Which Laws Should be Abolished?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]ZEB wrote:
How have I breached the bounds of logic? By claiming that everyone is entitled to move about in a society without having to be treated to someone “swearing loudly?” Would you like to retract that now or later?[/quote]

As you mentioned, there is much interpretation of “disorderly conduct”. I am not sure that even “swearing loudly” in and of itself falls under that specific law in most states. I am sure BB could clarify that. As such, to make “swearing loudly” without answering the questions I posed in the last response sounds much like public censorship. Who gets to determine what is “swearing” and how loud is loud?

102

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You made a blanket statement: “That still doesn’t justify killing someone unless he was armed.”

That was the entirety of your statement, hence nothing was “taken out of context” as you wrongly stated.

My original question: “If someone has his hands around your loved ones throat and you can’t get to him in time, you wouldn’t shoot him?”

Would you like to answer the question now, or would you rather continue name calling?

I think you should take the high road…for a change.

You have lost it. Again, in terms of someone shooting a kid for knocking on the door, THAT STILL DOESN’T JUSTIFY SHOOTING SOMEONE UNLESS THEY ARE ARMED. That is not a blanket statement when I quote the damn passage I am referring to. This kid was not a threat. If someone is getting ready to kill someone I care about, this is different and not the same as the kid knocking on the door. I am not against the use of guns (shit, I am trained to use them). I am against dumbasses like you trying to make a point by excusing a negative act like this kid being shot simply so you can support gun use. You are the clueless one in this. Keep showing it.[/quote]

Wow Professor, when things go badly for you on this forum you have no problem pulling out the personal attacks. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised…

As to the facts: You did not qualify your original statement. Rather you issued a blanket statement. That is why I called you on it. If it was a qualified statement I would have agreed. You never mentioned that “in this case” it is not appropriate to shoot an unarmed individual. If that’s what you are now stating that is a far cry from your original blanket statement. Did you have an epihany? Some do when cornered.

It seems that you are the “dumbass” (since you like name calling) as you have retreated from your original statement and are now taking up the notion that guns are in fact a good thing: “I’m not against the use of guns.” That assertion was not made (on this thread) previous to your most recent post. Were we all supposed to guess at your “real meaning?”

Those of us who are pro gun don’t have a problem acknowledging that fact. You seem to want to be anti-gun and pro-gun at the same time (or at least as it fits the debate). I can see why you were a Kerry supporter. You both like to flip flop. Although I will say that Kerry does it with much more class, which is not saying much considering the players.

103

Wow! This got hijacked from “outdated and obscure laws” to “Zeb vs Professor X: Roshan Bull over gun control”

104

I can understand being annoyed by people showing up at your door or calling, but the difference is that one is a public area and the other a private residence. The same rules don’t and shouldn’t apply. I’ve made it quite clear to a couple of Witness’s, that should they show up at my door again I will have them charged with harassment and trespassing

[quote]ZEB wrote:
phody:

That post, and another prior to it was in response to another posters comment about why public nakedness, shouting etc should in fact be allowed. I was simply speaking out in favor of laws that are already on the books.

Obviously, I wouldn’t drive into any area where such things take place with a 9 year old girl in the car. Who would? I know you would not expose a child of that age to any of the above previously stated comments or actions. She may very well be exposed to such things, hopefully much later on in life.

As to your other comments: I too find it annoying and offensive “to be approached on a street corner by someone preaching endtime prohpecy…” That too is illegal unless of course they have the proper permit to carry on as they do. Then it’s just annoying, but not illegal.

Let me go you one better! How about the fanatics that knock on your door during dinner hour? I find it hard to believe that they have any sort of permit to do that. That is really annoying!

How about the telephone comapanies (or any business) that use dinner hour to make their solicitation calls because they know you are home. Wow …do I hate that![/quote]

105

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Wow Professor, when things go badly for you on this forum you have no problem pulling out the personal attacks. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised…

As to the facts: You did not qualify your original statement. Rather you issued a blanket statement. That is why I called you on it. If it was a qualified statement I would have agreed. You never mentioned that “in this case” it is not appropriate to shoot an unarmed individual. If that’s what you are now stating that is a far cry from your original blanket statement. Did you have an epihany? Some do when cornered.

It seems that you are the “dumbass” (since you like name calling) as you have retreated from your original statement and are now taking up the notion that guns are in fact a good thing: “I’m not against the use of guns.” That assertion was not made (on this thread) previous to your most recent post. Were we all supposed to guess at your “real meaning?”

