0
jclalor

Arizona Congresswoman, shot in the head

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

6 dead, just collateral damage so you can have your toys.

Thousands dead, every year, just for the convenience of not having to walk.



So you want to compare guns with cars on the public roads, OK.

Insurance required.

Test of competency required before you can use one.

Must have license in possession whenever using.

Registration required.

Must have visible ID affixed.

Strict safety criteria on design and construction.

High taxes on consumables.

Annual safety checks in many states.

etc.


I suspect you don't want to pursue that analogy.




No Constitutional Right to drive a car.



So you agree that it was a piss-poor analogy.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I dont want nuts to get guns. I dont want drunks and druggies driving either. We got that stopped now though dont we.



I suspect that is an analogy that you don't really want to pursue, if you actually bother to think about the restrictions on driving on public roads.

The first step in solving a problem is to admit that there is one.



Sure I do
As soon as driving is a right we can have the discussion

But just to follow your point
All you listed above has ended all the death (from driving) then, right?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

I dont want nuts to get guns. I dont want drunks and druggies driving either. We got that stopped now though dont we.



I suspect that is an analogy that you don't really want to pursue, if you actually bother to think about the restrictions on driving on public roads.

The first step in solving a problem is to admit that there is one.



Sure I do
As soon as driving is a right we can have the discussion

But just to follow your point
All you listed above has ended all the death (from driving) then, right?



I didn't bring up driving. If it's not relevant, why did YOU bring it up?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

6 dead, just collateral damage so you can have your toys.

Thousands dead, every year, just for the convenience of not having to walk.



So you want to compare guns with cars on the public roads, OK.

Insurance required.

Test of competency required before you can use one.

Must have license in possession whenever using.

Registration required.

Must have visible ID affixed.

Strict safety criteria on design and construction.

High taxes on consumables.

Annual safety checks in many states.

etc.


I suspect you don't want to pursue that analogy.



I will.

All but 5 states require a license to carry concealed. 2 have no permit at all and concealed carry isn't allowed at all. I'm not sure how many require a carry permit to "open carry." Posession with out having the permit on your person is a lot more serious than driving with out the license on you.

Most states require training to obtain a carry permit, to include laws and demonstrated competence. Renewing a permit usually requires retraining and redemontrating competence. When's the last time you had to take a road or written test to renew your driver's licence professor?

Firearms are required to have a serial number. Posessing a weapon with one removed or altered is a pretty serious crime.

Firearms meet SAMMI standards. They aren't government mandated, but they are followed by all the manufacturers. When is the last time you heard of a modern gun having a serious safety issue (Ruger recalled a pistol recently that could discarge if it was dropped at the "just perfect angle", but there were no reported instances if it happening).

There's a federal tax on ammuntion. It's supposed to go toward preserving hunting lands, but has been "reaproriated" for other purposes.

And all the requirements you listed are (as you stated) only to operate a vehicle on public roads. Anyone can have a "Back 40 beater" and legally operate it on private property without any of the listed requirements. Skydive AZ has their "converitble van" right? That would't pass inspection.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So you agree that it was a piss-poor analogy.



Yes, because driving is not a constitutionally protected right.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I sure know there's a gun violence problem in the USA. I'd prefer gun enthusiasts to come up with a solution.



I disagree. There is a violent crime problem here in the USA. Often it takes the form if gun crime, but not always. I don't know about you, but I'm more worried about the violence part than the gun part.

So professor, how would you define loony? How would you determine who is a loony prior to some horrible event?

If you can answer those two questions, the third step is easy. Pass a law that no one can sell to anyone on your list.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I dont want nuts to get guns. I dont want drunks and druggies driving either. We got that stopped now though dont we.



I suspect that is an analogy that you don't really want to pursue, if you actually bother to think about the restrictions on driving on public roads.

The first step in solving a problem is to admit that there is one.


Sure I do
As soon as driving is a right we can have the discussion

But just to follow your point
All you listed above has ended all the death (from driving) then, right?


I didn't bring up driving. If it's not relevant, why did YOU bring it up?
:D

You are desperate now arent you.

Cant drive without a car:D (or some motor vehicle)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So you want to compare guns with cars on the public roads, OK.



Sure why not ...

Quote

Insurance required.



Not needed. It is a poor comparison. Unless of course you want insurance companies to start paying out whenever a firearm is used in a crime. But this would only financially punish law abiding firearms owners with no doubt yet another corrupt arm of the insurance industry. Since when has insurance ever stopped automobiles from accidents?

Quote

Test of competency required before you can use one.



No problem with this. I honestly don't understand why law abiding responsible firearms owners feel they should not have to demonstrate that they know how to properly handle their firearms.

