0
rushmc

Assult weapons ban dropped in the Senate

Recommended Posts

I have a problem with states w/o helmet or seatbelt laws: it causes everyone else's auto insurance premiums to go up.



I was a resident working at the trauma center in TN. I remember reading a study that showed the health care costs to the state of TN went down after passing a law stating that a helmet was optional. I assume it was from people dying before making it to the hospital to incur the big bills. I don't remember anything about seatbelts. Are there any states where seatbelts r optional?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The person who wrote the study did not even make the claim stronger background checks work.



Would it hurt though? I've never believed in the slippery slope idea, since it didn't happen here after the gun buyback following the Port Arthur massacre. Cultural differences could/would be a significant factor in the eventual outcome, I'd wager though.
You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The person who wrote the study did not even make the claim stronger background checks work.



Would it hurt though? I've never believed in the slippery slope idea, since it didn't happen here after the gun buyback following the Port Arthur massacre. Cultural differences could/would be a significant factor in the eventual outcome, I'd wager though.



ummm, the gun buy-back after the port arthur massacre is way past being a slippery slope. You're damm near at the bottom of the hill, now...
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

The person who wrote the study did not even make the claim stronger background checks work.



Would it hurt though? I've never believed in the slippery slope idea, since it didn't happen here after the gun buyback following the Port Arthur massacre. Cultural differences could/would be a significant factor in the eventual outcome, I'd wager though.


ummm, the gun buy-back after the port arthur massacre is way past being a slippery slope. You're damm near at the bottom of the hill, now...


Not a single mass shooting in Australia since then though... And I can still own guns if I want - revolvers, semi-auto pistols, rifles (not semi-auto or auto of course). There are just more stringent rules and regulations for me to do so. I guess my point about the slippery slope argument is that it's consistently trotted out as any measure of gun control being a precursor to a total gun ban. Didn't happen here, seventeen years on and counting.

As I said though, it's a cultural difference. Farmers here still need and use rifles for day to day stuff, sports shooters still get to do their thing. The rest of us could generally care less. Sure there's criminals with guns, but in the overwhelming majority of cases they're just using them on other criminals. Things like the buybacks make a big difference though, which would never get approved as part of your budget by Congress, Plus all your existing weapons are grandfathered in, which takes the teeth out of any decent effort to reduce the total number of firearms out there.

I guess I'm just becoming increasingly numb to each successive gun tragedy that occurs in the states, and numbness really shouldn't ever become an acceptable response... [:/]
You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I have a problem with states w/o helmet or seatbelt laws: it causes everyone else's auto insurance premiums to go up.



I was a resident working at the trauma center in TN. I remember reading a study that showed the health care costs to the state of TN went down after passing a law stating that a helmet was optional. I assume it was from people dying before making it to the hospital to incur the big bills.



That's probably a reasonable initial supposition. As evidence, consider this example: serious combat injuries to the extremities have increased over the past 20 years or more. Why? Because nowadays most developed nations' combat troops wear body armor, so more of them survive getting blown up than used to be the case; but of course, the extremities are unprotected. Before body armor became commonplace, alot of those troops would simply have been KIAs; but now more of them survive to require long-term medical care. So the real lesson isn't that extremities wounds are increasing, it's that as the result of greater usage of body armor, the survival rate has increased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you'll explain how the ability of a felon to bypass all background checks by going to a gunshow in, say, Nevada, and buying openly from a "private" seller is a good thing, and how closing that loophole is a bad thing.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first of all, that's like the old apples to oranges comparison. does not apply here. it was simply a test to see what it takes to start taking away our liberties. in the name of safety, they started with seatbelts and helmets. then they inched ever forward, one stupid law at a time, until in the name of national security, they can do damn near what they want and not only do they not have to answer for it, they don't even have to release records showing how many times they have violated said rights. no links provided to verify, it's all over the internet, search for it if you don't believe me.

the reason it worked so well? it's hard to argue with a safety issue, try it sometime. "but it will stop children from getting killed" , try to argue with that without sounding like a total douche. and now look at the state of things. anyone who has ever read sun tzu should be aware of where this is going to lead.
http://kitswv.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

first of all, that's like the old apples to oranges comparison. does not apply here. it was simply a test to see what it takes to start taking away our liberties. in the name of safety, they started with seatbelts and helmets. then they inched ever forward, one stupid law at a time, until in the name of national security, they can do damn near what they want and not only do they not have to answer for it, they don't even have to release records showing how many times they have violated said rights. no links provided to verify, it's all over the internet, search for it if you don't believe me.

the reason it worked so well? it's hard to argue with a safety issue, try it sometime. "but it will stop children from getting killed" , try to argue with that without sounding like a total douche. and now look at the state of things. anyone who has ever read sun tzu should be aware of where this is going to lead.