Those of us who are pro gun don’t have a problem acknowledging that fact. You seem to want to be anti-gun and pro-gun at the same time (or at least as it fits the debate). I can see why you were a Kerry supporter. You both like to flip flop. Although I will say that Kerry does it with much more class, which is not saying much considering the players.
[/quote]

What planet are you all from where you can write things like, "LOL, you might want to quit while you are way, way behind. " or other “pot-shots” but not consider them insults, but as soon as someone calls you a name, you want to cry foul? Quit playing innocent. You’re not good at it.

I believe there should be control on the sale of guns. I am not “pro-guns” in the sense that I think they should be sold with minor restrictions to anyone who doesn’t have a criminal record. It sets up situations like the shooting described where someone takes the life of someone else simply because of a personal bias. I am in the military. I have no choice but to know how to use a gun. Anyone deployed anywhere is trained. As such, I would like the right to carry one, especially since I have been trained to do so. You seem to be one of those people who only thinks in terms of “all or nothing”. My position has nothing to do with “flip flopping”. I noticed a horrible act committed with a gun based on a bias. You tried to ignore it. I think that shows who here thinks things through better before posting.

106

Firearms is always a heated topic.

It’s never legal to shoot someone through your door unless thay are armed and you believe that they are intending to kill you. You first have to KNOW they are armed. Fear does not dismiss responsible actions.

The US Bill of Rights gives citizens the right to own firearms. It doesnt state what type, and IMHO I believe citizens should be able to own the same type of firearms as the Federal Gov outfits our soldiers with. The citizen body is what makes the militia not the National Guard. The National Guard is actually a reserve branch of the military. In an emergency like the last batch of hurricanes that swept Florida, individual citizens protected their property and their neighbors with their legally owned firearms from looters.

Criminals will always prey on the weak or those unable to defend themselves. They are lazy. If they weren’t lazy they’d have a job.

There will always be crime. Without guns, then might makes right. Get 6 hardcore t-nation members together and go on a rampage. Who could stop them? The old phrase “God made man, but Sam Colt made them equal” is fitting and true. A 5 foot tall 95 pound non-t-vixen can protect herself if she has the right mind set against any sized aggressor.

Those that say we need to ban firearms for the safety of children need to look at the CDC’s site and see what the major causes of childhood death are. More kids die from falling down stairs, drowning in buckets, at the hands of their parents, or not properly in a car seat or seat belt in a car than children do by accidental firearms. The anti-gun groups like to add in suicides, gang killings, and criminals who are killed by the police into their accidental death by firearm studies to pad the death rates. They even have used the definition of a child as a person up to age 25.

With great power comes even greater responsibility. Firearms are not toys. My children understand the rules and abide by them. Last summer they learned how to shoot a bow and arrow and all the safety issues pertaining to that activity. This summer they will learn to shoot my Great Grandfather’s single shot 22. My youngest are 5 year old twins.

If you own a firearm I suggest that you take your local concealed weapons class even if you don’t ever intend to apply for the license. The legal issues pertaining “shoot don’t shoot” are very important for you to know.

If you do chose to carry a firearm, make your choices wisely and by all means KNOW the laws of your state.

I stand and fight for all the RIGHTS I as a citizen of this country have. The ability to own a firearm was placed second purposefully only behind the ability to speak your mind freely about any topic.

107
  • In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.-

The above quote might help explain our high crime rates.

I also have to say be careful about dealing with legalizing drugs. Both drugs and alcohol are involved with a very large portion of crime

A study in Sweden showed that 23% of violent crime is related to drugs or alcohol. Now alcohol is related to more violence, but that is probably because it is easier to get.

I can see a decriminalization for use, and attempting to treat the people, but not just allowing all drugs to now be legal. Seriously, how many of you want to see more people on crack?

I agree with reworking eminent domain. The government should never take land to just give to another person or business. That is wrong. If there is a legitimate government use, that is different, mostly. It is bullshit to take a person’s house just so you can build another Wal-Mart.

A lot of old laws should be dropped. I almost think that once a law turns a certain age, say 50 years, it should be brought back up for a vote just to see if it stays a law. No changes to the law allowed, just a vote to see if it should be kept or repealed.

108

[quote]Chewman wrote:
Firearms is always a heated topic.

It’s never legal to shoot someone through your door unless thay are armed and you believe that they are intending to kill you. You first have to KNOW they are armed. Fear does not dismiss responsible actions.

