telco, before you make a bigger hole out of the mass media pov of guns how bout you read this thread and understand EXACTLY how the basics work, and why what you are reading is not generally someone who is legally allowed to carry a weapon concealed.
and florida is open carry, so anyone not convicted of one of the crimes listed or mentally unstable and committed at one point can buy a gun. the NRA has programs to train and advise proper gun useage and control, but you know your beloved democratic party is hell bent on not telling you how successful those are, or allowing them to be implemented either.
zer...age=2
enjoy the actual info on how the system works, I am happy to answer non media bull**** filled questions.
Road rage and guns
-
telcoman
- Posts: 5762
- Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
- Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
- Location: Central NJ
Re: (AZhitman)
It made sense when it was written in a sparsely settled country.It only makes sense in crowded cities except in very rural parts of the USStates should have their rights to restrict guns. Are you going to shoot someone who touches your bumper while trying to parallel park in crowded cities?AZhitman wrote:
Ah, so typical.
Toss out a brilliant and ingenious document that has withstood the test of time, when you fail to comprehend it (or it doesn't fit your worldview).
Telcoman
Re: (telcoman)
states should have the right to restrict guns...
ok telco you are not allowed your g35, as that is a fuel inefficient vehicle with too much horsepower which a few people have used to outrun the police, commit crimes, and waste natural resources it doesn't matter that your a law abiding citizen and they were criminals with no regard for the public in general, but since you both want the same car that makes you bad as well.
also you may fly off the handle randomly and kill someone with your car, so you are not allowed to drive anywhere without proving that you are sane, pass a polygraph to prove you didn't lie about being insane, pass an alcohol test, have to check your tire pressure(its the obamalaw fill your tires or ticket!) after you do all that a random person could claim your violent and that because you live in new jersey, which has buses,(cops) that you have no rights to a car anyway maybe if you were more rural (cough stereotype) you could have a car, but sorry the state has a right to regulate what car you drive and jersey says you cant own one.
now if you get your police chief to swear your a good person, you wait a few weeks, you pass a background check, and you always call ahead to your errands and appointments to ensure someone knows your traveling there, and its an approved area to take your vehicle, you can have a moped.
sounds absurd doesn't it? you would be pissed that your car would have been seized, crushed, and you never getting the chance to do anything about it. even following all the rules you could be subject to the police seizing your car if you were in anyway shape or form not following any of the laws "as the officer interprets them"
well insert gun for car, and drop the blood alcohol check and thats what you HAVE to do to own a gun in jersey basically.
irony considering how many cars kill people compared to legal gun owners....
but wait thats not important cause I don't care about a new luxury sports car from infiniti, nor that you cant drive at all, Im in Virginia where i can drive whatever....
but seriously I actually care about people in other states gun rights, considering without the guns you lose your right to free speech soon after. but wait history's many examples of gun registration and seizing guns and loss of free speech and basic human rights ended up great...
(i cant believe i get to pull a goodwins law)
the last time people has national gun registration and seizure, we saw the holocaust within 8 years.. those people couldn't fight back against their government. your lucky in this nation we can.
unless you want to talk about the mileage benefits of using 87 instead of 93 in your moped.
SHIFT_Intelligent Debate
ok telco you are not allowed your g35, as that is a fuel inefficient vehicle with too much horsepower which a few people have used to outrun the police, commit crimes, and waste natural resources it doesn't matter that your a law abiding citizen and they were criminals with no regard for the public in general, but since you both want the same car that makes you bad as well.
also you may fly off the handle randomly and kill someone with your car, so you are not allowed to drive anywhere without proving that you are sane, pass a polygraph to prove you didn't lie about being insane, pass an alcohol test, have to check your tire pressure(its the obamalaw fill your tires or ticket!) after you do all that a random person could claim your violent and that because you live in new jersey, which has buses,(cops) that you have no rights to a car anyway maybe if you were more rural (cough stereotype) you could have a car, but sorry the state has a right to regulate what car you drive and jersey says you cant own one.
now if you get your police chief to swear your a good person, you wait a few weeks, you pass a background check, and you always call ahead to your errands and appointments to ensure someone knows your traveling there, and its an approved area to take your vehicle, you can have a moped.
sounds absurd doesn't it? you would be pissed that your car would have been seized, crushed, and you never getting the chance to do anything about it. even following all the rules you could be subject to the police seizing your car if you were in anyway shape or form not following any of the laws "as the officer interprets them"
well insert gun for car, and drop the blood alcohol check and thats what you HAVE to do to own a gun in jersey basically.
irony considering how many cars kill people compared to legal gun owners....
but wait thats not important cause I don't care about a new luxury sports car from infiniti, nor that you cant drive at all, Im in Virginia where i can drive whatever....
but seriously I actually care about people in other states gun rights, considering without the guns you lose your right to free speech soon after. but wait history's many examples of gun registration and seizing guns and loss of free speech and basic human rights ended up great...
(i cant believe i get to pull a goodwins law)
the last time people has national gun registration and seizure, we saw the holocaust within 8 years.. those people couldn't fight back against their government. your lucky in this nation we can.
unless you want to talk about the mileage benefits of using 87 instead of 93 in your moped.
SHIFT_Intelligent Debate
Re: (Cold_Zero)
worth noting telco you also in the most restrictive state besides Massachusetts as far as types of guns allowed in the state at all, so your "state" or as we call it down here the independent highway of new jersey alreqady restricts what types of guns you can have.
also, lastly the supreme court just ruled that people are allowed to defend themselves and the second amendment as they interpreted it, included handguns.
IE the individual has the right to buy a handgun and defend himself/herself.
dont like it? go argue with the 9 highest judges in the land.
threadjack
Bud when do you want this Nico shoot? if we wanna do it around VIR in october there's 2 ranges nearby, one in Roanoke VA thats indoors and another in Madison heights VA thats outdoors. If you were considering another location LMK where I will asee if I can attend and if they have reciprocity with my CCW
/threadjack
also, lastly the supreme court just ruled that people are allowed to defend themselves and the second amendment as they interpreted it, included handguns.
IE the individual has the right to buy a handgun and defend himself/herself.
dont like it? go argue with the 9 highest judges in the land.
threadjack
Bud when do you want this Nico shoot? if we wanna do it around VIR in october there's 2 ranges nearby, one in Roanoke VA thats indoors and another in Madison heights VA thats outdoors. If you were considering another location LMK where I will asee if I can attend and if they have reciprocity with my CCW
/threadjack
... I honestly am not sure how to respond to you soravia other then to say maybe try reading the posts again and checking out the link i put in a previous post to telco.
you are really gonna have to define what exactly you mean, because how you go through legally getting a gun is covered in my link, as well as explanations as to what works and doesn't work law wise to prevent crime.
that women who was stabbed may have been saved by someone with a gun if they were there. thats why theres plenty of us on NICO that carry and have a concealed permit.
you are really gonna have to define what exactly you mean, because how you go through legally getting a gun is covered in my link, as well as explanations as to what works and doesn't work law wise to prevent crime.
that women who was stabbed may have been saved by someone with a gun if they were there. thats why theres plenty of us on NICO that carry and have a concealed permit.
Re: (Soravia)
Guns don't kill people. Apes with guns kill people.
Seriously, though.. the screening process is pretty through in a vast majority of the states. I think there are some that are still pretty open about guns and don't do a really good check.. but, for the most part every state does an FBI background check at the very least.
And, the legal guns aren't the problem. It's the illegal guns. And, trust me.. with illegal guns, it doesn't matter if the person is Louis Antoine Saint Juste or Jim Jones; they're illegal and you can't track them.
So, restricting the legal guns is only going to hurt us in the end. Truly, you must see some reasoning behind what I'm saying.
Seriously, though.. the screening process is pretty through in a vast majority of the states. I think there are some that are still pretty open about guns and don't do a really good check.. but, for the most part every state does an FBI background check at the very least.
And, the legal guns aren't the problem. It's the illegal guns. And, trust me.. with illegal guns, it doesn't matter if the person is Louis Antoine Saint Juste or Jim Jones; they're illegal and you can't track them.
So, restricting the legal guns is only going to hurt us in the end. Truly, you must see some reasoning behind what I'm saying.
Re: (Marenta)
Let's put this back on the NRA members.What do you propose as a means to protect the public from guns in the hands of the "nuts." In reality, it's something the NRA should address before the state legislatures start addressing it. IE, surtaxes on ammo, restrictions on transportation of guns, etc. Opinions?
Re: (rn79870)
I have always thought that exhaustible ammunition would be a good idea. Make it like a 6 month shelf life, something like that.
But, then the problem is that there are sites out there like aimsurplus that sells foreign surplus ammo bulk for cheap. That's where I got a lot of my AK and SKS ammo, and most of my corrosive ammo for my Nagants and the like.
And, as far as the "nuts" go.. if you have a CWP/CCP you're required to take a course and do a very extensive back ground search, so if you've got one blemish, and you didn't pony up to it in the paperwork; they're going to throw you in jail for lying. Most of the crimes you hear about on the news are going to be the legit, average guy who's done nothing wrong; or the actually clinically insane people who get guns through the illegal means. The reason why you hear about the normal guys so much, is because the media tends to lean liberally, and they like to feed off the idea that a normal guy did something wrong. Like in the florida shooting case.
There's no way to stop the true "nuts" as you say from getting guns, because hell, if I wanted to, I could go buy an MP5 fully auto, ex-Turkish military surplus. So, don't think that we can weed out these "nuts" all the time, we can only weed them out if they choose to try to obtain a gun legally.
But, then the problem is that there are sites out there like aimsurplus that sells foreign surplus ammo bulk for cheap. That's where I got a lot of my AK and SKS ammo, and most of my corrosive ammo for my Nagants and the like.
And, as far as the "nuts" go.. if you have a CWP/CCP you're required to take a course and do a very extensive back ground search, so if you've got one blemish, and you didn't pony up to it in the paperwork; they're going to throw you in jail for lying. Most of the crimes you hear about on the news are going to be the legit, average guy who's done nothing wrong; or the actually clinically insane people who get guns through the illegal means. The reason why you hear about the normal guys so much, is because the media tends to lean liberally, and they like to feed off the idea that a normal guy did something wrong. Like in the florida shooting case.
There's no way to stop the true "nuts" as you say from getting guns, because hell, if I wanted to, I could go buy an MP5 fully auto, ex-Turkish military surplus. So, don't think that we can weed out these "nuts" all the time, we can only weed them out if they choose to try to obtain a gun legally.
Re: (rn79870)
Why bob? the states already have passed various laws on gun ownership and legal gun use, Its not up to the NRA to make laws, or for us to protect you ( we aren't police officers or paid to do so).rn79870 wrote:Let's put this back on the NRA members.What do you propose as a means to protect the public from guns in the hands of the "nuts." In reality, it's something the NRA should address before the state legislatures start addressing it. IE, surtaxes on ammo, restrictions on transportation of guns, etc. Opinions?
as it stands the largest issues are illegal guns and those who buy and sell them/smuggle them. That has been a problem since the gun was invented, and what the NRA does do about it is try to lobby for sensible laws like project exile, IE getting caught with a gun as a criminal means 10 extra years on the sentence, no reductions, no "good behavior stuff" its a no nonsense law and it works.
seeing as the supreme court ruled on the DC gun ban, and they way they did meaning handguns are considered a part of the second amendment and that the second amendment applies to individuals not the national guard, Id say the burden is on you to require sensible laws for your area that stop crime, and dont punish law abiding citizens. and you have responsibility to take that burden on yourself, or you cannot complain about what is happening in other states. since neither you nor telco live in florida, the laws they have and the reasoning for those laws is vastly foreign to you both. who in their right mind would allow open carry by any legal citizen? florida does, so does VA. Reason being it reduces crime. no criminal wants to get shot, or caught and held for the cops, repeated studies show that regular citizens being armed is overwhelmingly a good thing. yes there are bad eggs, but Id rather have an idiot point a gun at me then take his 3000lb car and try to run me off the road.
why arent you and the CARB board protecting me from bad drivers bob. why isnt AAA and other car lobby groups not fighting for laws to protect me from people who cant keep their temper in check so decide to risk hundreds of lives on the road by driving?
everyone knows a car is infinitely more deadly a weapon then a gun in sheer terms of possible damage inflicted and loss of life. so how come its so easy for people to drive without a license or drunks who get slaps on the wrist, or the DMV/cops who don't enforce real laws and NEVER have to defend themselves when a drunk with no license kills someone with a car? well you say they didnt do anything wrong, someone slipped through the cracks, its only a few people... (alcohol deaths are 500-5000% more likely to occur then a legal gun owner committing or being charged with a crime at all. Ie pulling your gun for defense and as the story is sorted out they charge you with brandishing a firearm until the story is put together and the charges are dropped) 4-5 times more likely to see an alcoholic issue then a gun crime by a criminal.
hypothetically as i said in the post to telco, there should be much stricter laws on driving and penalties for breaking those laws, as anyone with a gun is dangerous to say 15-20 people (assuming they have a few magazines of ammo and can hit their target accurately, an assumption that is false already as most criminals are not such great shots)
how many people can you hurt in a freeway accident in California or DC if you start ramming cars into each other at 70-80mph, and or cause a 18 wheeler to jackknife? the potential damage can reach millions of dollars and its an "accident" bull****
and guess what? owning a gun is a right... owning a car is a privilege. So how come we have more vehicular deaths then gun deaths especially since there is no constitutional amendment granting rights to a car?
this is the rhetoric I hear every day bob, people are furious that I have a gun, but its ok that they have a cell phone to their head while weaving in and out of traffic, or letting their kid load up a car full of friends in defiance of the laws on minors and passengers... so My training, knowledge and exercising my "right" is bad, but breaking traffic laws, acting like idiots, and destroying a privilege while endangering me constantly is ok. its so bad in places to where i was taught defensive driving techniques to not get in wrecks. why?
as a gun owner i get ZERO mistakes, if i do something stupid, or if 12 people decide i wasnt within my right to use my weapon its gone forever, and I could be as well.
however how many drunk drivers get sent away for life, or lose their driving privileges and are enforced (ie cant even touch a car or be in possession of a set of car keys) ? so many people get caught after the 3rd time or the 4th or start driving on a suspended license, or W/e. they don't stop they dont care.
so what are you going to do to protect me bob since road rage incidents imply a car was involved. probably not a damn thing you can do really right? honestly?
that grinds my gears that I and others get to take that heat as a part of being a CWP holder, even if all precautions are taken and something happens its all our fault or the NRA's job to do better.
-
Cold_Zero
- Posts: 6714
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 4:15 pm
- Car: 2003 Nissan Altima SE 3.5
2005 Nissan Pathfinder
Re: (rn79870)
Easy Bob, enforce the laws that we have on the book and make gun related crimes hold severe penalties (as indicated earlier by Jager).To me this really boils down to two methodologies on dealing with the problem.1. Make more laws that target the wrong group of people to affect no real change. This is the methodology that Bob and most liberals take to 'deal with a problem.'2. Enforce the laws that we do have, put more cops on the streets, build more jails and pass truth in sentencing laws. We have federal laws on the books:Because of the Gun Control Act of '68 the following people are prohibited from buying or owning a firearm:# Anyone who is under the age of 18, except with the written permission of their parent or guardian.# Anyone who has been convicted in a federal court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.# Anyone who has been convicted in a state court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 2 years, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.# Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.# Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.# Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.# Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa.# Anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.# Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.# Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.# Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.rn79870 wrote:Let's put this back on the NRA members.What do you propose as a means to protect the public from guns in the hands of the "nuts." In reality, it's something the NRA should address before the state legislatures start addressing it. IE, surtaxes on ammo, restrictions on transportation of guns, etc. Opinions?
Because of the Brady Law we have background checks in NICS.
As a side note, I was told by my friend this weekend (who lives in Hawaii) that his Uncle took in a friend that was arrested (not sure if he was convicted) for domestic battery. Because of Indiana State Law, this friend an no buy, possess or use firearms. But... Because of the Lautenberg Amendment, my friend's Uncle can not buy or possess firearms because he is harboring a domestic abuser. So, Brian's (my friend) dad got a whole lot of firearms from his brother because of this law.bud
Re: (Cold_Zero)
I was just curious to see how far those who enjoy gun ownership would be willing to bend in order to balance their right to possess guns with the public's right to be free from gun related violence.
No one can argue that if there were no guns in America, there would be no gun related violence. That's not happening, and no one is asking for that to happen. I was just curious if any gun owners had any ideas how to make it safer for everyone, even at the expense of imposing on their rights to possess guns.
Stricter laws for violators doesn't protect anyone, as those laws don't come into play until after the criminal act.
No one can argue that if there were no guns in America, there would be no gun related violence. That's not happening, and no one is asking for that to happen. I was just curious if any gun owners had any ideas how to make it safer for everyone, even at the expense of imposing on their rights to possess guns.
Stricter laws for violators doesn't protect anyone, as those laws don't come into play until after the criminal act.
surprisingly you would be wrong bob, do some research on project exile.
it has reduced gun violence simply by being on the books, and heavily publicized. its on Buses in stores, on commercials, you cant miss the signs and the PR work is great.
some of the best stories are about the drug dealers who are busted for a massive drug operation and there are NO guns anywhere. the drugs dealers responses? "my lawyer can deal with the drug changes and I "may" spend a year or 2 in jail, but the gun tacks on 10 more, I aint going away for that ****"
-actual quote on the news and in the paper
exile works by saying anyone committing a crime and in possession of a firearm gets a mandatory extra 10 years, no if ands or buts. judges cant reduce it and good behavior doesn't count. only the prosecutors can not file as part of the law if they feel you dont deserve it. ten years extra per offense means the guys who you see walking outa jail after shooting up a liquor store, get hard prison time here and the effect is very obvious.
