Everyone that made that comparison, I voted against.Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
Everyone that made that comparison, I voted against.
oh yeah......
you voted for the ones who want women to shit their pants if theyre being raped.
...Everyone
almost 700 posts and 4000+ views in and nobody can win this satirical argument.
I don't care WHO compared it, it's down right stupid. lol
Since the public declaration by the officials is that public safety is their top concern while they announce plans to restrict access to assault style weapons, what is the real motive, as you say it is not to reduce deaths?
The felon cannot legally take possession of them, if his right to possess a firmarm has not been previously restored. Someone else can be designated to take possession, or the administrator/executor of the estate can choose to turn them over to the local authorities. That would be the choice of the estate though - and not a seizure. If for some reason the felon did take possession of the firearm(s), he would be committing a crime, which would happen to be a felony also.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
That is kind of the point........ its meant to be. It's a "do you see how stupid this sounds" comparison. The unfortunate thing is that anti-gun activists dont seem to think their argument against guns is equally as stupid as this one. The car argument has equal merit.
They seek to ban guns based on the capability of doing harm. My assault rifles have never killed anyone, but they want to take them away simply because theyre capable of doing it.
Apply that argument to cars.... every car on the road is capable of breaking the law. Why make cars that are capable of exceeding the speed limit? Why give people the capability to break the law and put others in danger?
What do you mean by "take them away?"
Guns of Law-Abiding Husband Confiscated After Wife’s Single Voluntary Mental Health Visit | TheBlaze.com
You insist that this will never happen, even though its already happening. Open your eyes child.......
Are you a felon? Deemed mentally unstable? Charged with domestic violence?
An 80 year old democratic senator wishes to make me a felon. Deemed mentally unstable? theyre going to be painting that one with a very broad brush. That same 80 year old democratic senator thinks anyone who has ever served in the military is mentally unstable.
BlankCD *supports* the 80 year old woman speaking in this video.
edit
With the list of possible side effects that drug companies list for all of their products, pretty much anyone that gets any prescription from a doctor could be declared "possibly mentally unstable" by a judge who has no medical or psychology degree. And that's just one way of being declared "mentally unstable".
Domestic violence is a wide umbrella that gets abused all the time now. Look at our divorce courts and you can see that.
If you are going to trample on someone's Constitutional rights, shouldn't you have some clear definitions as to when it should apply?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I don't think that he lives in California.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
OMG listen to those crazy irrational republicans.....
they seem so logical.
There's already a standard on what's mentally unstable. All it takes is a professional diagnosis.
Which is opinion, and does not necessary have any physically substantial evidence to support the opinion. That's an issue when you go to remove Constitutional rights from someone.
Should it be ok for a psychologist say that in their professional opinion, it is possible that someone might take drugs, therefore we should give them a urine test every week because they have the potential to take illegal drugs?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Obviously the statement is hyperbolic but so is saying if they take away your 10 round clip that it will lead to complete disarming of the public and tyranny. If a policy can save 1 life it should be considered. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be enacted though.
Preventing death is the goal but it is not to the exclusion of all other rights or benefits that would be removed in the process. If we could prevent deaths without infringing on any rights and without any negative side effects, everyone would be on board. Unfortunately there are always tradeoffs and no politician wants to admit that death is acceptable. Car and gun legislation are exactly the same in that we must strike a balance between the benefits of allowing them and laws to mitigate their dangers. That is why we have drivers tests for cars and background checks for guns.
Ah interesting. I didn't know the estate maintained the same rights as a living person. Is that true in all states? Inheritance laws are part of state law, not federal right? Is there something in the constitution that says an estate must be given all the rights of a person?
You're first statement was, "You misunderstand. The point is NOT simply to reduce as many deaths as possible, that's an oversimplification. If that was the goal, you would ban pools of water, ladders, and soap as I said in the last response." Now you say differently?
State laws, not federal. I have looked at most other states laws. I would suspect that most are similar though on these affairs. There is nothing in the Constitution or the Amendments in regards to estate law, nor is that a subject that would normally be considered to be constitutional in nature.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
y'all do realize that none of you will ever prove the other wrong don't you?
Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk 2
<3 Catnipples
We proved the lefties wrong a long time ago and without much effort........
getting them to accept that theyre wrong..... now that could take a lifetime.