The US Bill of Rights gives citizens the right to own firearms. It doesnt state what type, and IMHO I believe citizens should be able to own the same type of firearms as the Federal Gov outfits our soldiers with. The citizen body is what makes the militia not the National Guard. The National Guard is actually a reserve branch of the military. In an emergency like the last batch of hurricanes that swept Florida, individual citizens protected their property and their neighbors with their legally owned firearms from looters.

Criminals will always prey on the weak or those unable to defend themselves. They are lazy. If they weren’t lazy they’d have a job.

There will always be crime. Without guns, then might makes right. Get 6 hardcore t-nation members together and go on a rampage. Who could stop them? The old phrase “God made man, but Sam Colt made them equal” is fitting and true. A 5 foot tall 95 pound non-t-vixen can protect herself if she has the right mind set against any sized aggressor.

Those that say we need to ban firearms for the safety of children need to look at the CDC’s site and see what the major causes of childhood death are. More kids die from falling down stairs, drowning in buckets, at the hands of their parents, or not properly in a car seat or seat belt in a car than children do by accidental firearms. The anti-gun groups like to add in suicides, gang killings, and criminals who are killed by the police into their accidental death by firearm studies to pad the death rates. They even have used the definition of a child as a person up to age 25.

With great power comes even greater responsibility. Firearms are not toys. My children understand the rules and abide by them. Last summer they learned how to shoot a bow and arrow and all the safety issues pertaining to that activity. This summer they will learn to shoot my Great Grandfather’s single shot 22. My youngest are 5 year old twins.

If you own a firearm I suggest that you take your local concealed weapons class even if you don’t ever intend to apply for the license. The legal issues pertaining “shoot don’t shoot” are very important for you to know.

If you do chose to carry a firearm, make your choices wisely and by all means KNOW the laws of your state.

I stand and fight for all the RIGHTS I as a citizen of this country have. The ability to own a firearm was placed second purposefully only behind the ability to speak your mind freely about any topic.
[/quote]

WELL SAID!!

109

Aleksandr- thanks for the money shot:

Typical lib- I have no idea what you are talking about, but I ‘know’ you are wrong.

Actually I have read a fair bit of history. That is why I have said previously in this very Web site the Nazis were done in by an ocean of Russian blood and a mountain of American equipment.

Ivan got to Berlin first because GI Joe stopped so that the delicate sensibilities of the Benevolent Uncle Joe wouldn’t be offended. By your own measurement, GI Joe fought Fritz harder because he ended up with more Kraut population, land, and resources than Ivan, essentially West verses the ehemaliges East Germany.

Germany never attacked the US of A. Consider what would have happened if Uncle Sam had properly Uncle Joe to fuck right the hell off. Why support one mass murder over the other? The mobility of the Russian Army would have been severely curtailed. The Nazis would have not had to spend very considerable resources on the air defense of Germany, and maintained air superiority on the Eastern Front for much longer than Kursk, well into 1944 perhaps. Given that the Reds spent the lives of young men like we Yankees burn dollars, how close would they have come to Berlin? You did know that only one in five of men born in the Soviet Union in 1923 survived the Great Patriotic War, didn’t you?

Go read Genius for War. At the end of the war, the Krauts still maintained a man for man two to one qualitative combat advantage over the Russians. The Americans were only at a one and a quarter to one deficit. Earlier, back in the first Big One, the German General Staff was very leery of fighting a nation where most households had guns. And as history would have it, the Yanks were the decisive factor in that war, after the Huns easily dispatched the Russians and were grinding the inept French and British into the ground. Go read a book by a guy named Mossier for the details.

It would seem that you have some fantasies of your own to dispatch.

By the looks of your moniker I take it you are of Russian desent. Why you wouldn’t absolutely loath the Leviathan that is the modern day Leftist Welfare State in all of its permutations is beyond reason.

Oh, and as I will keep saying, if you are going to fling it, don’t throw like a girl, you end up getting on yourself.

110

[quote]apayne wrote:
Nep and Band,
Not agreeing with Eminent Domain ideas at all. Kinda playing devil’s advocate. Unfortunately if a corporation/government decides they want something you’ve got it’s an uphill battle.[/quote]

Understood. I was just curious what tactics you were aware of or might have seen that a corporation/developer might use to “persuade” the existing owner to sell. Like I said, I had never heard this angle before.

111

As for the self-defense issue in the case of the Louisiana woman shooting the Asian kid, she can’t use deadly force to protect herself - typically - unless she had a reasonable belief her life was in danger (I am sure BB can expand). It can also vary if you are in your dwelling - you make actually have more latitude if you are in your own home.

