AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13

FRPLG
01-01-2008, 11:35 AM
most people that support their second amendment rights are borderline fanatical. not saying you, jsarno. but if the shoe fits....

That is a gross over generalization.

EternalEnigma21
01-01-2008, 02:01 PM
I'm not saying you wrote that...thus the question mark at the end of the sentence. I just find it odd that gun laws got looser around the early 90's and gun related crimes have dropped ever since...not a coincidence. Yet we have a huge drunk driver issue in this country and no one is talking about it. Instead we are here talking about how we should ignore what this country was founded on and take control out of the hands of the innocent. The evil people don't care about laws...only the honest do. So all you're doing is hurting the honest.
I leave you with this scenario...imagine someone breaks into your house, your wife calls 911...the intruder comes into your room and shoots your wife and your kid cause he's all hopped up on something. If you had a gun you could have stopped him, but since you chose to put your faith in government for protection instead of your own hands, your family is dead, and the intruder fled the scene before the police could get there. What do you think about gun laws now? Cause those gun laws didn't deter the intruder from keeping a gun, only keeps you from having one. For the record I sincerely hope that NO ONE EVER goes through this, but it does happen and can happen. I choose to take matters into my own hands rather than let someone else "save" me.
Hey, no one is saying get a gun...it's your choice. Seriously. But don't tell me I shouldn't have one, and don't tell me that someone else will protect me, and don't tell me that more gun laws will help the common person. That's a load of crap. Put your mind to work on what will stop the criminals, not the innocent.



All right, I was a little drunk last night and didn't feel like getting into it, but I firmly believe the RIGHT gun laws definitely will help the common person. You cannot deny that we should have laws to monitor the distribution of guns. No 8 year old with a credit card needs a gun. No repeat violent criminal needs a gun. I would take it a step further and say that no one with confirmed mental health issues can have one, and no one who is untrained can have one either. Who is it hurting to have people who are untrained and mentally ill, voilent crimials, etc... not have weapons?

What I don't get is you argue with me and you basically say the same thing. I said earlier the police can't be everywhere all the time... so if you had licensing for owning and carrying firearms, where qualifying, training, and testing were required, you could feel comfortable allowing certain people with a certain level of licensing to carry their guns just about anywhere, including federal buldings, schools, and airplanes. I think it should be the responsibility of people who are able to help deter or prevent violent crime.

Stiffer penalties for drugs haven't wiped out drugs altogether, but it has at least contained the crack epidemic. With such stiffer penalties for just possession, the plea bargainers allow access to the dealers. Right now they don't even really investigate where an illegal gun comes from. They run it through a computer and if it's not registered, they just book it. There are still states who don't reqiure you to register guns, and I would change that as well. Just like you register your car to deter theft.... same principle.

With my system in place, crimes like the VT shootings and 911 at least have a chance at being thwarted, or casualties minimalized. I think a lot of the newer gun laws were pushed through in order to appease the democratic party, and weren't really thought through. Taking away assault weapons from the public is wrong. It is completely against the second amendment. Guns aren't just for hunting and just a short 230 years ago this country was formed by men using guns to overthrow their ruling government. Not saying that's why we should have guns, but we romanticize their efforts and say today is a different world those old rules don't apply.

I agree. Today is a different world. There's as much social unrest in the world today than there's ever been. The United States is very fortunate not to have any of its recent wars carried onto its soil, with the exception of Pearl Harbor. Airline travel and the internet make assaults on our soil easily coordinated and executed. We've seen the domestic side of things as well, with Katrina, Rita, the LA riots, School Shootings, 911, etc... Now is not the time to disarm the public, or limit the quality of defense available to them. Now is the time to make sure the public is prepared to use the weapons made available to them.

jsarno
01-01-2008, 11:56 PM
All right, I was a little drunk last night and didn't feel like getting into it, but I firmly believe the RIGHT gun laws definitely will help the common person. You cannot deny that we should have laws to monitor the distribution of guns. No 8 year old with a credit card needs a gun. No repeat violent criminal needs a gun. I would take it a step further and say that no one with confirmed mental health issues can have one, and no one who is untrained can have one either. Who is it hurting to have people who are untrained and mentally ill, voilent crimials, etc... not have weapons?

I certainly agree with that.

What I don't get is you argue with me and you basically say the same thing. I said earlier the police can't be everywhere all the time... so if you had licensing for owning and carrying firearms, where qualifying, training, and testing were required, you could feel comfortable allowing certain people with a certain level of licensing to carry their guns just about anywhere, including federal buldings, schools, and airplanes. I think it should be the responsibility of people who are able to help deter or prevent violent crime.

Stiffer penalties for drugs haven't wiped out drugs altogether, but it has at least contained the crack epidemic. With such stiffer penalties for just possession, the plea bargainers allow access to the dealers. Right now they don't even really investigate where an illegal gun comes from. They run it through a computer and if it's not registered, they just book it. There are still states who don't reqiure you to register guns, and I would change that as well. Just like you register your car to deter theft.... same principle.

