Browsing this Thread:
2 Anonymous Users
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
 |
Could be that Obama will introduce a tax on ammo that might help mitigate civilian stockpiling - Government agencies might have been given the tip-off to stockpile.
With the rest of western nations reducing guns in the community via legislation, the US is always pushing gun ownership with an ever increasing gun related violence and crime - Is the the rest of the western world wrong, or could it be gun crime/violence has a monetary value with a compounding / generating money making opportunity in our law enforcement, judicial system and prison systems ? I believe in general people are stupid and only individuals are clever when it comes to gun control. I hope Obama introduces legislation to reduce or mitigate gun ownership - I hope they introduce a huge tax on all weapon and ammo ownership
Posted on: 2013/2/12 13:39
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Vigilante, I am sort of puzzled that you do not even attempt to answer my questions. Now there are two that you avoid:
1. Do you have any explanation to why the Department of Homeland Security is stockpiling ammo in the 25-years-of-Iraqi-war-level quantities? 2. If you claim that a civilian doesn't need this or that to protect himself, you must conclude that a police officer needs it even less. If not, - show me, where the extra need for the non-civilians comes from. Quote: Vigilante wrote: I have no idea who Joseph Farah is, but an observation that mass shootings happen mostly in "gun free" zones is very old and very obvious. The fact that you didn't notice it does not mean that it was not a something well-known up to being banal for the rest of us. Quote: Vigilante wrote: If you want to emphasize some word all caps is fine. Typing whole sentences like this makes it look like you are screaming. The message, - you are losing it. Your idea that the shootings must be happening in schools because they are commited by students, has one flaw: it doesn't explain other gun-free zones where the mass shootings do happen. On the other hand, if you are convinced that shooting in schools by students represent the majority of the problem, may be you should find what is wrong with schools and students, not with the specific tool they use. Quote: Vigilante wrote: Your point about America's greatest sniper wholly misses the point. Yes, it is possible to shoot one or two people almost anywhere. But we are not talking about the "shot-once-and-was-immediately-stopped" cases. It is a strawman argument on your part. We are talking specifically about mass shootings, where a murderer calmly makes his way from one helpless victim to another, shooting them many times, with no interference from anyone. Quote: Vigilante wrote: My wish is to be able to protect myself and other innocent people. I have no wish to get into the situation where I will have to do that. Some time ago a friend offered me a good analogy: you should think about personal firearms the same way you think about fire extinguishers. Your logic says that if a person owns a fire extinguisher it must be because he is paranoid and "wishes" for a fire. But this is a logical falsity. People own fire extinguishers because they want to survive the fire if it unfortunately happens. That is all. No need to scream and call us names.
Posted on: 2013/2/12 13:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Wow! Joseph Farah wrote a paranoid article and his paranoid minions are running wild with it. Hmmm...a lot of shootings happen in schools where guns are not allowed?!!!! MAYBE BECAUSE THE SHOOTINGS ARE COMMITED BY OTHER STUDENTS? Oh, and America's greatest sniper just got shot dead with his buddy at you guessed it! A shooting range! borisp, you really are not bright. It's you and one other guy spouting your paranoid fantasies. I hope that if you get your wish you don't take any innocent people with you.
Posted on: 2013/2/12 3:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Vigilante, by the way, I keep asking, but you keep avoiding my question:
do you have any explanation to why the Department of Homeland Security is stockpiling ammo in the 25-years-of-Iraqi-war-level quantities? Do you have an explanation? I mean if you can't even come up with a logically non-contradictory hypothesis why the feds are doing it, that means that a "paranoid" explanation must be correct. Quote: Vigilante wrote: This sounds like something you have just invented. Care to show us some evidence that this does indeed happen "often"? Quote: Vigilante wrote: Why do you keep talking about CIVILIANS? All the time you claim that CIVILIANS do not need this, do not need that... If you claim that a civilian doesn't need this or that to protect himself, you must conclude that a police officer needs it even less. If not, - show me, where the extra need for the non-civilians comes from. Quote: Vigilante wrote: Very poor explanation. If you want to add years to criminal's sentence, you can do just that - add years to the sentence for that crime. There is no need whatsoever to invent a new crime. And I am not sure where you found "too much creit". Didn't you notice how rarely criminals attempt to do mass shooting in a gun store, or in a police station, or at a gun range, or anywhere with plenty of guns around? Didn't you notice how often they choose a gun-free zone for a shooting spree?