What is a reasonable belief? Ask a jury. It depends on the circumstances.

It is not ok to blow someone away if they aren’t threatening you in a mortal way - but when dealing with split-second calculus about life and death, it’s important to be realistic about the possibilities of error. Self-defense, by way of that reasonableness test, errs on the side of caution.

112

I think my main problem with banning guns is that it will only eliminate gun violence. What makes gun violence so much worse than a good ole fashion ass beating? If there were no guns in this world then people would kill each other the way they did before, with blades, clubs, sticks stone, hands, feet and anything else they damn well pleased.

Anyone familiar with the Five Points made popular in some pop literature? Street gangs fought each other hand to hand. The political machine relied on ‘shoulder strikers’. Aparently in West Africa some pirates still prey on fisherman in dug out canoes with spears and knives. Should we start sweeping iniatives to ban knives and spears?

Basically, the conditions that lead to large amounts of gun violence in this country would simply lead to other forms of violent acts if there were no guns. What exactly those conditions are, I have neither the research nor the interest in discovering at the moment.

Lastly, if feweer guns would lead us to a safer world, then more guns would lead to a more dangerous world, right? Well, the county I grew up in has a weapon in nearly every household. It would nearly qualify as a garrison state it’s so heavily armed. The only homocide I can remember growing up was committed by the county jack boots over responding to a domestic disturbance. There weren’t even many firearm accidents, even in a county that bagged huge numbers of deer with large bore rifles every fall.

It was safe because we had respect for each other firstly, and criminals knew if they should invade a home or business they could meet stiff, armed resistance. Does this mean this is a viable or desirable model for everywhere? No, but that’s the point. Leave our communities the right to bear arms as they see fit. A blanket ban would offend their right to be self sovreign adults.

I’ve already lied and kicked this poor dead horse more times than I wanted to, so this will be my last post on this thread about gun ownership/violence/rights/etc. I know we aren’t going to change our minds because we are all driven enough to post our opinions and support them with (mostly) cogent arguments. If anything I hope I have given the impression that not all redneck gun toters are uneducated, illiterate hillbillies. Okay, okay, I am a hillbilly…but I digress.

113

[quote]The Mage wrote:
I also have to say be careful about dealing with legalizing drugs. Both drugs and alcohol are involved with a very large portion of crime

A study in Sweden showed that 23% of violent crime is related to drugs or alcohol. Now alcohol is related to more violence, but that is probably because it is easier to get.

I can see a decriminalization for use, and attempting to treat the people, but not just allowing all drugs to now be legal. Seriously, how many of you want to see more people on crack?
[/quote]

Drugs are related to crime just as alcohol was back in the 20’s. Sweden is very prohibitionist country (like us). If you compare thier drug crime rate with the Netherlands or Switzerland, you’ll see they are better off with their lax drug laws. Criminals do not want drugs legalized. Why would they? They’d have to pay taxes on them, get licensed to sell them, profits would fall like a rock. In 2001, if you bought a kilo of heroin in Pakistan and sold it in the US, you’d make a profit of around 4000%. Coke is even worse, around $17,000 earned for every dollar spent on production and processing. This is why drugs and crime go hand in hand. Money. You hardly ever see gangs smuggling alcohol anymore, because it’s legal, no profit.
As for increased levels of drug use, that is a possibility in the beginning, people interested in the novelty of it. But it would level off after a couple years. I mean, would you try crack or heroin even if it were legal? Probably not, I wouldn’t. Most people probably think the same way. Cannabis use might stay a little higher, but it’d probably be an improvement if people smoked instead of drinking.
Human appetite for drugs has been around for millenia and will not go away anytime soon. We might as well work with it to minimize any damage it might do.

114

[quote]Professor X wrote:
As you mentioned, there is much interpretation of “disorderly conduct”. I am not sure that even “swearing loudly” in and of itself falls under that specific law in most states. I am sure BB could clarify that. As such, to make “swearing loudly” without answering the questions I posed in the last response sounds much like public censorship. Who gets to determine what is “swearing” and how loud is loud?[/quote]

That would be the officer, trooper or deputy who responds to the complaint. If there is a subsequent arrest then the judge and or jury determines it. However, don’t think for a second that I have “overstepped the bounds of logic with supporting laws which restrict swearing loudly.”

If that were the case there would be an exclusion to someone using “abusive or obscene language, or making an obscene gesture in a public place.” Instead this is at the very heart of most state disorderly conduct laws!

