Gun Control III

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Yes, let’s not have legislation or regulations and that 12 year old can save money by simply buying a gun legally. [/quote]

Your own post states the regulation and legislation doesn’t prevent it from happening.

Legislation doesn’t stop 12 year olds form banging heroin either…[/quote]
No, you are wrong. My post states that it will be even easier for kids to buy guns and they won’t even have to worry about keeping the fact they are armed a secret. Imagine if you were a teacher and you had a class full of armed 12 year olds. Imagine a school full of armed kids. [/quote]

Fear mongering lol.

Imagine a school full of kids with heroin, weed, beer, knifes, meth, crack & phama…

22

[quote]H factor wrote:

For instance if my cousin did not have loving parents who had his own safety and self interest at heart then how best to determine these things? Is it something that people selling firearms need to figure out? And if so, how? [/quote]

the look in his face tells the story. we will never figure out how to stop those like him.

23

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Yes, let’s not have legislation or regulations and that 12 year old can save money by simply buying a gun legally. [/quote]

Your own post states the regulation and legislation doesn’t prevent it from happening.

Legislation doesn’t stop 12 year olds form banging heroin either…[/quote]
No, you are wrong. My post states that it will be even easier for kids to buy guns and they won’t even have to worry about keeping the fact they are armed a secret. Imagine if you were a teacher and you had a class full of armed 12 year olds. Imagine a school full of armed kids. [/quote]

Fear mongering lol.

Imagine a school full of kids with heroin, weed, beer, knifes, meth, crack & phama…[/quote]

Maybe we should focus on filling schools with books written this century and computers with at least Windows XP.

24

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
…their idea of free asembly
[/quote]

You are such an idiot.

25

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
…their idea of free asembly
[/quote]

You are such an idiot. [/quote]

Idiot yes, racist no… since he has black friends or something

26

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Is it something that people selling firearms need to figure out? [/quote]

That’s like asking Pepsi to “figure out” why America is so fat… [/quote]

Well that’s why I’m thinking out loud, I have no clue who makes the distinction and how. If we put it in the hands of the federal government our rights may be taken away. If we let states do it the same thing could happen. If we let local government do it there you go again. Government’s not the solution for the reasons already mentioned on this issue, but I really don’t know what to do in those cases with the special circumstances especially if they don’t have good parents.

If you have good parents like my cousin does you don’t even need to worry about it because THEY can keep him and other people out of harms way by making sure he never has access to a firearm. Without those situations I’m not really sure what happens and who does it and how that goes down. Up for debate I’d guess.

27

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
…their idea of free asembly
[/quote]

You are such an idiot. [/quote]

When you put him on ignore you don’t even have to see the stuff to call him an idiot. What a lovely feature. It’s already making this forum better for me, I can only see his crap when someone else quotes him now. Like a breath of fresh air that ignore button is.

28

[quote]H factor wrote:
I don’t know why people keep coming to the conclusion I was arguing for regulation when I never said I was. I never said it is necessary to legislate who can and cannot have them. At no point. I just said there MAY be special scenarios (that would be highly rare) where we would need to think about how they should best be handled. And I really meant society more than the government.

For instance if my cousin did not have loving parents who had his own safety and self interest at heart then how best to determine these things? Is it something that people selling firearms need to figure out? And if so, how? [/quote]

Okay, I agree with you, then. The best solution would probably be to get government out of business. Government has decided that only it can decide who a business should and shouldn’t do business with. Like with most “problems” we have(immigration, gay marriage, etc.), private property rights would most likely be a big improvement.

29

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Is it something that people selling firearms need to figure out? [/quote]

That’s like asking Pepsi to “figure out” why America is so fat… [/quote]

Well that’s why I’m thinking out loud, I have no clue who makes the distinction and how. If we put it in the hands of the federal government our rights may be taken away. If we let states do it the same thing could happen. If we let local government do it there you go again. Government’s not the solution for the reasons already mentioned on this issue, but I really don’t know what to do in those cases with the special circumstances especially if they don’t have good parents.

If you have good parents like my cousin does you don’t even need to worry about it because THEY can keep him and other people out of harms way by making sure he never has access to a firearm. Without those situations I’m not really sure what happens and who does it and how that goes down. Up for debate I’d guess. [/quote]

I agree with you. There are issues no matter who is responsible for, well control, of firearms. I would prefer that both the Federal and State governments keep their hands off. I would rather it be a personal issue, ie parents make the decisions until the individual is considered an adult. The problem is some parents just don’t care or aren’t even around. I think in a society 300 million+ it’s a difficult challenge to “not” address gun ownership with legislation when 100s of people die in most major cities each year from gun violence.

I would like to see more open carry/easier access to conceal carry in all states. Again though, that raises some issues. Namely, allowing gangs and thugs to open carry in the streets of Baltimore could easily escalate violence. Maybe it would have the reverse effect, I don’t know.

