Another school shooting - DPChallenge Forums

12/19/2012 05:17:04 PM · #701

Originally posted by Cory:

If you're such a fan, I have little doubt they'd welcome your application for citizenship.

The fact that big, bad China has only a third of our gun homicide rate is not the only reason to consider citizenship. However, you should be ashamed that a country with such famously little respect for human life can say this from a position of superiority about ours: â��The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens' lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership..."

12/19/2012 05:22:19 PM · #702

The chineese dont want the populace to have guns so they are more easily controlled.

edit for spelling

Message edited by author 2012-12-19 17:22:47.

12/19/2012 05:24:05 PM · #703

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
If you're such a fan, I have little doubt they'd welcome your application for citizenship.

The fact that big, bad China has only a third of our gun homicide rate is not the only reason to consider citizenship. However, you should be ashamed that a country with such famously little respect for human life can say this from a position of superiority about ours: â��The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens' lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership..."

Is it about the citizens lives? Or is it about totalitarian control? I'm not convinced.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

12/19/2012 05:28:41 PM · #704

Originally posted by Cory:

Is it about the citizens lives? Or is it about totalitarian control? I'm not convinced.

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

The chineese dont want the populace to have guns so they are more easily controlled.

Our "freedom" costs far more than their "control," and a civilian gun is no match for a government tank.

Message edited by author 2012-12-19 17:29:11.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

12/19/2012 05:28:51 PM · #705

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
By all means, you poor fools, ban all the guns, and pay the price of that which you desire. (be careful what you wish for)

Last I looked, no one was proposing to "ban all the guns."

ETA: Scalvert beat me to it. :-)

Go back a few pages. I quoted someone yesterday (day before??), in this thread, who *was* proposing that very thing. Actually, I've seen it a couple of times since. So you too may not be proposing to ban all guns, but it *has* been suggested.

12/19/2012 05:35:34 PM · #706

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
Is it about the citizens lives? Or is it about totalitarian control? I'm not convinced.

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
The chineese dont want the populace to have guns so they are more easily controlled.

Our "freedom" costs far more than their "control," and a civilian gun is no match for a government tank.

Wow.

Our freedom costs more than their control does it?

Twisted bro.

12/19/2012 05:38:03 PM · #707

Originally posted by scalvert:

spoken like a true liberal/ communist

12/19/2012 05:40:11 PM · #708

pretty soon you will sugest that we live like east berlin after WWII

Alex_Petrini

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

12/19/2012 05:42:55 PM · #709

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

spoken like a true liberal/ communist

This is slowly fading into RANT area...

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

12/19/2012 05:44:32 PM · #710

Originally posted by Alexkc:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
spoken like a true liberal/ communist

This is slowly fading into RANT area...

Ignoring that....

You certainly have to admit that's one HELL of a scary position.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

12/19/2012 05:46:18 PM · #711

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
By all means, you poor fools, ban all the guns, and pay the price of that which you desire. (be careful what you wish for)

Last I looked, no one was proposing to "ban all the guns."

ETA: Scalvert beat me to it. :-)

Go back a few pages. I quoted someone yesterday (day before??), in this thread, who *was* proposing that very thing. Actually, I've seen it a couple of times since. So you too may not be proposing to ban all guns, but it *has* been suggested.

Okay, I didn't read the whole thread. But when I say "no one is proposing," I'm referring to our government. I haven't heard any proposals from Congress to "ban all the guns." They seem to be proposing a ban on semi-automatic weapons, a ban on multiple rounds of bullets, tighter restrictions in terms of licensing, background checks, etc. So why can't we talk about whether these restrictions are reasonable? I think they ARE reasonable, still allowing most people who want a firearm to get some type of firearm for hunting and self-protection.

Alex_Petrini

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

12/19/2012 05:47:35 PM · #712

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Alexkc:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
spoken like a true liberal/ communist

This is slowly fading into RANT area...

Ignoring that....

You certainly have to admit that's one HELL of a scary position.

If I were American I would be much more than liberal. Communist is a word that doesn't make sense anymore, at least in western countries. I always think of Berlusconi who's obsessed with Communists, even if in Italy there's more or less no one alive :)

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

12/19/2012 05:48:00 PM · #713

Originally posted by nygold:

It's not hard to make your own ammo.

Lemme know when we go this route... I want a franchise. :O)

Ray

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

12/19/2012 05:48:57 PM · #714

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
Is it about the citizens lives? Or is it about totalitarian control? I'm not convinced.

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
The chineese dont want the populace to have guns so they are more easily controlled.

Our "freedom" costs far more than their "control," and a civilian gun is no match for a government tank.

spoken like a true liberal/ communist

Make up your mind cowboy... which one is it?

Ray

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

12/19/2012 05:50:00 PM · #715

Forgive me, 'cause I've lost track.

Is it just

Spork99 that wants to make guns unconditionally available to every man, woman and child in the United States?
Or is that also the position of some of the others?
Are there any conditions whatsoever (other than being a bad guy) that would suggest restrictions?

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

12/19/2012 05:50:47 PM · #716

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
By all means, you poor fools, ban all the guns, and pay the price of that which you desire. (be careful what you wish for)

Last I looked, no one was proposing to "ban all the guns."

ETA: Scalvert beat me to it. :-)

Go back a few pages. I quoted someone yesterday (day before??), in this thread, who *was* proposing that very thing. Actually, I've seen it a couple of times since. So you too may not be proposing to ban all guns, but it *has* been suggested.

Okay, I didn't read the whole thread. But when I say "no one is proposing," I'm referring to our government. I haven't heard any proposals from Congress to "ban all the guns." They seem to be proposing a ban on semi-automatic weapons, a ban on multiple rounds of bullets, tighter restrictions in terms of licensing, background checks, etc. So why can't we talk about whether these restrictions are reasonable? I think they ARE reasonable, still allowing most people who want a firearm to get some type of firearm for hunting and self-protection.

I work in change management as a part of my job.

The first rule of change management is to NEVER actually give anyone the end goal - they will NEVER play along.

Instead, small acceptable steps are the only way to effect massive change in any organization.

I don't see any reason to believe that the desired end result isn't a full ban on projectile firing weaponry - I just know that there's zero chance that a full ban wouldn't be met with heavy resistance.

What scares me is that I know just exactly how effective this will be. 50 years, maybe less.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

12/19/2012 05:53:45 PM · #717

Originally posted by Cory:

Scalvert is saying our "freedom to bear arms", yes?

12/19/2012 06:04:01 PM · #718

Originally posted by sfalice:

Forgive me, 'cause I've lost track.

Is it just Spork99 that wants to make guns unconditionally available to every man, woman and child in the United States?
Or is that also the position of some of the others?
Are there any conditions whatsoever (other than being a bad guy) that would suggest restrictions?

I think there should be some restrictions...i.e. if you are a felon you can not own a firearm...I think the background checks are necessary. There are other rules I agree with. I do not agree with Banning all or even a certain class of firearms...Automatic (machine) guns are not outlawed either but you must go through a very heavy permitting process.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

12/19/2012 06:05:00 PM · #719

Originally posted by sfalice:

The problem, as I see it, is this:

You have two situations that are stable, anything else is unstable and will move towards one of the stable situations.

Situation 1: Firearms are not controlled beyond basic means, this is where we are today - any further restrictions will almost certainly disarm the law abiding more effectively than the criminal element, such that any person who is willing to die to kill others will almost certainly succeed in gaining weapons.

Situation 2: Full restrictions, all firearms are illegal (unless fully licensed through a process that is HIGHLY invasive, similar to a class 4 FFL today where you are always subject to an immediate search by the FBI at your residence), and possession of any projectile firing device is punishable by severe fines and long imprisonment. This is the only way to ensure that weapons are taken equally from criminals and the law abiding.

.

Now, perhaps I've missed something, but I don't think that I have.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

12/19/2012 06:17:26 PM · #720

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
By all means, you poor fools, ban all the guns, and pay the price of that which you desire. (be careful what you wish for)

Last I looked, no one was proposing to "ban all the guns."

ETA: Scalvert beat me to it. :-)

Go back a few pages. I quoted someone yesterday (day before??), in this thread, who *was* proposing that very thing. Actually, I've seen it a couple of times since. So you too may not be proposing to ban all guns, but it *has* been suggested.

Okay, I didn't read the whole thread. But when I say "no one is proposing," I'm referring to our government. I haven't heard any proposals from Congress to "ban all the guns." They seem to be proposing a ban on semi-automatic weapons, a ban on multiple rounds of bullets, tighter restrictions in terms of licensing, background checks, etc. So why can't we talk about whether these restrictions are reasonable? I think they ARE reasonable, still allowing most people who want a firearm to get some type of firearm for hunting and self-protection.

I work in change management as a part of my job.

The first rule of change management is to NEVER actually give anyone the end goal - they will NEVER play along.

Instead, small acceptable steps are the only way to effect massive change in any organization.

I don't see any reason to believe that the desired end result isn't a full ban on projectile firing weaponry - I just know that there's zero chance that a full ban wouldn't be met with heavy resistance.

What scares me is that I know just exactly how effective this will be. 50 years, maybe less.

It really doesn't matter what you believe about the intention of the lawmakers. The Supreme Court has affirmed the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. So a "full ban" is not possible, at least not for the foreseeable future.

12/19/2012 06:26:42 PM · #721

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Our "freedom" costs far more than their "control," and a civilian gun is no match for a government tank.

Scalvert is saying our "freedom to bear arms", yes?

Yes. Our freedom to bear arms, written before we had a standing army for the specific purpose of fighting foreign invaders now armed with tanks and missiles, costs 9,000 lives a year vs. up to 5,000 lives lost to a form of government oppression that could never arise with our constitutional checks nor defended against with civilian guns. Thus, we kill more people to prevent an imaginary threat than the threat itself kills with over four times the population.

12/19/2012 06:31:24 PM · #722

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Correct. Congress will be hard pressed to pass even modest reform, which will likely carry major loopholes such as exempting assault rifles and extended magazines already in circulation. The risk of having all guns banned is about the same as the risk of returning to 1950's tax rates... nil.

12/19/2012 06:38:01 PM · #723

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It really doesn't matter what you believe about the intention of the lawmakers. The Supreme Court has affirmed the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. So a "full ban" is not possible, at least not for the foreseeable future.

Correct. Congress will be hard pressed to pass even modest reform, which will likely carry major loopholes such as exempting assault rifles and extended magazines already in circulation. The risk of having all guns banned is about the same as the risk of returning to 1950's tax rates... nil.

As horrible as it sounds to say it, I honestly hope that you one day find yourself wishing you had a gun.

Alex_Petrini

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

12/19/2012 06:40:14 PM · #724

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
It really doesn't matter what you believe about the intention of the lawmakers. The Supreme Court has affirmed the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. So a "full ban" is not possible, at least not for the foreseeable future.

Correct. Congress will be hard pressed to pass even modest reform, which will likely carry major loopholes such as exempting assault rifles and extended magazines already in circulation. The risk of having all guns banned is about the same as the risk of returning to 1950's tax rates... nil.

As horrible as it sounds to say it, I honestly hope that you one day find yourself wishing you had a gun.

Why?