GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-06-2012, 09:17   #221
1gewehr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mid TN
Posts: 1,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
This whole post is just silly. FELONS dude. Read it. FELONS.

That's just a stupid argument. You're grasping at straws and saying stuff that lacks a bit of reality. Such a liberal ploy.
I don't think you really understand that anyone can become a 'felon' without ever meaning to. Just on the Federal level there are some really scary laws that have sent people to jail who are absolutely no threat to society. Do you realize that it is a felony to lie to a Federal official? ANY Federal official, not just law enforcement. And ANY kind of lie, even an unintentional one. Telling a Park Ranger your campsite is clean, is a lie if they find even one tiny scrap of trash.
At the state level, there are even more absurdities. Did you know that as of January 1st, there are now 40,000 MORE laws on the books than there were on December 31st? How many of them are you aware of? Can you honestly state with certainty that YOU have not committed a felony?

And you assert that a NICS check is not an infringement because it only takes a couple of minutes. Well, you still had to spend another 3-4 minutes filling out the 4473, didn't you? So now it's not just a 'couple of minutes', but really almost 10 minutes. And if the system is running slow, or down, it can take much longer. At what point in time do you think it turns into an 'infringement'? How about a 3-day waiting period? Is that an infringement? If so, you are now just splitting hairs on how long of a wait constitutes an infringement.

You have said that you don't mind a bit of regulation if it keeps firearms out of the hands of 'felons'. But, you have repeatedly been shown that not all felons are any threat to anyone. And you have been shown that all current gun control laws have not done anything to keep firearms out of the hands of violent criminals. How, then, can you still justify your support for those useless laws?
1gewehr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 09:28   #222
1gewehr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mid TN
Posts: 1,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Rambo View Post
Your masters don't call it a public good. Economists do. Public goods are nonrival and nonexcludable. ...

The government provides public goods because by their very nature, there is no profit motive for the private sector to do so, and thus they will not do so.
The examples I gave (airports and roads) are both 'rival' and 'excludable'. And there are motives for the private sector to build and maintain them. In fact, historically the private sector has done a much better job of that than government has. All early airports were privately owned and operated. Most roads before 1920 were also privately-owned and maintained.
But this is a discussion for another thread.
1gewehr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 09:34   #223
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 510
Quote:
This whole post is just silly. FELONS dude. Read it. FELONS.

That's just a stupid argument. You're grasping at straws and saying stuff that lacks a bit of reality. Such a liberal ploy.

Name calling and avoiding the questions, Is that all you can do or will you answer the questions I asked you? If you cannot or will not that is fine, just admit it otherwise just give a cogent answer to the following, if you are able.


1. How is a "dangerous criminal" defined in the Constitution?

2. What standards do YOU think need to be applied to determine if someone is a "dangerous criminal"?

3. Who do you think needs to be the person responsible to decide who meets the qualifications of "dangerous criminal"?
4. Even harder, I want to know the answer to the previous questions as they pertain to "insane person" instead of "dangerous criminal"?
5. If someone was determined "dangerous criminal" or "insane person" is there some mechanism for them to appeal this categorization, and who would they appeal to?

6. Do you think that the point of gun control is to make it harder for felons to get guns?

7. Please explain why my defense of RIGHTS, as documented in the Constitution, is "as bad as the liberals".

8. Do you think there were no rapist in Thomas Jefferson's time?

9. Do you think they just forgot to address the problem of rapists when the Constitution was written?

10. Do you think it is LEGAL to infringe upon the RIGHTS of FREE MEN because there are evil doers in the world? or

11. Do you think there were no evil doers when the Constitution was written AND the writers could not, or did not foresee the possible evil deed of individual men?


These are the questions that the pro gun control crowd has yet to answer. If you notice the more bad logic that is applied results in more questions. So, I challenge anyone to post up LOGICAL and FACTUAL answers to these questions.
IhRedrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 12:12   #224
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1gewehr View Post
I don't want to derail the real topic, so I'll just briefly address your response.

There is obviously a difference between what is 'legal' and what is 'practical'. Legally, you have a right to travel. You can still do so without using government-owned methods. As a practical matter, it is more difficult now to travel 'off the grid'. A hundred years ago, there were very few government-owned roads and no government-owned railroads. Waterways, while regulated, are mostly still 'free' as long as you obey the traffic rules.

Personally, I think that having a perception of public facilities (interstate highways, airports, etc) as 'government-owned' is a good thing. It drives home the reality that what our masters call a 'public good' is not necessarily either 'public' or 'good'.
Seems that what we both realize to be true and what we both would prefer is one in the same. I enjoyed the exchange of information, opinion and probe into reality.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 22:13   #225
Glockbuster
Senior Member
 
Glockbuster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Middle America
Posts: 1,364
So let me ask you where you guys stand on this. If the 2nd is absolutely non negotiable, then you have a "right" to keep and bear arms wherever you want ? does this include airline flights ? you think you have a right to get on board a flight because the 2nd gives you that right ? no regulation whatsoever ?

just asking.
Glockbuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 03:56   #226
expatman
Senior Member
 
expatman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cape Coral, Fl. & Kampala, Uganda
Posts: 657
Strictly speaking, YES. If you want to curtail that then there needs to be an amendment to the Constitution. Specifically, adressing the 2A.
__________________
Formerly SW.Fla.Glocker and.... EVIL, CRIMINAL, VERY BAD AND SCARY SECURITY CONTRACTOR....(insert evil, sinister laugh here)
expatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 07:43   #227
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,479
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockbuster View Post
So let me ask you where you guys stand on this. If the 2nd is absolutely non negotiable, then you have a "right" to keep and bear arms wherever you want ? does this include airline flights ? you think you have a right to get on board a flight because the 2nd gives you that right ? no regulation whatsoever ?

just asking.
Basically yes but IMHO private property is different. If the airlines want to exclude firearms they should be free to just like any other private business. There doesn't need to be laws concerning it though.

What is so terrible about legally armed citizens on an airplane? If there were armed citizens on those planes in September 2001, perhaps things would have turn out very differently.
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 09:46   #228
Glockbuster
Senior Member
 
Glockbuster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Middle America
Posts: 1,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJ View Post
Basically yes but IMHO private property is different. If the airlines want to exclude firearms they should be free to just like any other private business. There doesn't need to be laws concerning it though.

What is so terrible about legally armed citizens on an airplane? If there were armed citizens on those planes in September 2001, perhaps things would have turn out very differently.


What if the airlines don't want to restrict firearms on their own accord, would it be safe to have a flock of people with firearms on board ? Plenty of legally armed citizens have committed atrocities in public places, airplanes would not be a good place for sure.

Interesting question you pose, maybe the terrorists would have deemed it too risky contemplating a bunch of vigilantes on board, ant it would have been a deterrant force, in my book the most efficient use of firearms.

But still you will always have the fact that on majority public opinion mind, guns are just too dangerous to have around unregulated and without certain restrictions and education--legal, operational and others.

Last edited by Glockbuster; 01-07-2012 at 09:47..
Glockbuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 10:18   #229
expatman
Senior Member
 
expatman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cape Coral, Fl. & Kampala, Uganda
Posts: 657
Contrary to common belief, guns on aircraft, ie. decompression from bullet holes, is not that big of a danger. In other words, I just don't see where guns on board are any more dangerous than, say, guns on a bus, guns on a boat, etc.....
__________________
Formerly SW.Fla.Glocker and.... EVIL, CRIMINAL, VERY BAD AND SCARY SECURITY CONTRACTOR....(insert evil, sinister laugh here)
expatman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 10:36   #230
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,479
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockbuster View Post
What if the airlines don't want to restrict firearms on their own accord, would it be safe to have a flock of people with firearms on board ? Plenty of legally armed citizens have committed atrocities in public places, airplanes would not be a good place for sure....
This is the same argument they use for making it illegal to carry in bars. Plenty of states allow it and it has not resulted in blood baths. Additionally, in places where it is legal to carry in bars, bars are free to and many do restrict it on their own. It is their right to do so on their private property. The same would logically follow for airlines. It just isn't an issue.
Additionally, if somebody want to commit mass mayhem, a law against having a firearm will not and can not prevent that. (see 9-11)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockbuster View Post
...
Interesting question you pose, maybe the terrorists would have deemed it too risky contemplating a bunch of vigilantes on board, ant it would have been a deterrant force, in my book the most efficient use of firearms.
...
The truth is the ONLY reason weapons are not allowed on planes is to make people feel better/safer. Further the ONLY thing accomplished by ensuring law abiding people are not armed is you make them sitting ducks for criminals to commit mass homicide (see Virginia Tech, Columbine, 9/11, etc, etc.) Gun-Free-Zone = Target-Rich-Zone. The reasons for this are not simply because criminals ignore the law and carry anyway but because the list of tools to commit harm is practically infinite, while the list of tools one can use for self defense that are as effective and efficient as firearms is very short. So the net effect of less firearms is merely a reduction in self defense capability of law abiding citizens, while having practically no negative impact on offensive capabilities of criminals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockbuster View Post
...
But still you will always have the fact that on majority public opinion mind, guns are just too dangerous to have around unregulated and without certain restrictions and education--legal, operational and others.
That is a sad result of many years of propaganda by (however well intentioned) anti-gun types who see the trade off of freedom for perceived safety as a positive.. and that is parroted by the lazy media and politicians looking to portray themselves as making things better (and yes often they actually believe their rhetoric).
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 11:46   #231
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockbuster View Post
What if the airlines don't want to restrict firearms on their own accord, would it be safe to have a flock of people with firearms on board ? Plenty of legally armed citizens have committed atrocities in public places, airplanes would not be a good place for sure.
When I was a boy they didn’t restrict firearms on planes. No blood bath!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockbuster View Post
Interesting question you pose, maybe the terrorists would have deemed it too risky contemplating a bunch of vigilantes on board, ant it would have been a deterrant force, in my book the most efficient use of firearms.
Allowing pilots to arm themselves and having air marshal seems to have a put a pretty big dent in terrorist on planes. Think maybe having armed citizens on the planes would have prevented 911. I’m guessing yes but then that’s just a guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockbuster View Post
But still you will always have the fact that on majority public opinion mind, guns are just too dangerous to have around unregulated and without certain restrictions and education--legal, operational and others.
Which shown the ignorance of those who want them restricted. It’s been proven throughout history and over and over again from state to state… “More Guns Less Crime”.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 01-07-2012 at 11:48..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 11:53   #232
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,479
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
If that doesn’t bring it into perspective nothing will.


