Page 42 of 157 FirstFirst ... 3240414243445292142 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 1566

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #411
    Senior Member candrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,702
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    10684
    Rep Adjustment Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Scat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So you are OK with implementing a background check and providing ID to vote?
    Well for starters, I think all guns should be registered just like all voters.

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #412
    Senior Member Scat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,040
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    7741
    Rep Adjustment Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by candrew View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well for starters, I think all guns should be registered just like all voters.
    So in your opinion, ideally, all guns would be registered and only someone who provides ID and submits to a background check can own a registered weapon. Should not the same criteria be applied to someone trying to vote? Why should one right be heavily monitored and the other a free for all?

  4. #413
    Senior Member candrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,702
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    10684
    Rep Adjustment Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Scat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So in your opinion, ideally, all guns would be registered and only someone who provides ID and submits to a background check can own a registered weapon. Should not the same criteria be applied to someone trying to vote? Why should one right be heavily monitored and the other a free for all?
    Well, I don't know about you; but my voter registration is renewed through my DMV - so indirectly, I have to show about 40 pieces of ID to register to vote.

  5. #414
    Premium Member fishonjazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    K-TOWN
    Posts
    43,078
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    94898
    Rep Adjustment Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Scat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So in your opinion, ideally, all guns would be registered and only someone who provides ID and submits to a background check can own a registered weapon. Should not the same criteria be applied to someone trying to vote? Why should one right be heavily monitored and the other a free for all?
    A vote cant kill someone.... a gun can, sorry man but guns and votes are not the exact same thing

  6. #415
    Senior Member candrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,702
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    10684
    Rep Adjustment Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by fishonjazz View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    A vote cant kill someone.... a gun can, sorry man but guns and votes are not the exact same thing
    Well that's not really Scat's fault, I was the one who originally made the comparison. I just wanted to point out that you have to register to vote, but there are so many damn loopholes in the gun laws, it's not that difficult in many states to acquire a gun without registering it or going through the mandatory back ground check.

    I had a friend when I lived in Texas who had about 20 something guns (and a son who was bi-polor, so, um look out if you live in the greater Austin area) and 2 of them were registered. The rest of them he bought used through private person-to-person sales.

  7. #416
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,831
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    1092
    Rep Adjustment Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by candrew View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well that's not really Scat's fault, I was the one who originally made the comparison. I just wanted to point out that you have to register to vote, but there are so many damn loopholes in the gun laws, it's not that difficult in many states to acquire a gun without registering it or going through the mandatory back ground check.

    I had a friend when I lived in Texas who had about 20 something guns (and a son who was bi-polor, so, um look out if you live in the greater Austin area) and 2 of them were registered. The rest of them he bought used through private person-to-person sales.
    So is the solution to deny gun sales to anyone who has a kid that fails a background check?

    People are making way too much out of this.

  8. #417
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Tabor Heights
    Posts
    12,425
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    4891
    Rep Adjustment Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SaltyDawg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So is the solution to deny gun sales to anyone who has a kid that fails a background check?
    Yes, unless the family is laptop-free. Then, their modernization would be apparent and all well.

  9. #418
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    In a ghetto near you. . . .
    Posts
    9,050
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    21067
    Rep Adjustment Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Part of the issue is that there are a huge number of people who exhibit similar problems, and only a tiny percentage go on to kill.
    this is actually true.

    but likewise, if only one in a thousand people with those problems go on to kill, only one in a million guns is used in such rampage shootings too. So if it's not cost-effective to focus on the disturbed persons profile that keeps supplying the rampage shooters, neither is is cost-effective to focus on guns for a way to prevent these horrible killing sprees.

    Actually President Obama knows the best way to protect kids in school. The same way his kids are protected in the school they go to.. . . . .

    a LOT of responsible armed personnel maintaining security.

    The disturbed mental profile of the shooters correlates that they, when they have made up their minds to do the shooting, have also made up their minds to end their own lives rather than be taken down. Whenever someone rushes them with any credible chance of taking them down, they put their gun to their own head and pull the trigger.

    Therefore, having armed personnel on hand where the kids are is the best deterrent available.

  10. #419
    Senior Member Computer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    17,049
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    50515
    Rep Adjustment Power
    100
    I lost my gun today. It just fell right out of my sweat pants and I didnt even feel it. That was my favorite gun too. It had a real cool look to it. Im lucky I have 15 guns, so its all good.

  11. #420
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    In a ghetto near you. . . .
    Posts
    9,050
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    21067
    Rep Adjustment Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Brown Notes View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Right, so what these guys were trying to do was set up a representative governing body with checks and balances. They threw in gun rights after the fact and worded it pretty nebulously AND under a pretense that no longer is relevant, the need for a well ordered Militia.

    In those days Americans were very much against having a professional Army, obviously now we have the most powerful professional armed force in the world. The idea that a handful of people drilling once a month or whenever with some rifles is the only thing keeping Americans free from having this enormously powerful group of destructive entities used against them is absurd. Representative government is what accomplishes this.

    It is reasonable to conclude like Obama has that there is room within the 2nd amendment for compromise between the extremes of having no rules regarding weapons at all, and making them all illegal. I happen to be of the opinion that legislating firearms more will not reduce crime but that is a separate issue.

    As far as you paranoid rant goes, I suppose you better get your underground railroad going so we can send all those poor Canadians to Somalia.
    stop pretending you're a mentally balanced, reasonable person who can carry on a polite conversation.

    Or drop the stupid slurs.

    Some of the folks who signed the Declaration of Independence considered personal rights and liberties more dear than their lives or fortunes. They lived in a country where most people were perhaps annoyed at the British overlords, but not exactly all wanting to fight for independence. The class of folks who preferred British rule over a stupid hopeless war with the best army on the planet were called Tory. Often they had financially favorable relations tied with the British commerce.

    The founders of our country were not paranoid, but realistic. When they sat down to write the Articles of Confederation they were unwilling to create a new Government capable of giving them all the same grief the British gave them.

    In the context of their times, just a few years after the desperate war for independence, nobody imagined their government would want to confiscate personal firearms. They were virtually unanimous about knowing their success was dependent upon the willingness of people to defend their newly won independence with their own personal weapons.

    An accurate understanding of their times requires the recognition that they did not want a professional military force under the control of a strong central government, precisely because they wanted to make sure as best they could that their government could not turn again into an oppressive nightmare.

    That was the whole point of the revolution, and the whole case for independence.

    We are probably not going to need a huge standing army to maintain the peace inside our country, and the personal weapons which most Americans have in private control are no threat to our independence or liberty. As long as we have an electoral process which is competent to effect changes in government, we will continue to have relative peace in our communities.

    There is little opportunity for organized military forces to be raised in our country which are not loyal to or interested in defending our institutions and way of life, and our government. One of the reasons that is so might be the size and superior weaponry in the hands of our military under government direction, but I think it is just as true that as long as there are millions of citizenss loyal to our government with their own personal arms, the yayhoos who might try to start a revolution actually face a huge force of non-uniformed armed citizens who would defend this country as we know it.

    In countries without this kind of armed citizenry, a few agent provocateurs with foreign money and weaponry can establish themselves in the bundoks somewhere, and become the local relevant "government".

    the best thing about having armed citizens with their own liberty to defend, is that taxpayers don't have to foot the bill.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About Us
We are a community of Utah JazzFanz that are passionate about our team. We celebrate the highs that come with last second heroics and (some of us) cry in defeat. Welcome to our community. Be respectful of others and join in to the conversation...
Join us