The Caddy Shack

...not your typical golf forum


    More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Share
    avatar
    FamousDavis
    Admin

    Posts : 1091
    Join date : 2012-12-04

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  FamousDavis on Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:59 pm

    Big Dave has outdone himself this time. He makes valid points as to why gun control won't work, is unnecessary and is not in our best interest. Armed citizens pose more of a threat to a government that wants to grow and gain control. In addition, it's pretty clear that guns are not the problem. Granted, access to guns by disturbed individuals is very much a problem and must be addressed. Dave brings up the interesting dichotomy of how so many democrats favor gun control yet have no problem with obscene violence on the news, TV shows, movies and music. I have no doubt that these sources of entertainment have much more to do with mass killings than the gun itself.

    Attachments
    z funny jaws pic.jpg
    You don't have permission to download attachments.
    (23 Kb) Downloaded 0 times
    avatar
    Big Dave

    Posts : 138
    Join date : 2012-12-06
    Age : 57
    Location : Houston, TX

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Big Dave on Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:02 pm

    FamousDavis wrote:Big Dave has outdone himself this time. He makes valid points as to why gun control won't work, is unnecessary and is not in our best interest. Armed citizens pose more of a threat to a government that wants to grow and gain control. In addition, it's pretty clear that guns are not the problem. Granted, access to guns by disturbed individuals is very much a problem and must be addressed. Dave brings up the interesting dichotomy of how so many democrats favor gun control yet have no problem with obscene violence on the news, TV shows, movies and music. I have no doubt that these sources of entertainment have much more to do with mass killings than the gun itself.


    I"m sorry, what were you saying? I was just noticing that Lacey isn't wearing a bra...

    What a Face

    Boom

    Posts : 12
    Join date : 2012-12-31

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Boom on Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:34 pm

    Big Dave wrote: Thanks HauerBoom. :-)

    Wrong.

    I wanted the name Thwack and it was taken (???) This was the next thing I thought of.

    Thwack is the sound my driver makes at impact... pretty sure, yourself aside, I was the longest hitter on GR. Though probably not as far as Pingman, but he doesn't count. Using Stack and Tilt to hit it 300 yards is something a Commie East German would do ;-)

    avatar
    12pierogi

    Posts : 357
    Join date : 2012-12-05
    Location : Lake effect snowland

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  12pierogi on Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:10 pm

    Big Dave wrote:Yeah, all the carelessness does bother me a lot. BUt.. I have not heard of more than one or two people being shot, and nobody killed, because of careless discharge (i.e. property situation where there is insufficient backstop, or not enough distance to next populated area, etc) in as long as I can remember. Everyone wants to react to something that MIGHT happen. It almost never does.

    Whereas each year in America, as reported by the National Institute of Justice (a dot gov website btw), there are approximately two MILLION defenses with handguns. shown, pulled, brandished, discharged, all the way up to actual gun battles and shooting of perps. TWO MILLION defenses. To interfere with people's constitutional right to own a gun is to start making a substantial number of those crimes more successful, with more victims and more suffering. The more restrictive gun law becomes, the more criminals will feel unleashed and free, and even crimes that presently are NOT being committed will fall into the other column. Disarm the public and they are victims. It shows in crime stats by area. The heaviest gun bans match up with the most gun crime and violent crime in general, PERIOD. Where people are armed, i.e. Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma, etc., the violent crime rate is spectacularly lower. People aren't dumb. Criminals don't want to be shot. Widespread gun ownership is a deterrent that results in safer society and fewer violent crimes, including GUN crimes. Anecdotal stories arouse the public, but hardly anyone ever puts it in this statistical broader view. Guns make MILLIONS of people SAFER, bottom line. Violent crime in England, post handgun ban, is four to five times higher than in America. It's just the truth.

    The kneejerk response to an anecdote, to ban some item or increase regulations, does not WORK. Any fair review of stats shows it. Fewer legal guns equals MORE crime, usually including more GUN crime. We have rights, and we have responsibilities. It's a citizen's responsibility to be PREPARED, to protect himself and his fellow men and women and children, and to be safe with his weapons, to secure them and not endanger others when he fires them.. Cops don't get there fast enough. They are not constitutionally required to stop a crime in progress ANYWAY, and it's amazing how often they don't. If we are not allowed to have guns, we are condemned to simply roll over and play victim when a big young strong man wants our money or wants to harm us.

    This isn't complicated. And it isn't antiquated.

    THere were about a half dozen black rifle makers in America in 1994. The left chose to hang their collective hats on the "saturday night special" instead of black rifles, thinking that was fringe gun stuff. They got their bans, magazines etc. But the politicians who voted for them had trouble getting reelected.

    And today, instead of a half dozen, there are 200 companies making black rifles. Many many millions more people have then now than in 1994. Getting them away from people, while the second amendment is still in the constitution, is just a nonstarter. The people who have guns are the people most convinced that their rights do not come from present day Democrat administrations, and that present day Democrats are legally bound to obey the law as it is written.

    If you want to "infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms", you really do need to start by repealing the second amendment, so that this right doesn't appear directly under the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly ( peaceful protest against government )... But that requires significant majorities in state legislatures and congress. THAT requires a significant majority of the people be behind the repeal. Not gonna happen. And nobody who defends the first amendment can claim the second does not apply. They are both, sequentially, in the "BILL OF RIGHTS". It ain't the bill of needs. Government doesn't get to tell people what they need. The Amendment is written so as to A) imply that the right to be armed PRECEDED the constitution, and B) ensure that a citizen army can be raised quickly to defend the people against tyranny, i.e. to defend "the security of a free state". Not a free GOVERNMENT. A free state means free PEOPLE.

    And since the oath of office of many posts in government requires them to swear to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, one may safely presume that a militia fighting for the security of a free state may find themselves fighting a domestic enemy, i.e. their own government becoming tyrannical. It is only the ENTIRE STORY OF HUMAN HISTORY, including a crescendo of horrors in the previous century, some continuing to this day.

    A free man is a man who can carry a weapon. The sign of an unfree man is that he is made defenseless by government edict. Slaves were disarmed by edicts in the south. Jews were disarmed by the German gun law of 1938. Criminals might rejoice at unarmed victims, but government's purpose is not to expose the citizen to greater risk of crime; it is to reduce THEIR risk that the man might defend himself against GOVERNMENT, or worse still, might organize to overthrow a government which has become tyrannical. Government, disarming people, acts to protect ITSELF from THEM. In all of human history, this is the truth.

    I'm going to repeat myself Dave it's about getting many of the guns out there in the wrong hands. The Jonesboro shooting was minors that had easy access to family guns, they pulled the fire alarm and shot the kids outside the school.
    It's obvious new town was partly due to another careless gun owner, with guns beyond the realm of home protection. Get a good dog and a pistol maybe for gods sake. This latest shooting at the firefighters, how does a convicted murderer get a bushmaster or any firearm for that matter. It's endless the change needed.

    So many of these shootings are due to outdated, and not enforced laws.
    Obamas not going to kick your door in. Nor mine. But some of that maybe needed.
    avatar
    Pky6471

    Posts : 849
    Join date : 2012-12-05
    Location : Between DC and NY

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Pky6471 on Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:37 pm

    Big Dave wrote:


    I"m sorry, what were you saying? I was just noticing that Lacey isn't wearing a bra...

    What a Face

    Yes... it's a nice pair of tits
    avatar
    Playa Hata

    Posts : 72
    Join date : 2012-12-14
    Location : Bizarro World

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Playa Hata on Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:49 pm

    Dave, your thoughts and interpretations of the Constitution are exactly that; thoughts and interpretations. Yet you lean on them as if they're fact or law.

    So far you've explained the second amendment to mean the right of the people to bear arms, yet that somehow excludes fully automatic rifles, grenade launchers, and bazookas. When asked why those are excluded, you conveniently opine that they're not needed by a militia to defend against tyranny despite the fact that our government has access to fully automatic guns, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc.

    So per Dave, we have a right to bear arms, but actually are able to exclude certain arms because in Dave's opinion the government will only use a certain amount of force when it becomes tyrannical. I didn't see anything in the Constitution that says "except for", nor did I read the Tyrannical Government's Guide to Forceful Limitations, but it's good to know Dave believes there are reasonable exclusions. Whether it's for the betterment of society, or that no one is clamoring for them, or that they're not needed for militia defense, per Dave, there's a legitimate excuse.

    So a ban of fully automatic weapons is ok and somehow in sync with the second amendment, but as soon as the conversation turns to high capacity magazines it's, "WHOA...that's a game changer!!!" All of a sudden those same excuses no longer apply. Now we've breached into rights threatening territory. We need those magazines to defend our rights.

    And as if that's not enough, Dave now wants to interpret the first amendment for us. It's not the guns fault. It's the movies. It's not the guns fault. It's the video games. Were the gangsters in the 1930's playing violent video games? It certainly wasn't the guns fault. Was it the violent movies? It wasn't the guns fault. Did the gangsters just need some God in their lives? It wasn't the guns fault. Let's not attempt to reduce access to Tommy guns from the gangsters. We just need increased access to Tommy guns for the "good guy." More Tommy Guns, less violence.

    I'm sorry Dave, but your logic flies like a lead balloon.
    avatar
    Horseballs

    Posts : 752
    Join date : 2012-12-05
    Location : Living the dream at the SPCC

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Horseballs on Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:50 am

    How about this?
    If your gun was used in a shooting, you are responsible. If your gun is stolen and it's not reported, then used for a murder, the registered owner is responsible. If you sell your gun to your neighbor and don't transfer registration, you are on the hook. If your deranged relative gets access to your gun, it's your fault. Criminally responsible is probably not the answer.

    Boom

    Posts : 12
    Join date : 2012-12-31

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Boom on Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:52 pm

    Horseballs wrote:How about this?
    If your gun was used in a shooting, you are responsible. If your gun is stolen and it's not reported, then used for a murder, the registered owner is responsible. If you sell your gun to your neighbor and don't transfer registration, you are on the hook. If your deranged relative gets access to your gun, it's your fault. Criminally responsible is probably not the answer.

    I was thinking both gun insurance and taxing guns as property (as cars are property taxed in some states).

    If you have 5 Lamborghinis in your garage you are going to be paying some pretty hefty car insurance. Well...?

    If these stockpiles of trendy designer guns are worth tens of thousands, let's property tax the shit out of them and use that to boost both law enforcement and gun repossession (seizing the weapons that aren't up to date on registration and tax payments). And don't give me this is impractical as pretty much every unregistered car in the US gets seized at some point.

    We'll even allow you 3 untaxed defense and hunting weapons of reasonable power... but you start turning your shed into Commando though... get ready to pay a big fat yearly property tax.


    Sponsored content

    Re: More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:24 pm