Gun Laws in America

Options
1…1314161819

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jlew24asu wrote:
    because you selectively read.

    Yes I have been. It's hard not to do so, considering:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    and an all out ban on assault weapons like machine guns.
    jlew24asu wrote:
    but a ban or extremely hard laws to get them would reduce the chances of crime where guns are used
    jlew24asu wrote:
    would have to draw the line somewhere I suppose on an all out ban. but whereever that line is drawn, I would want them extremely hard to get
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I dont know. I'm not gonna break this down gun by gun.
    JLEW24ASU wrote:
    well an all out ban is asking alot although I wouldnt be opposed

    That's just page 1.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    onelongsong wrote:
    the only difference between an unloaded gun and a plastic toy gun is the weight.

    Yep (minus potential of course, but that's not really relevant to my situation).
    the difference between a loaded and unloaded gun as far as the law goes is nil. if you rob a bank with an unloaded gun the punishment is the same. it's also the same if you rob a bank with a plastic gun.

    I have no plans to rob any banks.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Ok. No guns are banned of any type. Got it. Keep in mind that others are proposing banning certain guns here.

    OK, I don't see why anyone would want those certain guns, but if laws are indeed tougher, I would have no problem with it.
    Did it ever occur to you that people are going to be killed in the government's efforts to stop the black market, that the regulations themselves will create situations wherein additional criminals, cops, and innocent bystandards are killed?

    Yes.
    Of course it is, if you're proposing similar statutes to those on drugs. If you're not talking about banning anything, but rather just increasing regulations on guns, I'm not seeing any specifics, just words like "tougher".

    Well the reason I use vague words is because English is not my native language and I have no idea how to say the things I want to say in English.
    Prove it.

    I said "might."
    Yes. Notice how it's also used in the opening post to this thread?

    Yes, but I think you were addressing me and not the person who started this thread.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yes I have been. It's hard not to do so, considering:

    why is it so hard to understand I would like a ban on certain guns but not ALL? if others have suggested a ban on all, great. I didnt
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jlew24asu wrote:
    why is it so hard to understand I would like a ban on certain guns but not ALL? if others have suggested a ban on all, great. I didnt

    It isn't hard to understand, except when you say you'd support an all out ban. Or when you say that you "hate guns" to justify your position, which implies that you hate all guns and therefore would apply that position to all of them.

    If you wish to take a hard position, do so. But don't expect someone else to take it for you and absolve you of the responsibility.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yep (minus potential of course, but that's not really relevant to my situation).



    I have no plans to rob any banks.

    well; good luck to you. there are many people who carry guns as part of their living. hopefully you won't show your gun to an off duty cop who may shoot faster than you can think. we don't play with guns out west here. they are tools. tools which require respect.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    jlew24asu wrote:
    why is it so hard to understand I would like a ban on certain guns but not ALL? if others have suggested a ban on all, great. I didnt

    i was watching some police video show the other day and it showed rioters usung home-made guns. another program showed an entire room the FBI has for confiscated home-made guns. to ban guns you must first extract the technology from the minds of people.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Collin wrote:
    OK, I don't see why anyone would want those certain guns, but if laws are indeed tougher, I would have no problem with it.

    You don't see why? Many people here have already told you why. They enjoy using them. They believe they provide a form of self defense. They believe in spiting others who wish to ban them. There are a multitude of reasons.
    Well the reason I use vague words is because English is not my native language and I have no idea how to say the things I want to say in English.

    Fair enough.
    I said "might."

    Ok.
    Yes, but I think you were addressing me and not the person who started this thread.

    Can't have this both ways. Your post to me here:

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=3958044&postcount=281

    is framed as representing the opposition to my posts from not only yourself but others. Your questions ask about "tougher gun laws", which can certainly include bans, particularly considering that you mention that no one is calling for a "total ban" which implied that a partial ban is completely on the table in your mind. You later clarified this by saying "forget the word ban".
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    farfromglorified wrote:
    It isn't hard to understand, except when you say you'd support an all out ban.

    yes I would. but I know its impossible and impractical
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Or when you say that you "hate guns" to justify your position, which implies that you hate all guns and therefore would apply that position to all of them.

    stop assuming. I hate guns. thats my personal opinion. I would like a ban on certain guns and tougher laws for others. I think its a privilege not a right to own one.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    If you wish to take a hard position, do so. But don't expect someone else to take it for you and absolve you of the responsibility.

    why do I have to take a hard postion? i'm just one guy with an opinion. people can say whatever they want in here.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jlew24asu wrote:
    why do I have to take a hard postion?

