Gravitymaster 0 #151 January 4, 2013 QuoteI thought the right wingers on this forum want to get rid of welfare and the poor should just not be so lazy? How can she have welfare cheques stolen if there is no welfare? No wonder you guys can't get elected, you make no sense... Confused again, I see. You very likely missed the touch of sarcasm in my original post and the subsequent continuation. Other than missing that, I can't figure out what all your other rambling is about, but can only guess that somehow you think you have a point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #152 January 4, 2013 QuoteQuoteI thought the right wingers on this forum want to get rid of welfare and the poor should just not be so lazy? How can she have welfare cheques stolen if there is no welfare? No wonder you guys can't get elected, you make no sense... No you have tasted the left wing and its media hype Mostly the right wing wishes to keep it to those who really need it The left uses giving it to more to gain power and money So how do we know that this imaginary welfare recipient in GM's case is a worthy recipient, and therefore should have access to cheap guns and ammunition, or an unworthy recipient? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #153 January 4, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteI thought the right wingers on this forum want to get rid of welfare and the poor should just not be so lazy? How can she have welfare cheques stolen if there is no welfare? No wonder you guys can't get elected, you make no sense... No you have tasted the left wing and its media hype Mostly the right wing wishes to keep it to those who really need it The left uses giving it to more to gain power and money So how do we know that this imaginary welfare recipient in GM's case is a worthy recipient, and therefore should have access to cheap guns and ammunition, or an unworthy recipient? Well the left thinks only they are smart enough to know an anwer to this Anyone who thinks different is just mean and a hate monger"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #154 January 4, 2013 QuoteYou very likely missed the touch of sarcasm in my original post and the subsequent continuation. Oh, if it was supposed to sarcasm, you are then in favour of liability insurance on guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
havoc996 0 #155 January 4, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote 33 states do not have such a law. Which makes the other 17 effectively useless since a disqualified person just goes out of state. Which is why it needs to be federal. which other of the amendments are you willing to discard for the "greater good"?? Explain CAREFULLY how requiring a background check violates the Constitution. In March 2010, John Patrick Bedell strolled up to the Pentagon and started shooting at two police officers with a semiautomatic handgun. Months before the attack, he tried to buy a gun in California but was denied, after a background check showed he had a documented history of mental illness. So Bedell instead went to neighboring Nevada, where gun laws are more lenient, and bought a 9mm handgun from a private seller who didn't have to check out his history. Seems a fairly obvious problem to me. He broke the law in doing that. The obvious problem is our inability to enforce the current laws we have. But I'm thinking that's not what you meant. What you meant was we need more laws even though we can't enforce the existing ones we have.Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #156 January 4, 2013 QuoteQuoteYou very likely missed the touch of sarcasm in my original post and the subsequent continuation. Oh, if it was supposed to sarcasm, you are then in favour of liability insurance on guns. Missed again. Care to go for 3 in a row or just quit while you are behind? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #157 January 4, 2013 Ahh so just enough sarcasm that you can twist and turn and hide behind anything. Way to take a stand! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #158 January 4, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 33 states do not have such a law. Which makes the other 17 effectively useless since a disqualified person just goes out of state. Which is why it needs to be federal. which other of the amendments are you willing to discard for the "greater good"?? Explain CAREFULLY how requiring a background check violates the Constitution. In March 2010, John Patrick Bedell strolled up to the Pentagon and started shooting at two police officers with a semiautomatic handgun. Months before the attack, he tried to buy a gun in California but was denied, after a background check showed he had a documented history of mental illness. So Bedell instead went to neighboring Nevada, where gun laws are more lenient, and bought a 9mm handgun from a private seller who didn't have to check out his history. Seems a fairly obvious problem to me. He broke the law in doing that. The obvious problem is our inability to enforce the current laws we have. But I'm thinking that's not what you meant. What you meant was we need more laws even though we can't enforce the existing ones we have.Fair enough. How about we set up checkpoints at all state borders, and search all vehicles just in case someone purchased a gun illegally while out of state. I'm sure you legitimate gun owners won't mind that, even if it means having to wait a couple of hours at the border. For that matter, why not stop and check people at random as they are driving or even walking around, to make sure they are properly permitted if they are carrying? If these steps seem a bit draconian to you (not to mention unconstitutional), can you explain how exactly these "existing laws" could possibly be enforced? It seems to me that such laws are effectively unenforceable, at least in any sense that would actually serve to reduce illegal gun ownership or use. I know that there are lots of laws about gun purchasing and such, but it seems to me all they are good for is to pile a few additional charges (mostly misdemeanors) on after a perp has already been charged with armed robbery or murder, and if they aren't plea-bargained away they add nothing to the sentence. Again, for anyone who has a constructive suggestion, how can "existing laws" be enforced in a way that would actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and also be acceptable to legitimate gun owners? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #159 January 4, 2013 QuoteAhh so just enough sarcasm that you can twist and turn and hide behind anything. Way to take a stand! Congrats, you win the daily Trifecta. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #160 January 4, 2013 QuoteAgain, for anyone who has a constructive suggestion, how can "existing laws" be enforced in a way that would actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and also be acceptable to legitimate gun owners? I see you understand now why many people are so upset over adding new laws that are just as impotent as the many that were added simply to calm down public uproar. ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #161 January 4, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 33 states do not have such a law. Which makes the other 17 effectively useless since a disqualified person just goes out of state. Which is why it needs to be federal. which other of the amendments are you willing to discard for the "greater good"?? Explain CAREFULLY how requiring a background check violates the Constitution. In March 2010, John Patrick Bedell strolled up to the Pentagon and started shooting at two police officers with a semiautomatic handgun. Months before the attack, he tried to buy a gun in California but was denied, after a background check showed he had a documented history of mental illness. So Bedell instead went to neighboring Nevada, where gun laws are more lenient, and bought a 9mm handgun from a private seller who didn't have to check out his history. Seems a fairly obvious problem to me. He broke the law in doing that. The obvious problem is our inability to enforce the current laws we have. But I'm thinking that's not what you meant. What you meant was we need more laws even though we can't enforce the existing ones we have.Fair enough. How about we set up checkpoints at all state borders, and search all vehicles just in case someone purchased a gun illegally while out of state. I'm sure you legitimate gun owners won't mind that, even if it means having to wait a couple of hours at the border. For that matter, why not stop and check people at random as they are driving or even walking around, to make sure they are properly permitted if they are carrying? If these steps seem a bit draconian to you (not to mention unconstitutional), can you explain how exactly these "existing laws" could possibly be enforced? It seems to me that such laws are effectively unenforceable, at least in any sense that would actually serve to reduce illegal gun ownership or use. I know that there are lots of laws about gun purchasing and such, but it seems to me all they are good for is to pile a few additional charges (mostly misdemeanors) on after a perp has already been charged with armed robbery or murder, and if they aren't plea-bargained away they add nothing to the sentence. Again, for anyone who has a constructive suggestion, how can "existing laws" be enforced in a way that would actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and also be acceptable to legitimate gun owners? Don Again, I think this represents an unintended point It seems the steps advocate giving up constitutional protections by putting into place laws (that you admit are not constitutional) that would do no good in the end just to make feel better because they tried to do something"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #162 January 4, 2013 QuoteAgain, I think this represents an unintended point Or maybe not so unintended. QuoteIt seems the steps advocate giving up constitutional protections by putting into place laws (that you admit are not constitutional) that would do no good in the end just to make feel better because they tried to do something Well sure. Also I agree with remhwa's post. Another take on it, though, is that it's somewhat disingenuous to say "enforce the laws we already have" when everybody knows full well those laws are unenforceable in any way that will actually do anything to prevent the bad guys from obtaining and using guns. Just saying "we have enough laws" is a deflection, as those laws are so easily circumvented that they are pretty much useless. The solution is not to pass more useless laws of course, but we shouldn't use the fact that many useless laws are on the books to shut down discussion of things that might work, pretending that everything would be hunky-dory if existing laws were enforced. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #163 January 4, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 33 states do not have such a law. Which makes the other 17 effectively useless since a disqualified person just goes out of state. Which is why it needs to be federal. which other of the amendments are you willing to discard for the "greater good"?? Explain CAREFULLY how requiring a background check violates the Constitution. In March 2010, John Patrick Bedell strolled up to the Pentagon and started shooting at two police officers with a semiautomatic handgun. Months before the attack, he tried to buy a gun in California but was denied, after a background check showed he had a documented history of mental illness. So Bedell instead went to neighboring Nevada, where gun laws are more lenient, and bought a 9mm handgun from a private seller who didn't have to check out his history. Seems a fairly obvious problem to me. He broke the law in doing that. The obvious problem is our inability to enforce the current laws we have. But I'm thinking that's not what you meant. What you meant was we need more laws even though we can't enforce the existing ones we have. Incorrect, that's not what I wrote. Try reading the threads on the subject.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #164 January 4, 2013 QuoteThe solution is not to pass more useless laws of course, but we shouldn't use the fact that many useless laws are on the books to shut down discussion of things that might work, pretending that everything would be hunky-dory if existing laws were enforced. yay! more useless laws are silly, enforcing laws that were useless for the same reason is silly. Scrub the laws and get rid of the empty/symbolic ones, find those that can be enforced and do so. See if there is a better set of enforcible ones to assess. more is not better, even if it's the most expeditious and gets votes from a spun up public (I find the news report that the last congress was the 'least effective' based on they passed the fewest laws in a long time to be very distressing. quantity doesn't equal quantity) ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #165 January 5, 2013 Quoteyay! more useless laws are silly, enforcing laws that were useless for the same reason is silly. Scrub the laws and get rid of the empty/symbolic ones, find those that can be enforced and do so. See if there is a better set of enforcible ones to assess. more is not better, even if it's the most expeditious and gets votes from a spun up public I don't believe I said anything about passing more useless laws. I did say that the fact that unenforceable useless laws are on the books shouldn't be used as a reason to censor discussion of things that might work. Discussion does not equal passing laws; it might be that nothing can be done, within the constraints of the 2nd amendment, or it might be that relaxing existing laws might be useful. For example if it can be shown that sanctions applied after a diagnosis of mental illness are deterring people from seeking treatment, maybe those sanctions can be reduced or modified so people will seek treatment. It's not like you to put words in people's mouths. Quote(I find the news report that the last congress was the 'least effective' based on they passed the fewest laws in a long time to be very distressing. quantity doesn't equal quantity) I think it would be a good idea if laws had sunset provisions. so congress could keep occupied debating the expiring ones and renewing the good ones/letting the useless ones go, instead of coming up with so many new ones. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #166 January 5, 2013 QuoteQuoteyay! more useless laws are silly, enforcing laws that were useless for the same reason is silly. Scrub the laws and get rid of the empty/symbolic ones, find those that can be enforced and do so. See if there is a better set of enforcible ones to assess. more is not better, even if it's the most expeditious and gets votes from a spun up public I don't believe I said anything about passing more useless laws. I did say that the fact that unenforceable useless laws are on the books shouldn't be used as a reason to censor discussion of things that might work. Discussion does not equal passing laws; it might be that nothing can be done, within the constraints of the 2nd amendment, or it might be that relaxing existing laws might be useful. For example if it can be shown that sanctions applied after a diagnosis of mental illness are deterring people from seeking treatment, maybe those sanctions can be reduced or modified so people will seek treatment. It's not like you to put words in people's mouths. reread my note again and try it without a cynical twist - in essence, I was celebrating and happily agreeing with all of that you were implying. and after your clarification, even more so. and, yes, it is reasonable to assume my notes with cynical and amused tones. But not this time - you comments there were pretty darn decent. take a look at my patterns I quote and post more in agreement than disagreement. Mostly it's just mockery. ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #167 January 5, 2013 Quotereread my note again and try it without a cynical twist - in essence, I was celebrating and happily agreeing with all of that you were implying. and after your clarification, even more so. Oops, my bad. Always happy to find agreement here. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #168 January 5, 2013 QuoteQuoteThe solution is not to pass more useless laws of course, but we shouldn't use the fact that many useless laws are on the books to shut down discussion of things that might work, pretending that everything would be hunky-dory if existing laws were enforced. yay! more useless laws are silly, enforcing laws that were useless for the same reason is silly. Scrub the laws and get rid of the empty/symbolic ones, find those that can be enforced and do so. See if there is a better set of enforcible ones to assess. more is not better, even if it's the most expeditious and gets votes from a spun up public (I find the news report that the last congress was the 'least effective' based on they passed the fewest laws in a long time to be very distressing. quantity doesn't equal quantity) Ummm - I believe I have been saying this for some time now.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
