| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/12/2013 03:12:37 AM · #551 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by Cory:
Like it or not, the UK is a FAR more violent place than the US. |
And then links to a Daily Mail article.
Hahahah!
Cory, the Daily Mail is the UK's scaremongering hack central. If it's not knife wielding hoodies it's cancer or peodophiles on every corner. Its whole raison d'etre is right wing biased fear creation with twisted figures. It's renowned for it over here and is seen pretty much as a joke. You do yourself no favours at all linking to it to support your case. Just saying. |
Couldn't agree with Clive more - the Daily Mail is a publication of considerable ridicule. To be seen reading it is like wearing a badge that says: 'Uninformed Bigot'. |
Silly Google.
Honestly, I can't keep up with all the rags out there - but one question, are you saying that they're lying? Or simply that they're the equivalent of our Fox News? |
I'm saying they lie. For example, denying global warming and the made up story relating to courtroom reactions when Amanda Knox LOST her appeal. The story misreport on the verdict was an error but the reported associated reactions were intentional lies. |
|
|
|
01/12/2013 03:47:46 AM · #552 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Melethia:
The dirt-poor ... severely underrepresented as mass killers. Which is good. |
however they do represent and often are what most gun owners wish to protect themselves against. |
No. We want to protect ourselves and those under our care from anyone who threatens their safety. Be it an inner city gang member, career criminal, a person having a bad hair day, one on prescription meds or a lunatic. Simple really.
eta: I am simply amazed at those who would FORCE disarmamament on this woman and believe she is better off as a dead victim.
What is really eyeopening are some of the comments at the bottom of the article referencing those areas/states that do not have "castle doctrine" language - not even for one's home. That sir, is the kind of enviornment I believe you are in favor of. I hope I never see it. |
we can all find cases that make points for both sides of the argument and arguing individual cases gets no where. the point is to raise the bar of safety for our whole society. |
Your side of this argument is using terms like "confiscation" and "executive order". These don't sound very "reasonable" to a great many gun owners. It does nothing to promote any sense in me that this movement has a "limited" goal in mind. Like it or not, we have seen this play out in other countries. Countries that specifically did not have 2nd amendent language in thier constitutions. Thus, it is not a stretch to predict where this is headed. Terms like "confiscation" are pretty damn serious here in the US. Mayor Bloomberg is not helping your cause nor are a number of other politicians who are introducing legislation aimed at eliminating constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. I take a very cautious view when gun control advocates want gun owners to be "reasonable". Biden is not helping much either when he suggests that the president will act on his own - regardless of congress. Don't see where that is going to turn out well. |
|
|
|
01/12/2013 05:36:33 AM · #553 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Your side of this argument is using terms like "confiscation" and "executive order". These don't sound very "reasonable" to a great many gun owners. It does nothing to promote any sense in me that this movement has a "limited" goal in mind. |
The slippery slope argument. A classic defense of a bad position. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. We can not be reasonable, because if we allow any change in the status quo, the other side will steam roll us.
I realize that you are afraid that people will come and take your guns from you, though there is really no possibility of that happening for the foreseeable future in reality. But imagine if you could, a world where your usage would be protected, That you were safe from the slippery slope. In that world, is there really nothing that can be done that isn't being done now to curb the flood of guns that end up in the hands of criminals and crazy people?
If whatever you imagine reasonable usage to be was going to be perfectly safe, is there really noting you can imagine doing to reduce gun violence? The only thing I hear as a fix from most gun advocates is for those who fear guns to arm themselves, take up the arms race. The notion of a bunch of scared untrained people who hate guns walking around armed does not make a pretty picture.
Message edited by author 2013-01-12 05:44:39. |
|
|
|
01/12/2013 07:49:44 AM · #554 |
Perhaps the most disheartening thing about a great deal of the discussion I have heard on this matter (not necessarily on DPC), is just how ill informed a great number of people are about their own constitution.
Some of the views regarding the wording of the constitution and the powers of the President are sadly misunderstood.
