Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Get excited for the Samsung Galaxy S5! Find everything you need and discuss it in our Galaxy S5 Forum!

Like Tree162Likes

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old January 20th, 2013, 09:43 PM   #51 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

I'd like to see some real life example of gun registration leading to more illegal guns on the street.

There are communities throughout the US that have passed mandatory gun ownership laws. So everyone in town owns a gun. Have illegal guns gone up in those communities?

Besides, if you have guns, you've got them secured in a gun safe of some sort. Do bad guys steal the entire safe?

A.Nonymous is offline  
Last edited by A.Nonymous; January 20th, 2013 at 09:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 20th, 2013, 10:32 PM   #52 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,302
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 236 Times in 186 Posts
Default

you must not read the news much............ YES

the case I previously pointed out to you out east where the gun owners information had been place in the newspaper........ they stole the entire safe

so theres your real life example..... thieves broke in to steal guns because they knew they were there...... thanks to registration....... and they stole the safe

the better question is........ can you cite any real world example where registration would prevent crime?
copestag is online now  
Last edited by copestag; January 20th, 2013 at 10:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2013, 10:55 PM   #53 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psionandy View Post
Or... to put it another way...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a freestate ,the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

So there is a constructional remit for regulation... but that's the clause everyone sees fit to ignore...
Please speak only for yourself. I was the one who posted the whole text, remember?

The Second Amendment clearly does not call for regulation of firearms. Ignoring the rules of grammar while attempting to inject meanings which weren't written is neither right nor productive.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Speed Daemon For This Useful Post:
Ibrick (January 22nd, 2013)
Old January 20th, 2013, 11:13 PM   #54 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Which is de facto every single car in the US.
The fact remains that the "guns are just like cars" argument has been debunked. I'm not going to indulge nit-picking, weasel words or any further litigation of this moot point.

Quote:
The NCIC is NOT such a database. I know.
Sorry but claiming to be a self-appointed authority fails to convince.

The NCIC does indeed keep records of stops, warnings, citations, arrests. convictions and other things. And that's just the part we know about.

In the context of my original assertion, the NCIC does indeed keep cross-checkable records of firearms ownership and vehicle ownership.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2013, 11:28 PM   #55 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psionandy View Post
...the fact that there aren't any militias in the envisioned sense...
Ah...actually there are quite a few militias that were formed for that express purpose. You're welcome to come to the US and see for yourself.

Believe it or not, but there's a much larger reality. Just because one person is unaware doesn't mean that something doesn't exist.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 06:20 AM   #56 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
Sorry but claiming to be a self-appointed authority fails to convince.

The NCIC does indeed keep records of stops, warnings, citations, arrests. convictions and other things. And that's just the part we know about.

In the context of my original assertion, the NCIC does indeed keep cross-checkable records of firearms ownership and vehicle ownership.
But claiming something that is false without anything at all to back it up makes it true? Got it. I'll take a simple assertion backed by nothing over personal experience any time.

The NCIC does NOT keep a record of stops, warnings, citations, and arrests. Convictions are stored there. I'd love to see your source for the other stuff. It's factually inaccurate. Local agencies don't even store stops nine times out of ten though warnings and citations are SOMETIMES on files, but not usually. That data is stored locally, but may or may not be available nationally depending on whether the locality that has that info wants to play nice. Again, your statement was, "They already use the database that keeps records of all police contact for everyone in the US to make other key decisions." That statement is factually incorrect. Such a database does not exist.

Lost/stolen/missing firearms are in said database, but it's not a database of every firearm in the US. It's also not a database of every vehicle in the US. Stolen vehicles are there. That's it. Even then, they are only the stolen vehicles people have reported and the various municipalities have entered into the system. So, please check your facts.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 06:25 AM   #57 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
Please speak only for yourself. I was the one who posted the whole text, remember?

The Second Amendment clearly does not call for regulation of firearms. Ignoring the rules of grammar while attempting to inject meanings which weren't written is neither right nor productive.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you and the legal precedent for regulation of firearms has been set for several hundred years.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 10:49 AM   #58 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I'd like to see some real life example of gun registration leading to more illegal guns on the street.

There are communities throughout the US that have passed mandatory gun ownership laws. So everyone in town owns a gun. Have illegal guns gone up in those communities?

Besides, if you have guns, you've got them secured in a gun safe of some sort. Do bad guys steal the entire safe?
Is mandatory ownership constitutional? There must be a few court cases out there. Which specific communities require that you own guns?

I should think any community touched by a drug problem also has an illegal gun problem because the two go hand in hand.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 10:56 AM   #59 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psionandy View Post
it says that as as a regulated militia is needed then the right to bear arms isn't to be infringed....
skipping over the fact that there aren't any militias in the envisioned sense .. the second half of the clause is dependent on the first half, ie regulation is required. And it doesn't rule out who is /isn't responsible to do it, or the level at which it should be set.
Not so sure you are accurate. Here is a list and apparently, it is a BIG list of militias broken down by state and county.

U.S. National Militia Directory

I should think those that believe our gun rights only apply to militias will find a way to say the militias that apparently exist are not "legal" (whatever that might mean) and therefore, should not have the right to keep and bear arms.

Let's face it . . . regardless of what the constitution says, many people do not want anyone to own guns.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 11:02 AM   #60 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Founding Fathers on the subject of Militias:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them." Zachariah Johnson. Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams, quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

Read more:

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8

"The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my Concealed Weapons Permit, period."
- Ted Nugent
psionandy, pbf98 and rootbrain like this.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Maxey For This Useful Post:
psionandy (January 21st, 2013)
sponsored links
Old January 21st, 2013, 11:31 AM   #61 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
PrinceCorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: League City, Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 598
 
Device(s): LG Spectrum ICS
Carrier: Greedy, Lying Verizon

Thanks: 482
Thanked 100 Times in 78 Posts
Default

Why do these gun law conversations always take such rediculously pointless tangents? There is only ONE point to be made regarding gun legislation and it is undeniable and without argument:

New gun laws (and ANY new laws for that matter) are only adhered to by law abiding individuals who therefor are no threat to any of us in the first place. People who commit crimes with guns DON'T OBEY LAWS!!!!!!! So they will still aquire them. New regulation only affects those that already socially cooperative. Does anyone REALLY think that when the new laws banning AK 47's gets passed, the crips and bloods of LA are gonna say, "damn! we gotta get rid of our gats now!"

What is so hard to understand about this? Get real people. I know these tradgedies touch us deeply and we get infuriated and feel a natural desire for revenge. But focusing that revenge on those that mean us no harm is wrong. And that is exactly at whom these new gun reforms are aimed.

There is no definitive fix, for evil will be with us always... and it will always find a way to circumvent the law.

I mean prostitution is illegal but it still happens. Should we then make it illegal for a woman to wear sexy clothes while walking down the sidewalk at night? No because the prostitutes will simply find a new way to attract their Johns and the result would simply be that women who are not and have no intention to be prostitutes will no longer be able to walk down the sidewalk wearing sexy clothes.

It just seems so simple to me, I don't know why the gun law supporters can't see that they are playing into the hands of the criminals, not fighting them.
kool kat2 and pbf98 like this.
PrinceCorwin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 12:09 PM   #62 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Personally, I think women wearing sexy clothes should be mandatory, but only if they are sexy women. But that's another question altogether.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to A.Nonymous For This Useful Post:
PrinceCorwin (January 21st, 2013)
Old January 21st, 2013, 02:14 PM   #63 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
Is mandatory ownership constitutional? There must be a few court cases out there. Which specific communities require that you own guns?

I should think any community touched by a drug problem also has an illegal gun problem because the two go hand in hand.
I would've sworn there were several communities like this, but I could only come up with one. Keenesaw, GA requires all citizens to own a functioning firearm unless they are mentally/physically disabled, felons or have moral objections. They (the town) claims that this law (in effect since the mid 80s) has led to a steep drop in crime in the town overall although outside experts apparently say there is no correlation. In any case, we would expect the opposite. Criminals know there is an entire town of gun owners so it's a honey pot of illegal weapons.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 03:02 PM   #64 (permalink)
Member
 
psionandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: liverpool
Posts: 350
 
Device(s): Galaxy Note II, Nook HD+
Carrier: 3 UK

Thanks: 95
Thanked 67 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
Ah...actually there are quite a few militias that were formed for that express purpose. You're welcome to come to the US and see for yourself.

Believe it or not, but there's a much larger reality. Just because one person is unaware doesn't mean that something doesn't exist.
Thanks for that.. I was of course aware that there are militias.. but the point i was making (and trying not to get sidetracked by) was that a the time of the founding fathers the 'envisioned' milita was instead of the standing army (which could become an implement of tyranny). I'm not sure if most of the organisations listed in your article actually fulfill that role.


There's also the National Guard which could be argued is the Militia.. and of course there is an argument that 'Every indivdual is a one man militia' but you'd have to stretch the point to make that fit with the idea that was originally meant.

Of course then you can have a separate discussion about if the constitution is a document that is 'set in stone' with a completely fixed meaning based on the view of the founding fathers in the 18th century.. or if its a 'living document' which can be continually re-interpreted to keep in line with the will of the people in the 21st century.

But if we go down those rabbit holes in this particular thread who knows where we will end up.


And speaking of tangents and rabbit hole.....


Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceCorwin View Post
Why do these gun law conversations always take such rediculously pointless tangents? There is only ONE point to be made regarding gun legislation and it is undeniable and without argument:

New gun laws (and ANY new laws for that matter) are only adhered to by law abiding individuals who therefor are no threat to any of us in the first place.
Ok, I'll bite...

The obvious problem with that argument.. is that as by definition criminals are people who break the laws. So why have ANY laws at all.

