No ma'am, I won't register my guns

1141517192034

Comments

  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,173
    Agreed. I think if the gun shop owner has followed whatever rules and standards are in place, I don't think they can be held accountable. But I would bet there are many times when those rules are not being followed, so it is an interesting approach to the issue.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 38,641
    JimmyV wrote:
    Agreed. I think if the gun shop owner has followed whatever rules and standards are in place, I don't think they can be held accountable. But I would bet there are many times when those rules are not being followed, so it is an interesting approach to the issue.
    I meant the "end user" . It would be very difficult to hold licensed sellers responsible. I mean carry outs arent held responsible when a customer buys a quanity of alcohol then later goes on to drink and drive and kill someone. I think the same kind of principle applies here.


    I think soemthing is lost in this "rights" debate. It is granted BY the state/government to begin with and as such could be revoked.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,173
    mickeyrat wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    Agreed. I think if the gun shop owner has followed whatever rules and standards are in place, I don't think they can be held accountable. But I would bet there are many times when those rules are not being followed, so it is an interesting approach to the issue.
    I meant the "end user" . It would be very difficult to hold licensed sellers responsible. I mean carry outs arent held responsible when a customer buys a quanity of alcohol then later goes on to drink and drive and kill someone. I think the same kind of principle applies here.


    I think soemthing is lost in this "rights" debate. It is granted BY the state/government to begin with and as such could be revoked.

    Well, bars often are held accountable when a customer gets pulled over for DUI after leaving their establishment. But I think that too is not placing the blame where it belongs.

    Agreed, something does get lost when it becomes a question of rights first, foremost and only.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    mickeyrat wrote:


    I think soemthing is lost in this "rights" debate. It is granted BY the state/government to begin with and as such could be revoked.

    Rights are not granted by any level of government.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    unsung wrote:
    mickeyrat wrote:


    I think soemthing is lost in this "rights" debate. It is granted BY the state/government to begin with and as such could be revoked.

    Rights are not granted by any level of government.
    Do explain.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,173
    These rights we are always talking about are guaranteed in the Constitution, yes, but that Constitution had to be passed and signed by the Constitutional Congress and then ratified by the individual states. That sounds like an awful lot of government involvement to me.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    Not exactly, every right pre-existed, and most Founding Fathers agreed that Rights are inherent. They put it on paper to limit the power of the general government over the States. The Constitution was written as rules for which the government was supposed to obey. Unfortunately modern government does whatever it can to go around it.

    And if a government can grant a right then the next government can take it away, so it really is just a temporary privilege.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    unsung wrote:
    Not exactly, every right pre-existed, and most Founding Fathers agreed that Rights are inherent.
    * (as long as you were a white dude) :geek:
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    I am guessing that you haven't done much research on slavery, and you get your talking points off Internet blogs and public schooling. Moving on.
  • JimmyVJimmyV Posts: 19,173
    edited April 2013
    I think there is validity to that. These rights were inherent...but only to certain people. Then we decided they were inherent to more people. Were/are these rights ever really inherent or are they just granted? It doesn't seem like such a simple question anymore.

    And it is not just about African Americans. It is about women as well. And GLBT. And so on...
    Post edited by JimmyV on
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • unsung wrote:
    Not exactly, every right pre-existed, and most Founding Fathers agreed that Rights are inherent. They put it on paper to limit the power of the general government over the States. The Constitution was written as rules for which the government was supposed to obey. Unfortunately modern government does whatever it can to go around it.

    And if a government can grant a right then the next government can take it away, so it really is just a temporary privilege.

    rights to freedom are inherent. rights to own and fire a man made invention are not. rights not to get shot by one are.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • OnTheEdgeOnTheEdge Posts: 1,300
    I get a kick out of people calling gun owners paranoid. We have liberals in government that try controlling every aspect of our lives. They want to tell us how many french fries are allowed in a happy meal, whither or not kids can go tanning, how much soda we're allowed to drink, that we need condoms in our middle schools, that kids can't have a candy bar at school. We have a 10 year old that gets suspended from school for biting his pop tart into the shape of a gun and a girl that gets suspended for having a piece of paper in the shape of an "L". And now the government wants to tell everyone what they can have for guns, what they can have for clips, and what they can have for ammo. None of which would have prevented any massacre from happening.

    But yeah.......us gun owners are paranoid.

