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 12-14-2011, 11:34   #101
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock30user View Post
i believe in the same controls as we have on the first and forth amendments, very little to none. How can you limit God given rights?!?!
Does an instant background check limit your right to own a gun? If you're a law-abiding individual in Florida it doesn't.
__________________
Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration; we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. And now...the weather! ---- Bill Hicks
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 12:18   #102
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Take not! Those that have the most restrictions placed on them want more restrictions place on others. Iím pretty sure itís the oldÖ [B]IF I CANíT HAVE IT NOBODY SHOULD MENTALITY.
I don't care if you're a moderator, you're talking out of your ass with nothing to back up your statements. If you decide to come down on me for this, I'll take it to the boss because you attitude in this entire forum sucks.

Tell me, please, where I EVER advocated more restrictions. I'm talking about restrictions that are already in place - criminals, mentally ill - that I support.

And Gunnut, you also seem to talking from your backside. Yes, all of those restrictions are in place, but what makes you think I'm just sitting back and waiting? The Supreme Court has NOT incorporated carrying rights to the states yet. In both Heller and McDonald, they've stopped just short of making that commitment, so 1) you're assuming that people here like it the way it is and 2) you're believing something that is absolutely not true about the Supreme Court rulings. Look up ANY legal brief about the cases and you'll see. Trust me, I've read them thoroughly.

I'm active at City (using Home Rule), county, and state levels to make the needed changes in IL law. Yes, we're behind every other state, but it's not like every state was founded with those rights. It has been a fight for DECADES and IL is one of the final battlefields. The fight isn't won, but it certainly isn't over.

But even with the right to carry, that doesn't mean that people that have a history of violence need to have a gun. And if you believe they should be locked away and the key tossed, then you're toss out OTHER portions of the Constitution, like that pesky restriction on cruel and unusual punishment. Armed robbery is a felony. That takes you off the "able to keep a gun" list. But that person should not be in jail for 60, 70 or more years. That's moronic and an absolutely infantile point of view that is, frankly, contrary to every concept of civilized society.

So what you accuse me of - try to take my rights, I'll take yours instead! - is EXACTLY what you're advocating. Don't put restrictions on guns, rather, remove common sense on criminal sentencing.

There are several people - moderator included - that are the absolute poster-children for the gun-grabbers because of lunatic ideas.
__________________
"I'm your priest, your shrink, your main connection to the switchboard of souls. I'm the Magic Man, the Santa Claus of the Subconscious. You say it, you even think it, you can have it." - Lenny Nero
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 13:33   #103
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
I think a person should have the right to prohibit the use or carrying of firearms on his personal property. Rationale: I don't want someone to be able to come on my land/in my house with a gun unless I give him permission. Public places except maybe bars should be open to carry. A nation recipricacy law would be nice. I may be outside the norm, but I think non-violent, non-drug related, non repetitive felons should be able to have firearms. I'm not sure one mistake, even a big one should make you forfit your right to protect yourself and family.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 13:53   #104
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Rambo View Post
I support sensible gun control 100%.

Background checks I support. No criminals owning firearms I support. No mentally deranged people owning firearms I support. Junk gun bans (REAL junk guns, not just guns that aren't Brady Campaign friendly) I support. Licensing to carry firearms on a shall-issue basis....I support, but not that strongly.

I can't think of many other gun control measures I support.
So poor people who can't afford a good gun shouldn't have guns?
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 14:09   #105
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post

And I donít know how many times I have to say this but here I go again. If a person is too dangerous to possess a firearm they are too dangerous to be walking the street.
I agree with most of what you're saying here Jerry, but what about a 25 year old mentally retarded person that's on a 1st grade level who has never done anything violent, but doesn't understand that they have a deadly weapon. Should they be able to carry? Or perhaps a guy who has sevier anger issues and fits of rage? Or a schizophrenic who has lost touch with reality? A firearm does two things, it makes those who can't defend themself able to or gives one person the ability to protect more people from a greater distance. That's a great thing. But it also makes someone who is dangerous a lot more dangerous. Moreso than a knife, rock or club. It amplifies their ability to do harm. That is reality. There is no arguing that. It makes 75 year old grandma as powerfull as the gangbanger, but it also makes the gang banger a much greater threat. I think we can all agree that most laws are written only to punish people if they get caught. I get that. Laws do nothing to keep guns out of most criminals hands, though I do know several felons who don't have guns, becuase they are against the law for them. Both good guys who I wouldn't have a problem shooting next to.

I don't have a problem keeping laws that punish criminals for having or using guns. I also don't have a problem with a background check. I know sometimes it doesn't work out for the best, but does anything that happens millions of times a day always work right? Heck how many mistakes does McDonald's make in a day. I still keep going back.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 15:24   #106
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
Too many nimrods these days buying guns. I shudder every time I read about some idiot ejecting a magazine and pulling a trigger, killing someone because they're ignorant of the basics.

As such, I support mandatory training programs. The regulation would clearly spell out that the training is to include basic gun handling and safety training only, and have very simple pass-fail qualification tests. The training should be codified, conducted by an organization like the NRA, and be a requirement to purchase a first gun.


Say what you want about freedom - with freedom comes responsibility, and a gun is a complex deadly weapon that demands training.
I shot guns of all kinds starting at 5 years old with my first bbgun. By the time I had enough money to buy a hand gun I was well versed in it's use. Should I have to go through that training? Should we be trained before becoming parents. That's a bigger responsibility.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 15:28   #107
bandmasterjf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by polyman305 View Post
That happens to this Customs agent I know. This guy has to walk around with a damn paper incase he gets pulled over. And flash it with 15mins of explanation to buy a gun. By the way, he has a CWP. Yeah exactly, the give him to legal right to carry a gun, but not to buy one without having to wear his uniforn(full weapons rig) into the gun store for additionalsupport of proof...
All because his felon brother used his name.
That's odd. In Arkansas if you have a CCL they don't make the call. You just fill out the trasfer info, pay and go on your merry way packin' your new gun.
__________________
Was Jesus really a pacifist?
LUKE 22:36
bandmasterjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 17:23   #108
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 524
eracer
Quote:
Hopefully I can answer without igniting another round of insults (yellow-bellied liberal is pretty lame, so I'll just ignore that.)
I hope that you do not think that I was trying to insult you. I was not. If you took that as a personal insult, I do apologize. Not trying to expain away a perceived insult, but I was only remarking on what you said, not you. In any case my apology stands.

I am glad that you admit this.

Quote:
As for the comments about 'English'...OK, that was a bit 'out there.'
I guess my points are:

1. You cannot legally legislate God given Rights with man written laws, I think that is the whole point of the Constitution. If you demand your RIGHTS, you must support all free men's same RIGHTS. If you do not like this concept then you need to amend the Constitution to reflect what you want it to guarantee when it comes to rights. Or a quicker more "clean" method would be to simple render the Constitution null and void. Then we can all live under the dictatorship of whoever is in power.

2. ANY laws which regulate (in anyway) ARMS with the respect to free men. Is by definition is unconstitutional.

When you talk about background checks, What do you wish to accomplish with them. Can they do anything except regulate (infringe) upon the ability of a free man access to ARMS. They do not help anyone get ARMS. If background checks don't regulate the sale of ARMS, why even perform them?


warcry

Quote:
I'm talking about restrictions that are already in place - criminals, mentally ill - that I support.
The problem I have with this is, first it is unconstitutional. Second I'd like to know how you would feel if some bureaucrat or group of bureaucrats, decided that you were mentally ill? I assume from you avatar that you have a military background. You can't possible tell me that mistakes aren't made.
IhRedrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 20:41   #109
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
I don't care if you're a moderator, you're talking out of your ass with nothing to back up your statements. If you decide to come down on me for this, I'll take it to the boss because you attitude in this entire forum sucks.

Tell me, please, where I EVER advocated more restrictions. I'm talking about restrictions that are already in place - criminals, mentally ill - that I support.

And Gunnut, you also seem to talking from your backside. Yes, all of those restrictions are in place, but what makes you think I'm just sitting back and waiting? The Supreme Court has NOT incorporated carrying rights to the states yet. In both Heller and McDonald, they've stopped just short of making that commitment, so 1) you're assuming that people here like it the way it is and 2) you're believing something that is absolutely not true about the Supreme Court rulings. Look up ANY legal brief about the cases and you'll see. Trust me, I've read them thoroughly.

I'm active at City (using Home Rule), county, and state levels to make the needed changes in IL law. Yes, we're behind every other state, but it's not like every state was founded with those rights. It has been a fight for DECADES and IL is one of the final battlefields. The fight isn't won, but it certainly isn't over.

But even with the right to carry, that doesn't mean that people that have a history of violence need to have a gun. And if you believe they should be locked away and the key tossed, then you're toss out OTHER portions of the Constitution, like that pesky restriction on cruel and unusual punishment. Armed robbery is a felony. That takes you off the "able to keep a gun" list. But that person should not be in jail for 60, 70 or more years. That's moronic and an absolutely infantile point of view that is, frankly, contrary to every concept of civilized society.

So what you accuse me of - try to take my rights, I'll take yours instead! - is EXACTLY what you're advocating. Don't put restrictions on guns, rather, remove common sense on criminal sentencing.

There are several people - moderator included - that are the absolute poster-children for the gun-grabbers because of lunatic ideas.
Take it to whom every you want. If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.

Now before you start whining like a little girl, this is question. Are you rally this stupid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
Tell me, please, where I EVER advocated more restrictions. I'm talking about restrictions that are already in place - criminals, mentally ill - that I support.
I never said you advocated “more” restrictions. Buy your own admission…
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
I'm talking about restrictions that are already in place
you support gun control.

And I’ll ask you AGAIN what does "shall not be infringed” mean?

Now or go find another sand box to play in.
__________________
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; 12-15-2011 at 00:07..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 21:02   #110
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
I agree with most of what you're saying here Jerry, but what about a 25 year old mentally retarded person that's on a 1st grade level who has never done anything violent, but doesn't understand that they have a deadly weapon. Should they be able to carry? Or perhaps a guy who has sevier anger issues and fits of rage? Or a schizophrenic who has lost touch with reality? A firearm does two things, it makes those who can't defend themself able to or gives one person the ability to protect more people from a greater distance. That's a great thing. But it also makes someone who is dangerous a lot more dangerous. Moreso than a knife, rock or club. It amplifies their ability to do harm. That is reality. There is no arguing that. It makes 75 year old grandma as powerfull as the gangbanger, but it also makes the gang banger a much greater threat. I think we can all agree that most laws are written only to punish people if they get caught. I get that. Laws do nothing to keep guns out of most criminals hands, though I do know several felons who don't have guns, becuase they are against the law for them. Both good guys who I wouldn't have a problem shooting next to.

I don't have a problem keeping laws that punish criminals for having or using guns. I also don't have a problem with a background check. I know sometimes it doesn't work out for the best, but does anything that happens millions of times a day always work right? Heck how many mistakes does McDonald's make in a day. I still keep going back.
If someone has been adjudicated mentally defective they aren’t free are they? They must have an overseer correct? It’s the overseer’s duty to decide if they can have a firearm or not. And the overseer is held responsible for their actions.

Now there is a fly in this ointment. A liberal Dr. and a liberal court will say someone that wants to carry a firearm is mentally defective. So what checks and balance would you put in place? I prefer to take the chance that a mentally defective person would first, have to want to purchase a firearm and second actually do harm with it. I'd rather take that chance than give liberals the chance to curtail the rights of honorable me. The mentally defective may purchase a firearm. He may do harm with it. I can grantee the gun grabbers will rule people that want firearms to be mentally defective.

I had a problem with NICS when they first talked about it. I knew it would be FUBAR. Now that I’m one of the people being screwed by it my fears have become reality. I’ll bet a dollar to a donut that if you start have holds put on your purchases, or worse yet, are out right denied, you'll start having a BIG problem with it.


A firearm does not amplify danger anymore than gasoline, matches, fertilizer and diesel fuel. It’s very easy to mix the right combinations and do a lot more harm in a shorter period of time than one can with a firearm. Hell a person can take out more people with an automobile in a shorter amount of time than with a firearm.
__________________
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; 12-15-2011 at 00:10..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 21:07   #111
Scattergun1187
Vote Republican
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,067
Send a message via Yahoo to Scattergun1187
Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would agree.
Scattergun1187 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 21:23   #112
Cambo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,984
I can't believe this thread is still going. I can't believe there are people on here acting like anti-gunners. To those obsessed with keeping guns out of criminal hands, what difference does it make what someone uses to commit a crime? A crime is a crime regardless of what is used. It is your emotional immaturity that blinds you from logic and reason. You say "you could kill a lot people with a gun". I say you could kill a lot more with homemade explosives, a truck, etc. Stop acting like guns are the ONLY weapon someone could use to inflict harm. There is no machete control, there is no samurai sword control, there is no gasoline/matches control. Therefore, there should be no gun control, end of story.
__________________
Browning Hi Power, the Ultimate 9mm
Cambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 21:30   #113
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambo View Post
I can't believe this thread is still going. I can't believe there are people on here acting like anti-gunners. To those obsessed with keeping guns out of criminal hands, what difference does it make what someone uses to commit a crime? A crime is a crime regardless of what is used. It is your emotional immaturity that blinds you from logic and reason. You say "you could kill a lot people with a gun". I say you could kill a lot more with homemade explosives, a truck, etc. Stop acting like guns are the ONLY weapon someone could use to inflict harm. There is no machete control, there is no samurai sword control, there is no gasoline/matches control. Therefore, there should be no gun control, end of story.
Watch that emotional immaturity stuff. Some will take it as personal attacks.
__________________
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 12-15-2011, 05:13   #114
Cambo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Watch that emotional immaturity stuff. Some will take it as personal attacks.
Not directed at anyone in particular, just the general mindset.
__________________
Browning Hi Power, the Ultimate 9mm
Cambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 06:33   #115
Scattergun1187
Vote Republican
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,067
Send a message via Yahoo to Scattergun1187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javelin View Post
What the hell is wrong with people anymore? It seems that there is a huge liberal shift and sheeple movement that has taken hold in the US and I am seeing it even here on GT.

Did the liberal underground shut off it's servers or something and folks are ending up here?

I think the liberal underground did shut off it's servers. Wish they would find somewhere else to spew there liberal views.

For those against criminals that have guns. Well a criminal can get what ever he/she wants with the right amount of money. Plus they can get full auto, suppressors and other items that a normal citizen can't.
So no matter how you want to spin it. It will not work.
And law abiding citizens have to fly the straight and narrow for Class III items or even a regular handgun.
But not a criminal; where their is a way they will get it.

Last edited by Scattergun1187; 12-15-2011 at 06:38..
Scattergun1187 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 06:35   #116
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandmasterjf View Post
I shot guns of all kinds starting at 5 years old with my first bbgun. By the time I had enough money to buy a hand gun I was well versed in it's use. Should I have to go through that training? Should we be trained before becoming parents. That's a bigger responsibility.
You make a good point. So how would you address the issue of those idiots who buy a gun to impress their girlfriends, then shoot their best friend in the face because they never learned how to safely handle a gun? Chalk it up to Darwinism? Acceptable losses?
__________________
Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration; we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. And now...the weather! ---- Bill Hicks

Last edited by eracer; 12-15-2011 at 06:53..
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 06:59   #117
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
...
But even with the right to carry, that doesn't mean that people that have a history of violence need to have a gun. And if you believe they should be locked away and the key tossed, then you're toss out OTHER portions of the Constitution, like that pesky restriction on cruel and unusual punishment. Armed robbery is a felony. That takes you off the "able to keep a gun" list. But that person should not be in jail for 60, 70 or more years. That's moronic and an absolutely infantile point of view that is, frankly, contrary to every concept of civilized society.

So what you accuse me of - try to take my rights, I'll take yours instead! - is EXACTLY what you're advocating. Don't put restrictions on guns, rather, remove common sense on criminal sentencing.
What constitutes a "history of violence? Who do think should determine that? Do you believe that (as it is now) ANY felony conviction (even non-violent ones) should bar someone from there basic civil right of self defense for the rest of their entire life? Even after they have served what we said was their sentence? Or would you be ok if the laws were changed to only prevent violent felons from owning firearms?

When somebody convicted of a violent crime as already served their sentence and is out, do honestly believe that laws against them owning or carrying a firearms actually do ANYTHING to prevent them from harming/killing others should they actually be resolute to do so again?

