[quote]Professor X wrote:
…and NONE of that has jack shit do with any legislation that is about to happen now. The entire south is gun happy. Why the hell does anyone think a true nation wide gun ban would even be possible?
Like was said before, if any true issues do arise, no one will be listening anymore.
[/quote]
I was just saying it was a good gauge, so we can see if the legislation starts moving in that direction.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
…and NONE of that has jack shit do with any legislation that is about to happen now. The entire south is gun happy. Why the hell does anyone think a true nation wide gun ban would even be possible?
Like was said before, if any true issues do arise, no one will be listening anymore.
Well for one if a federal law was passed (Obama is at the federal level now not just the state level) it would be nation wide regardless of what the south wants.
I agree though if a real issue does arise no one will be listening absolutely. Just like a good con artist any politician will use their smooth talking to have everyone focused on one issue while they quietly take away our rights on another.
Interesting. Where was all of this fear of rights being taken away when Bush was setting up his delivery of the Patriot Act?
I’m sorry I was to busy deploying during those year to sit around and cry about it on a forum.
[/quote]
LOL. Yes, because you are the only military person in this discussion.
Let me then ask if you see any problem with the Patriot Act in terms of losing rights.
[quote]LOL. Yes, because you are the only military person in this discussion.
Let me then ask if you see any problem with the Patriot Act in terms of losing rights.[/quote]
Honestly I don’t know enough about the Patriot Act to say either way. I’ll have to do some research and get back to you.
I have a question. If we require people to annual or semi-annual training to own a gun shouldn’t we require people to take a test or course on politics to vote?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question. If we require people to annual or semi-annual training to own a gun shouldn’t we require people to take a test or course on politics to vote? [/quote]
We require a driving test to get a car and I personally think most people should be required to take tests every 10 years or so to show they still can. There are 70 year olds on the road right now that just might get someone else killed.
Again, this is not the 1700’s where everyone had a gun and society as a whole was geared towards using one safely. This is 2008. People are just as likely to pull one out due to road rage now.
http://www.bucksright.com/howard-stern-quizzes-obama-supporters-in-harlem-1804
Listen to the video exactly why we should require voters to pass a test at least on the basics like who is running and who is their running mate?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question. If we require people to annual or semi-annual training to own a gun shouldn’t we require people to take a test or course on politics to vote?
We require a driving test to get a car and I personally think most people should be required to take tests every 10 years or so to show they still can. There are 70 year olds on the road right now that just might get someone else killed.
Again, this is not the 1700’s where everyone had a gun and society as a whole was geared towards using one safely. This is 2008. People are just as likely to pull one out due to road rage now.[/quote]
People also have to rely on other people to kill/sell food for/to them. Many would have a real hard time surviving in the wilderness if they had to. I agree people should re-take driving test. I know in this state you have to take a course before you can hunt.
I also know you can own a car before you have a license so maybe we should require training only if you use the weapon similar to a vehicle. Works for me.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question. If we require people to annual or semi-annual training to own a gun shouldn’t we require people to take a test or course on politics to vote?
We require a driving test to get a car and I personally think most people should be required to take tests every 10 years or so to show they still can. There are 70 year olds on the road right now that just might get someone else killed.
Again, this is not the 1700’s where everyone had a gun and society as a whole was geared towards using one safely. This is 2008. People are just as likely to pull one out due to road rage now.[/quote]
Why only every 10 years for cars and yearly for guns? Traffic, cars, and car laws change much more frequently than gun safety.
Law abiding gun and car owning citizens are also much more likely to kill someone with a car than a gun.
Not to mention right to auto ownership isn’t a basic human right guaranteed in the constitution.
Driving safety tests should be more frequent that gun safety. I think that is much more of a crucial safety issue in this country.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.bucksright.com/howard-stern-quizzes-obama-supporters-in-harlem-1804
Listen to the video exactly why we should require voters to pass a test at least on the basics like who is running and who is their running mate? [/quote]
Dude, the average person in this country probably has trouble programming their DVR. No one is debating that. However, using Howard Stern’s show as an indicator of social ignorance makes me wonder who is truly the least informed. He does that for entertainment. They would have no show if everyone interviewed was knowledgeable and well spoken. Every single one of those people probably didn’t figure out where they fucked up until they got home or heard it on the radio.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question. If we require people to annual or semi-annual training to own a gun shouldn’t we require people to take a test or course on politics to vote?
We require a driving test to get a car and I personally think most people should be required to take tests every 10 years or so to show they still can. There are 70 year olds on the road right now that just might get someone else killed.
Again, this is not the 1700’s where everyone had a gun and society as a whole was geared towards using one safely. This is 2008. People are just as likely to pull one out due to road rage now.