With my system in place, crimes like the VT shootings and 911 at least have a chance at being thwarted, or casualties minimalized. I think a lot of the newer gun laws were pushed through in order to appease the democratic party, and weren't really thought through. Taking away assault weapons from the public is wrong. It is completely against the second amendment. Guns aren't just for hunting and just a short 230 years ago this country was formed by men using guns to overthrow their ruling government. Not saying that's why we should have guns, but we romanticize their efforts and say today is a different world those old rules don't apply.

I agree. Today is a different world. There's as much social unrest in the world today than there's ever been. The United States is very fortunate not to have any of its recent wars carried onto its soil, with the exception of Pearl Harbor. Airline travel and the internet make assaults on our soil easily coordinated and executed. We've seen the domestic side of things as well, with Katrina, Rita, the LA riots, School Shootings, 911, etc... Now is not the time to disarm the public, or limit the quality of defense available to them. Now is the time to make sure the public is prepared to use the weapons made available to them.

My sincere apologies. I misunderstood you. Every once in a while I lump in posts and if they seem similar I put them together. Not saying it's right, but I'm not here often enough to get familiar with everyone. I thought you were someone else basically. Again, my apologies. Thank you for clarifying.

jsarno
01-02-2008, 12:02 AM
most people that support their second amendment rights are borderline fanatical. not saying you, jsarno. but if the shoe fits....

I didn't take it that way cause I am not fanatical. I am opinionated. If someone said I am wrong for having a gun, I'd laugh at them and keep on doing what I am doing. This is something I never discuss with anyone other than here cause no one knows I own a gun. I know people from the DC area are much more sensitive to this subject than most of the country. Partly due to crime in that area, partly due to a lot of democrats in the area, partly due to tragedies in the area. If we were to discuss this with people that mainly live in the south, this would be a vastly different conversation here.

It's just fun to occasionally discuss these sorts of things.

EternalEnigma21
01-02-2008, 12:03 PM
I didn't take it that way cause I am not fanatical. I am opinionated. If someone said I am wrong for having a gun, I'd laugh at them and keep on doing what I am doing. This is something I never discuss with anyone other than here cause no one knows I own a gun. I know people from the DC area are much more sensitive to this subject than most of the country. Partly due to crime in that area, partly due to a lot of democrats in the area, partly due to tragedies in the area. If we were to discuss this with people that mainly live in the south, this would be a vastly different conversation here.

It's just fun to occasionally discuss these sorts of things.

no prob for clarifying... i didn't quite understand what you diagreed with...

and the DC area is a prime example. There are gun related crimes daily in that small city and there is a citywide ban on all handguns.

firstdown
01-02-2008, 02:35 PM
not really. sean taylor would have had one if not for his felony case (part of the probation was no gun ownership).

the problem with guns is kids finding them and blowing their own heads off with them. i think one of our DEs had friends do that when he was nine, and i know a guy that shotgunned his big toe off messing around in his room.

I won't own one. Our cops here carry M-16s though and theft/assualt/etc here is a great way to get fired and end up in jail very quickly.
If guns are properly stored and kept their sould never be an issue of a kid finding one and shooting themself or a friend. The guy messing around with a loaded gun in his house should not have owned a gun or learned gun safty first.

firstdown
01-02-2008, 02:41 PM
most people that support their second amendment rights are borderline fanatical. not saying you, jsarno. but if the shoe fits....
No its the anti gun people who make them out to be fanatical. I support the second and believe people should have the right to own guns and I don't even own one.

mheisig
01-02-2008, 02:54 PM
No its the anti gun people who make them out to be fanatical. I support the second and believe people should have the right to own guns and I don't even own one.

People make fanaticism sound bad. ;)

Am I "fanatical" about preserving my right to protect myself and my family? Damn straight.

I'm also fanatical about the U.S. not being invaded, I'm fanatical about the Redskins, low cost auto insurance and goo deals on electronics.

dmek25
01-02-2008, 03:01 PM
No its the anti gun people who make them out to be fanatical. I support the second and believe people should have the right to own guns and I don't even own one.
in my case, this isn't true. i have talked to a bunch of people at my work who are avid believers in the second amendment. once i ask a bunch of them how they would react if the united states would enact total gun control. they all said that would never happen. and if it would, they would have to pry them out of their dead hands. and they were serious. i guess that's how things like Waco happen. because most of those guys own HUNDREDS of guns. which, to me, is even more of a reason to have some sort of gun control. one of thee guys owns a fully automatic AK47. what exactly is the purpose of owning a gun like that?

mheisig
01-02-2008, 03:05 PM
in my case, this isn't true. i have talked to a bunch of people at my work who are avid believers in the second amendment. once i ask a bunch of them how they would react if the united states would enact total gun control. they all said that would never happen. and if it would, they would have to pry them out of their dead hands. and they were serious. i guess that's how things like Waco happen. because most of those guys own HUNDREDS of guns. which, to me, is even more of a reason to have some sort of gun control. one of thee guys owns a fully automatic AK47. what exactly is the purpose of owning a gun like that?

I know several people who own fully automatic rifles, none of which are wack-jobs ready to go off the deep end. They're actually all engineers who are just enthusiastic about the engineering and design aspect of firearms.

What's the purpose of owning a $650,000 Mercedes-Benz SLR? Who knows...it's hardly useful on public streets and it's the definition of excess, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone who wanted to drop the necessary dough on it.

Hell, I'd get one myself if I had the money.

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum