10, 2016 13:07:17 GMT -5
I still stand by my statement above that I do not believe all guns should be regulated. I'm not saying all guns should be banned but I still believe there is no need for certain guns. And I fully believe that there should be better gun laws and regulations. =P That's never going to change. There's no NEED for a lot of shit we do. You should know that as well as anyone. Our constitution doesn't provide us with a bill of NEEDS, it is a bill of RIGHTS. Humor us though, and tell which guns, exactly, aren't "needed".
|
|
gregintenn
Senior Member
Resident hillbilly
Joined: Dec 28, 2015 17:07:59 GMT -5
Posts: 2,840
|
Post by gregintenn on Feb 10, 2016 13:15:52 GMT -5
@richardintn I see your point. However, in my opinion I don't think there is a need for people to have all the weapons that are used in the army in their homes. I mean yes we have mass shootings but I have yet to see in the 2000s an invading army actually take step on the United States land and be killing people that can't defend themselves. That however is happening overseas. I'm trying to make it clear as well I'm not saying get rid of all the guns but there are certain guns that I do believe that have no need to be in homes. I also do believe it is way too easy to get guns now a days. But, I withdraw my take on the constitution because I never took it as a 'because the army has these guns we can now' ordeal. I just always took it as a you can have guns to protect yourself... and I don't personally think that a person needs so many guns to protect themselves or certain types to get the job done with just one to three people invading them if it ever happened to them. But that's just my take. But i want to make it clear again...which I feel the need to do...because I've seen a few times people think that people are saying all guns need to go...and were trying to take all guns away. I do NOT think all guns need to be taken away. >.> Which guns should we not have? Would you like to come over and go through my collection and tell me which ones I should have and which I shouldn't? I bought them legally, with legally earned money, and have not committed any crime with them, yet you'd have no problem making me a defacto criminal because I may own some you don't approve of for some arbitrary reason. This, folks, is liberal logic.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 10, 2016 13:51:46 GMT -5
That's just silly- equality with weaponry. Not going to happen ever. But if for some reason the 2nd amendment gets re-interpereted by some crazy Supreme Court in the future- I still think parents that keep their anti-tank rockets on the coffee table and grenades in the junk drawer should go to jail when their kids get a hold of them and kill someone Of course parents can go to jail for enabling their minor offspring to murder some one with weapons of any type (not just guns). What country have you been living in ? I'm in the US. According to the one article URL I may have posted in this thread, only 20 states even have laws allowing parents to be charged in the case of their child committing homicide with a gun. So less than half of the states. Plus some are very restrictive. If a parent negligently stores or leaves out a firearm they could be charged under the law, but in some states if it happens at a relative's home - no charges.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:17:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2016 14:14:41 GMT -5
Of course parents can go to jail for enabling their minor offspring to murder some one with weapons of any type (not just guns). What country have you been living in ? I'm in the US. According to the one article URL I may have posted in this thread, only 20 states even have laws allowing parents to be charged in the case of their child committing homicide with a gun. So less than half of the states. Plus some are very restrictive. If a parent negligently stores or leaves out a firearm they could be charged under the law, but in some states if it happens at a relative's home - no charges. I was quoting fishy but, OK. I was carrying a .22 rifle when out in the woods (Southern rural Indiana) by myself by the time I turned six years old. I didn't ever have the need to shoot anybody. I was also taught what a weapon was responsibly used for. Law abiding adults and children don't think too much what the occasional criminal does. I don't believe in the latest "collective guilt" approach applied by gun control proponents. I guess I was ignorant of the myriad of laws across this country. I would like to believe all are responsible for the things they do, but I'm kind of old fashioned. Do the minors get charged in the states where the parents don't ?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 10, 2016 14:41:33 GMT -5
I'm in the US. According to the one article URL I may have posted in this thread, only 20 states even have laws allowing parents to be charged in the case of their child committing homicide with a gun. So less than half of the states. Plus some are very restrictive. If a parent negligently stores or leaves out a firearm they could be charged under the law, but in some states if it happens at a relative's home - no charges. I was quoting fishy but, OK. I was carrying a .22 rifle when out in the woods (Southern rural Indiana) by myself by the time I turned six years old. I didn't ever have the need to shoot anybody. I was also taught what a weapon was responsibly used for. Law abiding adults and children don't think too much what the occasional criminal does. I don't believe in the latest "collective guilt" approach applied by gun control proponents. I guess I was ignorant of the myriad of laws across this country. I would like to believe all are responsible for the things they do, but I'm kind of old fashioned. Do the minors get charged in the states where the parents don't ? Some do, some get a slap on the wrist because of their juvenile status. I was just reading an article on the "worst" murders who were children and number 10 was a 6 year old who went home to get a 12 gauge shotgun and killed his friend with it, because he took some of his scrap metal. After knocking down charges he was sentenced to 15 years of away reform school. A judge later struck that down so he did nothing except be on trial. 1929. Doesn't seem much different from some contemporary news stories. A 10? year old brother recently shot his sister to death through a window because she wouldn't get something he wanted.
