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.
I am unsure why so many want to paint me with a totally negative image when, if the truth were told, many here share, at least a degree of how I feel.
I do not support gun control on the lawful, responsible citizens. There is the answer to your question.
So let's ask you the same question in a different way.
Do you want to make it legal for illegal aliens to purchase, possess and carry firearms?
If "no," then you support gun control. Same thing if you don't want 10 year old kids to legally be able to walk into a store and walk out with a firearm. If you don't want that to be a legal action on the kid's part, then you support gun control.
Do you want someone who is obviously crazy to legally be able to purchase, own and carry a firearm? If not then you support gun control.
Do you want it to be illegal for someone to casually lay a loaded firearm down in public, say on a picnic table in the park? If you don't agree with then then you support gun control.
I am interested in your answers to this.
no, i don't want illegals to have guns, cars, or even a frickin' big mac from my local mickey d's.
they don't belong here, there is a law against them being here, and i want them all deported.
if an illegal alien should happen to gain access to a firearm and use it against a citizen......
death penalty, and then deport the carcass.
limiting MY access to firearms based on the idea of keeping them out of the hands of illegals is even more asinine than your previous examples (if that's possible).
are you actually saying that a law abiding citizen's access needs to be limited because our government refuses to follow the law when it comes to illegals?
now you're just being plain silly.
illegals kill lots of innocent citizens with illegally driven cars.
should we all have to clear background checks to buy those?
if, as you stated above, you do not support gun control on lawful, responsible citizens (funny, you didn't mention a minimum age requirement), then the idea of a vending machine is fair play.
the control needs to be placed on the bad guys, not lawful citizens.
if you disagree with that, then you support collective punishment.
quote:Originally posted by ringchild
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I am unsure why so many want to paint me with a totally negative image when, if the truth were told, many here share, at least a degree of how I feel.
I do not support gun control on the lawful, responsible citizens. There is the answer to your question.
So let's ask you the same question in a different way.
Do you want to make it legal for illegal aliens to purchase, possess and carry firearms?
If "no," then you support gun control. Same thing if you don't want 10 year old kids to legally be able to walk into a store and walk out with a firearm. If you don't want that to be a legal action on the kid's part, then you support gun control.
Do you want someone who is obviously crazy to legally be able to purchase, own and carry a firearm? If not then you support gun control.
Do you want it to be illegal for someone to casually lay a loaded firearm down in public, say on a picnic table in the park? If you don't agree with then then you support gun control.
I am interested in your answers to this.
no, i don't want illegals to have guns, cars, or even a frickin' big mac from my local mickey d's.
they don't belong here, there is a law against them being here, and i want them all deported.
if an illegal alien should happen to gain access to a firearm and use it against a citizen......
death penalty, and then deport the carcass.
limiting MY access to firearms based on the idea of keeping them out of the hands of illegals is even more asinine than your previous examples (if that's possible).
are you actually saying that a law abiding citizen's access needs to be limited because our government refuses to follow the law when it comes to illegals?
now you're just being plain silly.
illegals kill lots of innocent citizens with illegally driven cars.
should we all have to clear background checks to buy those?
if, as you stated above, you do not support gun control on lawful, responsible citizens (funny, you didn't mention a minimum age requirement), then the idea of a vending machine is fair play.
the control needs to be placed on the bad guys, not lawful citizens.
if you disagree with that, then you support collective punishment.
Actually you are the one being "just plain silly." Either that or just looking for an excuse, any excuse to throw a temper tantrum. If you are not an illegal alien why the hell do you care if I want a law making it illegal for an illegal alien to buy or possess a gun?
What are you? Some kind of illegal alien gun rights lobbyist?
Actually you are the one being "just plain silly." Either that or just looking for an excuse, any excuse to throw a temper tantrum. If you are not an illegal alien why the hell do you care if I want a law making it illegal for an illegal alien to buy or possess a gun?
What are you? Some kind of illegal alien gun rights lobbyist?
i stopped throwing tantrums as a child.
i realized that they did no good.
the reasons why i care if you make a law prohibiting illegals from owning a firearm are:
1: it misses the mark. send them the hell home.
2: your "law" would undoubtedly mean proving citizenship at the time of sale. another hoop for me to jump thru because no one has the guts to do what's really needed (see #1 above).
3: no matter how well intentioned, any restrictions on my right to buy what i want, when i want, will ultimately be abused by our "servants".
i suppose, under your plan, it would be fine for a cop to walk up to any brown skinned person at the range, make them stop what they are doing, and shake them down for their "papers"?
direct your energy to where it is truly needed:
demand your politicians enforce the laws regarding illegal aliens.
demand that your neighbor teach their kids respect and responsibility.
demand that murderers and sexual predators be put to death, and that violent criminals remain locked up.
what you are advocating is allowing illegals, crazies, and violent offenders to walk freely among us while demanding that we law abiding citizens sacrifice freedom to allow their "safe" integration into society.
you think the way to fix pedro's erratic driving by demanding that everyone take the bus.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Beeramid
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by ringchild
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
.
So do you favor selling firearms from vending machines? Yes or no please.
have i been unclear?
YES(as long as they're packaged to prevent scuffing when they drop into the pickup slot).
now....
do you favor making law abiding american citizens pay for the crimes of others by unconstitutionally limiting their access to firearms?
In red above. Thank you for asking. But I believe you and a lot of others don't understand where I am on this. I don't think "law abiding American citizens" should have limits on their access to firearms. I've never said that and as a law a law abiding American citizen I certainly don't want my access to firearms limited. But not allowing me to buy firearms out of a vending machine is fine with me. I'll just go to the gun store and buy one face to face with the firearm seller.