Richmond(state capital) used to be one of the most violent places to live period. project exile used to be a Richmond city law, but it did so well and it only focuses on criminals that Virginia as a whole passed it as a state law and for a time it was being considered federally (before 9/11)
real law that does real work. worth writing your reps about if you want to see what a law like that may do for your area. cuts down on alot of BS that criminals get away with.
it has reduced gun violence simply by being on the books, and heavily publicized. its on Buses in stores, on commercials, you cant miss the signs and the PR work is great.
some of the best stories are about the drug dealers who are busted for a massive drug operation and there are NO guns anywhere. the drugs dealers responses? "my lawyer can deal with the drug changes and I "may" spend a year or 2 in jail, but the gun tacks on 10 more, I aint going away for that ****"
-actual quote on the news and in the paper
exile works by saying anyone committing a crime and in possession of a firearm gets a mandatory extra 10 years, no if ands or buts. judges cant reduce it and good behavior doesn't count. only the prosecutors can not file as part of the law if they feel you dont deserve it. ten years extra per offense means the guys who you see walking outa jail after shooting up a liquor store, get hard prison time here and the effect is very obvious.
Richmond(state capital) used to be one of the most violent places to live period. project exile used to be a Richmond city law, but it did so well and it only focuses on criminals that Virginia as a whole passed it as a state law and for a time it was being considered federally (before 9/11)
real law that does real work. worth writing your reps about if you want to see what a law like that may do for your area. cuts down on alot of BS that criminals get away with.
Re: (Jager)
The papers are full of drive-by shootings around here. At least 1, maybe 2 a week. I doubt that many of the gang members can read the signs or the laws anyway, yet these morons seem to have an endless supply of guns and ammunition. Where are they getting their guns? From legitimate gun owners who don't keep them locked up (as in they steal them or buy them from someone who stole them)? I dunno.
Again, I'm all for, and I will defend legitimate, responsible gun owners. But I think the legitimate owners should be the ones screaming the loudest at the less than responsible owners who don't protect the innocent by locking up their weapons when they aren't in use. That's just one example.
For instance Justin, you work in a gun shop. I'll bet you've seen the full range of owners, from those you'd trust with your life, to those who shouldn't own a BB gun.
Again, I'm all for, and I will defend legitimate, responsible gun owners. But I think the legitimate owners should be the ones screaming the loudest at the less than responsible owners who don't protect the innocent by locking up their weapons when they aren't in use. That's just one example.
For instance Justin, you work in a gun shop. I'll bet you've seen the full range of owners, from those you'd trust with your life, to those who shouldn't own a BB gun.
-
Cold_Zero
- Posts: 6714
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 4:15 pm
- Car: 2003 Nissan Altima SE 3.5
2005 Nissan Pathfinder
Bob,I guess that is where you and I disagree.
You believe that Government should not trust its population and that laws should be preventative and geared to the wrong people (non offenders) to guarantee that these people do not commit crimes or pose a threat to the community. Yet, the people who do pose a threat in your community are not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and kept away from society. Also, it is up to the local, state and federal governments to guarantee your safety and security.
I believe that Governments should trust its population until that trust has been breeched by an individual and then that individual should be dealt with according to the established laws of the land. I also believe that there is NO Guarantee that laws passed will stop anyone from doing harm or evil to me or the populous. Laws are meant to be punitive to people who break the law. And that my safety and security is first and foremost guaranteed not by laws or the government but by my vigilance and ability to defend myself.
In a scenario where a criminal hopped up on PCP kicks down your door holding a baseball bat and ready to commit murder and rape.What goes through your mind? "Geewiz, I better call the police and let them deal with this guy. I wish we had more drug and baseball bat laws on the book, along with more 'Midnight Basketball programs'? so that this guy wouldn't be standing at my door right now."
You believe that Government should not trust its population and that laws should be preventative and geared to the wrong people (non offenders) to guarantee that these people do not commit crimes or pose a threat to the community. Yet, the people who do pose a threat in your community are not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and kept away from society. Also, it is up to the local, state and federal governments to guarantee your safety and security.
I believe that Governments should trust its population until that trust has been breeched by an individual and then that individual should be dealt with according to the established laws of the land. I also believe that there is NO Guarantee that laws passed will stop anyone from doing harm or evil to me or the populous. Laws are meant to be punitive to people who break the law. And that my safety and security is first and foremost guaranteed not by laws or the government but by my vigilance and ability to defend myself.
In a scenario where a criminal hopped up on PCP kicks down your door holding a baseball bat and ready to commit murder and rape.What goes through your mind? "Geewiz, I better call the police and let them deal with this guy. I wish we had more drug and baseball bat laws on the book, along with more 'Midnight Basketball programs'? so that this guy wouldn't be standing at my door right now."