    :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/02/38482-h ... un-advice/
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    unsung wrote:
    I am guessing that you haven't done much research on slavery, and you get your talking points off Internet blogs and public schooling. Moving on.
    I'm guessing you are aware that the right to bear arms wasn't in the constitution ... as are a lot of our current rights ... so take a step down from your high horse on Mt. Pious, thank you.
  • OnTheEdgeOnTheEdge Posts: 1,300
    Or maybe people are getting paranoid because of stupid ass liberal comments like this:

    Keep your hands off my daughter you commie bitch!

    http://www.mrctv.org/videos/shorter-mel ... -belong-us
  • OnTheEdge wrote:
    I get a kick out of people calling gun owners paranoid. We have liberals in government that try controlling every aspect of our lives. They want to tell us how many french fries are allowed in a happy meal, whither or not kids can go tanning, how much soda we're allowed to drink, that we need condoms in our middle schools, that kids can't have a candy bar at school. We have a 10 year old that gets suspended from school for biting his pop tart into the shape of a gun and a girl that gets suspended for having a piece of paper in the shape of an "L". And now the government wants to tell everyone what they can have for guns, what they can have for clips, and what they can have for ammo. None of which would have prevented any massacre from happening.

    But yeah.......us gun owners are paranoid.

    :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/02/38482-h ... un-advice/
    if any gun owner thinks that they need a gun to protect themselves from the government coming to seize their property, then they are paranoid. this is an irrational fear, and having irrational fears is part of the definition of paranoia.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • JonnyPistachioJonnyPistachio Posts: 10,219
    OnTheEdge wrote:
    And now the government wants to tell everyone what they can have for guns, what they can have for clips, and what they can have for ammo. None of which would have prevented any massacre from happening. /

    You have absolutely no way of telling this. They may have already prevented massacres that you dont know about. You can't know about something that hasnt happened.

    I bring this one up quite a bit -- The Arizona shooter -- He was tackled as he was reloading his magazine, after firing off 30+ rounds. If that magazine was 10 rounds, maybe he would've been tackled after getting off 1/3 of the rounds.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    OnTheEdge wrote:
    And now the government wants to tell everyone what they can have for guns, what they can have for clips, and what they can have for ammo. None of which would have prevented any massacre from happening. /

    You have absolutely no way of telling this. They may have already prevented massacres that you dont know about. You can't know about something that hasnt happened.

    I bring this one up quite a bit -- The Arizona shooter -- He was tackled as he was reloading his magazine, after firing off 30+ rounds. If that magazine was 10 rounds, maybe he would've been tackled after getting off 1/3 of the rounds.
    And James Holmes assault rifle 100 round clip jammed early on forcing him to switch to a shotgun that fired buck-shot and handguns ... which is a good reason 58 of those shot survived.
  • OnTheEdgeOnTheEdge Posts: 1,300
    OnTheEdge wrote:
    And now the government wants to tell everyone what they can have for guns, what they can have for clips, and what they can have for ammo. None of which would have prevented any massacre from happening. /

    You have absolutely no way of telling this. They may have already prevented massacres that you dont know about. You can't know about something that hasnt happened.

    I bring this one up quite a bit -- The Arizona shooter -- He was tackled as he was reloading his magazine, after firing off 30+ rounds. If that magazine was 10 rounds, maybe he would've been tackled after getting off 1/3 of the rounds.

    There's only one flaw. If the government bans these certain types of weapons......it's not going to change a thing except for the law abiding citizen. Guys that want to create a massacre are going to get the guns they want somehow. You got people buying illegal weapons in the black market every day. You think suddenly that it's just going to stop? This is nothing but another case of big government wanting to control every little aspect of our lives.
  • OnTheEdgeOnTheEdge Posts: 1,300
    Jason P wrote:
    OnTheEdge wrote:
    And now the government wants to tell everyone what they can have for guns, what they can have for clips, and what they can have for ammo. None of which would have prevented any massacre from happening. /

    You have absolutely no way of telling this. They may have already prevented massacres that you dont know about. You can't know about something that hasnt happened.

    I bring this one up quite a bit -- The Arizona shooter -- He was tackled as he was reloading his magazine, after firing off 30+ rounds. If that magazine was 10 rounds, maybe he would've been tackled after getting off 1/3 of the rounds.
    And James Holmes assault rifle 100 round clip jammed early on forcing him to switch to a shotgun that fired buck-shot and handguns ... which is a good reason 58 of those shot survived.