The biggest issue is that most homicides aren't committed by existing criminals. They are committed by people you know. People, who until they got angry, weren't criminals.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 10, 2016 14:54:09 GMT -5
@richardintn I see your point. However, in my opinion I don't think there is a need for people to have all the weapons that are used in the army in their homes. I mean yes we have mass shootings but I have yet to see in the 2000s an invading army actually take step on the United States land and be killing people that can't defend themselves. That however is happening overseas. I'm trying to make it clear as well I'm not saying get rid of all the guns but there are certain guns that I do believe that have no need to be in homes. I also do believe it is way too easy to get guns now a days. But, I withdraw my take on the constitution because I never took it as a 'because the army has these guns we can now' ordeal. I just always took it as a you can have guns to protect yourself... and I don't personally think that a person needs so many guns to protect themselves or certain types to get the job done with just one to three people invading them if it ever happened to them. But that's just my take. But i want to make it clear again...which I feel the need to do...because I've seen a few times people think that people are saying all guns need to go...and were trying to take all guns away. I do NOT think all guns need to be taken away. >.> Which guns should we not have? Would you like to come over and go through my collection and tell me which ones I should have and which I shouldn't? I bought them legally, with legally earned money, and have not committed any crime with them, yet you'd have no problem making me a defacto criminal because I may own some you don't approve of for some arbitrary reason. This, folks, is liberal logic. No, its Kolt's opinion with which you disagree. Neither you nor I know his political leanings. Plus you got way ahead of yourself. You should have stopped at your first question. You assume he disagrees with you having some of your guns *with no evidence in his posts whatsoever*.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 10, 2016 17:40:46 GMT -5
I also do believe it is way too easy to get guns now a days.
Have you bought a gun recently? It's not as easy as you seem to think, to do it LEGALLY. The problem is that there are a lot of people who get guns illegally. So any additional restrictions are going to be ascribed to the people who already jump through hoops to get a gun legally and are not going to do a damn bit of good for those who get them illegally, they are still going to get them the same way.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 10, 2016 19:06:38 GMT -5
I'm willing to bet that many of the criminal element still buy guns on the background check free shows and private sales that exist. If it troubles a legal buyer to have to go through that process, so what! All that means is a crim stayed away and wasn't able to easily acquire a weapon. And I don't think every criminal knows how to go about buying a gun illegally. Obviously some do.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 11, 2016 7:52:33 GMT -5
I would say if I wanted to buy a gun off the streets, I could have one in less than half hour.
no gun show , It could be maybe a private sale, All you would have to do go down the street asking, I want to buy a gun do you know anyone that has one for sale?
All it takes is money!
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Feb 11, 2016 9:31:29 GMT -5
I was quoting fishy but, OK. I was carrying a .22 rifle when out in the woods (Southern rural Indiana) by myself by the time I turned six years old. I didn't ever have the need to shoot anybody. I was also taught what a weapon was responsibly used for. Law abiding adults and children don't think too much what the occasional criminal does. I don't believe in the latest "collective guilt" approach applied by gun control proponents. I guess I was ignorant of the myriad of laws across this country. I would like to believe all are responsible for the things they do, but I'm kind of old fashioned. Do the minors get charged in the states where the parents don't ? Some do, some get a slap on the wrist because of their juvenile status. I was just reading an article on the "worst" murders who were children and number 10 was a 6 year old who went home to get a 12 gauge shotgun and killed his friend with it, because he took some of his scrap metal. After knocking down charges he was sentenced to 15 years of away reform school. A judge later struck that down so he did nothing except be on trial. 1929. Doesn't seem much different from some contemporary news stories. A 10? year old brother recently shot his sister to death through a window because she wouldn't get something he wanted.
The biggest issue is that most homicides aren't committed by existing criminals. They are committed by people you know. People, who until they got angry, weren't criminals.
We have had the discussion before about how people's brains aren't fully "cooked" until around 25. IMO that is why the military actually wants young people because it makes them easier to train. But a 6-10 year old isn't even a contest. They don't have the ability to really in their core understand and think through consequences like an adult. They just don't. I actually would bet they don't understand the concept of death really. To me the problem is we don't hold parents responsible for their kids actions. If someone wants to let their kid run around during hunting season with a shotgun fine. But if that kid shoots a person the parents should go to jail for murder. It was their job to make sure that didn't happen so the fact that it did happen means it was their fault. Seriously people don't let their kids walk around with scissors for fear someone will get hurt.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 11, 2016 11:41:29 GMT -5
I guess a criminal element type could find a gun in less than half an hour in certain parts of the country, but I wouldn't have a clue how to do it even with a wad of cash.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Feb 12, 2016 0:06:45 GMT -5
I would say if I wanted to buy a gun off the streets, I could have one in less than half hour. no gun show , It could be maybe a private sale, All you would have to do go down the street asking, I want to buy a gun do you know anyone that has one for sale? All it takes is money! And that is part of the problem with a country flooded with guns. Guns are cheap here. But I doubt you could get one in a half hour- not if you are a normal law abiding citizen with no connections. The only thing you will get is robbed. People that sell illegal guns don't sell them to freaky strangers walking down the street looking for guns. Take one look at the orange haired theater shooter, or the crazy eyes Sandy Hook killer- even criminals would take a pass on those sales. Even gun shops might send them away. They need a Walmart.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 12, 2016 9:45:33 GMT -5
FWIW, I think the "orange haired guy" dyed his hair as part of the prep for the shooting.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:17:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 13:27:43 GMT -5
I was quoting fishy but, OK. I was carrying a .22 rifle when out in the woods (Southern rural Indiana) by myself by the time I turned six years old. I didn't ever have the need to shoot anybody. I was also taught what a weapon was responsibly used for. Law abiding adults and children don't think too much what the occasional criminal does. I don't believe in the latest "collective guilt" approach applied by gun control proponents. I guess I was ignorant of the myriad of laws across this country. I would like to believe all are responsible for the things they do, but I'm kind of old fashioned. Do the minors get charged in the states where the parents don't ? Some do, some get a slap on the wrist because of their juvenile status. I was just reading an article on the "worst" murders who were children and number 10 was a 6 year old who went home to get a 12 gauge shotgun and killed his friend with it, because he took some of his scrap metal. After knocking down charges he was sentenced to 15 years of away reform school. A judge later struck that down so he did nothing except be on trial. 1929. Doesn't seem much different from some contemporary news stories. A 10? year old brother recently shot his sister to death through a window because she wouldn't get something he wanted.
The biggest issue is that most homicides aren't committed by existing criminals. They are committed by people you know. People, who until they got angry, weren't criminals.
Murder is already against the law. I believe adult crimes should receive adult punishment. Murder is murder. I knew the difference when I was a kid. I still won't blame the tool. That's like outlawing cellphones because people get killed in cars while texting. Missouri had almost 100 more fatality accidents last year due to texting. No one talks about outlawing cell phones, because the cell phone isn't the problem.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 12, 2016 14:56:32 GMT -5
Some do, some get a slap on the wrist because of their juvenile status. I was just reading an article on the "worst" murders who were children and number 10 was a 6 year old who went home to get a 12 gauge shotgun and killed his friend with it, because he took some of his scrap metal. After knocking down charges he was sentenced to 15 years of away reform school. A judge later struck that down so he did nothing except be on trial. 1929. Doesn't seem much different from some contemporary news stories. A 10? year old brother recently shot his sister to death through a window because she wouldn't get something he wanted.
The biggest issue is that most homicides aren't committed by existing criminals. They are committed by people you know. People, who until they got angry, weren't criminals.
Murder is already against the law. I believe adult crimes should receive adult punishment. Murder is murder. I knew the difference when I was a kid. I still won't blame the tool. That's like outlawing cellphones because people get killed in cars while texting. Missouri had almost 100 more fatality accidents last year due to texting. No one talks about outlawing cell phones, because the cell phone isn't the problem. We as a society adjust things all the time due to deaths or worries about death counts. The speed limit was dropped down to 55. Child seats are now backward facing. There are helmet laws, even warning tags on things like blowdryers.
I don't think anyone is talking about outlawing all guns either. Various people want to put restrictions on gun owners, notice they do that to cell phone users because of auto accidents. But if you want you can pretend I and others are blaming the tool instead of negligent parents. (Scroll to the bottom of the URL for some stats on cell phone laws in regards to driving.) www.textinganddrivingsafety.com/texting-and-driving-stats
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:17:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 15:06:43 GMT -5
Murder is already against the law. I believe adult crimes should receive adult punishment. Murder is murder. I knew the difference when I was a kid. I still won't blame the tool. That's like outlawing cellphones because people get killed in cars while texting. Missouri had almost 100 more fatality accidents last year due to texting. No one talks about outlawing cell phones, because the cell phone isn't the problem. We as a society adjust things all the time due to deaths or worries about death counts. The speed limit was dropped down to 55. Child seats are now backward facing. There are helmet laws, even warning tags on things like blowdryers.