I can imagine a scenario where an attractive 18 year old girl gets caught up with bad types, ends up committing a felony and is convicted. She serves her sentence and years later she is released. So we as a society have said she has served her sentence and released her and told her to go be a productive member of our society. She makes all attempts to go the straight and narrow. Doesn't have much money so it would be logical that she lives in the crappiest (read most dangerous) part of town. So then she is brutally raped and murdered in the most horrid way imaginable because we deny her basic civil right of self defense for the rest of her (now abbreviated) life. Some would say we practically guaranteed it would happen to her. Effectively making her brutal rape and murder part of her sentence.
That seems to be "cruel and unusual punishment" to me.
__________________
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 12-15-2011, 07:21   #118
eracer
Where's my EBT?
 
eracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 6,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by IhRedrider View Post
eracer


I hope that you do not think that I was trying to insult you. I was not. If you took that as a personal insult, I do apologize. Not trying to expain away a perceived insult, but I was only remarking on what you said, not you. In any case my apology stands.
No, it was not you to whom I was referring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IhRedrider View Post
I am glad that you admit this.
Yes, but can you think about what I said without immediately dismissing it? Can you consider that the regulation of speech that we accept as a society by establishing rules for language is akin to the regulation of arms? It is a rather abstract thought, but if you think about it, you will see some truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IhRedrider View Post
I guess my points are:

1. You cannot legally legislate God given Rights with man written laws, I think that is the whole point of the Constitution. If you demand your RIGHTS, you must support all free men's same RIGHTS. If you do not like this concept then you need to amend the Constitution to reflect what you want it to guarantee when it comes to rights. Or a quicker more "clean" method would be to simple render the Constitution null and void. Then we can all live under the dictatorship of whoever is in power.

2. ANY laws which regulate (in anyway) ARMS with the respect to free men. Is by definition is unconstitutional.

When you talk about background checks, What do you wish to accomplish with them. Can they do anything except regulate (infringe) upon the ability of a free man access to ARMS. They do not help anyone get ARMS. If background checks don't regulate the sale of ARMS, why even perform them?
But the point is that, as a society, we regulate behavior all the time. The 1st amendment is highly regulated. Can you burn the US flag inside of a federal courtroom? Can you openly threaten to kill the prez? Is that what you want?

The 1st amendment prohibits the '...abridging of freedom of speech.' Prohibiting the above acts is in direct violation of the 1st amendment - if you believe that 'abridging = prohibiting,' and not 'abridging = regulating.'

What about that pesky 10th amendment? Should each state be allowed to determine its own adherence to the other amendments?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Inconvenience is not infringement. As long as I, as a free man and law-abiding citizen of the American society I choose to remain a member of, has the right to own to own a gun, my right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed by the enacting of certain regulations.

Many are Constitutional absolutists. I applaud your work to keep the Constitution safe against those who would destroy it. I happen to be of a more moderate mind, and accept that we live in a society that demands some level of protection against criminality that I can't provide. My right to keep and bear arms is an adjunct to the protection that I demand from society's law enforcement and judicial systems. But by demanding that protection, I must allow a certain amount of inconvenience. As long as we elect those who can hold the Constitution dear, while addressing the problems we face as a society in a rational manner, we will continue to enjoy the protection of liberty.
__________________
Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration; we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. And now...the weather! ---- Bill Hicks

Last edited by eracer; 12-15-2011 at 07:34..
eracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 07:21   #119
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer View Post
You make a good point. So how would you address the issue of those idiots who buy a gun to impress their girlfriends, then shoot their best friend in the face because they never learned how to safely handle a gun? Chalk it up to Darwinism? Acceptable losses?
I know this wasn't directed at me but..
Yes.

Plenty of places do not require any training to simply own a firearm. Several states require no training to carry. Doesn't seems to be a problem at present.

You can't fix stupid.

I personally think everyone should be trained in firearm use but I don't think it should be required by law. But even with training, you would not be able to eliminate stupid people from doing stupid things. Some stupid person may think its funny to yell fire in a crowded theater but we don't legally require people to be trained to exercise there right to free speech. And we don't make it illegal to speak in a theater in an attempt to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things.
__________________
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 12-15-2011, 07:52   #120
TheJ
Lifetime Membership
NRA Life Member
 
TheJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: GA
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 3
Not meant to offend anyone but it does seem to me that many, even here, almost reflexively operate on the false premise that primarily "firearms = crime"... and almost completely gloss over that the truth that primarily "firearms = self defense". I believe that may be due to so many years of anti-gun propaganda that is so pervasive.

IMHO it is far far more important to protect everyone's right to self defense then it is to make practically futile attempts to PREvent violent/stupid/crazy people from having one particular means of harming others.
__________________
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

 
  
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 05:32.




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


Users Currently Online: 734
151 Members
583 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31