    You don't have to. Just don't pretend you have when you haven't. You can't equivocate and then attack someone for misunderstanding your position when you haven't even really taken one.
    i'm just one guy with an opinion. people can say whatever they want in here.

    Of course! Now why haven't you used that same logic when considering my posts?
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    farfromglorified wrote:
    You don't see why? Many people here have already told you why. They enjoy using them. They believe they provide a form of self defense. They believe in spiting others who wish to ban them. There are a multitude of reasons.

    I see.
    Can't have this both ways. Your post to me here:

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=3958044&postcount=281

    is framed as representing the opposition to my posts from not only yourself but others. Your questions ask about "tougher gun laws", which can certainly include bans, particularly considering that you mention that no one is calling for a "total ban" which implied that a partial ban is completely on the table in your mind. You later clarified this by saying "forget the word ban".

    Fair enough. A partial ban is indeed on the table in my mind. But if I wanted to start a discussion about what's in my mind I would have mentioned it and not implied it.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Collin wrote:
    I see.



    Fair enough. A partial ban is indeed on the table in my mind. But if I wanted to start a discussion about what's in my mind I would have mentioned it and not implied it.

    what does a partial ban mean? if it means criminals are banned from posessing guns; i'm all for it. if you want to dictate what technology i am allowed to posess; i can't agree. if a criminal can buy a fully automatic weapon smuggled over the border from mexico; i should be allowed the same technology.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    here are some points I agree with


    * Fundamental guarantees for lawful gun ownership
    * Increased gun safety education
    * Instant background checks to prohibit felons from purchasing guns
    * Strong enforcement of existing gun laws
    * Voluntary child safety locks
    * A ban on assault and high-capacity automatic weapons, and
    * An end to frivolous lawsuits by cities against gun manufacturers.

    Common sense, Constitutional solutions while maintaining individual liberties.
  • down_ski
    down_ski Posts: 328
    Collin wrote:
    So you give people guns, which are instruments made for killing, gotcha!

    The gun doesnt fire itself, come on. It needs a host to pull the trigger
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    down_ski wrote:
    The gun doesnt fire itself, come on. It needs a host to pull the trigger

    this is a dead end.

    guns dont kill people. people with guns kill people


    (easy far, I can already see the smoke coming out your ears, its just an analogy, I dont mean all people)

    farfrom, I have lost my cool a few times in this thread. I meant no offense and apologize if I did so. I think you are a smart guy and a fun challenge to debate with
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    onelongsong wrote:
    what does a partial ban mean? if it means criminals are banned from posessing guns; i'm all for it. if you want to dictate what technology i am allowed to posess; i can't agree. if a criminal can buy a fully automatic weapon smuggled over the border from mexico; i should be allowed the same technology.

    I thought you faked your death, which I can't imagine is legal, so in my opinion you shouldn't be allowed to have that technology.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • 1970RR
    1970RR Posts: 281
    jlew24asu wrote:
    here are some points I agree with


    * Fundamental guarantees for lawful gun ownership
    * Increased gun safety education
    * Instant background checks to prohibit felons from purchasing guns
    * Strong enforcement of existing gun laws
    * Voluntary child safety locks
    * A ban on assault and high-capacity automatic weapons, and
    * An end to frivolous lawsuits by cities against gun manufacturers.

    Common sense, Constitutional solutions while maintaining individual liberties.
    Why stop at felons? Most criminal cases are pled down to misdemeanors and many can be violent, such as assault, resist arrest, etc.
    Maybe limit to only certain offenses to prevent gun ownership.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    1970RR wrote:
    Why stop at felons? Most criminal cases are pled down to misdemeanors and many can be violent, such as assault, resist arrest, etc.
    Maybe limit to only certain offenses to prevent gun ownership.


    I couldnt agree more my friend. like I said, I would want tougher laws then are currently in place
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    down_ski wrote:
    The gun doesnt fire itself, come on. It needs a host to pull the trigger

    Ok. So people kill people. We've established that. People are killers, so you decide to give these same people, killers, guns, which are made for killing... That's just a bit weird in my opinion.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Collin wrote:
    I thought you faked your death, which I can't imagine is legal, so in my opinion you shouldn't be allowed to have that technology.

    i see you have memory problems. let me help. i became invisible. there's a big difference. retirement is not illegal and either is coming out of retirement. nothing illegal was done by me and the ones who did give false information; are in jail. income tax is paid when you receive income. if you do not draw income; you do not have to file a tax return. can you understand that or should i type slower?

Categories