    Yeah, because if the government banned those clips he never would of had one :roll:
  • JonnyPistachioJonnyPistachio Posts: 10,219
    OnTheEdge wrote:
    OnTheEdge wrote:
    And now the government wants to tell everyone what they can have for guns, what they can have for clips, and what they can have for ammo. None of which would have prevented any massacre from happening. /

    You have absolutely no way of telling this. They may have already prevented massacres that you dont know about. You can't know about something that hasnt happened.

    I bring this one up quite a bit -- The Arizona shooter -- He was tackled as he was reloading his magazine, after firing off 30+ rounds. If that magazine was 10 rounds, maybe he would've been tackled after getting off 1/3 of the rounds.

    There's only one flaw. If the government bans these certain types of weapons......it's not going to change a thing except for the law abiding citizen. Guys that want to create a massacre are going to get the guns they want somehow. You got people buying illegal weapons in the black market every day. You think suddenly that it's just going to stop? This is nothing but another case of big government wanting to control every little aspect of our lives.

    Thats also not completely true. I do agree to a degree.
    But even the Sandy hook shooter tried to buy guns and didnt want to wait. He was kept from buying them. It just so happened his mother had an enormous stockpile that was his second choice. and the AZ shooter was a law abiding citizen until he committed the massacre. Magazine limits wouldve saved lives in his case.

    Of course its not going to stop. But if you make it tougher, it could/might stop a few people from dying. its just a numbers game that some people HOPE could save lives. I honestly used to think it could help, but seeing a bazillion shootings in the news every day, I think its a lost cause because of the availability of guns and the american culture. We're just fucked either way.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • OnTheEdge wrote:
    Yeah, because if the government banned those clips he never would of had one :roll:
    it is about preventing future massacres.

    something that could have been done had the assault weapons ban not been allowed to expire. something that could have been prevented if congress acted after columbine.
    '
    these things have happened in the past.

    this is about preventing someone from getting a 100 round drum tomorrow and shooting up another school.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    OnTheEdge wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    And James Holmes assault rifle 100 round clip jammed early on forcing him to switch to a shotgun that fired buck-shot and handguns ... which is a good reason 58 of those shot survived.


    Yeah, because if the government banned those clips he never would of had one :roll:
    So why are you concerned at all if the government bans high capacity clips if they are so easy to get?

    :think:
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    Jason P wrote:
    OnTheEdge wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    And James Holmes assault rifle 100 round clip jammed early on forcing him to switch to a shotgun that fired buck-shot and handguns ... which is a good reason 58 of those shot survived.


    Yeah, because if the government banned those clips he never would of had one :roll:
    So why are you concerned at all if the government bans high capacity clips if they are so easy to get?

    :think:
    Hell, 100 round clips, AR-15 assault rifles, and ammo are all legal right now ... you think some college student could go out right now and buy them? Hell, it's hard to find .22 ammo right now. And if you do find it, you are paying 400% - 500% markup.

    And you don't think making them illegal to manufacture and sell won't have an impact?
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    You anti gunners are funny.
  • unsung wrote:
    You anti gunners are funny.
    we are not anti gun. we are anti mass shootings and gun crime.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    I own several guns. Plan on buying a Browning 700 .243 soon ... if Spring ever arrives.
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    unsung wrote:
    You anti gunners are funny.
    we are not anti gun. we are anti mass shootings and gun crime.


    So what are you going to do when Chicago gun crime stats don't drop?
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 29,579
    Why do progun people think everyone want's to take away their guns , i would think a regular hand gun or rifle would be enough to protect one's home & family from intruders ...
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • OnTheEdgeOnTheEdge Posts: 1,300
    unsung wrote:
    unsung wrote:
    You anti gunners are funny.
    we are not anti gun. we are anti mass shootings and gun crime.


    So what are you going to do when Chicago gun crime stats don't drop?


    Don't states with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime ratings involving guns?

    It really pisses me off. Like who the fuck do these government reps think they are to tell me what I need and don't need. If I want an ar15 or an ak47 to protect my home then I should be able to have one. Fuck all the Joe Biden and Pierce Morgans of the world! I'll bitch slap them bitches 2 times!
  • OnTheEdgeOnTheEdge Posts: 1,300
    Why do progun people think everyone want's to take away their guns , i would think a regular hand gun or rifle would be enough to protect one's home & family from intruders ...


    The point is we are law abiding citizens. The government has no right to tell us what they think we need for protection. It's none of their fucking business. They can pass all the gun laws in the world. Ain't gonna change a fuckin thing in a crazy persons head.
Sign In or Register to comment.