31

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

…I don’t either, but the idea that EVERYONE should have access to firearms is crazy and I’m a huge 2nd amendment guy… [/quote]

Do you know of ANYONE ANYWHERE that advocates EVERYONE should have access to firearms?

Why do you beat this useless drum?[/quote]

I was merely pointing out that although everyone has the right to a firearm that doesn’t mean society doesn’t need to make distinctions at times. I gave an example of those times. I have no idea what the point of being angry at me is when I’m not arguing something different than you.

I even said I was struggling to come up with ANYTIME where the government should intervene. I was trying to think.

Again, it seems as if you’re trying to attack me over things I haven’t even argued. Which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, but ok. And also I never said people were saying that I just said it’s obvious in scenarios access needs to be restricted and we need to think about those scenarios and how best to deal with them.

I wasn’t arguing for more regulation in any sense so attacking me for it is just pure strawman. I don’t need you to lay out the fundamentals as much as I need you to read my post and not create things you want me to say. [/quote]

Wasn’t being angry at all. Don’t be so defensive.[/quote]

It sorta requires you to be a bit defensive when people put so many words in your mouth. I don’t mind if people attack the arguments I make, but I can’t really help it if people attack arguments I DON’T make. That requires defending.

32

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Is it something that people selling firearms need to figure out? [/quote]

That’s like asking Pepsi to “figure out” why America is so fat… [/quote]

Well that’s why I’m thinking out loud, I have no clue who makes the distinction and how. If we put it in the hands of the federal government our rights may be taken away. If we let states do it the same thing could happen. If we let local government do it there you go again. Government’s not the solution for the reasons already mentioned on this issue, but I really don’t know what to do in those cases with the special circumstances especially if they don’t have good parents.

If you have good parents like my cousin does you don’t even need to worry about it because THEY can keep him and other people out of harms way by making sure he never has access to a firearm. Without those situations I’m not really sure what happens and who does it and how that goes down. Up for debate I’d guess. [/quote]

I agree with you. There are issues no matter who is responsible for, well control, of firearms. I would prefer that both the Federal and State governments keep their hands off. I would rather it be a personal issue, ie parents make the decisions until the individual is considered an adult. The problem is some parents just don’t care or aren’t even around. I think in a society 300 million+ it’s a difficult challenge to “not” address gun ownership with legislation when 100s of people die in most major cities each year from gun violence.

I would like to see more open carry/easier access to conceal carry in all states. Again though, that raises some issues. Namely, allowing gangs and thugs to open carry in the streets of Baltimore could easily escalate violence. Maybe it would have the reverse effect, I don’t know. [/quote]

I think with this issue we have a LOT we don’t know. I still haven’t seen a lot of consistent logical arguments for decreasing law abiding citizens rights to possess a firearm. I don’t think (as I’ve already said) we should have no limits, but the limits should be most based on making sure law abiding and good citizens have access to a firearm if they desire.

We want to talk about keeping guns out of the hands of known bad people I’m all ears for that. I just don’t want to see regulation that only accomplishes keeping guns out of the hands of good people.

33

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Is it something that people selling firearms need to figure out? [/quote]

That’s like asking Pepsi to “figure out” why America is so fat… [/quote]

Well that’s why I’m thinking out loud, I have no clue who makes the distinction and how. If we put it in the hands of the federal government our rights may be taken away. If we let states do it the same thing could happen. If we let local government do it there you go again. Government’s not the solution for the reasons already mentioned on this issue, but I really don’t know what to do in those cases with the special circumstances especially if they don’t have good parents.

If you have good parents like my cousin does you don’t even need to worry about it because THEY can keep him and other people out of harms way by making sure he never has access to a firearm. Without those situations I’m not really sure what happens and who does it and how that goes down. Up for debate I’d guess. [/quote]

I agree with you. There are issues no matter who is responsible for, well control, of firearms. I would prefer that both the Federal and State governments keep their hands off. I would rather it be a personal issue, ie parents make the decisions until the individual is considered an adult. The problem is some parents just don’t care or aren’t even around. I think in a society 300 million+ it’s a difficult challenge to “not” address gun ownership with legislation when 100s of people die in most major cities each year from gun violence.

I would like to see more open carry/easier access to conceal carry in all states. Again though, that raises some issues. Namely, allowing gangs and thugs to open carry in the streets of Baltimore could easily escalate violence. Maybe it would have the reverse effect, I don’t know. [/quote]

I think with this issue we have a LOT we don’t know. I still haven’t seen a lot of consistent logical arguments for decreasing law abiding citizens rights to possess a firearm. I don’t think (as I’ve already said) we should have no limits, but the limits should be most based on making sure law abiding and good citizens have access to a firearm if they desire.

We want to talk about keeping guns out of the hands of known bad people I’m all ears for that. I just don’t want to see regulation that only accomplishes keeping guns out of the hands of good people. [/quote]

Ya, again I agree with you. In this area I’d prefer less regulation than more. There really should be none, in my opinion, based solely off the language of the constitution.

Even keeping guns out of “bad” peoples hands is such a grey area. Should Bernie Maddoff be allowed to own a gun (assuming could be let out)? How about an arsonist? How do we deal with outliers? How about Marines with PTSD? For some, not all, PTSD is a real mental condition, then again, these men and women have used weapons on our behalf. Why should someone like President Obama (not him specifically just an example) be able to tell Sgt ____ he can’t own a firearm because he suffers from PTSD due to fighting in a conflict/war I/we sent him to?

34

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Ya, again I agree with you. In this area I’d prefer less regulation than more. There really should be none, in my opinion, based solely off the language of the constitution.

Even keeping guns out of “bad” peoples hands is such a grey area. Should Bernie Maddoff be allowed to own a gun (assuming could be let out)? How about an arsonist? How do we deal with outliers? How about Marines with PTSD? For some, not all, PTSD is a real mental condition, then again, these men and women have used weapons on our behalf. Why should someone like President Obama (not him specifically just an example) be able to tell Sgt ____ he can’t own a firearm because he suffers from PTSD due to fighting in a conflict/war I/we sent him to? [/quote]

Good post. The Second Amendment to the Constitution does not seem to give the government the right to decide who can and can’t possess arms. Of course, the Second Amendment does not give the government the right to restrict selective fire weapons either, but that hasn’t stopped it from doing so.

35

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Yes, let’s not have legislation or regulations and that 12 year old can save money by simply buying a gun legally. [/quote]

Your own post states the regulation and legislation doesn’t prevent it from happening.

Legislation doesn’t stop 12 year olds form banging heroin either…[/quote]
No, you are wrong. My post states that it will be even easier for kids to buy guns and they won’t even have to worry about keeping the fact they are armed a secret. Imagine if you were a teacher and you had a class full of armed 12 year olds. Imagine a school full of armed kids. [/quote]

Fear mongering lol.

Imagine a school full of kids with heroin, weed, beer, knifes, meth, crack & phama…[/quote]
Other than the knives I don’t think anyone has to worry about getting murdered by drugs. I don’t really see a connection.

36

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Other than the knives I don’t think anyone has to worry about getting murdered by drugs. I don’t really see a connection. [/quote]

zecarlo, you haven’t answered my question about who hires irresponsible 12 year olds.

37

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Other than the knives I don’t think anyone has to worry about getting murdered by drugs. I don’t really see a connection. [/quote]

zecarlo, you haven’t answered my question about who hires irresponsible 12 year olds.[/quote]
I don’t know what that has to do with gun control but I’ll take a stab and say it’s the same people who hire responsible 12 year olds (although there are not very many of them). And yes, 12 year olds can actually work.

38

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Yes, let’s not have legislation or regulations and that 12 year old can save money by simply buying a gun legally. [/quote]

Your own post states the regulation and legislation doesn’t prevent it from happening.

Legislation doesn’t stop 12 year olds form banging heroin either…[/quote]
No, you are wrong. My post states that it will be even easier for kids to buy guns and they won’t even have to worry about keeping the fact they are armed a secret. Imagine if you were a teacher and you had a class full of armed 12 year olds. Imagine a school full of armed kids. [/quote]

Fear mongering lol.

Imagine a school full of kids with heroin, weed, beer, knifes, meth, crack & phama…[/quote]
Other than the knives I don’t think anyone has to worry about getting murdered by drugs. I don’t really see a connection. [/quote]

People are murdered by fists and baseball bats, cars, ovens, gas leaks and even the Sun gives you cancer.

You can keep playing dumb here, but we both know you aren’t.

You’re pushing a bullshit slippery slope fallacy. You know this, I know this, we all know this. And until you actually make a valid point, I will continue to use ridiculous examples to blow holes in your fear mongering.

39

And lol at your sudden revelation that drugs don’t kill.

May not be a direct as a bullet, but we both know you’re full of shit on that one.

40

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I don’t know what that has to do with gun control[/quote]
-The kids have to get the money to buy the guns from somewhere, right? We’re going to assume that the parents don’t give them money to buy guns, because that would make it a parenting issue. We’re going to assume that they don’t steal the guns, because that would make it a stealing issue. Heck, we can also assume the kid has moved out on his own, because if not, allowing a kid to take a gun to school is still a parenting issue-not a gun issue.

-How many people hire irresponsible kids to babysit, do yard work, walk dogs, etc.? Personally, I wouldn’t want an irresponsible kid watching my children.