Thefts are only committed by people who break laws about stealing, so why make stealing against the law. Honest people don't need the laws and criminals ignore them anyway. So why not abolish the lot and have a completely arachistic society?


Even Moses, had the 10 commandments.. how few do you think that a modern country can manage with?
psionandy is offline  
Last edited by psionandy; January 21st, 2013 at 03:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 03:26 PM   #65 (permalink)
Member
 
psionandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: liverpool
Posts: 350
 
Device(s): Galaxy Note II, Nook HD+
Carrier: 3 UK

Thanks: 95
Thanked 67 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
Founding Fathers on the subject of Militias:


Thanks for the quotes Bob.. they've certainly added to the debate...
Now if we assume that "the people = the militia" and that the Militia has an essential role. How do we make sure its " well regulated? After all the founding fathers seem to be very convinced that it needs to be.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
Let's face it . . . regardless of what the constitution says, many people do not want anyone to own guns.
and thats the nub of the argument.

you have a lot of people who want to own guns (for a variety of different reasons, some of them good - some of them bad) and a lot of people who want them banned (again for good and bad reasons).

Bottom line is that nobody on either side really wants guns in the hands of dangerous terrorists and criminals. Is anyone going to stand up and say 'Gun crime is great?'

So the proper thing to do, is have a real national debate. One where the issues come first and personal agendas, mud-slinging and political expedience are checked at the door.

But sadly that isn't going to happen... because the bigotry, political self interest etc.. are more important.

Now we all know that ain't gonna happen. So the best we can hope for is for someone (this President or the next?) to listen to the people then put forward a set of proposals. Make his (or her) case. Build a cross party coalition what they believe, and put it to the people. If the people go for it then it can move forward, if not then not...
psionandy is offline  
Last edited by psionandy; January 21st, 2013 at 03:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 04:03 PM   #66 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I would've sworn there were several communities like this, but I could only come up with one. Keenesaw, GA requires all citizens to own a functioning firearm unless they are mentally/physically disabled, felons or have moral objections. They (the town) claims that this law (in effect since the mid 80s) has led to a steep drop in crime in the town overall although outside experts apparently say there is no correlation. In any case, we would expect the opposite. Criminals know there is an entire town of gun owners so it's a honey pot of illegal weapons.
If I lived in a town were owning a gun was a legal requirement, all of my burgles would be out of town. Not sure I would want to take a chance of getting shot.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 04:10 PM   #67 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psionandy View Post
Thanks for that.. I was of course aware that there are militias.. but the point i was making (and trying not to get sidetracked by) was that a the time of the founding fathers the 'envisioned' milita was instead of the standing army (which could become an implement of tyranny). I'm not sure if most of the organisations listed in your article actually fulfill that role.
In this nuclear age, there's little doubt that relatively small militias without an air force of any kind could actually put down our military. But we still have the right to try. I think that most of us would rather have a chance to die trying over no choice at all. There's also an argument to be made for giving our militias a real fighting chance.

Quote:
There's also the National Guard which could be argued is the Militia.
That's the problem with The National Guard--it no longer exists to enforce states' rights or do anything under the Second Amendment. It's just another branch of the DOD, along with the Reserves. Telling Americans "this is your Second Amendment rights at work" is a falsehood. I don't think there's any doubt whose orders they'd follow if push comes to shove. IMHO an institutionalized falsehood like the Guard is not compatible with a free society.

Quote:
and of course there is an argument that 'Every indivdual is a one man militia' but you'd have to stretch the point to make that fit with the idea that was originally meant.
I haven't heard that one before, but it reminds me of those silly "army of one" recruitment commercials. A lone gunman? I think we all can see what's wrong there!

Quote:
Of course then you can have a separate discussion about if the constitution is a document that is 'set in stone' with a completely fixed meaning based on the view of the founding fathers in the 18th century.. or if its a 'living document' which can be continually re-interpreted to keep in line with the will of the people in the 21st century.
If you're talking about "strict constructionism", there's no basis in reality for it.

Obviously the People can amend the Constitution if circumstances demand it. I don't see any serious movement along those lines, so...
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Speed Daemon For This Useful Post:
psionandy (January 21st, 2013)
Old January 21st, 2013, 04:15 PM   #68 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psionandy View Post
Of course then you can have a separate discussion about if the constitution is a document that is 'set in stone' with a completely fixed meaning based on the view of the founding fathers in the 18th century.. or if its a 'living document' which can be continually re-interpreted to keep in line with the will of the people in the 21st century.
The Constitution should never be thought of (and therefore it is not) as a "living, breathing document." As soon as you do, it becomes a worthless, dead document. That is the beauty of the document; it holds up even in today's world.

This is why it is so hard to change. The founders made it very, very hard to change for a good reason.

If people want a change, it can be changed, but that takes lots of effort. This is a good thing. Do we want the Constitution to be easy to change?

So no, it is not and should never be thought of as a living, breathing document.

FYI: To Propose Amendments

"In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.

Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition."
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 04:37 PM   #69 (permalink)
Member
 
psionandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: liverpool
Posts: 350
 
Device(s): Galaxy Note II, Nook HD+
Carrier: 3 UK

Thanks: 95
Thanked 67 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
The Constitution should never be thought of (and therefore it is not) as a "living, breathing document." As soon as you do, it becomes a worthless, dead document. That is the beauty of the document; it holds up even in today's world.

This is why it is so hard to change. The founders made it very, very hard to change for a good reason.

If people want a change, it can be changed, but that takes lots of effort. This is a good thing. Do we want the Constitution to be easy to change?

So no, it is not and should never be thought of as a living, breathing document.

FYI: To Propose Amendments

"In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.

Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition."
Ok.. apologies to anyone who thinks that i've taken this discussion off topic. If anyone DOES think that, and wants me to stop, all you need to do is say the word and i'll drop this line of discussion here (and we'll do it elsewhere if anyone is interested).

right... and back to the conversation.

Although amending or changing the constitution does require the major formalties, that you outlined, it can be argued that the constitution IS a 'living document' in the sense that its interpretation changes over time.

Certainly the Supreme Court sees its function in that light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme Court of the United States
]The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.
taken from http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx
my emphasis in bold...


Obvious examples include changes in what is considered to by the population as a "cruel and unusall" punishment in the 18th century compared to the 21st, along with changes in the separation of "church and state". I'm sure you can think of lot other (and better) examples.

The constitution has remained the same, but its interpretation has changed dramatically...
psionandy is offline  
Last edited by psionandy; January 21st, 2013 at 04:42 PM. Reason: couldn't get quote syntax correct
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 07:50 PM   #70 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
PrinceCorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: League City, Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 598
 
Device(s): LG Spectrum ICS
Carrier: Greedy, Lying Verizon

Thanks: 482
Thanked 100 Times in 78 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psionandy View Post

Ok, I'll bite...

The obvious problem with that argument.. is that as by definition criminals are people who break the laws. So why have ANY laws at all.

Thefts are only committed by people who break laws about stealing, so why make stealing against the law. Honest people don't need the laws and criminals ignore them anyway. So why not abolish the lot and have a completely arachistic society?


Even Moses, had the 10 commandments.. how few do you think that a modern country can manage with?
Once again, the point is missed... the crimes committed with the guns are already against the law. Simply making a law against the tools used is pointless. Of course stealing should be illegal. I never said that crimes should not have corresponding laws. But just because stealing is illegal, we shouldn't make owning a crowbar illegal. Many people use them for purposes other than crime, just like guns.

Is the fog starting to lift a little?
pbf98 and Speed Daemon like this.
PrinceCorwin is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to PrinceCorwin For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (January 23rd, 2013)
sponsored links
Old January 21st, 2013, 08:07 PM   #71 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Regulating said tools so that less safer tools are not in the hands of the general public is a bad idea how?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 09:07 PM   #72 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,302
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 236 Times in 186 Posts
Default

regulating the tools doesnt take a single tool from the criminals..... who are already using the tools illegaly...... it simply takes them from the honest citizen

as said before....... if regulating guns will remove them from the streets...... we should try making heroine and meth illegal
pbf98 likes this.
copestag is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2013, 11:46 PM   #73 (permalink)
Member
 
psionandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: liverpool
Posts: 350
 
Device(s): Galaxy Note II, Nook HD+
Carrier: 3 UK

Thanks: 95
Thanked 67 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceCorwin View Post
Once again, the point is missed... the crimes committed with the guns are already against the law. Simply making a law against the tools used is pointless. Of course stealing should be illegal. I never said that crimes should not have corresponding laws. But just because stealing is illegal, we shouldn't make owning a crowbar illegal. Many people use them for purposes other than crime, just like guns.

Is the fog starting to lift a little?
Is anyone calling for all guns for all purposes to be made illegal? I really don't think they are. Rather changes to the system about what types are available for those purposes (including hunting, target shooting, self defence and other legal activities) and changes in how they are purchased etc... The proposals all seem to look like regulation rather than abolition.

Simply having a law against ANYTHING is obviously pointless unless it has a desiried effect, and you won't get that unless its enforced. So clearly what you are crying out for is the law to be well crafted.. and suitable enforcement

Its the logical outcome of what you have posted sir, but i sense that its not really what you want.

Here's an idea of another way you could do it that would target the criminals.

Quote:
President-elect Reagan was in New York the day after Lennon was shot and was stopped long enough for a reporter to ask him if gun control wasn't the answer. He said, "No, if somebody commits a crime and carries a gun when he's doing it, add five to fifteen years to the prison sentence; it may be a way out." At any rate, I don't think there's any doubt now that one of the first Bills that somebody will put up to the new Congress will be yet another proposal for a federal gun control law.
BBC Radio 4 - Letter from America by Alistair Cooke, John Lennon?s assassination - John Lennon?s assassination

looking through the article its clear to see that not a lot has changed in the last 20 years........
psionandy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2013, 06:25 AM   #74 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
regulating the tools doesnt take a single tool from the criminals..... who are already using the tools illegaly...... it simply takes them from the honest citizen

as said before....... if regulating guns will remove them from the streets...... we should try making heroine and meth illegal
Look at the null hypothesis of your statement. If we made meth and heroin legal tomorrow would we see usage go up, down or stay the same? If the answer is up, then having them illegal does cut down on usage even if it doesn't prevent it entirely.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2013, 02:55 PM   #75 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,066
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 103
Thanked 177 Times in 136 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Look at the null hypothesis of your statement. If we made meth and heroin legal tomorrow would we see usage go up, down or stay the same? If the answer is up, then having them illegal does cut down on usage even if it doesn't prevent it entirely.
I think what he's getting at is the that those drugs are still on the street regardless of the fact that they are illegal. Stating the redundant fact that criminals don't obey laws.

When you said that it reminded me of this little debate (skip to 1:34)


As far as my thoughts on the whole "militia" debate going on, my thoughts are similar to this:

PrinceCorwin likes this.
pbf98 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2013, 03:21 PM   #76 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
PrinceCorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: League City, Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 598
 
Device(s): LG Spectrum ICS
Carrier: Greedy, Lying Verizon

Thanks: 482
Thanked 100 Times in 78 Posts
Default

I really don't care if making guns illegal would actually succeed in keeping them out of the hands of criminals. I am not willing to sacrifice American liberty for the sake of security. Locking everyone in a cage from 7 pm until 7am would prevent late night crime but I'm not willing to support such an infringement upon my liberty.

Anyone who is willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither.
There are many socialist countries on this Earth... move to one of them if that is your preferred way of life.
PrinceCorwin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2013, 04:00 PM   #77 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbf98 View Post
I think what he's getting at is the that those drugs are still on the street regardless of the fact that they are illegal. Stating the redundant fact that criminals don't obey laws.
I don't think anyone made the argument that making guns (or certain kinds of guns) illegal would eliminate gun crime. Could it limit it or alleviate it though? I, personally, think the answer is yes with the right laws.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2013, 04:37 PM   #78 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,302
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 236 Times in 186 Posts
Default

and what in your mind would the "right laws" be?

registration?..... proven it doesnt work
copestag is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2013, 06:21 PM   #79 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
and what in your mind would the "right laws" be?

registration?..... proven it doesnt work

Registration has never been done in the US on a national scale. Not sure how you can say it doesn't work. Registration wouldn't necessarily be preventative anyway.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2013, 08:06 PM   #80 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,066
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 103
Thanked 177 Times in 136 Posts
Default

please elaborate on which "right laws" criminals will obey. The point out there still is when you take away some guns from the people who could other wise purchase them, it leaves those guns to still be purchased by criminals.

I have heard people say "Criminals get guns from people who purchase them legally" well selling firearms to a criminal can make yourself a criminal, and if caught supplying to criminals they wouldn't be able to legally buy them.
pbf98 is online now  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 22nd, 2013, 09:24 PM   #81 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Ibrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 976
 
Device(s): Droid DNA, Galaxy Nexus, Transformer Prime
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 243
Thanked 207 Times in 165 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Look at the null hypothesis of your statement. If we made meth and heroin legal tomorrow would we see usage go up, down or stay the same? If the answer is up, then having them illegal does cut down on usage even if it doesn't prevent it entirely.
Actually studies have shown that the legality of narcotics isn't a factor in an individuals decision to use or not.

I'll see if I can dig up the survey, but there was a study done of high school kids and the reasons they chose not to do drugs, rating them in importance and influence. Being illegal was last on the list after, family, friends, health, religion.
Ibrick is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2013, 09:46 PM   #82 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,302
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 236 Times in 186 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Registration has never been done in the US on a national scale. Not sure how you can say it doesn't work. Registration wouldn't necessarily be preventative anyway.

no but registration has been tried in some of the most dangerous places in teh country....... places where guns dont come in from outside sources.... its not working in California...... its not working in NY..... registering legally obtained guns does nothing toward decreasing crime committed with illegal guns

and if not preventative what possible purpose could it serve..... other than the government as well as the public knowing who has what
copestag is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2013, 10:03 PM   #83 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrick View Post
Actually studies have shown that the legality of narcotics isn't a factor in an individuals decision to use or not.

I'll see if I can dig up the survey, but there was a study done of high school kids and the reasons they chose not to do drugs, rating them in importance and influence. Being illegal was last on the list after, family, friends, health, religion.
I would lay odds (and I bet there are studies on it) that legalizing marijuana for medicinal use correlates with an increase in usage. It's too early to see results from Colorado's recent legalization of marijuana, but I'd lay odds that in the real world usage goes up as well.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2013, 10:14 PM   #84 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
jhtalisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nashvegas, Tn
Gender: Male
Posts: 306
 
Device(s): T-MOBILE HTC ONE STOCK, LG G Pad 8.3 Stock Rooted
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 22
Thanked 87 Times in 61 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I would lay odds (and I bet there are studies on it) that legalizing marijuana for medicinal use correlates with an increase in usage. It's too early to see results from Colorado's recent legalization of marijuana, but I'd lay odds that in the real world usage goes up as well.
I would say that usage would stay relatively flat, as those who did not use it would not all of a sudden think "let's get high.". Actual acknowledged usage may increase, but there are and always will be people who deceive due to perceived image or status.
jhtalisman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 12:01 AM   #85 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Ibrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 976
 
Device(s): Droid DNA, Galaxy Nexus, Transformer Prime
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 243
Thanked 207 Times in 165 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I would lay odds (and I bet there are studies on it) that legalizing marijuana for medicinal use correlates with an increase in usage. It's too early to see results from Colorado's recent legalization of marijuana, but I'd lay odds that in the real world usage goes up as well.
I would have to disagree with that, in fact I would say a very, very, small percentage of people would start smoking marijuana after it was legalized. Recreational users, wouldn't change. Medicinal users on the other hand might try it if their current course of medicine wasn't working, or they wanted to try an alternative to prescription drugs.

We're way off topic here, but anyone who thinks the 'war on drugs' has been a success, is being ignorant to the facts. Its been a tremendous waste of money and has accomplished pretty much nothing.

To tie it back to the OT, sort of.. anybody with a set of eyes and half a brain can see crime has pretty much stayed the same recently and has consistently decreased over the long run. The firearms Obama is targeting are used in a negligible number of crimes. In NY last year a rifle was used in 2% of all crimes involving a firearm. All rifles, not just AR's and AK's that seem to be the focal point. Break it down to just 'military style, assault rifle, death machines' and who knows how low that number is. Close up the 'gun show loophole' where .7% of guns used in a crime were purchased and everyone can sleep better a night knowing those criminals can just as easily go a different route, but hey, it sounds like a reasonable restriction regardless of the facts so let's go with it.

This is all just posturing and its pathetic. Obamas speech reading kids letters, having kids up on the stage is sickening. Joe Biden having the audacity to say he spoke to all sides and came up with a proposal they all could agree on is nothing but a bold faced lie. The group assembled was hand picked and was nothing but a group of 'yes men' and pro gun control advocates.

I realize this doesn't have anything to do with your post that I quoted, just felt like ranting.
Speed Daemon likes this.
Ibrick is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ibrick For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (January 23rd, 2013)
Old January 23rd, 2013, 02:14 AM   #86 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceCorwin View Post
Once again, the point is missed... the crimes committed with the guns are already against the law. Simply making a law against the tools used is pointless. Of course stealing should be illegal. I never said that crimes should not have corresponding laws. But just because stealing is illegal, we shouldn't make owning a crowbar illegal. Many people use them for purposes other than crime, just like guns.
Well said.

I carry a pretty complete tool kit in my truck, including a crowbar that I originally bought to chip ice off the pavement when I had to park outside. Now it's just there in case I'm ever the first on the scene of a wreck, and need something to pry open a car door...and to open wooden crates of course.

What's sad is that I could be tried and convicted of "burglary tools" because I would want to save someone from dying in a burning car.

In another case, a cop told me that I couldn't have a flashlight in the passenger compartment of my car "because it could be used as a club". That was ironic, considering that the cop was there because someone had used his car as a battering ram in a fit of road rage. Yeah...it's OK to use the deadly force of a car to express anger, but the world must be made safe from people who might use a flashlight for anything other than its intended purpose!

The law books are brimming with redundant and discriminatory laws that benefit only a select few, and can be abused to ruin innocent lives. The last thing that this country needs is more of the same. So-called "preventive laws" that punish people based on a presumption that they might commit a real crime violate the word and the spirit of the Constitution.

Never mind the 2nd Amendment; how about the presumption of innocence? This isn't "The Minority Report". Making new laws with the intention of preventing a crime, but not giving each and every affected person their right to due process is wrong.
pbf98 and PrinceCorwin like this.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 06:26 AM   #87 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

I have never heard of someone being charged with having burglary tools for having a crowbar in their car. I actually have one in mine. No good reason for it TBH I just bought it for a project, took it where I needed for my project and never took it out once I was done. I honestly can't think of a single legit reason for it to be in my car. I spent 6 years around a 911 center and not once in my life did I ever see a car accident where a life could've been saved if someone had showed up with a crowbar so that's a highly, highly improbably scenario. Still it harms nothing so I carry it around 'cuz I'm too lazy to move it someplace else.

The cop telling you you can't have a flashlight is an idiot. If you had a baseball bat sitting on your passenger seat would that be illegal? Of course not. And a baseball is designed specifically to club things. That is it's purpose in life. Having a club is not illegal. Clubbing people with said club is. I'd like to see what law says you can't have a club in your car 'cuz I can club someone with anything I've got in my car. I wear suits. I have neck ties in my car. I could garrotte someone with one of them. There are no laws against such things and the officer who told you so was an idiot.

I'm still looking for an argument on how registration of guns is discriminatory at all. The presumption of innocence only applies to those who have been legally accused of crimes. No one has done that here.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 07:39 AM   #88 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,477
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 479
Thanked 360 Times in 280 Posts
Default

So In The Long Term, Why Would A Ban On guns Not Help?

It Wouldn't Stop All Gun Crime, Let's Face It, Nothing Will! The Death Penalty Doesn't Stop These People So Why Would Having To Register A Gun?

At Least A Ban Would Cut Down The Number Of Guns Available To Purchase, And Over Time Gun Crime Would Come Down.

This Is Obviously Not An Option Though Because Of The Second amendment..... Something That Seems To Me, Was Written Out Of Fear?

Every Argument I Have Heard About Guns, Comes Down To Fear? I Can't Help But Feel Sorry For You As It Seems To Me, reading These Arguments, You Live Your Life In Constant Fear....I Have T
To Carry A Gun In Case I Get Robbed/Someone Else Starts Shooting Up/Aliens Invade

I Walk Down The Street Without A Thought Of Being Mugged Or Anything ElseWe Don't Have Guns So Don't Fear The Few Available On The Black Market.... Its Different If People Use Them For Hunting/Target practise..... I'm Only 5Ft7 And Built Like A Twig, So Not Like I Can Really Protect Myself From Being Jumped Etc.... But I Still Don't Feel A Need To Carry A Weapon For Protection!
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 07:51 AM   #89 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

No one has proposed a ban on guns. Just pointing out the obvious.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 09:37 AM   #90 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
PrinceCorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: League City, Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 598
 
Device(s): LG Spectrum ICS
Carrier: Greedy, Lying Verizon

Thanks: 482
Thanked 100 Times in 78 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I have never heard of someone being charged with having burglary tools for having a crowbar in their car. I actually have one in mine. No good reason for it TBH I just bought it for a project, took it where I needed for my project and never took it out once I was done. I honestly can't think of a single legit reason for it to be in my car. I spent 6 years around a 911 center and not once in my life did I ever see a car accident where a life could've been saved if someone had showed up with a crowbar so that's a highly, highly improbably scenario. Still it harms nothing so I carry it around 'cuz I'm too lazy to move it someplace else.

The cop telling you you can't have a flashlight is an idiot. If you had a baseball bat sitting on your passenger seat would that be illegal? Of course not. And a baseball is designed specifically to club things. That is it's purpose in life. Having a club is not illegal. Clubbing people with said club is. I'd like to see what law says you can't have a club in your car 'cuz I can club someone with anything I've got in my car. I wear suits. I have neck ties in my car. I could garrotte someone with one of them. There are no laws against such things and the officer who told you so was an idiot.

I'm still looking for an argument on how registration of guns is discriminatory at all. The presumption of innocence only applies to those who have been legally accused of crimes. No one has done that here.
Well now you have heard of it... I was charged with misdemeanor "carrying a dangerous weapon" for walking down the sidewalk with a lugwrench hanging through my beltloop at night. A woman had pulled over with a flat tire on evening and I walked home to get the lugwrench (she had a jack but no wrench to remove the lugs). I walked back, changed her tire and she drove away. As I was walking back home, a cop charged me up and took me to jail because there were no witnesses to the event and he said carrying the lugwrench in that manner was illegal.

And FYI... carrying things like bolt cutters and crowbars in your car if you cant prove that your profession necessitates such things is grounds for being charged with carrying burglary tools... at least in Texas.
PrinceCorwin is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to PrinceCorwin For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (January 23rd, 2013)
sponsored links
Old January 23rd, 2013, 09:55 AM   #91 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

That is a bizarre law. I carry rope and duct tape with me at all times just in case. Does that make me a potential kidnapper?
pbf98 likes this.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 10:57 AM   #92 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
and what in your mind would the "right laws" be?
Here Are the Rejected, ‘Unpatriotic’ Amendments From the NY Gun Law That One Dem Preferred Not Be Seen | Video | TheBlaze.com

Here are a few proposals. Not sure what to think. Apparently, some want these things considered:

Confiscation of “assault weapons”
Confiscation [of] ten round clips
Statewide database for ALL Guns
Continue to allow pistol permit holder’s information to be replaced to the public
Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as “assault weapons”
Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines
Limit possession to no more than two (2) magazines
Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month
Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners
Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
State issued pistol permits
Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State
Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers
Mandatory locking of guns at home
Fee for licensing, registering weapons

Apparently, they do not want the list below circulated because it could "dampen the enthusiasm on compromise." Since we do not know what an Assault Weapon is, exactly, it seems confiscation of almost any gun is a dim possibility. Including many shotguns, I suppose. I'll leave it up to you all to decide what the above actually means. Not sure how many people would pass the "proposed" handgun renewal every year.

I'll say this: there are those in power that want ALL weapons taken away, period. It has not happened yet and I am sure it likely will not happen. Some here claim that is not going to happen and then I see these kinds of ideas floated and it shows what some really want.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 11:21 AM   #93 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,066
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 103
Thanked 177 Times in 136 Posts
Default

confiscation will not happen, even if it were I think it would be met with too much opposition when carried out.

1 gun a month per person? sure I don't often buy guns at all in a month, but saying there would be a limit would just be stupid.

limit magazine possession to two? .. too loosely defined, per gun? total? either way just another stupid proposal.

as far as a crowbar, most cars in the 80s and prior came with crowbar in in the trunk that had a head to take off the lugs of your tires. My last car had one, and after having to help someone change a tire I had it in my backseat.

I have heard of laws against 4 D-cell battery flashlights in my state
pbf98 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 11:45 AM   #94 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbf98 View Post
confiscation will not happen, even if it were I think it would be met with too much opposition when carried out.

1 gun a month per person? sure I don't often buy guns at all in a month, but saying there would be a limit would just be stupid.

limit magazine possession to two? .. too loosely defined, per gun? total? either way just another stupid proposal.

as far as a crowbar, most cars in the 80s and prior came with crowbar in in the trunk that had a head to take off the lugs of your tires. My last car had one, and after having to help someone change a tire I had it in my backseat.

I have heard of laws against 4 D-cell battery flashlights in my state
I agree, it likely will not happen. Shows the mindset, however. My guess is if if DID happen, most people would comply.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 01:54 PM   #95 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

The bizarre thing is that cops carry large flashlights specifically for the purpose of being able to use them as a club if the situation calls for it.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 04:57 PM   #96 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I would lay odds (and I bet there are studies on it) that legalizing marijuana for medicinal use correlates with an increase in usage. It's too early to see results from Colorado's recent legalization of marijuana, but I'd lay odds that in the real world usage goes up as well.
When CA legalized it, you had to have a medical card. Those were handed out freely BECAUSE people who were not sick saw it as a way to smoke dope legally.

Bloody damm right use will go up. anyone who thinks otherwise is an abject moron!!!
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 08:15 PM   #97 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Ibrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 976
 
Device(s): Droid DNA, Galaxy Nexus, Transformer Prime
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 243
Thanked 207 Times in 165 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
When CA legalized it, you had to have a medical card. Those were handed out freely BECAUSE people who were not sick saw it as a way to smoke dope legally.

Bloody damm right use will go up. anyone who thinks otherwise is an abject moron!!!
That's not use going up. That's recreational users abusing the system.

Legal use would appear to go up, but would those applying for cards still be smoking regardless of the law? My money would be on absolutely.
Ibrick is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 10:04 PM   #98 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I have never heard of someone being charged with having burglary tools...
Ignorance may be bliss, but it's not a suitable replacement for an actual point.

When it comes to the crowbar, or any of my tools for that matter, they are bought and paid for and have legitimate purposes. It shouldn't require having some elite status such as being "around a 911 center" (yes, I know how the system is rigged) in order to escape persecution.

By the same token, because the system is rigged, and favors a select few, leaving the rest of us at the mercy of the whim of a police system that has been given too much power, that is an excellent example of why gun owners (or any other group that's a target for profiling) shouldn't have any more special labels attached to their names. Breaking the system afurther is not a solution to anything.

Quote:
The presumption of innocence only applies to those who have been legally accused of crimes.
Oh, I'm pretty sure it also applies to those who are illegally accused as well.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2013, 10:19 PM   #99 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbf98 View Post
I have heard of laws against 4 D-cell battery flashlights in my state
Interesting. I've been given two of the 3 D-cell Maglites as gifts, and wondered who came up with that idea, considering that D-cells are sold in packs of 4, not 3. Then I realized that the battery makers profited from such waste. To think that otherwise innocent people are being punished with criminal penalties, and having their lives ruined for something as crass as to increase corporate profits! That's really twisted.
pbf98 likes this.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2013, 08:54 AM   #100 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
Interesting. I've been given two of the 3 D-cell Maglites as gifts, and wondered who came up with that idea, considering that D-cells are sold in packs of 4, not 3. Then I realized that the battery makers profited from such waste. To think that otherwise innocent people are being punished with criminal penalties, and having their lives ruined for something as crass as to increase corporate profits! That's really twisted.
You can relax. the poster you are replying to did not say there was such a law (and there is likely NO SUCH LAW) against such flashlights, only that he heard there was a law. Should there actually be such a law, I think you will beat the rap in court.

As for the Big Battery Conspiracy and waste, you are seeing too many scary things in your closet. No such conspiracy is underway. BTW, you can purchase 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 D-Cell Maglites, so no waste.

i personally recommend the 5 cell lights. Just the right size for finding things that go bump in the night and then beating them silly.
pbf98 likes this.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Tags
constitution, guns, laws, politics, second amendment


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.