Lol
When we decide if a policy will save lives, do we emotionally go with what we think? or do we let facts reign supreme? because correct me if im wrong, but i dont see any facts supporting the idea that less guns equals less crime or that banning any specific gun type will make criminals any more or less effective when assaulting someone or that criminals will give a shit about the laws anyways. Am i more dangerous with a 30 round magazine or a backpack full of 10 round magazines? how many lives will that 2 second reload save? would a 2 second reload have saved any lives in any of the mass shooting situations?
Also.... is it just a really strange coincidence that the proposed gun control legislation is exactly what you would do if you wanted to gain a strategical military advantage over the "civilian army".
They want to
A: ban any ex military from owning a gun
B: ban the most "combat ready" weapons that happen to be the least used in crime
C: Gather information on the whereabouts and inventory of all gun owners.
Government purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammo for "homeland security" this year....
Theyre training on american soil in "urban environments" and giving a litmus test based around whether or not a soldier would accept an order to fire on american citizens.
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 03-14-2013 at 08:14 PM.
No, they didnt.
They wrote an OPEN purchase order for the ammunition.
Stop the tin-foil-hattery.
So, whats the difference between a purchase order and purchasing? please explain.
1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation - Forbes
This is one of the problems with our current situation.... this government is so radical that people actually dont believe the stories because theyre too radical. It's a genius scheme.
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 03-15-2013 at 07:05 AM.
I understand the car vs gun thing when it's only based on the potential of killing someone, but that's where it ends, with just that statement that both are capable of killing. The difference is though, a gun is a weapon, a car is a form of transportation that can kill if you use it as a weapon, but, it's not a weapon. Sure, you can argue that guns are also used for recreational use, which I get, I also get people collect guns and that not everyone who buys a gun will ever use it as a weapon. HOWEVER, it's not hard to see why some of the anti-gun people are more concerned about guns than cars.
There's no argument there and I'm more towards the gun side than anti-gun side. A car can be used to break the law just as a screwdriver can, my fist can, a knife can, etc. A gun sure does make it easier to do though without hurting myself and typically at a higher rate.
If you want to buy m&ms from me and I say I'll sell you 100 bags for X/bag, 1000 bags for X-1/bag, 10k bags for X-2/bag. And you say, we'll ill probably sell a lot more than that, what will you sell me 1mil bags for? Well I don't have 1mil bags, so I gotta figure out what it's gonna take me to get 1mil bags of m&ms
Not a very clear explanation. You could have just copy and pasted this though, as it explains your point:
A purchase order (PO) is a commercial document issued by a buyer to a seller, indicating types, quantities, and agreed prices for products or services the seller will provide to the buyer. Sending a purchase order to a supplier constitutes a legal offer to buy products or services. Acceptance of a purchase order by a seller usually forms a contract between the buyer and seller, so no contract exists until the purchase order is accepted. It is used to control the purchasing of products and services from external suppliers.
The key is that no contract exists until both parties have agreed to the purchase order.
A purchase order shows intent and constitutes an offer, but it is not a binding contract in an of itself.
The real questions should be, "Why is DHS needing 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition that is not allowed to be used in war? And how is that not wasteful spending in our current economic situation.? Shouldn't that funding be put toward healthcare, welfare, and social security, as well as education?"
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I could have copy pasted that, but that doesn't tell the whole story, and honestly I hit send before I was finished. But companies use open purchase orders to negotiate bulk rates and shipping rates all the time. We do this at our job when new customers and returning customers want to order so many labels for their product. We work with Wrigley's, Hershey's, Baileys, and Frank's hot sauce, among others.
No I'm still say the same thing, that preventing death is the main goal but how you do it is critically important. It is not prevent all death at any cost. I guess I'm not explaining the subtlety very well which is why you think I am contradicting myself.
That's what I was thinking so my point still stands. The right to pass down guns to heirs is not a fundamental human right. The fourth amendment only applies to persons and if the state doesn't define an estate as a "person" then I don't see why the fourth amendment has any say in that transaction. I understand many states do define estates as people currently, but there is no reason that can't change with a new law.