Why only every 10 years for cars and yearly for guns? Traffic, cars, and car laws change much more frequently than gun safety.
Law abiding gun and car owning citizens are also much more likely to kill someone with a car than a gun.
Not to mention right to auto ownership isn’t a basic human right guaranteed in the constitution.
Driving safety tests should be more frequent that gun safety. I think that is much more of a crucial safety issue in this country.[/quote]
Right now it is NO years so 10 years would be an improvement. Most people with driver’s licenses drive daily. Most do not use a gun daily which means there are likely thousands of guns out there that haven’t seen day light in several years.
Yes, I think the one that is least used until a very negative event happens should be tested more frequently especially since its soul purpose is to shoot someone or something with it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.bucksright.com/howard-stern-quizzes-obama-supporters-in-harlem-1804
Listen to the video exactly why we should require voters to pass a test at least on the basics like who is running and who is their running mate?
Dude, the average person in this country probably has trouble programming their DVR. No one is debating that. However, using Howard Stern’s show as an indicator of social ignorance makes me wonder who is truly the least informed. He does that for entertainment. They would have no show if everyone interviewed was knowledgeable and well spoken. Every single one of those people probably didn’t figure out where they fucked up until they got home or heard it on the radio.[/quote]
True, but Howard stern is one of the most liberal radio show hosts in history and he, unlike most news network, actually allowed the countries ignorance to show. Yes he targeted people that he thought would be ignorant of facts, but it’s not like he knew. They could have had PhD?s for all he knew. The point is how many people have no clue what is going on in this country, but get to vote. I think everyone should vote, not just because your mom wants you too or you are voting out of hatred. Make an informed voted. I mean the president does have a lot of power and people don’t even know who his running mate is? That’s sad.
Knowing how to use new technology and making an informed decision about who the next president could be are vastly different.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question. If we require people to annual or semi-annual training to own a gun shouldn’t we require people to take a test or course on politics to vote?
We require a driving test to get a car and I personally think most people should be required to take tests every 10 years or so to show they still can. There are 70 year olds on the road right now that just might get someone else killed.
Again, this is not the 1700’s where everyone had a gun and society as a whole was geared towards using one safely. This is 2008. People are just as likely to pull one out due to road rage now.
Why only every 10 years for cars and yearly for guns? Traffic, cars, and car laws change much more frequently than gun safety.
Law abiding gun and car owning citizens are also much more likely to kill someone with a car than a gun.
Not to mention right to auto ownership isn’t a basic human right guaranteed in the constitution.
Driving safety tests should be more frequent that gun safety. I think that is much more of a crucial safety issue in this country.
Right now it is NO years so 10 years would be an improvement. Most people with driver’s licenses drive daily. Most do not use a gun daily which means there are likely thousands of guns out there that haven’t seen day light in several years.
Yes, I think the one that is least used until a very negative event happens should be tested more frequently especially since its soul purpose is to shoot someone or something with it.[/quote]
I have my 12-gage for skeet shooting.
My point is that the misuse of either results in the same consequences. And the one that is more frequently missused and more frequently kills and mames has lower testing and licensing requirements. That seems backwards to me.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Professor X wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question. If we require people to annual or semi-annual training to own a gun shouldn’t we require people to take a test or course on politics to vote?
We require a driving test to get a car and I personally think most people should be required to take tests every 10 years or so to show they still can. There are 70 year olds on the road right now that just might get someone else killed.
Again, this is not the 1700’s where everyone had a gun and society as a whole was geared towards using one safely. This is 2008. People are just as likely to pull one out due to road rage now.
Why only every 10 years for cars and yearly for guns? Traffic, cars, and car laws change much more frequently than gun safety.
Law abiding gun and car owning citizens are also much more likely to kill someone with a car than a gun.
Not to mention right to auto ownership isn’t a basic human right guaranteed in the constitution.
Driving safety tests should be more frequent that gun safety. I think that is much more of a crucial safety issue in this country.
Right now it is NO years so 10 years would be an improvement. Most people with driver’s licenses drive daily. Most do not use a gun daily which means there are likely thousands of guns out there that haven’t seen day light in several years.
Yes, I think the one that is least used until a very negative event happens should be tested more frequently especially since its soul purpose is to shoot someone or something with it.
I have my 12-gage for skeet shooting.
My point is that the misuse of either results in the same consequences. And the one that is more frequently missused and more frequently kills and mames has lower testing and licensing requirements. That seems backwards to me.[/quote]
You have a good point.
[quote]
Let me then ask if you see any problem with the Patriot Act in terms of losing rights.[/quote]
Okay I read up on the Patriot Act at least some what. I won’t sit here and act like I know every word or law pertaining to it; however, I can understand why it was passed at the time and the only problem I have with it is it should only apply to non-citizens. My reasoning is 1. Our constitution affords American citizens certain right.
