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

JimmyV

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.

mickeyrat

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.

JimmyV

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.

unsung

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 P

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.

JimmyV

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.

unsung

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 P

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:

unsung

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.

JimmyV

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...

Hugh Freaking Dillon

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.

OnTheEdge

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.



http://www.ijreview.com/2013/02/38482-h ... un-advice/

Jason P

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.

OnTheEdge

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

gimmesometruth27

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.



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.

JonnyPistachio

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.

Jason P

JonnyPistachio 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.

OnTheEdge

JonnyPistachio 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.

OnTheEdge

Jason P wrote:

JonnyPistachio 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:

JonnyPistachio

OnTheEdge wrote:

JonnyPistachio 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.