Posted on: 2013/2/12 3:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Regarding 588- That stems from requests by Law Enforcement. Perfectly reasonable. Civilians don't need that kind of firepower except in their minds. Regarding A116- Very often private sellers will sell a gun to criminals. Once the gun is used in a crime and confiscated then previous owner will use bullshit excuse, months after the fact, that "Oh my, well that gun was stolen from my house." Perfectly reasonable law. Regarding A1329- Again, civilians don't need that unless they're planning an assault or unless they're imagining an "Omega Man" type home invasion. Regarding A1387- That's an "after the fact" law. It allows prosecutors to tack on years to sentences if an armed criminal is caught in a "gun free zone". You or whoever wrote those retorts give criminals way too much credit by the way.
Posted on: 2013/2/11 23:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/9/14 18:57 Last Login : 2020/1/27 22:17 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1053
|
More laws that won't make any difference:
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/anjrpc.site- ... /Legislative_Analysis.pdf A588 (Spencer / Coutinho / Deignan) ? Prohibits possession of ammunition capable of penetrating body armor. Analysis: effectively bans most rifle rounds (most body armor worn by police are only designed to stop handgun rounds. Armor that stops rifle rounds is available, but not in common usage). Gives Attorney General unilateral authority to ban specific rounds. Well intentioned or not, this would ban most rifle ammunition, which would render most rifles useless in the Garden State, including single shot rifles. Criminals will not follow this law. It will have no impact on school safety or mental health. A1116 (Fuentes / Spencer) ? Establishes 180 day prohibition on purchase of handgun for certain individuals who fail to report loss or theft of firearm. Analysis: Suspends Second Amendment rights for 6 months for failure to report a lost or stolen firearm within 36 hours of discovery. Supposedly aimed at traffickers but naively presumes that traffickers buy their guns from dealers using permits. Has a punitive effect on law abiding gun owners who inadvertently miss the 36-hour reporting deadline. Has no impact on criminals. Has no impact on school safety or mental health. A1329 (Greenwald / Quijano / Coutinho) ? Reduces maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds. Analysis: Reduces magazine capacity limit from 15 to 10 rounds. Interferes with self- defense, puts law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage in home invasions and other emergencies. Will not stop another tragedy, as magazines are capable of being changed quickly. Will be ignored by criminals, who will have advantage over the law-abiding. No impact on crime. No impact on school safety or mental health. Note: there is separate legislation to reduce magazine capacity to 5 rounds, but it is not presently scheduled to be considered on February 13. A1387 (Wilson / Johnson) ? Permits municipalities to establish weapons free zones around schools and public facilities. Analysis: Empowers cities and towns to create known areas around schools, parks and other public facilities where it is advertised to criminals and madmen that their victims are unarmed and defenseless. Creates large swaths of land where the exercise of Second Amendment rights is ostensibly outlawed. Attempts to create exemptions, but fails to adequately do so (examples: fails to exempt CCW permit holders and ranges, and attempted exemption of gun club members is flawed and exempts no one). Criminals will not follow gun free zones. Potential impact on crime: increased risk to law-abiding citizens within those zones. No impact on school safety or mental health. ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL CLUBS, INC New Jersey?s Premier Second Amendment Organization Defending the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Since 1936 www.anjrpc.org
Posted on: 2013/2/11 16:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/9/14 18:57 Last Login : 2020/1/27 22:17 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1053
|
Maybe they're ordering these massive quantities to jack up the price of ammo, drain the market and make it impossible for civilians to stockpile on these common calibers?
They're preparing for World War Z or some sort of Pandemic ? https://www.fbo.gov/index?tab=document ... 63050f621cee349a5594e43e3
Posted on: 2013/2/11 15:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
First thing first, I asked a question that nobody is trying to answer:
do you have any explanation to why the Department of Homeland Security is stockpiling ammo in the 25-years-of-Iraqi-war-level quantities? Do you have an explanation? Quote: Vigilante wrote: My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. You voiced an opinion that "gun advocates" overstate the events referring to the deterring effect of having arms. If you honestly believe this, you should be perfectly fine with putting the sign above on your door. Quote: Vigilante wrote: Interesting. When you mentioned "armed homeowner" as a deterrent I thought that you do understand the idea that the deterrent is a homeowner who is armed, not the gun itself. Apparently, not. That goes hand in hand with your desire to take away guns from the law-abiding citizens. You think that it is the guns by their mere presence create some danger to the people around them. From my point of view, a sign that says "GUN IN THE HOUSE" is a deterrent only when I am home. When I am not (and this does happen from time to time) it is like a "VERY VALUABLE THINGS INSIDE" sign. Why would I post that? Even though the valiuables in my house are securely stored, - it is like an invitation to wait till I am gone and to try to rob me. For me it is enough that a potential burglar knows there is a good possibility that I am armed.
Posted on: 2013/2/11 14:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I hope someone takes you under their wing and teaches you reading comprehension. By the way? You are welcome to put a I HAVE A GUN IN HERE sign on your front door.
Posted on: 2013/2/11 3:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
fat-ass-bike wrote: Yeah, I've heard this before in the old country. If I want to "play with weapons", I sould join the Army, and if I want to "play journalist", I need to join government-owned press corps. Quote: fat-ass-bike wrote: I am not sure what this means. I asked a simple question, - do you have any theory why the DHS is trying to stockpile ammo in the 25-years-of-Iraqi-war-level quantities? Do you have an explanation? If not, just say so - do not try to change the subject. Quote: Vigilante wrote: Well, do share. How exactly did you help those perps behind the bars? I can help you with the beginning of the story, - "T'was a dark and stormy night when you heard your front door opened and someone entered your house..." So, what did you do? Quote: Vigilante wrote: If you do not believe that arms are a deterrent, would you consider hanging this sign on your house? 
Posted on: 2013/2/11 2:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
No one enjoys the news of deserving perps buying it more than me. I have personally helped put 9 perps behind bars over the years without firing a shot or brandishing a weapon. Gun advocates overstate the events again and again. If you want to argue that armed homeowners are a deterent then that's fine. It's basically unprovable and indisputable at the same time.
Posted on: 2013/2/11 2:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/9/14 18:57 Last Login : 2020/1/27 22:17 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1053
|
47% of US households have firearms. so it stands that about 47% of all violent crimes attempted on on households have about that chance of encountering an armed response.
I bet if 100% of all households own firearms the violent attacks on these premises would be met with force 100% of the time and criminals would think twice. You and I live in Jersey City. Maybe you never lived in a place where this is a distinct probability. I have, and I believe in being armed and ready. Quote:
Posted on: 2013/2/11 1:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/9/14 18:57 Last Login : 2020/1/27 22:17 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1053
|
Did you read the Harvard Study? Even if only 10% is true, it;'s still 10,000 people.
You've made up your mind and just won't accept any argument contrary to what you believe. On a lighter note: Grandma shoots them up https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PoDNJQtNVoc Quote:
Posted on: 2013/2/11 1:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Total BS. These people use the "I heard a noise so I grabbed my gun and went downstairs" scenario over and over. Turns out it's raccoons in the garbage cans but the gun advocates count it as an "act of home defense". As usual the event is more fantasy than reality. Google the Oregon mall shooting. There's some guy who has convinced himself and others that he caused the gunman to go into a stairwell and kill himself.
Posted on: 2013/2/11 1:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/9/14 18:57 Last Login : 2020/1/27 22:17 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1053
|
Studies and Statistics that do not make it as hysterically as Sandy Hook:
The most conservative estimate is that potential victims used guns ~100,000 times a year to defend themselves http://www.businessweek.com/articles/ ... -use-guns-in-self-defense http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/hemenway1.htm
Posted on: 2013/2/10 23:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
|
Quote:
Boris ever thought of being a law enforcement officer or joining the defence force - At least then you can play with guns every day secondly, by creating an ongoing fear, it justifies the need by the manufacture of guns and ammo to supply more and more - it would be interesting to see just how many millions, weapons manufactures donate to politicial parties
Posted on: 2013/2/10 22:11
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/9/14 18:57 Last Login : 2020/1/27 22:17 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1053
|
The interesting part of the 450 Million Rounds of .40 ammo purchase is that they are hollow-points.
Hollow-points are expensive and very rarely used for practice. You practice with inexpensive FMJ, then load your combat pistol with the HPs. 1 - I would be pissed if DHS uses Hp's for practice, this is an absolute waste of taxpayer money. 2- 450 million rounds? that's 1.5 bullets per citizen. And that's only for the sidearms. Who are they planning to wage war with? http://www.examiner.com/article/depar ... -more-hollow-point-rounds
Posted on: 2013/2/10 0:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
According to this article (and they have links to the documents), the Department of Homeland Security is procuring 7,000 AR-16 rifles. Not just civial, but a full-auto model. According to the DHS " suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and / or when maximum concealment is required".
Second, according to this (again with all the links to their sources), "The Department of Homeland Security is set to purchase a further 21.6 million rounds of ammunition to add to the 1.6 billion bullets it has already obtained over the course of the last 10 months alone". They also provide some figures for comparison (with the source) that in 2004 our expenditures in Iraq were 5.5 millions of small-caliber ammo per month. In other words, the DHS stockpiles ammo that would be enough for about 24 years of war at "iraq-2004" level of intensity. Now, I have two questions: (a) If the full-auto AR-16 is suitable for personal defense in close quarters, I want to be able to buy one, especially since the DHS has many armed personnel and I assumed they are all professionals who can dedicate lots of time daily to training, -- and I will be all alone defending my house, so I need more firepower than they do. Q: Any flaws in that logic? (b) Can someone propose a theory, - what exactly does the Department of Homeland Security prepare for? What events do they envision that make them think - "we should procure 7000 of full-auto rifles and buy ourselves enough rounds for a 24 year long war"?
Posted on: 2013/2/9 12:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
dtjcview wrote: Well, you did not last long in the "I am not an anti-gun zealot, I am a reasonable concerned citizen" pose. Quote: dtjcview wrote: It was not networks, and it was not Obama who started using Newtown arguing for the insurance and registration. It was you. It was gratuitous use, not in the least justified by the argument with the only purpose of moral blackmail. Quote: dtjcview wrote: The word "projecting" means that I am trying to attribute you my own motivations. Seeing how I never ever tried to take away your rights, no did I ever tried to use the tragedy of Newtown for my political purposes, - I see not what exactly I may project here. Are you sure you know the word you are using? And you are not "persecuting" me, but you most definitely are trying to take away my right. Pure and simple. Quote: dtjcview wrote: There was no "ambiguity", there were "demagoguery", "lies" and "hysterics". And they are not completely removed, since the correct description is not "against anyone" but "against those who attempt to violate my rights". Now, in this edition, - I accept the accusation. Hard to see how it paints me in the bad light though. Quote: dtjcview wrote: Yes, you are trying to take away my right of self-defense. I am not sure why do you deny this? You are trying to make me pay money for exercising my right. You have no respect for my rights whatsoever, - in fact, you call me names for insisting that I have those rights. You compare me to the murderers - again, based on nothing else but my desire to protect my right. You claim that "I am the one with the gun" as a proof that it is I who is dangerous. I have never ever attempted to take away anything from you. This whole dialogue started for one reason only, - you decided that you want to take something away from me. And you dare to claim that I am doing something wrong because I am not obedient enough and not willing to submit to your demands. Quote: dtjcview wrote: 1. I am not your kid. And my rights are not yours to give or not to give. 2. That said, you are arguing that people would protect their guns from their kids more, not less - if they are NOT insured. This is the opposite what you wanted to prove. Quote: dtjcview wrote: No, it would not. If your car is stolen and someone drives it in the crowd of people in the street, your insurace will not be liable. Your attempt to "spell the connection between Newtown" and insurance failed. But that doesn't matter. Yes, right now you did try to find some way to connect the Newtown to your argument. But you didn't do it before. You used it purely for the purposes of emotional blackmail. You tried to use the tragedy to smear me with the blame and to pose as the defender of the victims. And that was despicable.
Posted on: 2013/2/9 2:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I think most law-abiding gun owners would continue to abide by the law, including new legislation that forced them to pay more. Gun businesses would have to abide by new laws or be forced to close.
But I think your first point is probably the killer at the moment, given the dysfunctional nature of both houses, void of compromise and creative thinking, and treating every debate as a zero-sum game.
Posted on: 2013/2/8 15:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/9/14 18:57 Last Login : 2020/1/27 22:17 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1053
|
This of course assumes that congress passes a federal law to require gun owners to register, and buy insurance.
And, that gun owners actually follow the law and buy insurance. Do you think that's realistic? Quote:
Posted on: 2013/2/8 14:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
For illustration, let's say there are about 100k gun incidents every year, with an average liability payout of $100k. That's a $10 billion industry. Spread over 40 million gun-owning households, averages $250/year cost per household.
I'd guess an insurance company could make money off those kind of numbers, given a reasonable regulatory framework.
Posted on: 2013/2/8 14:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/9/14 18:57 Last Login : 2020/1/27 22:17 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1053
|
"That works for the autos. Why shouldn't it work for guns?"
Because no insurance company will ever offer this product. They will go bankrupt in no time. There's about 40 million households with 300 millions guns in the USA. It's the attitude and behavior that needs to change.
Posted on: 2013/2/8 14:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
|
Quote:
Interesting, but how do I protect myself from you if you're a gun toting person with a short fuse - where are my rights ? Gun are only designed to do one thing and one thing only - kill things. The sporting side of it only highlights the ability of a person to aim at things (other then animals or people) to shot it down. After reading articles about Australia's gun control laws and how the U.K police are predominately unarmed, it would be something the U.S could learn from Boris do you feel violated if you have to stop at red lights or restricted by the road speeds if not, you should apply to be a blogger for the NRA association to pedal their rhetoric.
Posted on: 2013/2/8 9:38
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
How does the saying go? "Never argue with an gun-toting idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and pistol-whip you with their paranoid experience"...
Quote:
Absurd. Do you also think I had a chat with all the local news networks and asked them to create a link between Newtown and gun control in order simply to shame you? And Cuomo and Obama are also part of "my" conspiracy to blame and shame you, since they have responded to Newtown with gun control laws and task forces? No. You are simply projecting your fears and imagining that I am persecuting you. Quote:
I'll remove the ambiguity from the sentence. "You are the guy who will defend against anyone and anything, his right to bear arms". You read into the original sentence what you wanted to read, as you have continually read meaning on this thread where none existed. Quote:
...but you are making the call. Not the founding fathers. YOU. And YOU decided, based on your reasoning, that I am infringing your constitutional rights. And I am a thug? And I am committing violence against you? Do you realize how irrational and borderline insane you sound? Quote:
No. The guy in Texas that shot two of his neighbors dead after finding dog poop on his doorstep, probably rationalized his actions in a similar way to your arguments on this thread. You are the one that thinks violence is being inflicted on them. You are the one with the gun. Quote:
I'll spell out the connection between Newtown and a solution like an auto license/insurance/registration system. By holding gun owners more accountable, it may have prevented the incident entirely. An analogy would be that you generally wouldn't give your kid the keys to your ferrari if they weren't licensed and insured for it. Also, by having liability insurance, compensation would be more readily accessible to the Newtown victims. Providing easy access to compensation through insurance would operate in the same was as auto insurance does. We could in theory do away with auto liability coverage, if everyone was rich enough to pay out against every personal injury claim. However, most people are not that wealthy, and it's why we have state mandated liability coverage minimums. The Newtown victims likely have a long and ugly battle ahead of them getting compensation from the Lanza estate, assuming there's much to go around. That works for the autos. Why shouldn't it work for guns? - Criminals can't buy insurance? We dont want them to have guns, never mind insurance, but we can hold the registered owner accountable for any gun incident. - If someone is guilty of a gun crime, aren't they also already civilly liable? Yes. But collecting compensation from someone with no assets is impossible. Collecting from dead people's estates is also tough - the poor don't have it, the rich generally tie things up in asset protection schemes. - Why should gun owners pay? At the moment, every taxpayer is effectively paying victims compensation for gun incidents. Why should everyone else pay? This doesn't fit your paranoid view of me wanting to inflict violence on you, and your view that my agenda simply about stealing your rocks. Or guns... It's not me that's out to get you. It's everyone else that's pushing gun control. Have fun with that thought.