You would think that analogy/example would give more people pause to think it through.. Unfortunately, I think cognitive dissonance prevents many from logically thinking it through.
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 12:24   #233
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Seems you’re the one with lack of grasp. Liberals believe in their particular version of freedom and only when it applies to them being free to impose their will on others. A lot like your version of freedom. Your trying to turn the tables of liberalism on Constitutionalism is further proof of your liberal leanings. We believe in freedom and equality for all FREE MEN. You believe in your particular version regardless of what the Constitution states.
No, I see the reality that many people that live in our society would not be free men when the 2nd Amendment was written. There was no contention for murderers walking the streets because it didn't happen then. They had the forthought to write a law giving free men the right to have guns, but didn't have see a future where criminals would be set free becuase of paperwork errors and crazy people would walk the streets. Those people would be locked up or dead then. They should be now, but they aren't. Things have changed. You don't see that reality for whatever reason.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 12:33   #234
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by IhRedrider View Post
This is your rationale on why it's ok to violate the second amendment? Do you think there were no rapist in Thomas Jefferson's time? Do you think they just forgot to address this problem?

Like I said before. Just because the justice system is broken (let's convicted murderers free), gives NO ONE the right to violate the constitution by violating anyone's RIGHTS.

Like I said and your reading comprehention obviously missed is that those people would have been put to death so the law wasn't necessary. If a rapist is dead then his ability to own a firearm isn't an issue.

They also lose the right to vote, to live where they want(can't live near a school), to freely travel (can't go to places where children congrigate). It's not all about gun rights.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 12:43   #235
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,479
Blog Entries: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
No, I see the reality that many people that live in our society would not be free men when the 2nd Amendment was written. There was no contention for murderers walking the streets because it didn't happen then. They had the forthought to write a law giving free men the right to have guns, but didn't have see a future where criminals would be set free becuase of paperwork errors and crazy people would walk the streets. Those people would be locked up or dead then. They should be now, but they aren't. Things have changed. You don't see that reality for whatever reason.
So.... You think the framers were unaware that murderers and crazy people were around back then, or are you saying that just not many murders and crazy people actually existed back then because all were dealt with so swiftly? Wow.
You don't think the framers knew that the constitutional protections against self incrimination and unreasonable search and seizure would lead to, in some cases, crazy/murderers remaining free? Really? You don't think they thought of that?
__________________
Jay

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. -F. Scott Fitzgerald
TheJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 13:39   #236
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
No, I see the reality that many people that live in our society would not be free men when the 2nd Amendment was written. There was no contention for murderers walking the streets because it didn't happen then. They had the forthought to write a law giving free men the right to have guns, but didn't have see a future where criminals would be set free becuase of paperwork errors and crazy people would walk the streets. Those people would be locked up or dead then. They should be now, but they aren't. Things have changed. You don't see that reality for whatever reason.
You really need to study some history because what you’ve just posted screams of ignorance. Do you honestly believe that “every” violent person was behind bars when the Bill of Rights was put to parchment?


“No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before.
-- Colin Greenwood, in the study "Firearms Control", 1972”


"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt, 1783
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 17:50   #237
1gewehr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Mid TN
Posts: 1,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockbuster View Post
What if the airlines don't want to restrict firearms on their own accord, would it be safe to have a flock of people with firearms on board ?

