Archive

Obama and gun control

  • Thread Bomber
    O-Trap;715163 wrote:Wouldn't "registering" it, then, be redundant?
    A fair question. The registration should be part of the background check/purchase.


    The Thread bomber Law would require it all to be a one step process. :)

    The registration should follow the serial #'s in a legal purchase.
  • O-Trap
    Thread Bomber;715165 wrote:A fair question. The registration should be part of the background check/purchase.


    The Thread bomber Law would require it all to be a one step process. :)

    The registration should follow the serial #'s in a legal purchase.
    Eh, though I'm always leery of forcing the public to "report" personal possessions to the governing institutions, I suppose I wouldn't mind this.
  • queencitybuckeye
    Thread Bomber;715164 wrote:To put it simply, If you are willing to go through the extra burden, you have proved on some level that your intent is to own the legally and by logical extention intend on following the law as to it's legal use.

    My copy of the constitution doesn't specify any kind of testing being required to determine if I'm worthy of the rights it describes.
  • tsst_fballfan
    Thread Bomber;715160 wrote:Are you implying the "slippery slope?" The federal and state government collect all kinds of information. I would hope you a being facetious. If it is legal, i have no problem with the government knowing you own firearms.

    Hell, they already know you are purchasing a weapon because you have to go through them in the form of a background check to make a legal purchase.
    No, I am implying they do not have any need to know. Anymore than they need to know if you have kitchen knives, baseball bats, screwdrivers, hammers, a length of rope, a large rock, a fork, a pillow, a bathtub, a house key, plastic bags, antifreeze, a piece of 2x4, glass, a nailgun, a fireplace poker, a book, an iron, a flower vase, a brick, a balcony, your own two hands, etc, etc, etc ....

    All of those items by the way have been used by one human to kill another human!

    Thread Bomber;715160 wrote:Text of Amendment:
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

    How is registering a weapon infringing on your 2ND amendment rights? They aren't saying that you cant have it (within certain criteria)
    Any alteration should be considered an infringement. Would you tolerate it if they said you have freedom of speech as long as you don't criticize politicians and don't speek without first getting a permit and without first registering your speech with the fedgov for approval and if a gov dept felt you were undeserving then you don't get free speech? Of course you wouldn't because that infringes on your right to free speech.
    Thread Bomber;715160 wrote:Now, if you are making a right to privacy argument, I might tent to agree with you a little more a s this is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. I do not wish to open up that can of worms for fear of another abortion debate.

    If you own it legally and the Government does not consider it public information, You should not have a problem with it.
    I do have a problem with it. I believe their intrusion is an infringement. It's literal meaning is to encroach or trespass or transgress. Which is what they are doing by altering my constitutional right.
    Thread Bomber;715164 wrote:To put it simply, If you are willing to go through the extra burden, you have proved on some level that your intent is to own the legally and by logical extention intend on following the law as to it's legal use.
    That's just it I am not willing to. I am being forced to by my government to simply exercise my constitutional right! So I am assumed to have criminal intent unless I can prove otherwise. What does that sound like?

    tyr·an·ny
       /ˈtɪrəni/ Show Spelled[tir-uh-nee]
    –noun, plural -nies.
    1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
    2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
    3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
    4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
    5. undue severity or harshness.
  • dwccrew
    O-Trap;714971 wrote:

    Well ... yes ... but are there public roads you can legally drive on at full speet? That's a different question. :D

    My old CFO had a Maserati. He used to FLY down roads if it was really late or really early, and nobody was on the roads. Not safe, of course, and not his right, but he was willing to accept the consequences (and did on numerous occasions).

    In any case, this discussion isn't really a matter of necessity.
    LOL, clearly YOU knew what I meant. Hey man, it was late! :)
  • stlouiedipalma
    LJ,

    Thanks for the visual aid you provided. Contrary to what some on here think, I actually have no opinion on guns. I don't own one, but it is not out of some ideological reason. I do, however, like to provoke those whose definition of the 2nd Amendment leans to violent overthrow of the government.

    One thing for sure, it's a touchy subject.
  • dwccrew
    stlouiedipalma;715772 wrote:LJ,

    Thanks for the visual aid you provided. Contrary to what some on here think, I actually have no opinion on guns. I don't own one, but it is not out of some ideological reason. I do, however, like to provoke those whose definition of the 2nd Amendment leans to violent overthrow of the government.

    One thing for sure, it's a touchy subject.

    What? No one on here has advocated that and justified their belief by using the 2nd amendment have they?
  • stlouiedipalma
    Not to my knowledge. A lot of the folks here may be nutbags (myself included, at times), but I don't think any of us are that extreme.
  • Glory Days
    O-Trap;715102 wrote:This wouldn't really work, either. Guns being sold out of the back of pickup trucks are quite possibly either:
    (a) Stolen, or
    (b) Imported illegally

    Guns are more easily hidden in a residence or on a person. Thus, the fact that you possess an unregistered gun is multiply easier to hide than the fact that you drive an unregistered vehicle.
    you also have the people who buy tons of guns legally them sell them to criminals/gangs etc. having to register a gun might cut down on that.
  • Glory Days
    tsst_fballfan;715083 wrote: The baseline should be the second amendment. It is my right and should not be infringed in anyway.

    yeah how dare i not be allowed to yell bomb on a plane!
  • queencitybuckeye
    Glory Days;716845 wrote:yeah how dare i not be allowed to yell bomb on a plane!

    That would be a 1st amendment issue.
  • queencitybuckeye
    Glory Days;716843 wrote:you also have the people who buy tons of guns legally them sell them to criminals/gangs etc. having to register a gun might cut down on that.

    Yeah, the criminals will use the guns to rob and kill, but they'll obey a new registration law.
  • O-Trap
    Glory Days;716843 wrote:you also have the people who buy tons of guns legally them sell them to criminals/gangs etc. having to register a gun might cut down on that.
    Doubtful. It'll change HOW they obtain the guns, but I sincerely doubt it will change whether or not they obtain the guns.

    Moreover, it might also simply increase the number of guns stolen for sale.
  • LJ
    Glory Days;716843 wrote:you also have the people who buy tons of guns legally them sell them to criminals/gangs etc. having to register a gun might cut down on that.

    Or they could just crack down on straw purchases, which are already a felony
  • tsst_fballfan
    Glory Days;716845 wrote:yeah how dare i not be allowed to yell bomb on a plane!
    queencitybuckeye;716848 wrote:That would be a 1st amendment issue.
    Besides being the wrong amendment it would also be a failed analogy. Yelling bomb on an airplane directly endangers other people. My purchasing a gun does not.
  • tsst_fballfan
    Doctors

    (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

    (B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

    (C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

    Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services..

    Now:
    Guns

    (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)

    (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

    (C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

    Statistics courtesy of FBI

    So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

    Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

    FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT almost everyone has at least one doctor.

    Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.

    We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!
  • Glory Days
    tsst_fballfan;716926 wrote:Besides being the wrong amendment it would also be a failed analogy. Yelling bomb on an airplane directly endangers other people. My purchasing a gun does not.

    no shit it was the wrong amendment, you mentioned rights though. the first amendment is a right that shouldnt be infringed upon either right? and people obtaining guns illegally generally do hurt people(used in crimes etc)
  • Glory Days
    queencitybuckeye;716853 wrote:Yeah, the criminals will use the guns to rob and kill, but they'll obey a new registration law.
    where did i say criminals will obey the new registration laws.
    LJ;716872 wrote:Or they could just crack down on straw purchases, which are already a felony
    Forcing the buyer to register the guns would be a way of cracking down on straw purchases.
    If guns are popping up all over the city and state being used in crimes by many different people, if the guns were registered they would lead back to the original person who purchased them. The seller would have to explain why his guns are all over being used in crimes.
  • LJ
    Glory Days;716982 wrote:where did i say criminals will obey the new registration laws.


    Forcing the buyer to register the guns would be a way of cracking down on straw purchases.
    If guns are popping up all over the city and state being used in crimes by many different people, if the guns were registered they would lead back to the original person who purchased them. The seller would have to explain why his guns are all over being used in crimes.

    Or gun stores could use more discretion and stop crimes before they happen. At least that way it actually prevents crime.
  • stlouiedipalma
    tsst_fballfan;716943 wrote:Doctors

    (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

    (B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

    (C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

    Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services..

    Now:
    Guns

    (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)

    (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

    (C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

    Statistics courtesy of FBI

    So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

    Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

    FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT almost everyone has at least one doctor.

    Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.

    We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

    Can you please show us the links to these statistics?
  • tsst_fballfan
    Glory Days;716971 wrote:no shit it was the wrong amendment, you mentioned rights though. the first amendment is a right that shouldnt be infringed upon either right? and people obtaining guns illegally generally do hurt people(used in crimes etc)
    SMH ok I'll bite. How in hell is making a new regulation for me to follow going to do a damn thing to stop someone from "obtaining guns illegally"? Does the daft left gun-control cult really believe law 21,001 will alter the criminal mind into playing by the rules? Or is it that the daft left gun-control cult actually believes that making something illegal will make it impossible for a criminal to get? Please enlighten me on how another law will effectively create lawful citizens of those that are "obtaining guns illegally"!
  • I Wear Pants
    tsst_fballfan;716943 wrote:Doctors

    (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

    (B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

    (C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

    Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services..

    Now:
    Guns

    (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)

    (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

    (C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

    Statistics courtesy of FBI

    So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

    Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

    FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT almost everyone has at least one doctor.

    Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.

    We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

    That also only included accidental deaths caused by guns.
  • Glory Days
    tsst_fballfan;717959 wrote:SMH ok I'll bite. How in hell is making a new regulation for me to follow going to do a damn thing to stop someone from "obtaining guns illegally"? Does the daft left gun-control cult really believe law 21,001 will alter the criminal mind into playing by the rules? Or is it that the daft left gun-control cult actually believes that making something illegal will make it impossible for a criminal to get? Please enlighten me on how another law will effectively create lawful citizens of those that are "obtaining guns illegally"!
    Your missing the point. Its not about making criminals play by the rules. Its about drying up their sources, supplies, making them take extra steps to try and circumvent the law so they get caught in the process etc.
  • tsst_fballfan
    Glory Days;718106 wrote:Your missing the point. Its not about making criminals play by the rules. Its about drying up their sources, supplies, making them take extra steps to try and circumvent the law so they get caught in the process etc.
    Yes and we have perfect societal examples on how the legality of something drys up sources and supplies. DRUGS and alcohol prohibition. One would have to be absolutely self-deceiving to believe anything would dry up. It would serve only to create a massive underground for illegal criminal activity. Look no further than drugs and alcohol prohibition for real world examples. :shrugs:
  • tsst_fballfan
    stlouiedipalma;717218 wrote:Can you please show us the links to these statistics?
    It's from an email that I did verify in the past for debate on another website. The figures are approx but are fairly accurate. When I get time I will endeavor to find the links.

    I Wear Pants;718047 wrote:That also only included accidental deaths caused by guns.
    I believe the intent was to compare accidental deaths. As we are talking about laws that will only affect law abiding citizens it seemed to be the best apples to apples comparison. I guess there are some doctors that commit murder with use of their medical knowledge. It however would add a tangent to one side of the comparison to use all deaths due to guns vs only accident deaths due to doctors.