80% reduction in traffic fatalities per mile traveled since 1960. I think a seat belt mandate is a small price to pay. I reckon even Sun Tzu would wear one.
...

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

first of all, that's like the old apples to oranges comparison. does not apply here. it was simply a test to see what it takes to start taking away our liberties. in the name of safety, they started with seatbelts and helmets. then they inched ever forward, one stupid law at a time, until in the name of national security, they can do damn near what they want and not only do they not have to answer for it, they don't even have to release records showing how many times they have violated said rights. no links provided to verify, it's all over the internet, search for it if you don't believe me.

the reason it worked so well? it's hard to argue with a safety issue, try it sometime. "but it will stop children from getting killed" , try to argue with that without sounding like a total douche. and now look at the state of things. anyone who has ever read sun tzu should be aware of where this is going to lead.



Your post is so disjointed it borders on the irrational. You see all these connections from Point A to Point Z that frankly I just don't see. Other than that, I'm still on my first cuppa joe, so I'll just take a pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

first of all, that's like the old apples to oranges comparison. does not apply here. it was simply a test to see what it takes to start taking away our liberties. in the name of safety, they started with seatbelts and helmets. then they inched ever forward, one stupid law at a time, until in the name of national security, they can do damn near what they want and not only do they not have to answer for it, they don't even have to release records showing how many times they have violated said rights. no links provided to verify, it's all over the internet, search for it if you don't believe me.

the reason it worked so well? it's hard to argue with a safety issue, try it sometime. "but it will stop children from getting killed" , try to argue with that without sounding like a total douche. and now look at the state of things. anyone who has ever read sun tzu should be aware of where this is going to lead.



80% reduction in traffic fatalities per mile traveled since 1960. I think a seat belt mandate is a small price to pay. I reckon even Sun Tzu would wear one.



You may think it's a small price to pay. Other people don't. Even some people who wear seat belts can understand that it should be a choice whether to wear it or not.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

first of all, that's like the old apples to oranges comparison. does not apply here. it was simply a test to see what it takes to start taking away our liberties. in the name of safety, they started with seatbelts and helmets. then they inched ever forward, one stupid law at a time, until in the name of national security, they can do damn near what they want and not only do they not have to answer for it, they don't even have to release records showing how many times they have violated said rights. no links provided to verify, it's all over the internet, search for it if you don't believe me.

the reason it worked so well? it's hard to argue with a safety issue, try it sometime. "but it will stop children from getting killed" , try to argue with that without sounding like a total douche. and now look at the state of things. anyone who has ever read sun tzu should be aware of where this is going to lead.



80% reduction in traffic fatalities per mile traveled since 1960. I think a seat belt mandate is a small price to pay. I reckon even Sun Tzu would wear one.



You may think it's a small price to pay. Other people don't. Even some people who wear seat belts can understand that it should be a choice whether to wear it or not.



Fine, then I will count on you to pay the resulting increase in my auto insurance premiums. Thanks for volunteering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Perhaps you'll explain how the ability of a felon to bypass all background checks by going to a gunshow in, say, Nevada, and buying openly from a "private" seller is a good thing, and how closing that loophole is a bad thing.



This law is not just about a private seller
As proposed, if you wish to sell or give a gun that was (lets just say) given to you by your grandfather, you would have to go to an FFL for checks. Seems ok at this point. However, as the seller, you would need to provide, to the cops or the FFL, proof of ownership. Since grand dad gave you the gun, you do not have any. At this point, this gun becomes illegal for you to own, a record of this is kept, and now, because you have an illegal gun, the police have reason to search your house for guns. Since you now are a criminal because you posess a gun that you can not prove is yours, your have NO right to any gun and therefore, all your guns are taken.