Why Americans would want to have bare arms, specially in the winter months is beyond me... :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
01/12/2013 10:31:42 AM · #555 |
Pardon me if this article has been posted already:
The Secret History of Guns |
|
|
|
01/12/2013 01:27:25 PM · #556 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Im sorry my instructor instinct kicked in |
You don't need to be sorry for that ... I intend to receive instruction before firing any weapons. Ear protection, ammo, instruction, etc., were the "incidental costs" I referred-to before. I'm aware that the recoil will likely exceed my expectations, for whatever that's worth ... :-)
@ Flash: Fascinating about the wild boars ... when I was a little kid I knew someone who hunted them with bow and arrow. Doesn't sound any smarter now ... :-)
Thanks for the alert about the scope! |
|
|
|
01/12/2013 02:28:06 PM · #557 |
That's a HELL Of an interesting read. Thanks for posting the link. I hope everyone active in this thread reads it, it's fascinating from a historical perspective. |
|
|
|
01/12/2013 04:20:13 PM · #558 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's a HELL Of an interesting read. Thanks for posting the link. I hope everyone active in this thread reads it, it's fascinating from a historical perspective. |
Indeed! I am going back to read it again.
Here is another interesting read from a historical perspective.
//www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_law_and_liberty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf |
|
|
|
01/12/2013 04:37:48 PM · #559 |
|
|
|
01/15/2013 01:19:09 AM · #560 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
Your side of this argument is using terms like "confiscation" and "executive order". These don't sound very "reasonable" to a great many gun owners. It does nothing to promote any sense in me that this movement has a "limited" goal in mind. |
The slippery slope argument. A classic defense of a bad position. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. We can not be reasonable, because if we allow any change in the status quo, the other side will steam roll us.
I realize that you are afraid that people will come and take your guns from you, though there is really no possibility of that happening for the foreseeable future in reality. But imagine if you could, a world where your usage would be protected, That you were safe from the slippery slope. In that world, is there really nothing that can be done that isn't being done now to curb the flood of guns that end up in the hands of criminals and crazy people?
If whatever you imagine reasonable usage to be was going to be perfectly safe, is there really noting you can imagine doing to reduce gun violence? The only thing I hear as a fix from most gun advocates is for those who fear guns to arm themselves, take up the arms race. The notion of a bunch of scared untrained people who hate guns walking around armed does not make a pretty picture. |
The reason I do not see this as just a "slippery slope" argument is due to the very real history of various countries, including but not limited to the UK and Australia. These are current examples of governments who for the sake of public safety removed firearms from individual ownership/possession. Not a far fetched land of OZ scenario, but current and relevant to today. Add to that the very real and current position of the Bloombergs and supporters regarding confiscation and it is not "unreasonable" at all to be cautious of the agenda being mounted by Gun Control advocates. Many of whom are on record as preferring a UK style ban and restrictions. Thank God for organizations like the NRA who have enough strength to minimize the zeal of HCI, Bloomberg, etc - for now. Not so sure about tomorrow though. I should probably send them some more money.
As I stated above - "reasonable" is made more difficult when the gun control advocates use terms like confiscation and executive orders to bypass congress. Clinton saw first hand the result of him pushing through the Assault Weapons ban in '94. If this President is not mindful of history, he may find a similar change in the Senate is 2014.
Ironic that Ram Emanuel is on the news today. Chicago has the most highly restrictive gun laws in the nation and they confiscate more guns there than in NY or LA. Highest murder rate in the country. Only 4% of the guns confiscated in crimes are of the "assault style" currently out of favor and being demonized. 4%. It is a crime problem. Not a gun problem. Millions of guns are presently stored away and not hurting a single person. Millions.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2013 01:25:53 AM · #561 |
Originally posted by Flash:
It is a crime problem. Not a gun problem. |
Again, I ask is there really nothing that you would agree with that can be done that isn't being done now to curb the flood of guns that end up in the hands of criminals and crazy people? |
|
|
|
01/15/2013 01:48:14 AM · #562 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
It is a crime problem. Not a gun problem. |
Again, I ask is there really nothing that you would agree with that can be done that isn't being done now to curb the flood of guns that end up in the hands of criminals and crazy people? |
Universal background checks is sane. Not something I like the idea of, but sane. The problem with that is that I can then no longer just sell a friend a gun, I have to route the transaction through a dealer, and pay him a cut. Of course, there is also the registration fear, but I don't really think that's an issue.
Mandatory training would be fine really, and something that I think is laudable, so that's sane, and something I would fully support - hell, most gun owners scare me a little too, but it's because they're untrained and careless.
Now, is that something that seems like it will stop the incidents that precipitated this? No. Won't help a damned bit - it might even help the criminals to shoot more effectively. Still, it's pretty sensible, and probably would help to curb the accidents.
Message edited by author 2013-01-15 01:50:10. |
|
|
|
01/15/2013 01:58:09 AM · #563 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
It is a crime problem. Not a gun problem. |
Again, I ask is there really nothing that you would agree with that can be done that isn't being done now to curb the flood of guns that end up in the hands of criminals and crazy people? |
What do you suggest to control people who aren't going to obey the law anyway? More laws that they won't follow anyway? Laws that will make certain that their victims are unable to fight back?
|
|
|
|
01/15/2013 02:04:09 AM · #564 |
A couple of points..
1. Winkler is a nationally recognized expert on American constitutional law. A frequent contributor to The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast, from Wikipedia
2. Here are some of Winkler's blog topics at the Huffington Post (not really unbiased in my view)
3. From the article; Although decades of electoral defeats have moderated the gun-control movement’s stated goals, advocates still deny that individual Americans have any constitutional right to own guns. this is what is scary to me. This denial of an individual right and the ongoing agenda to eliminate as many firearms as possible.
4. From the article; In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court clearly held, for the first time, that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a gun.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2013 03:03:25 AM · #565 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
It is a crime problem. Not a gun problem. |
Again, I ask is there really nothing that you would agree with that can be done that isn't being done now to curb the flood of guns that end up in the hands of criminals and crazy people? |
According to this PEW research poll, 85% favor background checks on all gun sales and keeping the mentally ill from having guns. CNN
Publishing the names and addresses of gun owners in the local paper certainly is not popular with those on my side of this. Beating the drums on confiscation doesn't help either nor does VP Biden saying the President will bypass congress. This kind of antagonistic action and rhetoric does not improve the discussion. Even today, the President blamed the NRA for "ginning" up its members - while completely ignoring Bloomberg's calls for confiscation (or Cuomo's), Biden's matter of fact comment about bypassing congress and the Newspapers publishing of gun owners names and addresses. Those actions contribute more to "ginning" up the NRA's supporters than anything the NRA does or says.
The true nature of address would be to actually look at the specific details of each of the recent shootings from Gabby Gifford forward and review the specific elements that caused each of those events. Those specifics are what would dictate "effective" countermeasures. Without analyzing the very specifics of each of those shootings and addressing the breakdowns (family, drugs, phycosis, etc) then this problem will never go away. The very reason the UK has the same "rate" of assaults today as they had before they banned all the guns. The root cause was never addressed. Problem solving requires addressing the root of the problem and in order to do that then one needs to identify it. Short of that - all else is a bandaid hoping the sore will heal. At least use some neosporin.
Message edited by author 2013-01-15 05:02:14. |
|
|
|
01/15/2013 05:15:30 AM · #566 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Millions of guns are presently stored away and not hurting a single person. Millions. |
Perhaps, and it could be argued that in some cases storage is nothing more than someone leaning them against the wall of a closet. Storage my friend takes all kinds of different forms, and I for one would love to see much more stringent controls in a variety of fields, including storage.
You are most certainly right about the NRA, they do have clout. Sadly, they do not seem responsive to any form of controls whatsoever and seemingly would have armed guards in every single venue... and that is also not a realistic approach to remedy the current situation.
Not unlike the current political situation in the USA, it would be nice if all concerned actually discussed this matter and tried to arrive at a conclusion that would benefit all.
Sadly, I won't hold my breath on either counts...:O(
Ray |
|
|
|
01/15/2013 08:25:23 AM · #567 |
|
|
|
01/15/2013 08:44:17 AM · #568 |
Originally posted by Cory:
The problem with that is that I can then no longer just sell a friend a gun, I have to route the transaction through a dealer, and pay him a cut. Of course, there is also the registration fear, but I don't really think that's an issue. |
You can't sell your prescription drugs to your neighbor either, and even if you sell your car to someone you have to submit paperwork detailing the transaction.
