In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Be Honest
pipe7
Member Posts: 911 ✭✭✭✭
You're in Florida (In Miami, to be exact).
There is great turmoil all around you, caused by a hurricane and
severe floods. There are huge masses of water all over you. You are a
newspaper photographer and you are in the middle of this great
disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. Nature is showing all her
destructive power and is ripping everything away with it. There are
houses and people floating around you, disappearing into the water.
You're trying to shoot some impressive photos. Suddenly you see a
man in the water. He is fighting for his life, trying not to be swept away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer. Somehow the man
looks familiar. Suddenly you know who it is. It is George W Bush! At
the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him
away forever.
You have two options:
You can either save him or you can take the most important photo of
your life.
So, you can save the life of George W Bush or you can shoot a Pulitzer
Prize-winning photo; a unique photo displaying the death of one of the
world's most powerful men.
So here's the question (please give an honest answer):
Would you select colour film or rather go with the classic simplicity
of a black and white photograph?
There is great turmoil all around you, caused by a hurricane and
severe floods. There are huge masses of water all over you. You are a
newspaper photographer and you are in the middle of this great
disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. Nature is showing all her
destructive power and is ripping everything away with it. There are
houses and people floating around you, disappearing into the water.
You're trying to shoot some impressive photos. Suddenly you see a
man in the water. He is fighting for his life, trying not to be swept away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer. Somehow the man
looks familiar. Suddenly you know who it is. It is George W Bush! At
the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him
away forever.
You have two options:
You can either save him or you can take the most important photo of
your life.
So, you can save the life of George W Bush or you can shoot a Pulitzer
Prize-winning photo; a unique photo displaying the death of one of the
world's most powerful men.
So here's the question (please give an honest answer):
Would you select colour film or rather go with the classic simplicity
of a black and white photograph?
Comments
Having this quote in mind, how many of you will honestly admit that you personally know individuals who should not be in possession of/ or own a firearm either loaded, unloaded, concealed or in the open. I bring this up because we keep seeing posts of idiots who Negligently kill other people while handling firearms.
"Guns DO kill people, in the hands of IDIOTS"
How much at fault is the government for creating a society who are taught the guns are evil, everyone is a victim, personal responsibility is an option, and all your troubles will e taken care of by others?
The state of a population is a direct result of the manner they are educated in.
Guns- Dirty little secret tat is best kept hidden. They are to be hidden away from children at all costs which prevents children from getting proper education in safe handling, and responsibility
Personal responsibility- Don't worry, you can always point your finger at someone else if you do something wrong, we will fix it. It really is notyour fault.
You reap what you sow, and this is exactly what the government wanted. Zombies with nothing more than to fulfill their "obligation" for the great good
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
"Guns DO kill people, in the hands of IDIOTS"
Guns Do Not kill people, it's the idiots misshandling them.
And yeah, I got's a brother I will never feel comfortable around with a gun.
I know about 100x MORE people who shouldn't own or drive a car, BUT THEY STILL DO.
Cars kill waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more people than guns. Let's ban them!!!!!!
Merc
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Having this quote in mind, how many of you will honestly admit that you personally know individuals who should not be in possession of/ or own a firearm either loaded, unloaded, concealed or in the open. I bring this up because we keep seeing posts of idiots who Negligently kill other people while handling firearms.
"Guns DO kill people, in the hands of IDIOTS"
I know many people I would prefer did not have access to firearms. It is also my preference that 250 Lb. people should not wear spandex bicycle shorts, though I don't see that restriction being enacted any time soon.
Luckily some wise folks 230-odd years ago decided that my whimsical preferences cannot be enforced upon others.
Brad Steele
To answer his question you have to ask another.
How much at fault is the government for creating a society who are taught the guns are evil, everyone is a victim, personal responsibility is an option, and all your troubles will e taken care of by others?
The state of a population is a direct result of the manner they are educated in.
Guns- Dirty little secret tat is best kept hidden. They are to be hidden away from children at all costs which prevents children from getting proper education in safe handling, and responsibility AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS 100%Personal responsibility- Don't worry, you can always point your finger at someone else if you do something wrong, we will fix it. It really is notyour fault.
You reap what you sow, and this is exactly what the government wanted. Zombies with nothing more than to fulfill their "obligation" for the great good
Cars don't commit crimes
Knives don't commit crimes
Bricks don't commit crimes
2x4s don't commit crimes
lead pipes don't commit crimes
propane tanks don't commit crimes
I could commit a crime WITH any of those objects, but they only one on the list that needs my fingerprints be on file is a firearm
Crimes are commited by People, not Objects, and the Cult of Victimhood has gone too far
Negligent homicide can be commited with a car, or by medical advice, or with a boat or with a cinder block
Are those things protected by the constitution? No. But the thing that IS protected by law is the thing that has so many laws against it!
This is called insanity.
So no, I do not know anyone who "should not" have a firearm if they are legally gauranteed their rights, because that's the same thing as saying "I don't think this person should have his gauranteed rights"
if you substitute "their rights" in place of "a gun", things become very crystal clear
I don't need a propane license to grill a steak...but I can kill with a propane tank. Same with knives, forks, pencils, broomhandles, cars (don't need a license to buy!), bricks, shovels, combines, threshers, mailboxes, ballpoint pens, ashtrays, canes, crutches, staplers, bottle of whiskey, maglite, or even a pillow case that I would then fill with doorknobs
But I can KILL with any of them. And paradoxically, none of them are part of my Rights, while the thing that IS part of my Rights requires a license becasue some people misuse them! Are sporting goods required to be purchased with a license? Even though baseball bats and golf clubs have been used as murder weapons? NO!
The mind fairly BOGGLES
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Having this quote in mind, how many of you will honestly admit that you personally know individuals who should not be in possession of/ or own a firearm either loaded, unloaded, concealed or in the open. I bring this up because we keep seeing posts of idiots who Negligently kill other people while handling firearms.
"Guns DO kill people, in the hands of IDIOTS"
I have to disagree. A gun is a machine, therefore it has no thought process or the ability to make decisions, therefore a gun cannot kill any one with out someone aiming it and pulling the trigger. On the flip side of that human can kill someone, but it doesn't have to be with a gun.
does alcohol cause drunkeness?
No. the over-consumption of it does.
alcochol cannot cause drunkeness. Only the act of drinking it can. No beer ever poured itself down anyone's throat
Let's really decrease violent crime... I"m all for Minority Control!
perps are not limited to a racial profile, unfortunately
+1[;)]
It is not my call as to what they can or cannot do .
The one place I am responsible is on my property.
Neither are allowed in my home with a weapon.
Every time they show up , I have to ask them to leave their guns in their trucks.
As long as they have not had there rights taken away by a court of law, then you have every right to own a firearm no matter how dumb you can be. You have every right to be stupid and dumb and shoot yourself and if you shoot someone other than yourself the law will take care of the problem you caused by being stupid. There is no statement that says if your stupid you can not own a firearm.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Having this quote in mind, how many of you will honestly admit that you personally know individuals who should not be in possession of/ or own a firearm either loaded, unloaded, concealed or in the open. I bring this up because we keep seeing posts of idiots who Negligently kill other people while handling firearms.
"Guns DO kill people, in the hands of IDIOTS"
Doesn't matter to me. Bad acts are to be punished, not placing prohibitions of people and/or restrictions on firearms by government.
This does not negate the need for encouraging people to become proficient in the use and handling of firearms. It simply isn't within the constitutional authority of government to mandate such, nor to infringe on the RTKBA.
Everyone should have the right to own and carry firearms, unless imprisoned, no questions asked.
+1[;)]
Everyone? Even the 1st graders at school? 2nd graders? Hell, infants in a nursery should be packing a sidearm incase someone tries to jack their bottle.
Not everyone should be able to carry firearms.
Everyone should have the right to own and carry firearms, unless imprisoned, no questions asked.
+1[;)]
Everyone? Even the 1st graders at school? 2nd graders? Hell, infants in a nursery should be packing a sidearm incase someone tries to jack their bottle.
Not everyone should be able to carry firearms.
Yet it is perfectly acceptable for you to employ shill bidders to raise the auction price of the equipment you sell. You, sir, are in no position to dictate who should or should not be able to do anything.[:(!]
Originally posted by wsfiredude
Everyone should have the right to own and carry firearms, unless imprisoned, no questions asked.
+1[;)]
Everyone? Even the 1st graders at school? 2nd graders? Hell, infants in a nursery should be packing a sidearm incase someone tries to jack their bottle.
Not everyone should be able to carry firearms.
Yet it is perfectly acceptable for you to employ shill bidders to raise the auction price of the equipment you sell. You, sir, are in no position to dictate who should or should not be able to do anything.[:(!]
And you are?
I have two sons. One I will trust with firearms, and the other has no business with them. When it is time to pass on my personal firearms, they will go to one son, while the other son will receive money instead.
YEah, the idiots like pipe7 and forkliftking definitely should not have access to any arms as they have hard time understanding very simple words. [xx(]
Go back to your porch and strum on your banjo. [:D]
The question was not about rights, but whether certain individuals should own or handle firearms.
Hi nunn.
I'm surprised that I need to point this out to you, but the question sure is about rights, unless the 2nd Amendment no longer uses the exact words pipe7 quoted in red. He clearly said "Having this quote in mind, how many of you will honestly admit that you personally know individuals who should not be in possession of/ or own a firearm"
By definition it includes discussion of that right