-
AZhitman
- Administrator
- Posts: 54538
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
- Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
- Location: Surprise, Arizona
- Contact:
Re: (rn79870)
Pawn shops, burglaries (keep in mind that most gun owners own more than one, and many collect several), illegally-smuggled guns (my buddy in USAF EOD destroys confiscated guns seized by AZ law enforcement, he says many are not US-market)...rn79870 wrote:these morons seem to have an endless supply of guns and ammunition. Where are they getting their guns?
I concur with Bud and Jager - Tack on an extra 10 years to any sentence if a gun was present and see what happens.
On top of that, and you mentioned "drive-by" shootings (poor retardedass gangsters, that gay crap is SO 1989)... Remember that excuses have been made for this subsection of the population for SO long, that they're now "off-limits", and we're reaping the benefits of it.
I can go on and on about this topic, having been very close to it, but the issues are myriad:
LEO's can't "profile" based on race or attire, "tagging" is a legitimate expression of creativity, parents can't be held accountable for their kids' actions, these youth have no "outlet" for their repressed anger, movies and music glamorizing "thug life" heralded and awarded, mandatory sentencing for gang-related crimes "unfairly singles out minorities", under 18 aren't prosecuted as adults (typically), blah fricking blah.
Horseshlt.
Bob, your people have failed you in *this* instance, and you know it.
-
telcoman
- Posts: 5762
- Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
- Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
- Location: Central NJ
Re: (rn79870)
Its kinda like the death penaltyrn79870 wrote:Stricter laws for violators doesn't protect anyone, as those laws don't come into play until after the criminal act.
That law never reduced killing either.
Other democratic countries have banned citizens carrying around weapons without a problem. The 2nd amendment made sense over 200 years ago. It no longer makes any sense
Look at the so called war on drugs. In New York State Republician Nelson Rockefeller passed a very tough drug law back in the 1970's. The result was many young kids got life in prison along with young mothers for carrying small amounts of drugs while the drug lords are still free and the drug trade rolls on. Columbia, Afghanistan are fueling the drug trade along with supporting and funding the taliban & other terrorlst groups but our federal government like the NRA has failed us.
Using an automobile as an analogy with a gun is apples and oranges. Too often guns are used to settle what in many cases is a minor disagreement.How many times do we read newspaper accounts of someone thrown out of a bar for intoxication or some other improper behavior, only to return with a gun? Or someone changes lanes on a busy highway and someone else pulls out a gun.
Just having laws on the books regarding gun ownership is not the answer. Banning them except in rural areas will solve 90% of the problem.
Our government has failed the war on drugs, failed the war on illegal gun usage, and is failing the war in Iraq while the drug trade grows in Afghanistan.
Telcoman
Re: (rn79870)
rn79870 wrote:The papers are full of drive-by shootings around here. At least 1, maybe 2 a week. I doubt that many of the gang members can read the signs or the laws anyway, yet these morons seem to have an endless supply of guns and ammunition. Where are they getting their guns?
I knew at 8 what right and wrong were. If at 14 or higher they can't remember that "Thou shalt not kill", then obviously something went very wrong when they were being raised.
A very large majority of the crimes committed are done using guns that are stolen or illegally brought into this country, and the people that use them usually are not that bright.
Your only protection in this case is to hope that you either never get caught in a situation where you will be faced with that sort of thing, or you find a way to protect yourself against stupid people. (Like you do when you're driving, assertive vice aggressive driving, etc.)
-
AZhitman
- Administrator
- Posts: 54538
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
- Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
- Location: Surprise, Arizona
- Contact:
Re: (telcoman)
A geologist AND a criminologist?telcoman wrote:Banning them except in rural areas will solve 90% of the problem.
So, what would you do in my area? Who defines rural? Do we have checkpoints at the entrance to urban areas? Absurd.
Don't throw out unfounded and unsupported numerical statistics.
Re: (Cold_Zero)
That's not the case Bud. I'm just a little perplexed that the NRA isn't leading the way in educating gun owners in ways they can help cut down senseless gun crimes. When an organization polices itself, typically the government is happy to take a back seat to that organization's efforts. I wish all gun owners were as responsible as the ones here on Nico, but that's not the case.Cold_Zero wrote:Bob,I guess that is where you and I disagree.
You believe that Government should not trust its population and that laws should be preventative and geared to the wrong people (non offenders) to guarantee that these people do not commit crimes or pose a threat to the community. Yet, the people who do pose a threat in your community are not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and kept away from society. Also, it is up to the local, state and federal governments to guarantee your safety and security.