I understand the reasons anti-gun people feel the way they feel, i still think theyre wrong. If you're going to attempt to strip half of the free world of one of their freedoms, then you need to have a more conclusive argument. The rule of thumb is not "innocent until looks guilty". This debate is emotion vs reality. The emotionally charged argument is " a guns base purpose is to kill a living thing " , the reality of it is that humans invented the gun because they already were killing other living things and simply made the next tool to assist with that. The absence of guns would not stop crime or murder. There's a very strong argument that the absence of guns would increase crime and murder. There's plenty of historical evidence of humanity using weapons as a deterrence of crime or being attacked. Humanity dictates the tools we require, the gun wasnt given to us, we created it. If you could snap your fingers and make every gun on earth evaporate.... i would have a house full of swords tomorrow. But, you cant snap your fingers and make guns evaporate. Even if they banned guns tomorrow. It would probably be 200 years before the gun supply became scarce, that is unless they start confiscating them. Go to your library and search history books for any point in history that any civilization willingly allowed themselves to be disarmed without resisting it. If you can find one, which i doubt you will..... i'm pretty sure that story is gonna end with whoever surrendered their weapons becoming the slaves of whoever asked them too.
Last edited by Sinfix_15; 03-15-2013 at 02:31 PM.
If the removal of guns from our society will save lives, why doesnt our government and police get rid of their guns to save lives?
ok, this changes my opinion about nothing. They either want to purchase X amount of ammo or theyre curious how much a shit ton of ammo would cost. You believe which ever one you want.
Ideally we go with facts and data, but the problem is we don't have conclusive facts or data on this topic so we have no choice but to venture into theoretical arguments. There are facts that support both sides, but none of them definitively prove one side or the other. The answer to your other questions is that we don't really know how many lives would be saved if we implement those laws. It could be 0 or it could be a lot more. When it comes to mass shootings, I don't think it's unreasonable to think a couple extra seconds during a reload could be enough time for someone to escape.
You say "they" but I don't know who "they" is. If "they" are the government, then I would say that many people in government do not want those things you listed. What is a reasonable amount of ammo for homeland security to purchase? What is strange about American troops training on American soil? Isn't that where most soldiers have always been trained? Of course, they are training in "urban environments". That's the environment where pretty much all the fighting has been since WW2. As far as shooting American citizens, it depends on the context. I would expect a soldier to shoot an American citizen if they were a terrorist sympathizer in the midst of carrying out an attack. None of these things lead me to believe we are in imminent danger of being subjugated.
We dont need facts or data on what would happen if we ban guns because its never going to happen. It would be like me saying "lets collect data and see if re-enslaving black people would have a positive effect on america's crime rate" Whether it would or wouldnt is of no concern because its something we're not gonna stand for. The problem with the left is that they dont seem to understand that owning a weapon is a right they acknowledged that i already had, they didnt give it to me and theyre not going to take it from me unless they literally come take it. The left ignores the facts and data we do have and they campaign for public opinion supporting their agenda regardless of what the facts say or would say. They already lie about guns every opportunity they get. If we banned guns tomorrow and crime shot up 200% because of it.... democrats would still be happy that they accomplished their goal.
They can simulate an "urban environment", these tests are specifically based on the interaction with or presence of american citizens. They're not borrowing the city block of miami to simulate a city block, they training to simulate a city block filled with civilians.
It can be both. They may want to purchase a billion over 20 years. They may want to try and lock the billion round rate for only 100 mil rounds. The point is, it means practically nothing.
The police and government are part of our society. When a citizen puts on a badge or a uniform, they do not cease to be an American citizen and are still every bit a part of our society. The idea being that guns are a useful tool and that they are most effectively used in the hands of those with much stricter training and more accountability (i.e., police and soldiers). It's not that different from why we wouldn't want everyone to have missile launch codes. The answer to your question can not be boiled down to a simple statement. There is a lot of nuance and complexity when discussing how available powerful and dangerous technology should be and who should have access to it.
In the history of earth, who has killed more innocent people.
A: Civilians with guns
B: Governments with guns
Our government........... the united states government..............................
Obama's government....................
shopping for a better price.............
now you talkin crazy fool.
Sorry, I can't agree with your premise that a large part of the country you call "the left" is out to take away all guns. I agree even less that they wouldn't care if crime shot up 200%. Forget the philosophy for a moment and accept that in reality, your rights in this country come from the constitution and they can always be changed through the amendment process. You mention slavery but black's God given right to life and liberty didn't provide a lot of solace to them before the 13th amendment was passed.
So you don't believe we should be prepared to fight on our own soil? It is conceivable to you that we will have a government vs citizen civil war but not that we have to fight foreign enemies on our soil?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote