|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How can we regulate guns ... ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Each State is a free State that has entered into a contract to create a Federal government to protect the associated States. And part of that contract is to give up rights they would have as an independent nation because they are now done by the Union\Federal government.
The States need to be protected from the Federal government just as the people who had come from England and other countries needed to be protected from the oppressive actions against the colonies in America. Meanwhile corporations have pretty well taken over governments while you've been polishing your guns and looking out for federal barnstorming troops to invade your town.
So the second amendment was written as it is so the Federal government could not do exactly what they are trying to do today. That is to take control of everything, just as England did in colonial times. Curiously, I did a little reading on this subject: The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
quote: So the amendment was made to allow the southern states keep - and kill - slaves without federal interference. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : db or not db, that is the questionby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Aw, it didn't work in those cases. In TWO cases the armed defenders weren't where they were needed when they were needed. But that's another reason to restrict the gun rights of millions of law-abiding citizens?.
You want to treat the real problem you say. Well THAT is not the general ownership of guns by millions of Americans. Tell you what, RAZD, none of the gun control measures are going to stop these murders EITHER. Wait and see how long it is before another such incident occurs after all Obama's measures are in place. And what will happen? MORE outcry against GUNS. Which are NOT the problem. There is evidence that psychiatric drugs have been involved in just about all of these cases. Why isn't THIS targeted instead of guns? Why not strengthen laws having to do with qualifications to possess guns rather than attack EVERYBODY's rights? The fact that these terrible incidents are ALWAYS the excuse for tightening laws against guns for MILLIONS OF GOOD GUYS while they do NOT EVER EVER EVER improve the situation that brought abhout the incidents in the first place is just about the DEFINITION OF INSANITY ITSELF. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Another poor-quality post from a poster whom I've otherwise regarded as top-notch.
So no legislation regarding access into schools, no legislation regarding mental health measures, no legislation regarding psychologists duty to notify authorities of potential problems, and no legislation regarding the amount of ammunition that can be shot in a short period of time would do any good. I didn't say any of that. You made it up, and pretended I said it. What I specifically said was: "And the fact is that events like Sandy Hook are so incredibly rare that they should have no influence on legislation whatsoever."
Might as well remove police from the town where I live because any gun incident is extremely rare here and crime of any kind -- except parking and speeding -- is rare ... Again; not what I said. Here it is again for your enjoyment: "And the fact is that events like Sandy Hook are so incredibly rare that they should have no influence on legislation whatsoever."
... and we could make these crimes extremely rare by removing the laws that make them a crime. Strike three. Here is my reply to you one more time: "And the fact is that events like Sandy Hook are so incredibly rare that they should have no influence on legislation whatsoever."Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Update Your Browser | Facebook?
quote: Seems reasonable to me. Include prescription drugs related to mental health ... Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Since you brought up conspiracies; here's another one for you:
The frickin politicians are scared of reelection funding and primary challenges if they dare to lift a pinky against the rabid NRA. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I am profoundly opposed to mandated drug-testing of any kind unless meaningful need can be shown for the testing.
I am most certainly against drug-testing people as a condition of welfare reception. Nevertheless, the right to keep and bear a firearm is guaranteed by the Constitution; there is likewise no guaranteed right to welfare benefits.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Because it is foolish. It doesn't nothing to treat the problem. Almost like the NRA wants such incidents to occur so they can increase membership ... and keep you distracted from what is happening between government and big business. And if they get armed guards into schools, then they are just that much closer to establishing a police state. Oh for crying out loud. You'd worry about a grass roots organization when it's the government the amendment was intended to fend off.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
That herring stinks, man.
Why not put a lid on it?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
and yet ...
Columbine and Virginia Tech had armed guards and they didn't save a single life, they had no impact on the slaughter of students. That's reality Faith. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
ah, no rebuttal ...
... possible because certain founders are actually quoted saying that the amendment was necessary so that they could keep keeping slaves and keep killing slaves suspected of fighting for their rights and dignity as human beings. Facts, Jon. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I didn't say any of that. You made it up, and pretended I said it. What I specifically said was: "And the fact is that events like Sandy Hook are so incredibly rare that they should have no influence on legislation whatsoever." Nor did I say you said it -- what I pointed out was that you said nothing should be done ... and how ridiculous that position was.
Again; not what I said. Here it is again for your enjoyment: "And the fact is that events like Sandy Hook are so incredibly rare that they should have no influence on legislation whatsoever." Again, I didn't say you said it -- I showed you how silly your position was by parody.
Strike three. Here is my reply to you one more time: "And the fact is that events like Sandy Hook are so incredibly rare that they should have no influence on legislation whatsoever." So you are still saying we should do nothing, and that anything rare can be ignored and forgotten.
Another poor-quality post from a poster whom I've otherwise regarded as top-notch. I notice that my "member rating" has once again dropped below 9 -- good, because that means that I am once again annoying people with irrational beliefs and silly positions. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I notice that my "member rating" has once again dropped below 9 -- good, because that means that I am once again annoying people with irrational beliefs and silly positions. Yes you ARE annoying some of us with your irrational beliefs and silly positions. Your arguments here are really really silly. Jon did not say nothing should be done, he said LEGISLATION would not be the right response. And I agree with him about that although I might disagree with him about what measures should be taken. Legislation aimed at limiting the gun rights of millions of law-abiding citizens is NOT a reasonable solution to a very rare situation caused by crazies. How absolutely irrational and silly can you get? I still favor the idea of teachers qualifying for concealed carry permits, but I'm also in favor of armed guards, I just don't think they would be as effective as a few staff carrying guns. This doesn't involve legislation. But if you ARE going to consider legislation then it should be about who qualifies to carry a gun. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Jon did not say nothing should be done, he said LEGISLATION would not be the right response. Yeah, so no legislation and don't propose anything else to me means do nothing but pretend it is something? Really?
Legislation aimed at limiting the gun rights of millions of law-abiding citizens is NOT a reasonable solution to a very rare situation caused by crazies. How absolutely irrational and silly can you get? So we ban the types of guns the "crazies" use and then they can't use them. Show me a rational civilian need to have guns with interchangeable magazines that carry ammunition. I haven't seen one yet, and I note that these are the guns of preference for the crazies. You still have guns, so your right to bear arms is not infringed.
Yes you ARE annoying some of us with your irrational beliefs and silly positions. Your arguments here are really really silly. Really? So how did the armed guards help at Columbine and Virginia Tech? If you can't show that they improved the situation then advocating armed guards is school is silly and irrational. What annoys you is that you don't have the answer you want. The evidence does not support your position. I'm just the messenger -- so address the message not the person. It amuses me every time someone jeers me because I don't support their irrational beliefs and silly arguments, so keep clicking them Faith. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why don't you respond to my entire post instead of taking parts of it out of context.
I said we COULD legislate standards of qualification, but that it makes no sense to restrict the gun rights of millions of good citizens. No we do not ban GUNS, period, RAZD. Wasn't I clear about that? gthe kinds of guns "crazies" use aren't all that different from the kind needed by ordinary citizens. But I have no problem with banning machine guns and other such weapons. But they are ALREADY banned. You ARE being irrational and silly. TWO incidents where guards were present but not available proves absolutely NOTHING. And again I'm for concealed carry more than I am for visible armed guards. And I relish the jeers I get here too. So glad you enjoy yours. You richly deserve them on this thread. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Honestly, I'm serious about getting guns out of the hands of criminals up to the point where my gun has to leave my hand (while I'm not a criminal). I think this is a commonly held view. So universal background checks, even for private sales, gun owner photo ID cards to register guns to the purchasers, drug testing for hallucinogenic or mental health drugs?
Its just completely false to say that guns can't be used much of anything else than killing or injuring living beings. You need to stop claiming that. Target practice is just sublimated killing -- show me a real alternative use. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024