Armed and safe

[HyperPete]

.

 

[dannymax]

Nobody, is that you? :hmmm:

Sweet Jesus....say it ain't so!! :icon_rolleyes:

 

[HyperPete]

I presume "nobody" is a username? If so, nope, it's not "nobody."

Although I am just an ordinary "nobody."

 

[Traumahawk]

Nobody was an incredibly snarky individual.....that would do nothing but cause problems on people's post. All posts. 1 of 2 people that I've ever known to be banned.

Nobody was his user name.

Sent from my SCH-R890 using Tapatalk

 

[HyperPete]

Nope, it's not me. Hopefully, I'm not causing trouble. Just voicing my opinion on a topic that means a lot to me.

 

[Traumahawk]

Lol....your nowhere close....plus....the burnout pit is an anything goes section of the forum.

Sent from my SCH-R890 using Tapatalk

 

[MtnMax/Magniac]

I mistook it for the pathetic "argument" that "Guns don't kill people, people do." I've already made it abundantly clear that I am not blaming the devices, even though their only function is killing, but rather the irresponsible owners and the ease of obtaining them. And, for the most part, this has been a surprisingly authentic discussion on the matter.

It IS people who kill people, using guns, knives, clubs, hammers, poison, and a multitude of other methods. Are we to to ban all these things? How would you go about it? I find it incredible that so many people think that more laws concerning guns is the answer, when it's so obvious that every new gun law passed has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING toward preventing gun violence. Guns aren't the underlying problem, VIOLENCE is the problem.

 

[HyperPete]

It IS people who kill people, using guns, knives, clubs, hammers, poison, and a multitude of other methods. Are we to to ban all these things? How would you go about it? I find it incredible that so many people think that more laws concerning guns is the answer, when it's so obvious that every new gun law passed has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING toward preventing gun violence. Guns aren't the underlying problem, VIOLENCE is the problem.

I have a little experiment I'd like you to try.

You and a friend of mine are going to come to my backyard. You two are going to stand ten yards apart. Then, when I give the signal, he is going to point his hand in the shape of a gun. He is going to point his hand at you and by the mere act of pointing at you, try to kill you. He will not be allowed to send any physical object of any sort in your general direction, nor will he be permitted any sort of explosives with area-of-effect damage or anything else that could physically harm you. His only weapon will be his bare hand, which will not be allowed to come anywhere near you. You will not be allowed to move or hide.

In part two of this experiment, everything will be done exactly as before, with one single change: He will be given a loaded .45, and he will be allowed to shoot at you. You will not be given body armor, a firearm, or any other way to defend yourself. Again, you will not be allowed to move or hide.

If you truly and sincerely believe that "guns don't kill people," then you should have no problem participating in this experiment.

 

[Traumahawk]

Unfortunately Guns ARENT the problem. People will still kill no matter what. Cain didnt have a gun.

 

[MtnMax/Magniac]

Guns, knives, tools, are all INANIMATE OBJECTS. None of them can cause any harm by themselves. It takes a person with intent to do that. What's so hard to understand about this concept?

 

[HyperPete]

I do understand that. You obviously did not read my rather lengthy post, above. (Well, on a previous page.)

 

[MtnMax/Magniac]

Of course I read it, and my point is that in your very own words, "he will be allowed to shoot at you" it takes a person to pull the trigger, which you seem to be ignoring. ???

 

[HyperPete]

Wrong post. Page 8, #73

 

[98Redlne]

The comment was made that there should be some "responsible" legislation passed regarding firearms ownership such as keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill and insurance requirements on firearms owners.

So for a minute lets take one right and substitute another. Replace firearms with free speech and look at it from that standpoint. Free speech as well as the right to keep and bear arms are both codified by the Bill of Rights. Are you saying it is ok for the government to impose a tax or fee for you to exercise a right? How about imposing a test or application fee in order to vote. Would a free speech license or permit also be acceptable? You can argue that it is different but once you set a precedent that our rights are negotiable, it is a slippery slope.
Maybe the next administration will not appreciate your dissent of their policies and revoke your free speech permit. How about if you need to seek the care of a mental health professional for depression, maybe regarding loss of a spouse or parent, would you advocate giving up your right to vote now and in the future? If your answer to either of these questions is no, then the answer to more restrictions on the peoples right to keep and bear arms must be no as well. You can't have it both ways.

You can dismiss the argument saying that the possibility of a revolution is infinitely small, or that firearms owners are preparing for a government takeover that will never happen but history is rife with examples of governments stripping away their citizen's rights over time. In each and every one of those cases where the government became abusive to it's citizens, the very first domino to fall was the right of it's citizens to defend themselves. You may not be able to envision it in our country today and it may not be the current administration that does it, or the next, or even the next, but once you provide the vehicle to legally disarm the populace, the door has been opened. The second amendment was put into place by our country's framers who had just finished up a war with an abusive government. They thought it important enough that it be explicitly stated in no uncertain terms, "shall not be infringed". That language could not be any more clear. Additionally it was listed as the second acknowledged, not granted, right, second only to an individuals right to freedom of speech.

Call me right wing, call me an extremist, call me whatever you would like, but those people who fail to learn from the lessons that history has taught us, are bound to repeat those lessons.

 

[MtnMax/Magniac]

I was in the midst of composing a response to Pete, but this says it better than I probably would have:

The comment was made that there should be some "responsible" legislation passed regarding firearms ownership such as keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill and insurance requirements on firearms owners.

So for a minute lets take one right and substitute another. Replace firearms with free speech and look at it from that standpoint. Free speech as well as the right to keep and bear arms are both codified by the Bill of Rights. Are you saying it is ok for the government to impose a tax or fee for you to exercise a right? How about imposing a test or application fee in order to vote. Would a free speech license or permit also be acceptable? You can argue that it is different but once you set a precedent that our rights are negotiable, it is a slippery slope.
Maybe the next administration will not appreciate your dissent of their policies and revoke your free speech permit. How about if you need to seek the care of a mental health professional for depression, maybe regarding loss of a spouse or parent, would you advocate giving up your right to vote now and in the future? If your answer to either of these questions is no, then the answer to more restrictions on the peoples right to keep and bear arms must be no as well. You can't have it both ways.

You can dismiss the argument saying that the possibility of a revolution is infinitely small, or that firearms owners are preparing for a government takeover that will never happen but history is rife with examples of governments stripping away their citizen's rights over time. In each and every one of those cases where the government became abusive to it's citizens, the very first domino to fall was the right of it's citizens to defend themselves. You may not be able to envision it in our country today and it may not be the current administration that does it, or the next, or even the next, but once you provide the vehicle to legally disarm the populace, the door has been opened. The second amendment was put into place by our country's framers who had just finished up a war with an abusive government. They thought it important enough that it be explicitly stated in no uncertain terms, "shall not be infringed". That language could not be any more clear. Additionally it was listed as the second acknowledged, not granted, right, second only to an individuals right to freedom of speech.

Call me right wing, call me an extremist, call me whatever you would like, but those people who fail to learn from the lessons that history has taught us, are bound to repeat those lessons.

 

[HyperPete]

The comment was made that there should be some "responsible" legislation passed regarding firearms ownership such as keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill and insurance requirements on firearms owners.

So for a minute lets take one right and substitute another. Replace firearms with free speech and look at it from that standpoint. Free speech as well as the right to keep and bear arms are both codified by the Bill of Rights. Are you saying it is ok for the government to impose a tax or fee for you to exercise a right? How about imposing a test or application fee in order to vote. Would a free speech license or permit also be acceptable? You can argue that it is different but once you set a precedent that our rights are negotiable, it is a slippery slope.
Maybe the next administration will not appreciate your dissent of their policies and revoke your free speech permit. How about if you need to seek the care of a mental health professional for depression, maybe regarding loss of a spouse or parent, would you advocate giving up your right to vote now and in the future? If your answer to either of these questions is no, then the answer to more restrictions on the peoples right to keep and bear arms must be no as well. You can't have it both ways.

You can dismiss the argument saying that the possibility of a revolution is infinitely small, or that firearms owners are preparing for a government takeover that will never happen but history is rife with examples of governments stripping away their citizen's rights over time. In each and every one of those cases where the government became abusive to it's citizens, the very first domino to fall was the right of it's citizens to defend themselves. You may not be able to envision it in our country today and it may not be the current administration that does it, or the next, or even the next, but once you provide the vehicle to legally disarm the populace, the door has been opened. The second amendment was put into place by our country's framers who had just finished up a war with an abusive government. They thought it important enough that it be explicitly stated in no uncertain terms, "shall not be infringed". That language could not be any more clear. Additionally it was listed as the second acknowledged, not granted, right, second only to an individuals right to freedom of speech.

Call me right wing, call me an extremist, call me whatever you would like, but those people who fail to learn from the lessons that history has taught us, are bound to repeat those lessons.

The right to bear arms is ALREADY “infringed” for many, and for very good reason. Here’s a short list of things that could easily happen if we were to give you your way, remove all “infringements,” and completely deregulate the Second Amendment:
A career felon could walk out of prison, and purchase a full-auto AK-47 from Walmart
Your psycho ex could buy a sniper rifle and silencer from “some guy” for $100
A mentally handicapped child could get a pistol from a vending machine
Known terrorists and those with terrorist affiliations could easily purchase Stinger missile launchers to shoot down airliners, and RPGs to blow up your Hummer
Any nutjob could walk out of the asylum, buy a grenade launcher and flamethrower, and visit your kids at school.

 

[HyperPete]

Guns, knives, tools, are all INANIMATE OBJECTS. None of them can cause any harm by themselves. It takes a person with intent to do that. What's so hard to understand about this concept?

Guns don’t kill people; people kill people. However, people with guns can easily and quickly kill a lot of people, while those who don’t have guns, cannot. In a country flooded with guns, the mass murderer (or simply the person who wishes to kill one person) is able to obtain their weapon easily and without much risk. Gun control laws may not be perfect, but they are a start on a long road towards a safer America

 

[Tex85]

Well put 98Redlne

 

[Traumahawk]

Gun control laws may not be perfect, but they are a start on a long road towards a safer America

So....for a safer America....how long until donuts are outlawed? Excessive sugar, calories....lead to being overweight, diabetes, hypertension...all of which lead to a shortened life span?

Dont forget....your Vmax makes more horsepower than you need....its possibly a threat to your life.....and someone else....if you happen to hit them. Automobile accidents kill more people.....and innocent people...than guns ever have.

I'm being facetious of course....but where will it end? Safety always marches to the left...and never retreats. Pretty soon....we will all have our own protective bubble to go outside in because the outside is too dangerous.

You think I'm kidding? New York tried to bad large sodas....all for the good of the people.

 

[HyperPete]

There is a difference. Guns have no other purpose than to kill. It is what they were designed to do, and do well.