Again, those who scream the loudest about government intervention might find that the government is willing to let the "users" of that entity police itself.Cold_Zero wrote:I believe that Governments should trust its population until that trust has been breeched by an individual and then that individual should be dealt with according to the established laws of the land. I also believe that there is NO Guarantee that laws passed will stop anyone from doing harm or evil to me or the populous. Laws are meant to be punitive to people who break the law. And that my safety and security is first and foremost guaranteed not by laws or the government but by my vigilance and ability to defend myself.
Bud, seriously, I've never known anyone who has suffered from that scenario. In fact, I can recount only once or twice locally where something like that has been reported, and in those cases, the intruders were armed with weapons. What good is a firearm under your pillow when some drug crazed moron has kicked in your door and is pointing a handgun at you?Cold_Zero wrote:In a scenario where a criminal hopped up on PCP kicks down your door holding a baseball bat and ready to commit murder and rape.What goes through your mind? "Geewiz, I better call the police and let them deal with this guy. I wish we had more drug and baseball bat laws on the book, along with more 'Midnight Basketball programs'? so that this guy wouldn't be standing at my door right now."
Re: (Marenta)
Actually Marenta, my protection comes in the form of a dog, who raises heck everytime someone comes on or even near my property, giving me have more than enough time to call 911. I've been told that a dog barking is one of the best detriments to crime.Marenta wrote:
Your only protection in this case is to hope that you either never get caught in a situation where you will be faced with that sort of thing, or you find a way to protect yourself against stupid people. (Like you do when you're driving, assertive vice aggressive driving, etc.)
Look, I'm all for sportsmen(women) owning (legal) guns, I'm just looking at the other side here.
-
telcoman
- Posts: 5762
- Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
- Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
- Location: Central NJ
Re: (Marenta)
MarentaMarenta wrote:
I knew at 8 what right and wrong were. If at 14 or higher they can't remember that "Thou shalt not kill", then obviously something went very wrong when they were being raised.
A very large majority of the crimes committed are done using guns that are stolen or illegally brought into this country, and the people that use them usually are not that bright.
Your only protection in this case is to hope that you either never get caught in a situation where you will be faced with that sort of thing, or you find a way to protect yourself against stupid people. (Like you do when you're driving, assertive vice aggressive driving, etc.)
Correct, many or most of us here knew right from wrong at an early age because we had parents that knew how to raise children.To my knowledge there is no test to be a parent.Unfortunately there is a severe social problem in this country that results in too many misfits out on the street and they are the ones that find it too easy to obtain guns.
I don't have a problem with you or a few others here owning guns. I do have a problem with seeing so many guns in the wrong hands and all of the associated improper usage. Since the NRA is the largest proponent of gun ownership in the US, I feel they should be doing more to solve the problem.
Telcoman
Re: (rn79870)
http://www.usconcealedcarry.co...4.cfm
There's your stories.. tons and tons of them.
I'm glad you have a dog, I hope he works well for you. Listen, I'm not trying to change your mind. And, I do see your side of the picture. But, it's not the NRA's job to make sure everybody's smart.
The NRA isn't going to chase down some Teenybopper thug wannabe gangstaboi and teach him how to properly maintain his weapon, and where, and what the laws are and all that crap.
There's your stories.. tons and tons of them.
I'm glad you have a dog, I hope he works well for you. Listen, I'm not trying to change your mind. And, I do see your side of the picture. But, it's not the NRA's job to make sure everybody's smart.
The NRA isn't going to chase down some Teenybopper thug wannabe gangstaboi and teach him how to properly maintain his weapon, and where, and what the laws are and all that crap.
Re: (telcoman)
Then let's do this like China.. let's restrict people from having children. You have to apply to have a child, it's a permit. You're only allowed like.. 2 or whatever. Because, obviously, it's the fact that stupid people are having children, or the fact that bad things happen and children get lost in the system.telcoman wrote:Correct, many or most of us here knew right from wrong at an early age because we had parents that knew how to raise children.To my knowledge there is no test to be a parent.Unfortunately there is a severe social problem in this country that results in too many misfits out on the street and they are the ones that find it too easy to obtain guns.
I don't have a problem with you or a few others here owning guns. I do have a problem with seeing so many guns in the wrong hands and all of the associated improper usage. Since the NRA is the largest proponent of gun ownership in the US, I feel they should be doing more to solve the problem.
I've wanted to adopt a "troubled" child for some time now, and I wanted to do it from an ethnicity not of my own. But, my parents berated me about it to the point that I gave up the idea of trying to change the future of a kid in the federal system. So, now there's just another statistic, roaming the streets.
Or, we could do a "cleansing" effort. Eradicate all of America's "troubled" people, but then, who would be the one to make that decision? Seems a bit unfair, don't you think?
bob we should police ourselves... so when dealing with deadly weapons you want less government involvement?
also if somone kicked down my door with a gun, my gun would be in my hand not under my pillow
telco you have no actual data to back up anything you say. and unfortunately people such as yourself are the majority of the populace.
comparing a gun to a car is not apples to oranges? road rage implies a car, not to mention cars kill more people per year then gun crime, cars are much more deadly, everyone agrees dems and republicans, so why don't we have harsher laws against being a tool on the road...
You totally avoided answering why you think we as a country should lose our RIGHT to own a gun legally, you think criminals wont still have them if the citizens dont? and using other countries as an example is just sad, they have never had guns the way we have, nor the security issues of having two of the worlds largest and most under defended borders in the world. but still the quick fix is ban all legal guns cause only legal guns commit crimes....
you and i both know thats bull****.
Im calling you out on the floor right now, provide statistics and proof of your rambling or please stop posting nonsense about gun control. Either you understand what we are really discussing and your trying to press as many buttons as possible, which is just sad as you are coming across as less then bright, or you are totally lacking in facts and evidence, which is sad as well because what is the point of spending time discussing and debating facts when you have no facts just posturing and bad press.
btw i am still waiting on you to tell me why new jersey doesn't have the right to crush your g35 and tell you to take the bus. you "might" become angry and the car is NOT fuel efficient. by your math that means you should be driving a moped if anything, since banning all cars on the road means no road rage right and no more deaths from cars.
also if somone kicked down my door with a gun, my gun would be in my hand not under my pillow
telco you have no actual data to back up anything you say. and unfortunately people such as yourself are the majority of the populace.
comparing a gun to a car is not apples to oranges? road rage implies a car, not to mention cars kill more people per year then gun crime, cars are much more deadly, everyone agrees dems and republicans, so why don't we have harsher laws against being a tool on the road...
You totally avoided answering why you think we as a country should lose our RIGHT to own a gun legally, you think criminals wont still have them if the citizens dont? and using other countries as an example is just sad, they have never had guns the way we have, nor the security issues of having two of the worlds largest and most under defended borders in the world. but still the quick fix is ban all legal guns cause only legal guns commit crimes....
you and i both know thats bull****.
Im calling you out on the floor right now, provide statistics and proof of your rambling or please stop posting nonsense about gun control. Either you understand what we are really discussing and your trying to press as many buttons as possible, which is just sad as you are coming across as less then bright, or you are totally lacking in facts and evidence, which is sad as well because what is the point of spending time discussing and debating facts when you have no facts just posturing and bad press.
btw i am still waiting on you to tell me why new jersey doesn't have the right to crush your g35 and tell you to take the bus. you "might" become angry and the car is NOT fuel efficient. by your math that means you should be driving a moped if anything, since banning all cars on the road means no road rage right and no more deaths from cars.
-
Cold_Zero
- Posts: 6714
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 4:15 pm
- Car: 2003 Nissan Altima SE 3.5
2005 Nissan Pathfinder
Re: (rn79870)
I would highly suggest that you get to know the NRA better. The NRA puts on such programs as the Eddie the Eagle program to teach young kids firearms safety. They also train adult instructors in firearms safety so that when groups like the Boy/Girl Scouts of America want to send their scouts through firearms training, there are skilled instructors to lead the class. The NRA also provides to its member gun club/ranges local representatives, who evaluate the safety of the range and suggest changes to make the range more safe. This is all done free of charge to clubs and ranges that are members of the NRA. I know this because my conservation club has taken advantage of these services.This is just a fraction of what the NRA does in its non legislative lobbying time.budrn79870 wrote:
That's not the case Bud. I'm just a little perplexed that the NRA isn't leading the way in educating gun owners in ways they can help cut down senseless gun crimes. When an organization polices itself, typically the government is happy to take a back seat to that organization's efforts. I wish all gun owners were as responsible as the ones here on Nico, but that's not the case.
Re: (Jager)
In all fairness Justin, look at the differences between cars and handguns. Handguns are a constitutional right, cars are not.Cars are regulated heavily by federal laws (how they are built) and state laws (how they are operated). The feds and the state go to great lengths to insure highways are built safely and patrolled by police.Jager wrote:
btw i am still waiting on you to tell me why new jersey doesn't have the right to crush your g35 and tell you to take the bus. you "might" become angry and the car is NOT fuel efficient. by your math that means you should be driving a moped if anything, since banning all cars on the road means no road rage right and no more deaths from cars.
What about the technology where the handgun has a transponder in it and that transponder needs to see a ring or a watch with a matching transponder before the gun will operate. Would that prevent gun thefts? Would that work at all?