In my opinion you do not have these rights until you become a citizen/get a green card/visa etc… I also do not see a problem with monitoring foreigners in the U.S. due to the way the world is today. Terrorism has always been around, but in today?s world it seems to be everywhere. There are only a few things I believe the government should really be a part of and national security is one of them.
That being said the government has a better chance of preventing events like 9/11 with the patriot act rather then simply reacting to such an event. Should they monitor American citizens NO. Are their domestic terrorist YES, but they are subject to our laws. We can not capture Bin Laden and take him to court in New York that isn’t how it works, but we can take a New York mobster to court in New York. There are flaws with the Act, but there are flaws with many systems. Not everyone can be satisfied every time.
Before anyone says why aren’t you up in arms about the Act the reason is The Patriot Act COULD take someone?s rights away…the difference is one could potentially take a right away the other (gun regulation) takes a right given away that is protected under the constitution. I hate to say this, but the constitution does not say the government can not monitor its citizens. I wish it did, but it does not.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
If President elect Obama is so concerned about his staff not owning guns…
WHERE is this stated? Please show me where he has said with his own mouth or written with his own hand that he is “concerned about his staff NOT owning guns”. None of those questions asked are strange for a politician to ask of prospective staff.
Here is an excerpt straight from the article, "Found in the questionnaire?s ?Miscellaneous? section, question 59 reads, ?Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.?
Did you even read the article? Yes it is part of his “questionnaire” clearly he is concerned about the gun ownership of his staff. I seriously doubt all other candidates made gun ownership as big of an issue or an issue at all when they were elected. I could be wrong, but I bet most of the presidents throughout our history have themselves owned guns. Some have even had to use them, but I guess that’s just another problem we face it seams the president no longer has to come from a military background to lead the nation.
That’s not what I asked you. I asked you to find evidence of him not wanting his staff to have guns. All you’ve done is show questions that are asking if they own one legally.
President elect Obama has voted for SB1195 a provision in Illinois that would require guns owners to register with the state, He has endorsed an Illinois handgun ban, he supported the DC gun ban, he stated letting renewal of the ban on assault rifles pass by Bush was wrong, he wants to ban semi-auto weapons, he is for limiting gun purchases to 1 per month, and I’m sure there are others.
How is LIMITING gun purchases to once a month the same as not wanting anyone to have guns? [/quote]
Because in order for the people to be able to keep and bear arms they have to be able to obtain said arms. When this legal commerce is limited by the government it becomes very difficult if not impossible for gun stores to stay in business. Surely an intelligent man like you can see this because after all Professor it’s not rocket science.
Besides the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional guaranteed right. It is a very slippery slope if the government can start dictating how often the people can excercise their constitutional rights.
Would you be comfortable with the government applying a limit to how often you can enjoy your other guaranteed rights? What would you say if they said that since presidential elections only occur every four years you only need the 1st amendment guarantee of freedom of speech every four years? What would you say if they went further and said that since there are so many people in America when you do get to have freedom of speech you are limited to 100 words or less?
[quote]
I am tired of exaggeration or twisting words. I want QUOTES of him stating that he does not want staff with guns working for him. If you can’t find it, then please stop trying to make an issue where there isn’t much of one. [/quote]
Does Obama have to be that blatant before you will admit that this is a sign of things to come vis-a-vis gun control? The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionaly guaranteed right, it is very ominous that he is interrogating prospective staff members whether they and/or their families excercise, benefit from or enjoy any of their constitutional rights.
Have you forgotten that when Obama was a child growing up he lived in Indonesia under a military dictatorship? Has it ever occurred to you that growing up in such a country he might have developed a comfort level with authoritarian government?
Has it ever occurred to you that reason why the founding fathers required that a president should be natural born is precisely because they didn’t want a president like Obama who grew up in an authoritarian foreign country, who as a result may be comfortable with authoritariansim?
This is why people are concerned and I don’t blame them. I don’t think Obama has been honest on a range of issues. Look at how he has fought tooth and nail to prevent anyone from looking at his original birth certificate and verifying his elligability to be president.
You should have to be licensed to swim and climb ladders. We’re from the government, and we’re here to help.
According to this, 800 people died in 2000 in bicycle related accidents. While only 600 died from gun related accidents. Where the hell is our government? We need bicycle safety training and certification.
I never read the article but . . .
If Obama would be attacking gun owners, shouldn’t they be able to defend themselves ? ? ?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m sorry I was to busy deploying during those year to sit around and cry about it on a forum.[/quote]
You just lost a lot of respect here.
Serving your country is admirable, but using that fact to try and score brownie points on an internet forum is pretty lame.