Quote

Must have license in possession whenever using.



Thought this was already a requirement? If it is not, well then this is one of those rare times we can actually agree with each other. I support the idea of licensing people who want to own firearms.

Quote

Registration required.



Big problem with this. License the user not the inanimate object. This is another poor analogy between automobiles and firearms. The government does not come knocking on your door to confiscate your car when you let the registration expire. Governments who do have a registry will confiscate your firearm if you let it expire. Despite the lies Liberals continue to feed people, Canada's Gun Registry is a complete and utter failure. It does nothing to do about stopping firearms from being used in crime and instead is nothing more than a confiscation shopping list for the gun grabbers.

Quote

Must have visible ID affixed.



IDs can be defaced. What you have never heard of chop shops? You should get out of the classroom more often and come join us in the real world.

Quote

Strict safety criteria on design and construction.



Please explain the defects on firearms construction that effects safety? I guess they could happen, but you never really hear about firearms recalls because of defective manufacturing. Another poor comparison. Plus any well trained firearms owner know that their firearm needs to be cleaned and maintained for optimal performance.

Quote

High taxes on consumables.



There you go again ... yes governments could bring in new taxes on consumables (ie: ammunition), but besides building an even larger government bureaucracy, what will this really do besides take more money out of people's pockets. Is there anything in this world you don't want to tax?

Quote

Annual safety checks in many states.



Safety checks on what? On the user or the firearm? I don't have to go back and do a driver's test every year. Come to think of it, I don't have to have my automobile inspected either (though yes I do know some places do require annual or semi-annual emission tests, but not where I live).


Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The work of a right wing nutjob, perhaps?



Phoenix Times Online reporting that the classmates describe this guy as a left wing pothead. Guess your post looks even more brilliant than before huh:S

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/jared_loughner_alleged_shooter.php
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw quite a bit of 'reading tea leaves' in the beginning of this thread. I'm not sure 'I told you so' is really warranted. We don't know what we don't know. I suggest that would be a good lesson to remember in future posts.

Although I tend to be conservative, I figured the odds were in favor of this guy being a right wing nut job when I first heard the story. Maybe just fearing such on my part.

.02
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I saw quite a bit of 'reading tea leaves' in the beginning of this thread. I'm not sure 'I told you so' is really warranted. We don't know what we don't know. I suggest that would be a good lesson to remember in future posts.

Although I tend to be conservative, I figured the odds were in favor of this guy being a right wing nut job when I first heard the story. Maybe just fearing such on my part.

.02



A nut job is a jnut job
No party has a corner on them
That is why I commented to the first reponce to the op

I am sure there is still much more to come

But the sides trying to get a political advantage out of this is disgusting
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I posted that information 5 pages ago.

Do you know the definition of the word perhaps?



Yes I do

still a ridicules post you made

Don’t you think?

At least in hind site?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Winsor, I expect the simplistic comeback from the likes of some here, but not you. You are one of the brightest and erudite minds here, yet, for all your knowledge and wisdom you only seem to be able to see black and white on this issue.

I was hoping for better.

I never suggested making firearms as illegal as cocaine. I never suggested a total nation-wide ban "Like in Rwanda."

I'm asking for a workable solution to the problem of keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people. By all accounts, even the NRA is for that as a general goal, yet the current system is badly broken.

How would you actually fix it?



First I believe his actual point is that cocaine is already illegal, but it's still pretty easily available.

As for keeping guns out of the hands of "crazy people".........
There would have to be an assessment system established.
It would have to be open to input for evals.
It would have to be determined to be legal, constitutional and grant due process.
Pretty tall order I know-it would be challenged by ACLU and who knows who else-probably everybody.
The only "similar" that I can think of that currently exists pertains to driver's licenses. (please leave out all the talk about guns vs cars for the moment!!!!)
In California if a person (I believe it was originally drafted with elder drivers in mind that are starting to get senile) is believed to be a hazard on the road, anyone from their doctor to a relative or police officer can submit a referral to DMV for full retesting of that individual.
Then the DMV retests and evaluates them and makes the determination as to whether that person should still be allowed to have a drivers license.
Just throwing out an already existing "eval system" as a possible start of something that might address the concerns from both sides.
Thoughts????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you say there is a problem. Well, we can all agree on that. We just disagree on which part ofthe problem is more significant. You think it's the tool, I think it's the homicidal psychotic on the loose. The solution to your version of the problem removes guns, but leaves homicidal psychotics on the loose. The solution to my version of the problem removes homicidal psychotics, but leaves gun on the loose. Which is worse?

So, you know there is a problem. You don't have a solution (or refuse to suggest one, which is the same thing). You want SOMETHING done. But you reserve the right to tear into anyone else's ideas.

Lazy thinking like that lead to the "assault weapons ban" and "gun rationing." Guess what, they didn't have any effect on violent crime.

If you really want to say a law is ineffective because it fails to prevent a horrible crime, then by your ridiculous definition, all laws are ineffective. Congratulations. Anarchy, here we come, courtesy of a lazy-thinking smart person. :|

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>You think it's the tool, I think it's the homicidal psychotic on the loose.

Well, both are clearly problems. Even staunch gun supporters agree that it's reasonable to prevent felons from owning guns, so just having a gun is clearly an issue for some people as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>You think it's the tool, I think it's the homicidal psychotic on the loose.

Well, both are clearly problems. Even staunch gun supporters agree that it's reasonable to prevent felons from owning guns, so just having a gun is clearly an issue for some people as well.



Yes, certain clearly defined sets of people have lost their rights. Felons, by definition, have been convicted of a felony (due process in a court of law). They also have a process by which they can appeal the conviction, and if the conviction stands, a process by which they can petition the courts for restoration of their rights. I suppose this process is not all that different from having a person committed to a mental health institution, or declared incompetant (the current standards for required refusal of sale).

Other than "do something now, for the children," does anyone that's focused on the gun have any suggestions for improving gun laws?

Preventing violent gun crime by going after guns is like preventing forgery by going after pens, or preventing drunk driving by going after alcohol and cars.

I'm not a fan of prior restraint.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>You think it's the tool, I think it's the homicidal psychotic on the loose.

Well, both are clearly problems. Even staunch gun supporters agree that it's reasonable to prevent felons from owning guns, so just having a gun is clearly an issue for some people as well.



I really was attempting to be constructive in my post above about how to declare someone not competent to own a gun.
I saw this post of yours and I'm afraid I can't help myself...:)
By your reasoning then-it's reasonable to prevent men from raping/just having a penis is clearly an issue for some men. So do you take it away from them?:D:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


A nut job is a jnut job
No party has a corner on them
That is why I commented to the first reponce to the op

I am sure there is still much more to come

But the sides trying to get a political advantage out of this is disgusting



Quite right!

The level of vitriol and hatred has been pretty high for a long time. However, liberals have absolutely been the worst offenders in the lead in this regard and really should knock it off.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


A nut job is a jnut job
No party has a corner on them
That is why I commented to the first reponce to the op

I am sure there is still much more to come

But the sides trying to get a political advantage out of this is disgusting



look at the posted examples in the Palin aide claims that cross hairs were "surveyor symbols" thread


The level of vitriol and hatred has been pretty high for a long time. However, liberals have absolutely been the worst offenders in the lead in this regard and really should knock it off.



Quite right!

look at the posted examples in the Palin aide claims that cross hairs were "surveyor symbols" thread


Then listen to Durbins comments from the weekend

he is s jerk
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>By your reasoning then-it's reasonable to prevent men from raping/just
>having a penis is clearly an issue for some men. So do you take it away from
>them?

Nope. Amputation is a little different than taking a device away from someone. I'm sure you would agree if you had to make that choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The level of vitriol and hatred has been pretty high for a long time. However, liberals have absolutely been the worst offenders in the lead in this regard and really should knock it off.



Now you're just trolling



Perhaps the guy was pissed of at Gifford for not supporting Immigration reform as she was supposed to. All the hate and vitriol from libs (including lib leaders in congress) directed at those that didn't support their position may have inspired him to kill her.

That speculation is just as valid as the speculation that he was motivated by conservatives
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

The level of vitriol and hatred has been pretty high for a long time. However, liberals have absolutely been the worst offenders in the lead in this regard and really should knock it off.



Now you're just trolling



Perhaps the guy was pissed of at Gifford for not supporting Immigration reform as she was supposed to. All the hate and vitriol from libs (including lib leaders in congress) directed at those that didn't support their position may have inspired him to kill her.

That speculation is just as valid as the speculation that he was motivated by conservatives



I wasn't referring to the (obviously mentally ill) shooter's own motivations. I was responding to your own utter bullshit of liberals have absolutely been the worst offenders in the lead in this regard. Doesn't even merit a rebuttal; just a .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Doesn't even merit a rebuttal; just a .



geez, people keep using the term and pretty soon, boogies are just going to be a great big festival of people walking up and unilaterally slapping others just to feel better. and it's not their fault, it's blogger using violent terms - like 'face palm' - that makes them do it, rather than their own choice to slap another....

(as far as I know, 'face palm' is a moisturizer....)

can't we stop the violence now? - this just facilitates angry fights --- for the children. Let's start using the term 'face caress' and fix the world

edit: for the children (and the puppies)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0