Absolutely. I think you should have the right to say whatever you want, as long as you don't use any technology that did not exist in 1787 to disseminate it.
Printable View
Well let's see here, by calling anyone who doesn’t agree with you on the subject "as dopey an ideologue as any libertard" is conveyed as a personal attack. At least that is how I interpret it when someone resorts to name calling.
Because if the laws that are already on the books do not work then how in the name of all things holy are more laws supposed to work?
In my post I only referenced convicted criminals not those who have been diagnosed by a medical doctor to be mentally handicapped.
I think it's safe to say that our current "criminal justice system" is grossly ineffectual. And in no form have I advocated that I become “judge, jury, and executioner”.
Really peeps, it makes us look bad as a democratic republic when our citizens call for more laws that equate to less freedom and strip away our constitutional rights.
I think the whole war on drugs (which is really a war on Marijuana) needs to come to an end. We can take all the resources from this idiotic money pit and use them to combat violent criminals, identity theft, human trafficking, etc... Instead of arresting and imprisoning people for possession of an herb that has more medical value than any other drug, use the man power for a better cause.
I once read an article that stated 80% of all prescription drugs could be made obsolete if medical marijuana was used to its full potential. So, instead of the Feds supporting the growth in the medical field, their raiding "medical clinics" and taking away a safe and sterile environment for patients to get their medicine. Not to mention making felons out of otherwise normal citizens who are following state laws and regulations.
I know of one dispensary in California that paid a total of 3 million in taxes in 2008 (2 million to the Fed. and 1 to the state of California.) Why can't the Feds allow legal use of a harmless drug and use the tax revenue on the education system or any of the other serious issues in our country.
I believe there are roughly 1 million people arrested and imprisoned every year for simple possession of MJ. Thats 1 million jail cells that are being occupied by non-violent "criminals".
I know this isn't directly related to gun control laws or anything, but I hope you can see my point.
While we here are theorizing abut what laws are acceptable and reasonable, fellow shooter in other countries are getting screwed by their gubbement in ever increasing and extreme ways.
Take for instance the Netherlands, where just in the last few days the "well-meaning" politicians in their infinite wisdom trying to protect the herd....(hurgh....)... decided to outlaw any rifles that (and I quote) "look aggressive"- I shit you not!!!, and all dynamic shooting activities.
This means any and every AR-style rifle. And moving while shooting.......
VER-BO-TEN!!!!!!!
All because some 'tard went bonkers and shot some people with a .22.
Could never happen here, right?
Worst part - it was the Dutch equivalent of the NRA that pretty much handed it over on a silver platter. Beyond my comprehension.
Sooooooooo........ next time we talk about "acceptable legislature" - look elsewhere and count your blessings.
You give them an inch, they WILL take everything.
That is why you stay on the offensive and never hold ground. Never even cede the concept of such a thing as 'reasonable' gun control.Quote:
Could never happen here, right?
Make them fight for every inch, bleed them monetarily over every peroid, comma and dash.
Overall, we are winning. Except for a couple of states, we are forcing the anti's to fight a really shitty rear-guard retreat.
We came back from the cliff's edge and now have the upper hand by fighting back hard and not falling for their calls for 'compromise'.
We have made the AR-15 from a novelty into a commodity found in every Fudd store and even Wal-Mart. Bigest selling rifle in America.
Almost every state now has must Issue CCW. Handgun ownership is skyrocketing.
When did they ever compromise with us? NEVER! They were out to destroy us politically and we should do the same to them.
You are really off base here.
First, I'm personally in favor of strong firearms laws. I don't want just anyone to be able to get their hands on a weapon, but I realize that regulating firearms doesn't work, as the criminals are going to get whatever they want anyway. Making it illegal for a felon to possess a firearm doesn't mean that felons across the country won't have firearms - all it means is that the felons that are trying to make a life for themselves will be deprived of the ability to defend themselves, while the scumbags are going to have whatever they please.
Like chadbag said, the system in Vermont is the way to go. I've lived in Vermont. The system there works. The crime rate is insanely low, and permit-free carry policy works.
Saying you don't want a violence prone nutjob to have a gun is like saying you don't want an arsonist to have gasoline and matches. In theory , it sounds reasonable till you realize how absurd a proposition it is.
The only way in both instances it to lock the nut and the arsonist up someplace where they cannot easily access either technology. Anything else is idiocy.
Every time I hear this I am amazed that so many lack the context. For its time flint lock rifles were cutting edge weapons that were used in battle. So yes a semi-automatic is far more advanced but then so are the threats, so you have to keep up. It is all relative. You also argued about how you are tired of the overly restrictive laws but are OK with others, could that be because since you are used to so many, a few sounds more OK, but those of us who dont have the restrictions you have see it differently because our climate is more hospitable to begin with? Just a thought.
No brother, unfortunately it is you who, like several others, are way off base here. An individual who is forbidden by law to possess or purchase firearms can not "get what they want anyway". Again, more radical idealism mirroring that from the left.
They would have to make due with whatever piece of shit they are fortunate enough to obtain through their illegal contact. So with that they would be by far more likely to procure a single Kel-Tec, High Point or antique firearm than they would any of the multitude of variations of reputable weapons available to them as a legal purchaser. Factor in the ability to make multiple such legal purchases at will and we go to another level all together. Is this scenario guaranteed, no. But if I had to bet the odds based upon established fact...
Add in the complications of obtaining any significant quantity of reputable ammunition and you are really reaching. These desperate and usually destitute individuals will be forced to buy whatever crap is available to them specifically. Add it all up and you have someone with a single, crappy or overused weapon that is likely to fail at a critical moment.
Common sense people. Utilize it, think it and prosper.
I know you are a good guy and we are all on the same side, so conflict with fellow members such as yourself is not what I seek here tonight. But unfortunately this comment is extremely vulnerable to legit criticism. Rather than elaborate myself (and since I'm a little tired), I'll quote this very well spoken gentleman who joined the discussion earlier...
If this doesn't spell it out for you then nothing will. Have a great evening all.
I sincerely hope the joke is on me, but I have this dark-brown suspicion it is not.
"Sensible Gun Law Advocate....." Isn't that like......Compassionate Conservative? Another treasure.
Is my observation correct in that you are in New Jersey?
"New Jersey issues Permits to Carry to both residents and non-residents, who must submit applications to the chief law enforcement officers of their municipalities, or the State Police, respectively. By statute, New Jersey is a may-issue permit system, in which authorities are allowed discretion in the approval and denial of applications. It has seemed to be the policy of many permit-issuing authorities that the carrying of a handgun on one's person ought to be limited to armed professionals (private security officers, law enforcement officers, etc.). Many applicants have reported difficulty in obtaining New Jersey Permits to Carry, especially non-residents."
Reference Wikipedia.
It appears NJ has plenty of experience with "sensible" gun-laws and broad minded well informed gun-law advocates. As does DC and Chicago (Illinois).
Kind of wondering where my observation was one dimensional - and totally agree that those politicians wanting to do away with anything reeking of 2nd amendment are learning every lesson they can from overseas....LOTS of sensible gun laws there......as was my point.
We can have a very in-depth multi-dimensional discussions about this anytime, as I have dialogue, hear and read the woes from people getting screwed by "reasonable gun-laws" in Holland, Germany, Belgium etc. which I'd happily share with you.
The only Relevant Suggestion I have is this: The Right To Bear Arms. Not negotiable. Ever.
Because that is what painful experience, bad examples and very narrow victories have taught us.
Are we forgetting how close the votes were, only very recent? Let's not be too confident.
Sensible Gun Advocates.....:shout:
Unfortunately, there are no "sensible" gun laws. They do nothing but disarm the law abiding.
Those are the facts, jack.
----
I had some large post written, but deleted it since you are not even providing a discussion. You've answered none of the questions I've asked repeatedly, nor can you provide support FOR gun laws. I do "understand who [I'm] talking to." Fact is you are not supporting your own "ideology." In fact, you supported mine(see bold?) We all understand shit happens. There is always a chance your gonna die. There will always be crime/violence. It boils down to schools of thought.
A. regulate things, violate peoples rights as defined by the consitution, and see how far it goes.
B. Let people live their lives, stay out of it, and keep people who violate other's rights out of society.
Or maybe, its stupid to even discuss this. There is so much involved with it. Im against any MORE laws, but at the same time, we cant abolish the ones we have without FIRST overhauling our legal system, and our country in general.
I think we are pretty much ****ED!:suicide:
Im outta this one, as its not going anywhere. On second thought, where could it go? Its not like we are actually accomplishing anything.
Very true - it is the enforcement of laws that does the trick. That is why you will rarely hear about a shooting on a plane or in the White House. Gun regulations at such sensitive areas are enforced with an iron fist at great cost to personal liberty. So, it really boils down to how much of your liberty are you willing to sacrifice to limit gun violence?
Now, I'm not in favor of draconian laws, forced searches, or gun seizure - far from it. I am pointing out that enforcement of regulation has some negative effect on the absolute prevalence of firearms in a criminal population (other factors including demand, ease of production, etc.). The magnitude of that effect, and its worth in actually limiting violence, is an entirely different debate.
You say that as if technology hasn't resulted in the explosion of regulations in the dissemination of speech. Does the FCC ring a bell?
Whenever technology has magnified the potential for widespread destruction from abuse of one's rights, be it mass murder with a machine gun or mass slander on the airwaves, society has responded with regulations that attempt to limit those rights.