Don’t take my word for it. Google in “disorderly conduct” write in any state you like. Do ten at random. You might get lucky and find one that has nothing to do with this sort of behavior, but I doubt it. I’m surprised that you find it odd that people don’t want their peace and quiet disturbed by some loud foul mouthed moron.

Talk about overstepping the bounds of logic…Ha

115

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Wow Professor, when things go badly for you on this forum you have no problem pulling out the personal attacks. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised…

As to the facts: You did not qualify your original statement. Rather you issued a blanket statement. That is why I called you on it. If it was a qualified statement I would have agreed. You never mentioned that “in this case” it is not appropriate to shoot an unarmed individual. If that’s what you are now stating that is a far cry from your original blanket statement. Did you have an epihany? Some do when cornered.

It seems that you are the “dumbass” (since you like name calling) as you have retreated from your original statement and are now taking up the notion that guns are in fact a good thing: “I’m not against the use of guns.” That assertion was not made (on this thread) previous to your most recent post. Were we all supposed to guess at your “real meaning?”

Those of us who are pro gun don’t have a problem acknowledging that fact. You seem to want to be anti-gun and pro-gun at the same time (or at least as it fits the debate). I can see why you were a Kerry supporter. You both like to flip flop. Although I will say that Kerry does it with much more class, which is not saying much considering the players.

What planet are you all from where you can write things like, "LOL, you might want to quit while you are way, way behind. " or other “pot-shots” but not consider them insults, but as soon as someone calls you a name, you want to cry foul? Quit playing innocent. You’re not good at it.

I believe there should be control on the sale of guns. I am not “pro-guns” in the sense that I think they should be sold with minor restrictions to anyone who doesn’t have a criminal record. It sets up situations like the shooting described where someone takes the life of someone else simply because of a personal bias. I am in the military. I have no choice but to know how to use a gun. Anyone deployed anywhere is trained. As such, I would like the right to carry one, especially since I have been trained to do so. You seem to be one of those people who only thinks in terms of “all or nothing”. My position has nothing to do with “flip flopping”. I noticed a horrible act committed with a gun based on a bias. You tried to ignore it. I think that shows who here thinks things through better before posting.

[/quote]

Well, Professor, since you brought it up, let’s take a quick trip back to your first post to me, shall we? We can see who began to lower the standard of debate:

Professor: “No wonder you don’t give a shit about people who file bankruptcy who are in dire medical situations.”

Did I attack you prior to that statement? No. I didn’t even attack you right after that statement. After that first “low blow” by you, I admonished you: “maybe you should consider taking the high road in some of these debates, for a change.”

However, did you take my advice? No. Further attempting to play internet bully you continued (as you usually do around here).

Your very next post: “Get your head out of your ass.”

Your next one after that:
“I am against dumbasses like you trying to make a point by excusing a negative act like this kid being shot simply so you can support gun use. You are the clueless one in this. Keep showing it.” Did I ever excuse an act like that? No. This is just another one of your tactics. Put downs that are used in an attempt to intimidate those who have a different view point.

I guess if you don’t like me posting “quit while you are way behind” which is not a personal attack, by the way. You shouldn’t be using personal attacks. Make sense? I hope so.

Look, we all think we are right here. Most every poster feels he has some great ideas. You on the other hand have somehow placed yourself on mount Olympus. If you are questioned you get nasty. I’m not the only one who has noticed. You like to insult people who don’t agree with you. In fact, you insult people even before they have a chance to disagree with you, on some threads. It’s your style…No big deal, but you seem a little thin skinned to play the role of bully.

As to your final statement in your most recent post, it’s simply another dodge to the original question. Are we all to simply assume that you are pro gun (when qualified) when you make outlandish statements such as: “that still doesn’t justify killing someone unless he was armed.”

You are the one who did not think before posting. Is that so hard to admit? It’s either that or you really beleive what you posted. It has to be one or the other. And the defense that you have used since that statement, your usual combination of personal attacks, put downs and sidetracking isn’t working!

116

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
schrauper wrote:
BTW, for all of you they have no crime and the US does folks, it was the good ole US of A, with all of its hicks and hillbillies and cowboys who knew how to shoot strait, that had to put down the militarist Japanese, who were extremely polite to the Chinese, and the Germans, not too keen on private gun ownership, and for that matter were the original anti-smoking Nazis as well.

A fair bit of your post was BS, no doubt, but it was discussing issues I am not to familiar with. This one paragraph, however, shows your knowledge of world history clearly enough. The brave americans stopped the evil nazis?

No question, the americans had a hell of a fight in the pacific. Note, however, that until pearl harbour, the US remained neutral. The US only got involved because it was attacked.

As for stopping the nazis, yeah it was totally the americans… I don’t know what holywood movie you learned your history from, but just look nazi up troop deployment. You’ll notice that WWII was fought, form the german stand point, on the eatern front. And who was it that was marching into berlin when hitler commited suicide? Yep, the ruskies. That’s right, “god damned commies” are the ones that stopped hitler, not the brave straight-shooting hillbillies you seem to fantasize about.

[/quote]

The Commies, or the same Russian winter that stopped Napolean? Come on now…

117

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
What a load of bullshit! How could a small minority of a couple of million have defended itself against the rest of the nation spearheaded by armed and trained stormtroopers?

You’re actually giving the Holocaust as an example why America should keep having guns? That is perhaps the worst supporting argument I have ever heard.
[/quote]
if you had an army and you were going to war with a much larger army (the rest of the world) you’d probably think twice before cleaning house if there was an expectation of casualties and a subsequent fall of morale.

i’ll repeat. if the jews posed a threat to the integrity of Hitler’s military, chances are he’d have rethunk it.

perhaps you are the one who is manning the sunken argument.

P.S. maybe bostonbarrister can help me out cuz i don’t know the constitution, but if the second amendment does not explicitely express the necessecity for private ownership of firearms in order to combat a government gone corrupt (like Nazi Germany) then it has certainly been implied.

118

zeb,

being as i haven’t a definate opinion about public profanity, i was hoping you would expound as to why you do. im curious why you believe profanity is a step in the wrong direction, im curious why you believe your child seeing a man naked or masturbating or swearing is a problem.

not looking for an argument, just an idea.

119

My thoughts on drug legalization:
Making dangerous substances legal is a bad idea. Come to my hospital and spend some time with the hundred or so addicts that run through my ER every other week, and you might agree with me. I define a dangerous drug as one which has no use for anything besides self-gratification, and is semi-easy to OD on. This means that pot is not a dangerous substance, but good luck getting that legalized. Our culture is going to have to undergo quite a bit of change before that happens. Also, that means that pro-hormones and the like aren’t dangerous either. Once again, good luck with those too.

Guns:
Keep 'em legal. I like the idea of licenses for ownership purposes. I mean, we have licenses to drive a lethal weapon on the road, we should also need a license to use a lethal firearm. Any idiot can pull a trigger, any idiot can run somebody over. Same damn thing in my book. Let’s see how dedicated my fellow pro-gun dudes are to the idea of gun ownership: I propose that to own/use a firearm, you have to pass a written test to prove your knowledge of the laws in your state and how they pertain to gun use, and prove your proficiency with your firearm with a loading/shooting test. Is this not a good idea? I think that instilling an idea of responsibility to go along with gun ownership might cut down on the number of parents who leave firearms accessible to kids, etc. I’m all for gun ownership, but let’s get serious about making sure complete morons aren’t out buying them.

120

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
rainjack wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Laws which enable people to possess firearms for reasons other that hunting or for farmwork should be changed. The constitutional right to bear arms was written for a different, more rugged time. Now the negative impact of these weapons far outweighs their effect on personal safety.

Absolutely the worst idea on this thread so far.

For every intruder shot with a firearm designated for ‘home protection’ in America, 41 family members are killed or wounded in accidents.

Of course it would never happen to you, would it? Only to those people who are careless. Well, it seems that is a lot of people.

On the weekend a 4 year-old shot and killed his 2-year old sibling. Just one of the sadder examples of this phenomenon.

[/quote]

I have to agree with DeanoSumo on this one. Don’t remember the exact statistic, but every few (minutes?) in this country a child is accidentally killed by a gun, much more so than guns used in self defense. If the ideal safety practices were to be followed by everyone, then this statistic about children dying from guns wouldn’t be living proof that the average Joe, in my opinion, is simply way too irresponsible to own a gun.

In the state of Hawaii, our lawMAKERS need to go!! They are way too absorbed in self-interest and hence everything here has been neglected for DECADES! One screaming example is our educational system and all the tax dollars allocated, yet where’s the money? No books for DECADES, teachers get paid squat, the buildings falling apart onto the kids…the Board of Education refuses to consent to a financial audit, our legislators with a la dee dah attitude (perhaps an unspoken agreement that if you don’t breathe down my neck, I won’t yours?). This brings to mind the sodomy law…