How about requiring gun owners to carry mandatory liability insurance, just like for your car? A million-dollar policy is supposed to be relatively inexpensive; I'd be like to know if the rate for that is higher or lower if it is declared that there is a legal gun in the household ... |
|
|
|
01/15/2013 08:54:38 AM · #569 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
How about requiring gun owners to carry mandatory liability insurance, just like for your car? A million-dollar policy is supposed to be relatively inexpensive; I'd be like to know if the rate for that is higher or lower if it is declared that there is a legal gun in the household ... |
I assume that you'd also support higher liability insurance rates for the mentally ill too. |
|
|
|
01/15/2013 08:57:55 AM · #570 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
How about requiring gun owners to carry mandatory liability insurance, just like for your car? A million-dollar policy is supposed to be relatively inexpensive; I'd be like to know if the rate for that is higher or lower if it is declared that there is a legal gun in the household ... |
I assume that you'd also support higher liability insurance rates for the mentally ill too. |
I might if there was evidence that the "mentally ill" commit violent crime at a higher rate than others not so designated -- unfortunately (for your position) all the research I've heard about indicates this is not the case. |
|
|
|
01/15/2013 08:59:48 AM · #571 |
I thought this thread had died.
I have noticed something about this man that unfortunately is holding the title of president. (oh and by the way I respect the office but not the man) People are scared of this man.... If it's not his handling of the economy, it's Obamacare, or gun control. I see it every day at work, with family and friends...hell even Walmart. He want to do things his way and to hell with everybody else. Personally I think he should be impeached.
Now with that being said, I am referring to these executive orders. If I became president I think that I would outlaw the executive order. Mainly keeping people like Mr. Obama from miss-using the privelage. I do understand that Bush, Clinton, etc used it, but it was under much different situations. Obama also likes to use threats to get things his way.
He's just a snake in the grass
OK thats my 2 cents. I had to get that off my chest.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2013 09:07:42 AM · #572 |
| You are basing your opinion on speculation about what the President might do -- AFAIK there haven't been any Executive Orders issued on this topic yet ... talk about jumping the gun ... |
|
|
|
01/15/2013 09:20:09 AM · #573 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You are basing your opinion on speculation about what the President might do -- AFAIK there haven't been any Executive Orders issued on this topic yet ... talk about jumping the gun ... |
I realize that there have not been any orders yet on this topic. (gun control) but the threats he has been making. It really has people nervous around here.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2013 09:47:10 AM · #574 |
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo unveiled his proposal to bolster the state's gun laws late Monday after weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations with legislative leaders, with a full ban on assault weapons slated to take effect as soon as it is passed.
The Senate passed Cuomo's bill in a 43-18 vote around 11 p.m. Monday. The Assembly is set to take up the legislation when it returns to session at 10 a.m. Tuesday.
I suggest that SCALVERT read up on some civics.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kenskid:
You're the Governor of the state - You can get ANY law passed. What is your Gun Law that will stop school shootings? |
High school civics: a governor cannot get ANY bill passed (much to the chagrin of Jan Brewer) and, with the possible exception of Hawaii, any legislation would have to be national for what should be obvious reasons (see Chicago). |
|
|
|
|
01/15/2013 09:51:25 AM · #575 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo unveiled his proposal to bolster the state's gun laws late Monday after weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations with legislative leaders, with a full ban on assault weapons slated to take effect as soon as it is passed.
The Senate passed Cuomo's bill in a 43-18 vote around 11 p.m. Monday. The Assembly is set to take up the legislation when it returns to session at 10 a.m. Tuesday.
I suggest that SCALVERT read up on some civics.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kenskid:
You're the Governor of the state - You can get ANY law passed. What is your Gun Law that will stop school shootings? |
High school civics: a governor cannot get ANY bill passed (much to the chagrin of Jan Brewer) and, with the possible exception of Hawaii, any legislation would have to be national for what should be obvious reasons (see Chicago). |
|
and it has begun..........I am glad that I went ahead and purchased my assault rifle...I think I am going to go ahead and buy a die for the 5.56 round so I can reload my ammo
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 12:39:12 PM EDT.