Simple enough huh:S
"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

Quote

first of all, that's like the old apples to oranges comparison. does not apply here. it was simply a test to see what it takes to start taking away our liberties. in the name of safety, they started with seatbelts and helmets. then they inched ever forward, one stupid law at a time, until in the name of national security, they can do damn near what they want and not only do they not have to answer for it, they don't even have to release records showing how many times they have violated said rights. no links provided to verify, it's all over the internet, search for it if you don't believe me.

the reason it worked so well? it's hard to argue with a safety issue, try it sometime. "but it will stop children from getting killed" , try to argue with that without sounding like a total douche. and now look at the state of things. anyone who has ever read sun tzu should be aware of where this is going to lead.



80% reduction in traffic fatalities per mile traveled since 1960. I think a seat belt mandate is a small price to pay. I reckon even Sun Tzu would wear one.



You may think it's a small price to pay. Other people don't. Even some people who wear seat belts can understand that it should be a choice whether to wear it or not.



Fine, then I will count on you to pay the resulting increase in my auto insurance premiums. Thanks for volunteering.



Straw man arguement from the start
Driving is NOT a right

Owning and carrying a gun, IS
"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
have another cup and let me explain it to you. in order to take away freedom from citizens, it first must be gauged how hard to push and when. with seatbelts, it was a safety issue. there were some opponents, but they were shown as opposed to something that could save lives and the views were ignored, freedom lost. then they started on personal issues, ie abortion. still up in the air after years of fighting. then move to patriot act, significant reduction in freedom due to "national security". then move to gay marriage, at supreme court now. then gun control, start pushing for it after each school tragedy.

of course, i'm not a lawyer, so things make sense in a different way. my feelings on it are that every legal citizen should be allowed the same rights and protections as every other legal citizen. and this means i do not think that the govt should be allowed to look at my email without a warrant. and that if someone accuses me of terrorism, i should be entitled to a lawyer immediately. and while my children should be required to wear a seatbelt until they are 18, i should be able to choose for myself, kind of like skydiving without an aad if i so choose. and i also believe that if someone's only offense is that he wanted to sell pot to someone over 18, that should not be anyone's business except the individuals involved. a citizen should be able to do what they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else. smoke pot = ok, smoke pot and kill someone in a car accident = not ok. gambling = ok, gambling after stealing to fund it = not ok.

i think it was lincoln who started the erosion of our liberties with the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in 1862(i think). it got steadily worse after that, mostly in times of war and increasingly more intrusive, until now, these things are commonplace and taken for granted.

better?
http://kitswv.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Perhaps you'll explain how the ability of a felon to bypass all background checks by going to a gunshow in, say, Nevada, and buying openly from a "private" seller is a good thing, and how closing that loophole is a bad thing.



This law is not just about a private seller
As proposed, if you wish to sell or give a gun that was (lets just say) given to you by your grandfather, you would have to go to an FFL for checks. Seems ok at this point. However, as the seller, you would need to provide, to the cops or the FFL, proof of ownership. Since grand dad gave you the gun, you do not have any. At this point, this gun becomes illegal for you to own, a record of this is kept, and now, because you have an illegal gun, the police have reason to search your house for guns. Since you now are a criminal because you posess a gun that you can not prove is yours, your have NO right to any gun and therefore, all your guns are taken.

Simple enough huh:S


this was part of the problem after the large scale gun confiscations in new orleans following the hurricane. That and the fact that leo's and national guards confiscating the weapons weren't issuing any receipts, and sometimes just smashed the guns against the curb in front of the owners...
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


Perhaps you'll explain how the ability of a felon to bypass all background checks by going to a gunshow in, say, Nevada, and buying openly from a "private" seller is a good thing, and how closing that loophole is a bad thing.



This law is not just about a private seller
As proposed, if you wish to sell or give a gun that was (lets just say) given to you by your grandfather, you would have to go to an FFL for checks. Seems ok at this point. However, as the seller, you would need to provide, to the cops or the FFL, proof of ownership. Since grand dad gave you the gun, you do not have any. At this point, this gun becomes illegal for you to own, a record of this is kept, and now, because you have an illegal gun, the police have reason to search your house for guns. Since you now are a criminal because you posess a gun that you can not prove is yours, your have NO right to any gun and therefore, all your guns are taken.

Simple enough huh:S


this was part of the problem after the large scale gun confiscations in new orleans following the hurricane. That and the fact that leo's and national guards confiscating the weapons weren't issuing any receipts, and sometimes just smashed the guns against the curb in front of the owners...


I never did hear, did they know who had guns? If so, how did they know?

Or did they just go door to door fishing?
"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

have another cup and let me explain it to you. in order to take away freedom from citizens, it first must be gauged how hard to push and when. with seatbelts, it was a safety issue. there were some opponents, but they were shown as opposed to something that could save lives and the views were ignored, freedom lost. then they started on personal issues, ie abortion. still up in the air after years of fighting. then move to patriot act, significant reduction in freedom due to "national security". then move to gay marriage, at supreme court now. then gun control, start pushing for it after each school tragedy.

of course, i'm not a lawyer, so things make sense in a different way. my feelings on it are that every legal citizen should be allowed the same rights and protections as every other legal citizen. and this means i do not think that the govt should be allowed to look at my email without a warrant. and that if someone accuses me of terrorism, i should be entitled to a lawyer immediately. and while my children should be required to wear a seatbelt until they are 18, i should be able to choose for myself, kind of like skydiving without an aad if i so choose. and i also believe that if someone's only offense is that he wanted to sell pot to someone over 18, that should not be anyone's business except the individuals involved. a citizen should be able to do what they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else. smoke pot = ok, smoke pot and kill someone in a car accident = not ok. gambling = ok, gambling after stealing to fund it = not ok.

i think it was lincoln who started the erosion of our liberties with the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in 1862(i think). it got steadily worse after that, mostly in times of war and increasingly more intrusive, until now, these things are commonplace and taken for granted.

better?



A current example is Doomberg and his attempted big gulp ban

It could be said that drinking those leads to being fat and therefore is a cost to society (currently called Obamacare) and therefore they have the power to control that

Andy, where does it end?
"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 think it was lincoln who started the erosion of our liberties



Depends on your defintion of "our". For some people that may depend on whether their ancestors emigrated from Africa 50,000 years ago or 200 years ago. Personally, I define "our" as all humans beings ever subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
allow me to clarify: our in this case refers to the rights of legal us citizens. of course, it also included the group to which you refer after the amendment to the constitution which allowed them to become us citizens. and i also would accept your definition of our.

just curious, how do you personally feel about my stance on the rights of citizens as described in my previous post? and where would my views align politically? i will admit, i'm still a bit confused on this, trying to gather opinions on this, just for fun.
http://kitswv.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It worries me when we put a price on our freedoms.

That should never happen IMO.

I choose to not wear a helmet on my motorcycle.
I understand and accept the risks.
I like the wind.
When in states that do require I wear one, it's a skull bucket.

I'm sorry they've removed that freedom from the operation of a car, yet I always wear mine. In fact some of my insurance will not pay out if I'm not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me explain it in simple terms to YOU.

The Constitution gives the job of deciding the meaning of the Constitution to the Supreme Court, not to you.

The Supreme Court has decided and stated very clearly that the 2nd Amendment does not confer unlimited rights to all persons to own firearms, or to carry them in all places. Even that most conservative Justice, Scalia, wrote this in DC vs Heller.

So requiring a check to determine whether or not anyone is disqualified from owning a firearm is NOT a violation of their rights.

And since driving is not a right, requiring the use of a seat belt or helmet in order to drive or ride on public roads doesn't infringe anyone's rights either.

Simple, isn't it?
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. I don't mind people whose riskier pastimes increase overall societal costs a minuscule teeny bit per person; obviously I'm one of the people who does that. But other people's non-use of motorcycle helmets and seatbelts really does translate into a material chunk of extra change out of my wallet for the auto insurance premiums I have to pay, so I do feel personally invested in it.

Normiss I suppose this responds to you, too.

But to all, sorry for the digression. Back to guns, God and America.

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