I don't think anyone is talking about outlawing all guns either. Various people want to put restrictions on gun owners, notice they do that to cell phone users because of auto accidents. But if you want you can pretend I and others are blaming the tool instead of negligent parents. (Scroll to the bottom of the URL for some stats on cell phone laws in regards to driving.) www.textinganddrivingsafety.com/texting-and-driving-stats
It's the "all guns" part I'm stuck on. I've been watching the inch at a time effort by gun control proponents for a long time now. That focus group statement needs to be changed if you want to get it past me. Like you said, the parents are only negligent if it's against a law. Not all states have those laws.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 12, 2016 15:12:32 GMT -5
We as a society adjust things all the time due to deaths or worries about death counts. The speed limit was dropped down to 55. Child seats are now backward facing. There are helmet laws, even warning tags on things like blowdryers.
I don't think anyone is talking about outlawing all guns either. Various people want to put restrictions on gun owners, notice they do that to cell phone users because of auto accidents. But if you want you can pretend I and others are blaming the tool instead of negligent parents. (Scroll to the bottom of the URL for some stats on cell phone laws in regards to driving.) www.textinganddrivingsafety.com/texting-and-driving-stats
It's the "all guns" part I'm stuck on. I've been watching the inch at a time effort by gun control proponents for a long time now. That focus group statement needs to be changed if you want to get it past me. Like you said, the parents are only negligent if it's against a law. Not all states have those laws. Correct. Fewer states have laws against negligent parents than there are states that have laws against some type of cell phone use. I do not expect guns to ever be outlawed in the US.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 13, 2016 9:28:52 GMT -5
The quote that I made about all it takes is money, Came from a twelve year old that grew up in a hard neighborhood!
That should make all of you more happy.
It amazes me what a fantasy world that some live in.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,794
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Feb 13, 2016 10:58:18 GMT -5
The quote that I made about all it takes is money, Came from a twelve year old that grew up in a hard neighborhood! That should make all of you more happy. It amazes me what a fantasy world that some live in. Maybe more than a few people live in a fantasy world, or at least ignorant of how others live. Lot of what you talk about is going to depend on where you live and who you know. Alaska has about a 60% gun ownership rate. NJ, where I live, is under 6%.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 13, 2016 11:53:36 GMT -5
So it's from a kid that "grew up in a hard neighborhood". Meaning one where guns are rampant and it's common street knowledge you can acquire one if you have enough cash.
However, for a person such as myself, acquiring a gun in 30 minutes? I would have no clue on how to do that. Just an honest assessment. If that's naïve so be it.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Feb 13, 2016 21:54:38 GMT -5
I guess a criminal element type could find a gun in less than half an hour in certain parts of the country, but I wouldn't have a clue how to do it even with a wad of cash. ok, I understand that Don, so how do we control the under the radar type of gun sales. We can put all kinds of laws on board, but that only effects the lawful person.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:17:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 13:52:56 GMT -5
Murder is already against the law. I believe adult crimes should receive adult punishment. Murder is murder. I knew the difference when I was a kid. I still won't blame the tool. That's like outlawing cellphones because people get killed in cars while texting. Missouri had almost 100 more fatality accidents last year due to texting. No one talks about outlawing cell phones, because the cell phone isn't the problem. We as a society adjust things all the time due to deaths or worries about death counts. The speed limit was dropped down to 55. Child seats are now backward facing. There are helmet laws, even warning tags on things like blowdryers.
I don't think anyone is talking about outlawing all guns either. Various people want to put restrictions on gun owners, notice they do that to cell phone users because of auto accidents. But if you want you can pretend I and others are blaming the tool instead of negligent parents. (Scroll to the bottom of the URL for some stats on cell phone laws in regards to driving.) www.textinganddrivingsafety.com/texting-and-driving-stats
I had to revisit this post of yours because I was thinking about it. The other items you listed had laws applied to them for their use. This I can agree with, but none of those devices are being made not legal for sale because of their misuse by certain people. Guns also have laws applied to them for misuse, but there seems to be a certain belief being fostered on the general public that the tool is at fault, not the person misusing it. That's my belief on the gun control subject. I'm not really pretending your doing anything, just trying to understand your stance, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 18, 2016 15:08:18 GMT -5
I'm willing to bet that many of the criminal element still buy guns on the background check free shows and private sales that exist. If it troubles a legal buyer to have to go through that process, so what! All that means is a crim stayed away and wasn't able to easily acquire a weapon. And I don't think every criminal knows how to go about buying a gun illegally. Obviously some do. But these are still done illegally. There should be a transfer of ownership through and FFL dealer. Even at gun shows (and I've been to them) has an FFL on site to facilitate transfer of ownership. Even the guns my dad (when he knew he didn't have long to live) sent TD went through an FFL.
|
|