Posted on: 2013/2/8 5:00
Edited by dtjcview on 2013/2/8 5:20:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
dtjcview wrote: Nothing wild. You did mention Newtown a few times. In a situation where there was no logical connection. You brought it up trying to pretend that I share some blame in order to shame me into your point of view where you could not argue it. Quote: dtjcview wrote: I argue that my right to bear arms is my right to defend myself. I have never ever said that I need guns against "anyone and anything" and a statement to the contrary is a bold-faced lie. And, in this case a continuation of your attempt to argue not with logic and facts, but with theatrical hysterics. Quote: dtjcview wrote: These boundaries are not just "self-drawn", they are the exact same boundaries drawn by the people who founded this country. In fact, it is exactly this attempt to take away weapons that triggered the American Revolution, - despite the fact that the colonists were desperately trying to reach peacefull resolution. Overstapping of those boundaries by their Government proved to them that peace is not possible. Those same boundaries were further added as a part of the Constitution. I just happen to share the views of the Founders of this country on the subject. Quote: dtjcview wrote: Add to this an accusation of treason, and you'll share the views of King George. Quote: dtjcview wrote: The fact that debate started after that tragedy doesn't in itself justify it being mentioned in an argument few times in a row. You were not just reminiscing; used Newtown to argue your point. However, the "solution" that you proposed does nothing for the case like this. And you did not even try to pretend that it did. That means, you used purely for the purposes of emotional blackmail. You hoped that I would swallow it and you will argue from the position of the moral authority, posing on the grave as the Defender of the Children. You failed. And your attempt of a hysterical "you have gun! You like second Amendment! You share the views of the Declaration of Independence!! This is irrational!!!" - is also a failure. That is all.
Posted on: 2013/2/8 1:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The whole recent round of gun debate was sparked by the Newtown massacre. It has been mentioned on the TV and media every day since the event took place. You are using sick, twisted logic in accusing me of trying to profit from Newtown. You caught nothing, fool.
Posted on: 2013/2/7 14:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Borisp. You are the guy making wild accusations. You are the guy leaping to conclusions. You are the guy who will defend his right to bear arms against anyone and anything. You are the guy that thinks that anyone who oversteps your self-drawn boundaries is inflicting violence on you.
And you are the guy with the gun? You are the kind of crazy, irrational person that probably should be nowhere near a school, never mind possess a gun. Quote:
Posted on: 2013/2/7 14:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
dtjcview wrote: Taking away my rights is a violence. But, if you insist, fine, - what would be the proper word for "someone who gratuitously invokes a great tragedy in an argument to pose as a Good Guy on the bones of the children and to pretend that their opponents do carry the blame for their deaths"? Quote: dtjcview wrote: There was no other reason to invoke that Newtown tragedy in your argument. Quote: dtjcview wrote: Oh, THANK YOU so much! Don't think I am not grateful. Your stance on taking away my 2nd Amendment rights is very limited. You are not asking to just take them away. And, I noticed you are not trying to restrict my freedom of speech, and are not attempting on my right to vote. You also are not trying to kill, maim, rape or rob me. You'd think I did not notice, but I did and I am grateful. Quote: dtjcview wrote: Your plan is constitutionally inapplicable to the criminals. So, let's look at a law-abiding citizen. Right now, if a law-abiding citizen kills someone, two things will happen: (a) criminal prosecution if that was a crime, (b) civil lawsuit if that was a wrongful death. If that citizen buys an insurance, that doesn't affect the former point, and it insulates him from the latter point. Where exactly do you see preventive effect? Quote: dtjcview wrote: I make no assumptions about your motivations. I judge you by your actions. And you did mention Newtown a few times with no logical connection to the argument, - purely to pose as the defender of murdered children. I caught you, and called you on that. You do not like it? Well, who would.
Posted on: 2013/2/7 13:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: The futility of gun control
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
fat-ass-bike wrote: Laws and regulations are SUPPPOSED to be there to protect people's rights. Not to violate them. When the government takes away my rights, - it defeats the purpose of its own existence. At least as that purpose is described in the founding document of this country.
Posted on: 2013/2/7 13:15
|
|||
|
||||