But still you will always have the fact that on majority public opinion mind, guns are just too dangerous to have around unregulated and without certain restrictions and education--legal, operational and others.
Before 1968, no US airliner had ever been successfully hijacked. (There were several unsuccessful attempts.) There were NO regulations against carrying on aircraft until 1968. In fact, pilots were encouraged to go armed as many airliners carried US Mail.

In 1968, Congress in it's wisdom decided to ban guns on commercial airliners. In 1969 eight airliners were hijacked to Cuba. Airline hijacking was a significant problem throughout the 70's and '80's.

In the 1950's, my grandfather went on a safari in Southern Rhodesia. The airline ticket agent suggested that he should hand-carry his guns on board the plane and put them in the overhead compartment because they were valuable. He flew from NY-Brussels, Brussels-Leopoldville, Leopoldville-Salisbury. Nobody ever questioned his carrying firearms on board a plane. That was two rifles, a shotgun, and a 1911 .45 in his briefcase.
1gewehr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2012, 23:30   #238
Dukedomone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1gewehr View Post
The examples I gave (airports and roads) are both 'rival' and 'excludable'. And there are motives for the private sector to build and maintain them. In fact, historically the private sector has done a much better job of that than government has. All early airports were privately owned and operated. Most roads before 1920 were also privately-owned and maintained.
But this is a discussion for another thread.
Agreed. You beat me to it. Off topic, but great myth busting. You also have to remember that the government spending crowds out private investment. This is another reason you see less private roads. Private roads would be much better than government roads [end of off topic rant].

Last edited by Dukedomone; 01-07-2012 at 23:33.. Reason: Myth-busting ammo
Dukedomone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 21:45   #239
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 510
bandmaster

Why do you continue to attack my reading comprehension? Is it due to the fact that YOU cannot follow a logical discussion? Since you cannot answer simple questions without spewing stupidity, I now have some more questions for you.

Quote:
If a rapist is dead then his ability to own a firearm isn't an issue.
This statement does not answer my questions. Please look at them and try again. The rapist's state of life was not in any of my questions. If you are trying to claim that in Thomas Jefferson's time all rapists were caught, tried and executed, then you are truly delusional. Or if you can back any of these implied claims up, please do, that is a challenge.

Quote:
They also lose the right to vote, to live where they want(can't live near a school), to freely travel (can't go to places where children congrigate). It's not all about gun rights.
First of all you have employed a weak diversionary tactic by making statements that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

It IS all about gun rights. Read the OP and read the second amendment.
There are no amendments in the bill of RIGHTS that have anything to do with; right to vote, right to live where you want, or right to freely travel. Nice try, please stay on topic or start your own post.

Quote:
They had the forthought to write a law giving free men the right to have guns, but didn't have see a future where criminals would be set free becuase of paperwork errors and crazy people would walk the streets.
Did you think about this statement before you typed it and do you still stand by this statement?
If you do stand by this statement, please show with facts how our founding fathers were either stupid or gullible enough to believe that there would be no rapists ever to get away with their crime. The same applies to crazy people walking the streets. OR show that when the constitution was being drafted, there were no crazy people, mistakes in justice, or criminals set free.
IhRedrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 21:50   #240
94stang
Senior Member
 
94stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Communist Republic of Illinois
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by IhRedrider View Post
bandmaster

Why do you continue to attack my reading comprehension? Is it due to the fact that YOU cannot follow a logical discussion? Since you cannot answer simple questions without spewing stupidity, I now have some more questions for you.



This statement does not answer my questions. Please look at them and try again. The rapist's state of life was not in any of my questions. If you are trying to claim that in Thomas Jefferson's time all rapists were caught, tried and executed, then you are truly delusional. Or if you can back any of these implied claims up, please do, that is a challenge.



First of all you have employed a weak diversionary tactic by making statements that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

It IS all about gun rights. Read the OP and read the second amendment.
There are no amendments in the bill of RIGHTS that have anything to do with; right to vote, right to live where you want, or right to freely travel. Nice try, please stay on topic or start your own post.



Did you think about this statement before you typed it and do you still stand by this statement?
If you do stand by this statement, please show with facts how our founding fathers were either stupid or gullible enough to believe that there would be no rapists ever to get away with their crime. The same applies to crazy people walking the streets. OR show that when the constitution was being drafted, there were no crazy people, mistakes in justice, or criminals set free.
I got some random email notification for this message and LOL'd... Spewing stupidity... That statement contains so much truth about certain parties.
__________________
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." -Robert A. Heinlein



94stang is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:23.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,224
368 Members
856 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42