turtlespeed 212
normiss 622
All guns can be used safely in public.
It happens all the time. Sometimes even with police.
Previous bans on "assault weapons" was simply foolish at best.
It happens all the time. Sometimes even with police.
Previous bans on "assault weapons" was simply foolish at best.
mnealtx 0
Quote>Cars was my subject. and in the context of licensing and control they are
>very much alike
OK. License all gun owners and register all guns that are taken off anyone's property. Require insurance and a safety test before giving anyone a gun.
Property damage insurance wouldn't be that expensive. Safety tests are part of the manufacturing process.
QuoteLimit what kind of guns you can use to guns that can be used safely in public.
Nope, sorry. Anything that I want to carry, just like I can drive a Yugo or a Lambo depending on how much money I want to spend.
QuoteMight work.
Make sure to get your free speech and voting endorsements when you pick it up.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
turtlespeed 212
QuoteQuote>Cars was my subject. and in the context of licensing and control they are
>very much alike
OK. License all gun owners and register all guns that are taken off anyone's property. Require insurance and a safety test before giving anyone a gun.
Property damage insurance wouldn't be that expensive. Safety tests are part of the manufacturing process.QuoteLimit what kind of guns you can use to guns that can be used safely in public.
Nope, sorry. Anything that I want to carry, just like I can drive a Yugo or a Lambo depending on how much money I want to spend.QuoteMight work.
Make sure to get your free speech and voting endorsements when you pick it up.
Don't forget to check the box for vote donation, as opposed to organ donation.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
wolfriverjoe 1,340
Quote>Cars was my subject. and in the context of licensing and control they are
>very much alike
OK. License all gun owners and register all guns that are taken off anyone's property. Require insurance and a safety test before giving anyone a gun. Limit what kind of guns you can use to guns that can be used safely in public. Might work.
As long as you make the "license" a shall issue (as long as skills are demonstrated and background check is passed) I'm ok with it. As was said, make it so that anyone who can pass can carry anywhere in the US.
Registration scares me because it has been used historically to disarm the populace.
And please define what kind of gun can be "used safely in public".
Here in the US, cops and licensed civilains routinely carry pistols.
Over in Europe, riot cops with submachine guns aren't uncommon.
In Israel, off duty reservists routinely carry Uzis and M-16s.
Safely.
"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
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
kallend 1,623
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote[Reply] Lawrocket wants to protect them.
You're goddamned right I do. Believe it or not, I think the First, Second, Fourth, fifth, Sixth Amendments (all of them, actually) apply to those who would be considered "loonies" and those with a psychiatric diagnosis.
.
I submit that the victims of the loonies have a right not to be shot dead that trumps the rights of the loony.
As soon as you can get that Future Reader up and running we will all stand behind you.
A lame old Red Herring. Not much of a future reader is needed.
So, you're advocating that fed.gov spy on every single citizen? You volunteering to head the department?
Name it something nice and innocuous... maybe the Ministry of Love.
Yet another STRAWMAN from Mike.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Butters 0
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote[Reply] Lawrocket wants to protect them.
You're goddamned right I do. Believe it or not, I think the First, Second, Fourth, fifth, Sixth Amendments (all of them, actually) apply to those who would be considered "loonies" and those with a psychiatric diagnosis.
.
I submit that the victims of the loonies have a right not to be shot dead that trumps the rights of the loony.
As soon as you can get that Future Reader up and running we will all stand behind you.
A lame old Red Herring. Not much of a future reader is needed.
So, you're advocating that fed.gov spy on every single citizen? You volunteering to head the department?
Name it something nice and innocuous... maybe the Ministry of Love.
Yet another STRAWMAN from Mike.
Then enlighten us, perfesser - given that YOU were one posting Youtube clips as proof that he was a nutter.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rushmc 18
Quote
Of course it is a straw man
Cause its name would be the Ministry of Love AND Vaseline
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>And all that stops people from dieing from drunks, crazies and other
>irresponcibble people driving cars
>Correct?
It does stop quite a lot of them. By increasing penalties, revoking people's licenses, confiscating their cars, increasing the drinking age, having mandatory "test or lose your license" laws etc drunk driving deaths have gone way down (almost 50% since 1982.)
>irresponcibble people driving cars
>Correct?
It does stop quite a lot of them. By increasing penalties, revoking people's licenses, confiscating their cars, increasing the drinking age, having mandatory "test or lose your license" laws etc drunk driving deaths have gone way down (almost 50% since 1982.)
billvon 2,400
>Nope, sorry. Anything that I want to carry, just like I can drive a Yugo or a Lambo
>depending on how much money I want to spend.
Try driving an M60 tank on the freeway. See what the cops do. (Hint - it happened in San Diego; police shot him.)
>Make sure to get your free speech and voting endorsements when you pick it up.
?? I'm not the one saying that "guns should be just like cars."
>depending on how much money I want to spend.
Try driving an M60 tank on the freeway. See what the cops do. (Hint - it happened in San Diego; police shot him.)
>Make sure to get your free speech and voting endorsements when you pick it up.
?? I'm not the one saying that "guns should be just like cars."
rushmc 18
Quote>And all that stops people from dieing from drunks, crazies and other
>irresponcibble people driving cars
>Correct?
It does stop quite a lot of them. By increasing penalties, revoking people's licenses, confiscating their cars, increasing the drinking age, having mandatory "test or lose your license" laws etc drunk driving deaths have gone way down (almost 50% since 1982.)
Good
Then we can assume that those killed using guns would be much higher if the current laws were not in place ok?
On the other hand
There seems to be a few high profile deaths caused by a multiple times caught drunk driver, who had no license or insurance and was a illegal whom a judge decided NOT to deport after his what, 4rth time? Then he finally killed someone
Worked well
Now we need to ban cars, booze and illegal’s AND drivers
Wait...............
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 1,623
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote[Reply] Lawrocket wants to protect them.
You're goddamned right I do. Believe it or not, I think the First, Second, Fourth, fifth, Sixth Amendments (all of them, actually) apply to those who would be considered "loonies" and those with a psychiatric diagnosis.
.
I submit that the victims of the loonies have a right not to be shot dead that trumps the rights of the loony.
As soon as you can get that Future Reader up and running we will all stand behind you.
A lame old Red Herring. Not much of a future reader is needed.
So, you're advocating that fed.gov spy on every single citizen? You volunteering to head the department?
Name it something nice and innocuous... maybe the Ministry of Love.
Yet another STRAWMAN from Mike.
Then enlighten us, perfesser - given that YOU were one posting Youtube clips as proof that he was a nutter.
Please post a link to the post you claim I made with a Youtube clip.
You have proven time and time again that you fail to comprehend what "strawman" means. This is yet another example.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,400
>Then we can assume that those killed using guns would be much higher if the current
>laws were not in place ok?
Well, no, a lot of them are not. There is not yet any law that requires gun registration, for example. Nor is there any law requiring gun owners to be licensed. If you want to claim that "in the context of licensing and control they (guns and cars) are very much alike" you have a lot more gun control laws to pass to get close to parity.
>Now we need to ban cars, booze and illegal’s AND drivers
Why not ban spoons while you're at it?
>laws were not in place ok?
Well, no, a lot of them are not. There is not yet any law that requires gun registration, for example. Nor is there any law requiring gun owners to be licensed. If you want to claim that "in the context of licensing and control they (guns and cars) are very much alike" you have a lot more gun control laws to pass to get close to parity.
>Now we need to ban cars, booze and illegal’s AND drivers
Why not ban spoons while you're at it?
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, I don't know why the professor is so caught up with guns that he turned this into a gun thread. I've alway thought is was far more important to focus on the person, and on the crime, than on the tool used to commit the crime.
If this nutjob had killed six people and injured a dozen more with a knife, or by plowing into them with a motor vehicle, or by strapping on an explosive vest and blowing himself up, we'd be talking about the treatment he needed, the troubles in his head, and the tragedy. I don't think we'd be talking about banning knives, SUVs, or how inadequate the BATFE and bomb laws are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I made this post about ten pages ago. I still don't get it. Does anyone disagree with my assertion that with any other tool, we wouldn't be having this conversation?
No. I agree in part, but I disagree that the discussion would focus on the "tool."
See, the logic is that tools require a manufacturer. He wasn't just a loony who snapped. He was made into a loony and somebody or something caused him to snap. Hence, there is the allegation that it's Palin's fault - SHE caused him to snap. Or it's the Tea Party folks that caused him to snap. Or it's the overall tone of attack politics that breeds violent thoughts in the sane and causes violence in the insane.
Heck, when I tried focusing discussion on the tool, discussion was moved to how partisan politics and compassionate conservatives who cut social spending caused this. At the very least, however, I appreciate Amazon for at least discussing some possible fixes, although I find these proposals abhorrent to liberty and the Constitution (as did the SCOTUS 35 years ago).
But these proposals were interspersed with the politics of blame. It's much easier to blame people than it is to find substantive solutions. Indeed, demanding "change" usually means that only the other side should change. Which is why inflammatory staments such as, "your inflammatory statements caused this and you should cease your inflammatory statements because the blood is on your inflammatory consciences, you inflammatory killers."
This is how politics operates.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rushmc 18
Why not ban spoons while you're at it?
Why not
Makes as much sense as your arguments do
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
So, you're advocating that fed.gov spy on every single citizen? You volunteering to head the department?
Name it something nice and innocuous... maybe the Ministry of Love.
Ministry of Big Brother
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun