How many innocent lives are your guns worth?

C

CrescentFresh

New Member
Winter Woman said:
A nut job years ago attacked my brother as he left a restaurant. I was picking him up and saw what was happening. I used my car to back the guy off my brother. The police office told me I could be charged with using my car to protect my brother! He called it a weapon. What you say is very true, I lived it.
Click to expand...
i think we should regulate your crazymobile down to 1 wheel
 
W

woody333333

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
yep. last i heard the taurus judge was prohibited in california.

they claimed it was both a shotgun with a barrel less than sixteen inches, and a rifle turned into a pistol (both illegal under section 10 as destructive devices)
Click to expand...
ya its not for girl scouts
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
budlover13 said:
There are exemptions that I will have to check on. Know someone who made a pistol out of a 10/22 80% receiver. There's a way around it.
Click to expand...
the law is crazy, but as i recall the .22 was classed as a "pistol round" by the calif legislature and thus a pistol can be made from it, likewise the thompson center contender is a pistol that fires a range of rounds usually considered rifle only, but it's a single shot weapon.

anyhoo, the taurus judge is still apparently classed as a sawed off shotgun and a cut down rifle, and on both counts that a "destructive device"

http://www.nvsa.info/?q=node/303

check the PDF in that link, theres an opinion from a law firm in there that makes it clear.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
"State or Federal evaluation? Who develops the criteria?"

The feds on both counts

" Federal intercession at the purchasing level? Or should it be state,suppose the state are different and someone wants to cross state lines with a gun that is legal in one state and illegal in another."

Again, the feds. There would have to be uniformity in the law, which could not be accomplished if left up to the individual states.

"Manditory classes could conflict with the 2nd as an infringement."

Honestly, I don't care. A gun is intended to kill, and should be treated with a level of seriousness and professionalism. As a society we have no issue with taking training to drive a car, so how is owning and operating a gun any less important?

"On the subject of registration - Why? registration will make it impossible for a citizen to own a weapon without someone knowing he does and that is fraught with problems."

I conceded the slippery slope here, but the importance of this is to establish lawful ownership of the gun in order to punish the "bad guy". There would be no way of knowing that a gun is in the wrong hands without a registration process of some sort.

"Most of the mass shooters were not criminals but insane people."

My focus is not on preventing Adam Lanza type incidents. I don't feel that there are any practical measures to prevent something like that. If a nutter is set on shooting up a school, no law on earth will stop that.

"Now who are you going to get to determine which set of mental disorders are allowable and which are not. What you are in essence saying is that there will be a body of people - likely governmental on some level who will determine who is "eligible" to have their Constitutional rights - and who is not"

A persons eligibility will be based upon past behavior. Would you not agree that a person convicted of armed robbery, or rape, or murder, should not be permitted to own a firearm? There would be no "body of people". There would be clear-cut criteria (not unlike what we already have) set forth.
Click to expand...
I have lots of problems here. Remember I am a member of those horrible horrible liberal people who want everyone's guns taken away. I am one of the sheeple, the herd, the stupid ones who hate the constitution - ok?

So you want a body of people that are the furthest from the individual as can be. You want a government that can by nature have no understanding of the community it is now managing, to make up the rules for that community. You want an absolutely one size fits all set of rules - and that set of rules governs how we as individuals are to be "allowed" our fundamental right to keep and bear arms. You want people who were elected through various savory and not so savory ways, who act often times in their own and their monitary sponsor's best interest rather than their consituants to decide what "classes" of people are entitled to their right to keep and bear - for whatever reason they wish to.... keep and bear. As an example, suppose we have a mildly autistic man living in Montana minding his own business (which is what autistics most often do). Previously, a person who was judged autistic after the fact shot up a church and so, the art of legislation being what it is - autism is lumped into the rule set on who can and cannot purchase a firearm. Now this autistic farmer is incapable of protecting his sheep from coyotes and is dissalowed the right to protect his family in a place that the police would have trouble even finding let alone arriving in time to help the family who comes into contact with a tweeker bent on getting at the family's coffee can fund.

Now this is a made up example but it is the kind of thing that happens when our coumunities are micromanaged from afar. And you want that micromanagement for a fundamental and at times rather essential right.



Furthermore, you want the Feds to be in the middle of the transaction between a lawful gun seller and a lawful gun buyer. Contrary to La Pierre's recent rant, government is in the middle of most if not all transactions. The state is there between the guy selling and the guy buying a car, or a home, but the government in those situations are more local - state or even smaller localities. The regulations and requirements may well be overbearing and may well need to be different depending upon those locations.

Now you say you don't care about the Federal government being involved in manditory training of weapons use. Fine, but you by nature of your other answers want THAT to be a federal matter as well. This could easily be called infringement and if you think that people are upset over the provisions of Obama care, imagine what it would be like to demand each individual with a firearm - no matter where he comes from, no matter how his family is brought up with firearms or without, no matter the individual situation of each gun owner he will have to have ongoing certification. Beyond even that, these certifications will cost money. Charging money in order to exercise one's right is a dangerous if Constitutionaly sketchy endeavor. We liberals run into all sorts of flack when we are challenged with the constitutionality of a contemplated action and we respond with "I don't care".

I argue all day long with the gun nuts who have imaginations pertaining to the jack booted thugs marching door to door searching for guns. They are foolish and irrational because as I have long said, government has other ways to handle such things. But their way depends upon a paper trail. Given a universal paper trail to each and every lawful gun in the United States could really, actually enable the government to collect every weapon. That is a slippery slope that has meaning. One thing perhaps to keep those paper trails short, to the county or perhaps the state but beyond that is a genuine hazard to our overall freedom.

Now you mention operating a car, and there is no comparison, we need not hide for any reason our ownership of a vehicle. We learn to drive so that we can manage our vehicles in a concerted way - so everyone knows what the signs mean and which way we are to point our headlights but even so, that management is left to the states.

Your focus is in my opinion incorrect. The gun guys tend to manuver the conversation away from the mass shootings and into the individual gun violence because they know their argument will succeed - an individual bent upon killing another will find a variety of ways of doing it and taking his gun from him will not deter injury to another. If we focus on the mass shootings we always hold the cards. A guy intent upon killing a number of people at once has limited solutions, poison or bombs are about it and both are regulated. The point is that individual killings don't get much national airplay and it is hard to dismiss them as "well he would have done that anyway, even if he didn't have a gun" doesn't work.

In my opinion, the POINT of new gun legislation is to prevent, curtail or limit the ability of the genuinely wacked to kill 10 or 20 people. So far, aside from your requirement of background checks, nothing you are asking for will have much effect on the day to day individual gun violence we see. In order to do that we would have to radicaly change our culture - hardly likely.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that persons convicted of armed robbery and the like are elegible to obtain a firearm now.

And there is always a "body of people" that propose, write and finally pass legislation, people are always in the loop.
 
Figong

Figong

Well-Known Member
As much as I pretty much told myself it would be a good idea to stay out of this.. if we're looking for civilians being properly trained in the use of a firearm, how about we start with those who are supposedly trained to protect us? More than a few major state police in various states have firearms qualifications set at 70%.. meaning they can -miss- 30% of the time. In a crowded environment, how many.. we'll say children, for this example would it take ending up shot/critically wounded/dead to get it pushed to 100% like the Michigan state police? Something to contemplate.
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
canndo said:
I've been thinking a lot about guns, gun violence, mass shootings on the one hand, U.S. civil rights and the 2nd amendment on another hand and on a third hand, the explosive, reactionary, irrational responses to any percieved threat to most gun owners ability to do as they please with firearms, buy as they wish, and be held completely unaccountable for their ideological contribution to gun violence.


But the question finally draws down to a very simple one: how many innocent deaths is each one of your guns worth?

I know I am making some critical presumptions, that the removal of law abiding citizen's guns does not directly correlate with a reduction in gun violence and that there is the counterbalancing factor of self protection and perhaps an offset for potential governmental tyranny.

But that aside, presuming that a number could be established,


If you knew for certain that surrendering your firearm would keep a given number of children from being shot, what would that number be?

How many children is your right to keep and bear worth to you?
Click to expand...
Please...SHUT THE FUCK UP....

You gonna whinge about all the children dying in the world? The child soldiers in africa? Obama flanked by those kids really drove his message home with you...

no-weapons-allowed.jpg
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
I was in Oklahoma when the bombing happened. Our family friend called in sick that day, and a person sitting at her desk got a face full of glass from the explosion. Home made bomb.

If Adam Lanza hadn't had access to a gun, he could of made a few explosives and done way more damage. Or a gas released through the AC of the building could of wiped everyone out. Carbon Monoxide Poisoning.

If people want to kill, they will find a way to make it happen.

"Within moments, the surrounding area looked like a war zone. A third of the building had been reduced to rubble, with many floors flattened like pancakes. Dozens of cars were incinerated and more than 300 nearby buildings were damaged or destroyed.

The human toll was still more devastating: 168 souls lost, including 19 children, with several hundred more injured."

~ FBI website http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/oklahoma-city-bombing
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
echelon1k1 said:
Please...SHUT THE FUCK UP....

You gonna whinge about all the children dying in the world? The child soldiers in africa? Obama flanked by those kids really drove his message home with you...

View attachment 2495136
Click to expand...

Shut the fuck up? Why? because you don't want to contemplate the reality of what our 2nd Amendment costs us in this country? Or do you want to compare us with some other situation for the same reason?
 
Mindmelted

Mindmelted

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Shut the fuck up? Why? because you don't want to contemplate the reality of what our 2nd Amendment costs us in this country? Or do you want to compare us with some other situation for the same reason?
Click to expand...


And what does it cost us?
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
Flaming Pie said:
I was in Oklahoma when the bombing happened. Our family friend called in sick that day, and a person sitting at her desk got a face full of glass from the explosion. Home made bomb.

If Adam Lanza hadn't had access to a gun, he could of made a few explosives and done way more damage. Or a gas released through the AC of the building could of wiped everyone out. Carbon Monoxide Poisoning.

If people want to kill, they will find a way to make it happen.

"Within moments, the surrounding area looked like a war zone. A third of the building had been reduced to rubble, with many floors flattened like pancakes. Dozens of cars were incinerated and more than 300 nearby buildings were damaged or destroyed.

The human toll was still more devastating: 168 souls lost, including 19 children, with several hundred more injured."

~ FBI website http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/oklahoma-city-bombing
Click to expand...
Sorry bro, but the FBI's track record with agent provocateurs, informants, double agents & assets is dubious to say the least... They couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery.

They have a history to giving real bombs to terror suspects, whitewashing OPR investigations, fucking up surveillance, getting played by foreign intelligence operatives, dropping the ball again and again not to mention totally goat fucking active assets/informants and investigations.

The only thing the FBI does well is covering their own asses. Hoovers legacy still cripples the bureau to this day and things don't look like geting better...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top