So that means you support gun control.......
I am unsure why so many want to paint me with a totally negative image when, if the truth were told, many here share, at least a degree of how I feel.
I don not support gun control on the lawful, responsible citizens. There is the answer to your question.
So let's ask you the same question in a different way.
Do you want to make it legal for illegal aliens to purchase, possess and carry firearms?
If "no," then you support gun control. Same thing if you don't want 10 year old kids to legally be able to walk into a store and walk out with a firearm. If you don't want that to be a legal action on the kid's part, then you support gun control.
Do you want someone who is obviously crazy to legally be able to purchase, own and carry a firearm? If not then you support gun control.
Do you want it to be illegal for someone to casually lay a loaded firearm down in public, say on a picnic table in the park? If you don't agree with then then you support gun control.
I am interested in your answers to this.
What you don't seem to get, is that if an illegal wants a gun, they'll get one regardless of the law. They shouldn't be here in the first place and should be driven back to where they came from. Illegal's have already decided that the laws don't apply to them, so how is making another going to help anything?
quote:Originally posted by Beeramid
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Beeramid
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by ringchild
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
.
So do you favor selling firearms from vending machines? Yes or no please.
have i been unclear?
YES(as long as they're packaged to prevent scuffing when they drop into the pickup slot).
now....
do you favor making law abiding american citizens pay for the crimes of others by unconstitutionally limiting their access to firearms?
In red above. Thank you for asking. But I believe you and a lot of others don't understand where I am on this. I don't think "law abiding American citizens" should have limits on their access to firearms. I've never said that and as a law a law abiding American citizen I certainly don't want my access to firearms limited. But not allowing me to buy firearms out of a vending machine is fine with me. I'll just go to the gun store and buy one face to face with the firearm seller.
So that means you support gun control.......
I am unsure why so many want to paint me with a totally negative image when, if the truth were told, many here share, at least a degree of how I feel.
I don not support gun control on the lawful, responsible citizens. There is the answer to your question.
So let's ask you the same question in a different way.
Do you want to make it legal for illegal aliens to purchase, possess and carry firearms?
If "no," then you support gun control. Same thing if you don't want 10 year old kids to legally be able to walk into a store and walk out with a firearm. If you don't want that to be a legal action on the kid's part, then you support gun control.
Do you want someone who is obviously crazy to legally be able to purchase, own and carry a firearm? If not then you support gun control.
Do you want it to be illegal for someone to casually lay a loaded firearm down in public, say on a picnic table in the park? If you don't agree with then then you support gun control.
I am interested in your answers to this.
What you don't seem to get, is that if an illegal wants a gun, they'll get one regardless of the law. They shouldn't be here in the first place and should be driven back to where they came from. Illegal's have already decided that the laws don't apply to them, so how is making another going to help anything?
What you don't seem to get is that without a law saying an illegal alien cannot buy or possess a firearm, if you or the law catches that illegal with a firearm, you cannot legally take it from him. Because of NO GUNS LAWS remember? This would be especially true if it took you a while to even determine that he WAS an illegal. But in regards to the possessing a gun, you can DETERMINE that the minute it is found on him and with a gun law in place you can DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Now why is that so hard for you and others here to "get it?"
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
What you don't seem to get is that without a law saying an illegal alien cannot buy or possess a firearm, if you or the law catches that illegal with a firearm, you cannot legally take it from him. Because of NO GUNS LAWS remember? This would be especially true if it took you a while to even determine that he WAS an illegal. But in regards to the possessing a gun, you can DETERMINE that the minute it is found on him and with a gun law in place you can DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Now why is that so hard for you and others here to "get it?"
I fail to see how you are going to do anything different with or without gun laws while determining if he is or is not illegal. Are you suggesting that he will have to have his CCW on him, or, if it is a longarm, are you suggesting that a 'citizen legal to possess firearms' card be mandatory?
Lastly, what is the problem? An illegal with a firearm is just as illegal as one without one. The response is to deport him. Let him keep the firearm, who cares?
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
What you don't seem to get is that without a law saying an illegal alien cannot buy or possess a firearm, if you or the law catches that illegal with a firearm, you cannot legally take it from him. Because of NO GUNS LAWS remember? This would be especially true if it took you a while to even determine that he WAS an illegal. But in regards to the possessing a gun, you can DETERMINE that the minute it is found on him and with a gun law in place you can DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Now why is that so hard for you and others here to "get it?"
I fail to see how you are going to do anything different with or without gun laws while determining if he is or is not illegal. Are you suggesting that he will have to have his CCW on him, or, if it is a longarm, are you suggesting that a 'citizen legal to possess firearms' card be mandatory?
Lastly, what is the problem? An illegal with a firearm is just as illegal as one without one. The response is to deport him. Let him keep the firearm, who cares?
Damn, it is quite flattering that you guys so carefully read my posts. Thanks you for that and for coming back with a polite, real response. I frankly didn't think anyone would read my post closely enough to catch the flaw in my reasoning.
Well, I care if an illegal alien possess a firearm. Firearm possesion is the possession of a power that is only guaranteed to US Citizens by the constitution. I don't want some illegal using my country as if it were his and I don't want him to have the same constitutional rights as I do.
In regards to catching him with it, you are correct that to know he had it illegally you would also at the same time have to know if he was an illegal or not. So, assuming you stopped that illegal for some visible or suspected illegal act (otherwise why stop him?) then if you find a gun in his possession and hold him long enough to determine that he is an illegal, he needs to be punished much more than just being deported along with his firearm. If he knowingly and illegally possesses a firearm there is a good likelyhood that he has or will commit a crime against an American citizen. If that can be determined then he needs to go to prison or be shot by one of his intended victims.
But with no gun laws, he could legally have that firearm and legally take it back to Mexico with him. He should not be treated so gently.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Damn, it is quite flattering that you guys so carefully read my posts. Thanks you for that and for coming back with a polite, real response. I frankly didn't think anyone would read my post closely enough to catch the flaw in my reasoning.
Well, I care if an illegal alien possess a firearm. Firearm possesion is the possession of a power that is only guaranteed to US Citizens by the constitution. I don't want some illegal using my country as if it were his and I don't want him to have the same constitutional rights as I do.
In regards to catching him with it, you are correct that to know he had it illegally you would also at the same time have to know if he was an illegal or not. So, assuming you stopped that illegal for some visible or suspected illegal act (otherwise why stop him?) then if you find a gun in his possession and hold him long enough to determine that he is an illegal, he needs to be punished much more than just being deported along with his firearm. If he knowingly and illegally possesses a firearm there is a good likelyhood that he has or will commit a crime against an American citizen. If that can be determined then he needs to go to prison or be shot by one of his intended victims.
But with no gun laws, he could legally have that firearm and legally take it back to Mexico with him. He should not be treated so gently.
I'll try to remain polite, Mr. Fox.
You really need to think about your motivation here.
You suggest that possession of a firearm makes it more likely for an individual to have committed or being planning to commit a crime.
You suggest that he should be treated differently if in possession of a firearm, just like murder with a firearm is worse that murder with chopsticks, or murder with racial overtones is worse than murder without it.
Can we increase the punishment if he is carrying beer as well? I know that illegals drinking beer is driving up the cost for us good Americans, dammit.
Does not make any sense to me. It strikes me that you advocate the creation of gun laws for the purpose of enforcing them. Kind of like the entire CCW permit process. What is the real point?
edit:
Perhaps, Mr. Fox, you advocate a government issued card to confirm citizenship? A card that must be presented on demand if you have a firearm in your possession?
The bottom line is that there is no good 'gun law'. Gun laws do not and will never protect people from people or people from government. Their sole purpose is to protect government from people.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
Originally posted by tr fox
What you don't seem to get is that without a law saying an illegal alien cannot buy or possess a firearm, if you or the law catches that illegal with a firearm, you cannot legally take it from him. Because of NO GUNS LAWS remember? This would be especially true if it took you a while to even determine that he WAS an illegal. But in regards to the possessing a gun, you can DETERMINE that the minute it is found on him and with a gun law in place you can DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Now why is that so hard for you and others here to "get it?"
but that brings up an interesting point:
if our right to posess and carry is actually a god-given right which is only included in the bor as a matter of clarity....
are not all men endowed by their creator with the same rights?
i don't want illegals running around with guns, either, but due to the argument that i make whenever someone wants to put another restrictionn on ownership or purchase, i would be a hypocrite to suggest anything other than deportation....and that would be for being here illegally in the 1st place.
you can't fault a man for wanting to exercise his god-given right to protect himself and his family, and that includes illegal aliens.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Damn, it is quite flattering that you guys so carefully read my posts. Thanks you for that and for coming back with a polite, real response. I frankly didn't think anyone would read my post closely enough to catch the flaw in my reasoning.
Well, I care if an illegal alien possess a firearm. Firearm possesion is the possession of a power that is only guaranteed to US Citizens by the constitution. I don't want some illegal using my country as if it were his and I don't want him to have the same constitutional rights as I do.
In regards to catching him with it, you are correct that to know he had it illegally you would also at the same time have to know if he was an illegal or not. So, assuming you stopped that illegal for some visible or suspected illegal act (otherwise why stop him?) then if you find a gun in his possession and hold him long enough to determine that he is an illegal, he needs to be punished much more than just being deported along with his firearm. If he knowingly and illegally possesses a firearm there is a good likelyhood that he has or will commit a crime against an American citizen. If that can be determined then he needs to go to prison or be shot by one of his intended victims.
But with no gun laws, he could legally have that firearm and legally take it back to Mexico with him. He should not be treated so gently.
I'll try to remain polite, Mr. Fox.
You really need to think about your motivation here.
You suggest that possession of a firearm makes it more likely for an individual to have committed or being planning to commit a crime.
You suggest that he should be treated differently if in possession of a firearm, just like murder with a firearm is worse that murder with chopsticks, or murder with racial overtones is worse than murder without it.
Can we increase the punishment if he is carrying beer as well? I know that illegals drinking beer is driving up the cost for us good Americans, dammit.
Does not make any sense to me. It strikes me that you advocate the creation of gun laws for the purpose of enforcing them. Kind of like the entire CCW permit process. What is the real point?
edit:
Perhaps, Mr. Fox, you advocate a government issued card to confirm citizenship? A card that must be presented on demand if you have a firearm in your possession? If you need to prove citizenship, a copy of your birth certificate (you have one right?) has always been proof enough. Why do you suggest making it more complicated with a "government issued card?"
The bottom line is that there is no good 'gun law'. Gun laws do not and will never protect people from people [size If a convicted violent felon is in route to your house to kill you and somehow gets stopped by the police and that felon possesses a gun against the law, then that felon can be stopped at that point. Before he trys to kill you. Without a gun law in this case, the police must left him go on his way with the gun and do as he pleases. In that respect a gun law has helped people [/size=2] or people from government. Their sole purpose is to protect government from people.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Damn, it is quite flattering that you guys so carefully read my posts. Thanks you for that and for coming back with a polite, real response. I frankly didn't think anyone would read my post closely enough to catch the flaw in my reasoning.
Well, I care if an illegal alien possess a firearm. Firearm possession is the possession of a power that is only guaranteed to US Citizens by the constitution. I don't want some illegal using my country as if it were his and I don't want him to have the same constitutional rights as I do.
In regards to catching him with it, you are correct that to know he had it illegally you would also at the same time have to know if he was an illegal or not. So, assuming you stopped that illegal for some visible or suspected illegal act (otherwise why stop him?) then if you find a gun in his possession and hold him long enough to determine that he is an illegal, he needs to be punished much more than just being deported along with his firearm. If he knowingly and illegally possesses a firearm there is a good likelyhood that he has or will commit a crime against an American citizen. If that can be determined then he needs to go to prison or be shot by one of his intended victims.
But with no gun laws, he could legally have that firearm and legally take it back to Mexico with him. He should not be treated so gently.
I'll try to remain polite, Mr. Fox.
You really need to think about your motivation here.
You suggest that possession of a firearm makes it more likely for an individual to have committed or being planning to commit a crime.
You suggest that he should be treated differently if in possession of a firearm, just like murder with a firearm is worse that murder with chopsticks, or murder with racial overtones is worse than murder without it.
Can we increase the punishment if he is carrying beer as well? I know that illegals drinking beer is driving up the cost for us good Americans, dammit.
Does not make any sense to me. It strikes me that you advocate the creation of gun laws for the purpose of enforcing them. Kind of like the entire CCW permit process. What is the real point?
edit:
Perhaps, Mr. Fox, you advocate a government issued card to confirm citizenship? A card that must be presented on demand if you have a firearm in your possession? If you need to prove citizenship, a copy of your birth certificate (you have one right?) has always been proof enough. Why do you suggest making it more complicated with a "government issued card?"
The bottom line is that there is no good 'gun law'. Gun laws do not and will never protect people from people [size If a convicted violent felon is in route to your house to kill you and somehow gets stopped by the police and that felon possesses a gun against the law, then that felon can be stopped at that point. Before he trys to kill you. Without a gun law in this case, the police must left him go on his way with the gun and do as he pleases. In that respect a gun law has helped people [/size=2] or people from government. Their sole purpose is to protect government from people.
The slope be slippery, Mr. Fox.
To your first point: Are you suggesting that everyone who chooses to have a firearm with him be mandated to carry a birth certificate to prove citizenship? No, that would be silly, would it not? I do not carry mine with me, do you?
Your scenario was that the possession of a rifle by an illegal adds to his crime. To enforce that law, every citizen who is in possession of a rifle will have to prove citizenship upon demand. I know, if you have nothing to hide..... Possession of a firearm does not aggravate the crime of being in this country illegally. The creation of a law to make it so will simply add the burden of proof of citizenship to all.
Your second point is equally specious. Any armed person could be on their way to kill me, regardless of their history. It would be best for the police to stop the ones I wouldn't suspect, as I would recognize the threat posed by a violent criminal immediately and have a much better chance than if it was, say, George down the street who doesn't like the way I mow my lawn.
Far better to stop George, force him to prove his citizenship, and then force him to explain why he is in possession of a rifle.
But the real answer is that we all be responsible in the protection of ourselves and our loved ones, and not have government assume that responsibility. Some grabbers fear all armed citizens, and some seem to focus on fearing an armed ex-offender. I simply choose not to live in fear.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
Oh contrare my fine Fox. It can be denied and is. There is no right to rape, murder, etc. in the Constitution. You again attempt to state something as fact that totally misrepresents the truth. Try again.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
I deny it; but more importantly, common sense and the U.S. Constitution deny it.
Laws against harming someone are an issue for the individual states, and the Constitution does not prevent states from making those laws. Prosecuting someone for harming others or theft is perfectly within the rights of the states, and is to be encouraged.
Possessing a firearm is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, hurts no one and should not be a crime in and of itself. If one uses a firearm during the commission of a crime, he should be prosecuted for the crime committed, not how he committed it.
The concept of 'Gun Crimes' and 'Hate Crimes' are birds of a feather, and appeal to the emotional, not the reasonable.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
I had held out "some" hope for you Larry. But with this statement it becomes abundantly clear. You just do not get it, and you NEVER WILL. [V]
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
I deny it; but more importantly, common sense and the U.S. Constitution deny it.
Laws against harming someone are an issue for the individual states, and the Constitution does not prevent states from making those laws. Prosecuting someone for harming others or theft is perfectly within the rights of the states, and is to be encouraged.
Possessing a firearm is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, hurts no one and should not be a crime in and of itself. If one uses a firearm during the commission of a crime, he should be prosecuted for the crime committed, not how he committed it.
The concept of 'Gun Crimes' and 'Hate Crimes' are birds of a feather, and appeal to the emotional, not the reasonable.
Regardless what entity makes the laws (federal, state, city, county) if laws cannot protect us against gun violence, then of course it would have to be true that laws cannot protect women against rape.
So, let's eliminate laws against rape and all other crimes (robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc.)
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
I had held out "some" hope for you Larry. But with this statement it becomes abundantly clear. You just do not get it, and you NEVER WILL. [V]
I believe you gave up hope on me a long time ago. And yes, I "do not get" what you and the others are selling.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
I had held out "some" hope for you Larry. But with this statement it becomes abundantly clear. You just do not get it, and you NEVER WILL. [V]
I believe you gave up hope on me a long time ago. And yes, I "do not get" what you and the others are selling.
Fox,
You again try to state an opinion as a fact of undeniable truth. Until you are able to tell the difference between the seven Common Law Torts of crimes against persons as opposed to the rights of the individuals to lead a peaceful life, you will continue to mistate and mislead those around you.
If you do not choose to buy reality, I'd be happy to rent you the sandcastle in the sky. I could always use another example of capitalism over socialism.
Regardless what entity makes the laws (federal, state, city, county) if laws cannot protect us against gun violence, then of course it would have to be true that laws cannot protect women against rape.
So, let's eliminate laws against rape and all other crimes (robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc.)
This makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.
Obviously laws against rape do not protect a woman from being raped, they exist to remove the rapist from society after the fact.
Justice is not protection, and preemptive justice is not freedom.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Originally posted by tr fox
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
Regardless what entity makes the laws (federal, state, city, county) if laws cannot protect us against gun violence, then of course it would have to be true that laws cannot protect women against rape.
So, let's eliminate laws against rape and all other crimes (robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc.)
Here is yet another example of where you attempt to make a statement of "if this, then that" as fact. And again you state an assertion which is false in it's premise. This is why you CAN'T get it. You will continue down this false light of your own truth straying further from reality each and every time.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Regardless what entity makes the laws (federal, state, city, county) if laws cannot protect us against gun violence, then of course it would have to be true that laws cannot protect women against rape.
So, let's eliminate laws against rape and all other crimes (robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc.)
This makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.
Obviously laws against rape do not protect a woman from being raped, they exist to remove the rapist from society after the fact.
Justice is not protection, and preemptive justice is not freedom.
In red above. Then you agree that we might as well get rid of anti-rape laws? Since you yourself describe them as worthless?
Why would you not want to rid us of ALL worthless laws?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Regardless what entity makes the laws (federal, state, city, county) if laws cannot protect us against gun violence, then of course it would have to be true that laws cannot protect women against rape.
So, let's eliminate laws against rape and all other crimes (robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc.)
This makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.
Obviously laws against rape do not protect a woman from being raped, they exist to remove the rapist from society after the fact.
Justice is not protection, and preemptive justice is not freedom.
In red above. Then you agree that we might as well get rid of anti-rape laws? Since you yourself describe them as worthless?
Why would you not want to rid us of ALL worthless laws?
Fox, you keep trying the same old rhetoric. Get a mind. Laws do not protect the public from predators. Laws against the person are only there to enforce governmental will on those who commit an act contrary to public policy. If you doubt this, then reflect on a restraining order when the woman holds it up as protection from the jilted boyfriend. Of course, he will stop and go away at the sight of that paper... yeah right.
Secondly, you keep trying to mix crimes against a person with public policy laws in violation of a Constitutional Right.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
ok, fox.
first off, i gotta say, i got a chuckle out of the fact that your first example, after mentioning the term "gun laws", was the "laws against rape".
the way your mind jumps from legislation governing the purchase of firearms to a crime involving the use of sex gives a glimpse at the psychology at work underneath that furry little foxtail.
[:p]
anyway....
i will admit, i'm sure that background checks, waiting periods, awb's and "hi" cap bans have probably saved a life or 2, somewhere.
i'm also positive that waiting periods, "gun free zones", restrictions on concealed carry, not allowing our soldiers to carry on base, background checks, etc etc, have cost lives.
why is it so friggin' hard for you to understand, we need to regulate idiots, not weapons.
why do murder and rape laws (sometimes) work?
because there are harsh penalties for offenders.
since you made the comparison to rape....
is there a license for sexual activity?
is there a background check before one goes into a bar to cruise for women?
does an outside party keep possession of your man parts for 10 days before they give you possession, at which time you can use them in a regulated manner?
do you need a permit to wear your * under your clothes?
no.
do you suggest government issued chastity belts, or some similar device, should be in place on ever individual until they pass a background check, waiting period, citizenship status check, mental health screening, before their allowed to use their privates in a responsible and adult manner?
or, like me, do you think that we should be allowed to do what we want with our own business until we violate another's rights, at which point we pay the penalty for our crimes?
seriously, dude, advocating ANY position, other than total freedom for those who can take personal responsibility for themselves and stiff penalties for those who can't, is both preposterous on it's face, and subversive and dangerous at it's core.
the idea of being able to legislate safety, morality, or responsibility, is like a cancer.
it will slowly spread to all areas of our lives, until we wither away and die leaving naught but a memory of what we once were.
regulation of firearms is the first step towards total control of the population.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
Dear God!!
Absolutely amazing to see such a display of abject ignorance and convoluted thought.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
Dear God!!
Absolutely amazing to see such a display of abject ignorance and convoluted thought.
Comments
I am unsure why so many want to paint me with a totally negative image when, if the truth were told, many here share, at least a degree of how I feel.
I do not support gun control on the lawful, responsible citizens. There is the answer to your question.
So let's ask you the same question in a different way.
Do you want to make it legal for illegal aliens to purchase, possess and carry firearms?
If "no," then you support gun control. Same thing if you don't want 10 year old kids to legally be able to walk into a store and walk out with a firearm. If you don't want that to be a legal action on the kid's part, then you support gun control.
Do you want someone who is obviously crazy to legally be able to purchase, own and carry a firearm? If not then you support gun control.
Do you want it to be illegal for someone to casually lay a loaded firearm down in public, say on a picnic table in the park? If you don't agree with then then you support gun control.
I am interested in your answers to this.
no, i don't want illegals to have guns, cars, or even a frickin' big mac from my local mickey d's.
they don't belong here, there is a law against them being here, and i want them all deported.
if an illegal alien should happen to gain access to a firearm and use it against a citizen......
death penalty, and then deport the carcass.
limiting MY access to firearms based on the idea of keeping them out of the hands of illegals is even more asinine than your previous examples (if that's possible).
are you actually saying that a law abiding citizen's access needs to be limited because our government refuses to follow the law when it comes to illegals?
now you're just being plain silly.
illegals kill lots of innocent citizens with illegally driven cars.
should we all have to clear background checks to buy those?
if, as you stated above, you do not support gun control on lawful, responsible citizens (funny, you didn't mention a minimum age requirement), then the idea of a vending machine is fair play.
the control needs to be placed on the bad guys, not lawful citizens.
if you disagree with that, then you support collective punishment.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
I am unsure why so many want to paint me with a totally negative image when, if the truth were told, many here share, at least a degree of how I feel.
I do not support gun control on the lawful, responsible citizens. There is the answer to your question.
So let's ask you the same question in a different way.
Do you want to make it legal for illegal aliens to purchase, possess and carry firearms?
If "no," then you support gun control. Same thing if you don't want 10 year old kids to legally be able to walk into a store and walk out with a firearm. If you don't want that to be a legal action on the kid's part, then you support gun control.
Do you want someone who is obviously crazy to legally be able to purchase, own and carry a firearm? If not then you support gun control.
Do you want it to be illegal for someone to casually lay a loaded firearm down in public, say on a picnic table in the park? If you don't agree with then then you support gun control.
I am interested in your answers to this.
no, i don't want illegals to have guns, cars, or even a frickin' big mac from my local mickey d's.
they don't belong here, there is a law against them being here, and i want them all deported.
if an illegal alien should happen to gain access to a firearm and use it against a citizen......
death penalty, and then deport the carcass.
limiting MY access to firearms based on the idea of keeping them out of the hands of illegals is even more asinine than your previous examples (if that's possible).
are you actually saying that a law abiding citizen's access needs to be limited because our government refuses to follow the law when it comes to illegals?
now you're just being plain silly.
illegals kill lots of innocent citizens with illegally driven cars.
should we all have to clear background checks to buy those?
if, as you stated above, you do not support gun control on lawful, responsible citizens (funny, you didn't mention a minimum age requirement), then the idea of a vending machine is fair play.
the control needs to be placed on the bad guys, not lawful citizens.
if you disagree with that, then you support collective punishment.
Actually you are the one being "just plain silly." Either that or just looking for an excuse, any excuse to throw a temper tantrum. If you are not an illegal alien why the hell do you care if I want a law making it illegal for an illegal alien to buy or possess a gun?
What are you? Some kind of illegal alien gun rights lobbyist?
Actually you are the one being "just plain silly." Either that or just looking for an excuse, any excuse to throw a temper tantrum. If you are not an illegal alien why the hell do you care if I want a law making it illegal for an illegal alien to buy or possess a gun?
What are you? Some kind of illegal alien gun rights lobbyist?
i stopped throwing tantrums as a child.
i realized that they did no good.
the reasons why i care if you make a law prohibiting illegals from owning a firearm are:
1: it misses the mark. send them the hell home.
2: your "law" would undoubtedly mean proving citizenship at the time of sale. another hoop for me to jump thru because no one has the guts to do what's really needed (see #1 above).
3: no matter how well intentioned, any restrictions on my right to buy what i want, when i want, will ultimately be abused by our "servants".
i suppose, under your plan, it would be fine for a cop to walk up to any brown skinned person at the range, make them stop what they are doing, and shake them down for their "papers"?
direct your energy to where it is truly needed:
demand your politicians enforce the laws regarding illegal aliens.
demand that your neighbor teach their kids respect and responsibility.
demand that murderers and sexual predators be put to death, and that violent criminals remain locked up.
what you are advocating is allowing illegals, crazies, and violent offenders to walk freely among us while demanding that we law abiding citizens sacrifice freedom to allow their "safe" integration into society.
you think the way to fix pedro's erratic driving by demanding that everyone take the bus.
and you say i'm being silly?
seriously, dude.
put down the crack pipe.
quote:Originally posted by Beeramid
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by ringchild
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
.
So do you favor selling firearms from vending machines? Yes or no please.
have i been unclear?
YES(as long as they're packaged to prevent scuffing when they drop into the pickup slot).
now....
do you favor making law abiding american citizens pay for the crimes of others by unconstitutionally limiting their access to firearms?
In red above. Thank you for asking. But I believe you and a lot of others don't understand where I am on this. I don't think "law abiding American citizens" should have limits on their access to firearms. I've never said that and as a law a law abiding American citizen I certainly don't want my access to firearms limited. But not allowing me to buy firearms out of a vending machine is fine with me. I'll just go to the gun store and buy one face to face with the firearm seller.
So that means you support gun control.......
I am unsure why so many want to paint me with a totally negative image when, if the truth were told, many here share, at least a degree of how I feel.
I don not support gun control on the lawful, responsible citizens. There is the answer to your question.
So let's ask you the same question in a different way.
Do you want to make it legal for illegal aliens to purchase, possess and carry firearms?
If "no," then you support gun control. Same thing if you don't want 10 year old kids to legally be able to walk into a store and walk out with a firearm. If you don't want that to be a legal action on the kid's part, then you support gun control.
Do you want someone who is obviously crazy to legally be able to purchase, own and carry a firearm? If not then you support gun control.
Do you want it to be illegal for someone to casually lay a loaded firearm down in public, say on a picnic table in the park? If you don't agree with then then you support gun control.
I am interested in your answers to this.
What you don't seem to get, is that if an illegal wants a gun, they'll get one regardless of the law. They shouldn't be here in the first place and should be driven back to where they came from. Illegal's have already decided that the laws don't apply to them, so how is making another going to help anything?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Beeramid
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by ringchild
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
.
So do you favor selling firearms from vending machines? Yes or no please.
have i been unclear?
YES(as long as they're packaged to prevent scuffing when they drop into the pickup slot).
now....
do you favor making law abiding american citizens pay for the crimes of others by unconstitutionally limiting their access to firearms?
In red above. Thank you for asking. But I believe you and a lot of others don't understand where I am on this. I don't think "law abiding American citizens" should have limits on their access to firearms. I've never said that and as a law a law abiding American citizen I certainly don't want my access to firearms limited. But not allowing me to buy firearms out of a vending machine is fine with me. I'll just go to the gun store and buy one face to face with the firearm seller.
So that means you support gun control.......
I am unsure why so many want to paint me with a totally negative image when, if the truth were told, many here share, at least a degree of how I feel.
I don not support gun control on the lawful, responsible citizens. There is the answer to your question.
So let's ask you the same question in a different way.
Do you want to make it legal for illegal aliens to purchase, possess and carry firearms?
If "no," then you support gun control. Same thing if you don't want 10 year old kids to legally be able to walk into a store and walk out with a firearm. If you don't want that to be a legal action on the kid's part, then you support gun control.
Do you want someone who is obviously crazy to legally be able to purchase, own and carry a firearm? If not then you support gun control.
Do you want it to be illegal for someone to casually lay a loaded firearm down in public, say on a picnic table in the park? If you don't agree with then then you support gun control.
I am interested in your answers to this.
What you don't seem to get, is that if an illegal wants a gun, they'll get one regardless of the law. They shouldn't be here in the first place and should be driven back to where they came from. Illegal's have already decided that the laws don't apply to them, so how is making another going to help anything?
What you don't seem to get is that without a law saying an illegal alien cannot buy or possess a firearm, if you or the law catches that illegal with a firearm, you cannot legally take it from him. Because of NO GUNS LAWS remember? This would be especially true if it took you a while to even determine that he WAS an illegal. But in regards to the possessing a gun, you can DETERMINE that the minute it is found on him and with a gun law in place you can DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Now why is that so hard for you and others here to "get it?"
What you don't seem to get is that without a law saying an illegal alien cannot buy or possess a firearm, if you or the law catches that illegal with a firearm, you cannot legally take it from him. Because of NO GUNS LAWS remember? This would be especially true if it took you a while to even determine that he WAS an illegal. But in regards to the possessing a gun, you can DETERMINE that the minute it is found on him and with a gun law in place you can DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Now why is that so hard for you and others here to "get it?"
I fail to see how you are going to do anything different with or without gun laws while determining if he is or is not illegal. Are you suggesting that he will have to have his CCW on him, or, if it is a longarm, are you suggesting that a 'citizen legal to possess firearms' card be mandatory?
Lastly, what is the problem? An illegal with a firearm is just as illegal as one without one. The response is to deport him. Let him keep the firearm, who cares?
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
What you don't seem to get is that without a law saying an illegal alien cannot buy or possess a firearm, if you or the law catches that illegal with a firearm, you cannot legally take it from him. Because of NO GUNS LAWS remember? This would be especially true if it took you a while to even determine that he WAS an illegal. But in regards to the possessing a gun, you can DETERMINE that the minute it is found on him and with a gun law in place you can DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Now why is that so hard for you and others here to "get it?"
I fail to see how you are going to do anything different with or without gun laws while determining if he is or is not illegal. Are you suggesting that he will have to have his CCW on him, or, if it is a longarm, are you suggesting that a 'citizen legal to possess firearms' card be mandatory?
Lastly, what is the problem? An illegal with a firearm is just as illegal as one without one. The response is to deport him. Let him keep the firearm, who cares?
Damn, it is quite flattering that you guys so carefully read my posts. Thanks you for that and for coming back with a polite, real response. I frankly didn't think anyone would read my post closely enough to catch the flaw in my reasoning.
Well, I care if an illegal alien possess a firearm. Firearm possesion is the possession of a power that is only guaranteed to US Citizens by the constitution. I don't want some illegal using my country as if it were his and I don't want him to have the same constitutional rights as I do.
In regards to catching him with it, you are correct that to know he had it illegally you would also at the same time have to know if he was an illegal or not. So, assuming you stopped that illegal for some visible or suspected illegal act (otherwise why stop him?) then if you find a gun in his possession and hold him long enough to determine that he is an illegal, he needs to be punished much more than just being deported along with his firearm. If he knowingly and illegally possesses a firearm there is a good likelyhood that he has or will commit a crime against an American citizen. If that can be determined then he needs to go to prison or be shot by one of his intended victims.
But with no gun laws, he could legally have that firearm and legally take it back to Mexico with him. He should not be treated so gently.
Damn, it is quite flattering that you guys so carefully read my posts. Thanks you for that and for coming back with a polite, real response. I frankly didn't think anyone would read my post closely enough to catch the flaw in my reasoning.
Well, I care if an illegal alien possess a firearm. Firearm possesion is the possession of a power that is only guaranteed to US Citizens by the constitution. I don't want some illegal using my country as if it were his and I don't want him to have the same constitutional rights as I do.
In regards to catching him with it, you are correct that to know he had it illegally you would also at the same time have to know if he was an illegal or not. So, assuming you stopped that illegal for some visible or suspected illegal act (otherwise why stop him?) then if you find a gun in his possession and hold him long enough to determine that he is an illegal, he needs to be punished much more than just being deported along with his firearm. If he knowingly and illegally possesses a firearm there is a good likelyhood that he has or will commit a crime against an American citizen. If that can be determined then he needs to go to prison or be shot by one of his intended victims.
But with no gun laws, he could legally have that firearm and legally take it back to Mexico with him. He should not be treated so gently.
I'll try to remain polite, Mr. Fox.
You really need to think about your motivation here.
You suggest that possession of a firearm makes it more likely for an individual to have committed or being planning to commit a crime.
You suggest that he should be treated differently if in possession of a firearm, just like murder with a firearm is worse that murder with chopsticks, or murder with racial overtones is worse than murder without it.
Can we increase the punishment if he is carrying beer as well? I know that illegals drinking beer is driving up the cost for us good Americans, dammit.
Does not make any sense to me. It strikes me that you advocate the creation of gun laws for the purpose of enforcing them. Kind of like the entire CCW permit process. What is the real point?
edit:
Perhaps, Mr. Fox, you advocate a government issued card to confirm citizenship? A card that must be presented on demand if you have a firearm in your possession?
The bottom line is that there is no good 'gun law'. Gun laws do not and will never protect people from people or people from government. Their sole purpose is to protect government from people.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Damn, it is quite flattering that you guys so carefully read my posts. Thanks you for that and for coming back with a polite, real response. I frankly didn't think anyone would read my post closely enough to catch the flaw in my reasoning.
Well, I care if an illegal alien possess a firearm. Firearm possesion is the possession of a power that is only guaranteed to US Citizens by the constitution. I don't want some illegal using my country as if it were his and I don't want him to have the same constitutional rights as I do.
In regards to catching him with it, you are correct that to know he had it illegally you would also at the same time have to know if he was an illegal or not. So, assuming you stopped that illegal for some visible or suspected illegal act (otherwise why stop him?) then if you find a gun in his possession and hold him long enough to determine that he is an illegal, he needs to be punished much more than just being deported along with his firearm. If he knowingly and illegally possesses a firearm there is a good likelyhood that he has or will commit a crime against an American citizen. If that can be determined then he needs to go to prison or be shot by one of his intended victims.
But with no gun laws, he could legally have that firearm and legally take it back to Mexico with him. He should not be treated so gently.
I'll try to remain polite, Mr. Fox.
You really need to think about your motivation here.
You suggest that possession of a firearm makes it more likely for an individual to have committed or being planning to commit a crime.
You suggest that he should be treated differently if in possession of a firearm, just like murder with a firearm is worse that murder with chopsticks, or murder with racial overtones is worse than murder without it.
Can we increase the punishment if he is carrying beer as well? I know that illegals drinking beer is driving up the cost for us good Americans, dammit.
Does not make any sense to me. It strikes me that you advocate the creation of gun laws for the purpose of enforcing them. Kind of like the entire CCW permit process. What is the real point?
edit:
Perhaps, Mr. Fox, you advocate a government issued card to confirm citizenship? A card that must be presented on demand if you have a firearm in your possession? If you need to prove citizenship, a copy of your birth certificate (you have one right?) has always been proof enough. Why do you suggest making it more complicated with a "government issued card?"
The bottom line is that there is no good 'gun law'. Gun laws do not and will never protect people from people [size If a convicted violent felon is in route to your house to kill you and somehow gets stopped by the police and that felon possesses a gun against the law, then that felon can be stopped at that point. Before he trys to kill you. Without a gun law in this case, the police must left him go on his way with the gun and do as he pleases. In that respect a gun law has helped people [/size=2] or people from government. Their sole purpose is to protect government from people.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Damn, it is quite flattering that you guys so carefully read my posts. Thanks you for that and for coming back with a polite, real response. I frankly didn't think anyone would read my post closely enough to catch the flaw in my reasoning.
Well, I care if an illegal alien possess a firearm. Firearm possession is the possession of a power that is only guaranteed to US Citizens by the constitution. I don't want some illegal using my country as if it were his and I don't want him to have the same constitutional rights as I do.
In regards to catching him with it, you are correct that to know he had it illegally you would also at the same time have to know if he was an illegal or not. So, assuming you stopped that illegal for some visible or suspected illegal act (otherwise why stop him?) then if you find a gun in his possession and hold him long enough to determine that he is an illegal, he needs to be punished much more than just being deported along with his firearm. If he knowingly and illegally possesses a firearm there is a good likelyhood that he has or will commit a crime against an American citizen. If that can be determined then he needs to go to prison or be shot by one of his intended victims.
But with no gun laws, he could legally have that firearm and legally take it back to Mexico with him. He should not be treated so gently.
I'll try to remain polite, Mr. Fox.
You really need to think about your motivation here.
You suggest that possession of a firearm makes it more likely for an individual to have committed or being planning to commit a crime.
You suggest that he should be treated differently if in possession of a firearm, just like murder with a firearm is worse that murder with chopsticks, or murder with racial overtones is worse than murder without it.
Can we increase the punishment if he is carrying beer as well? I know that illegals drinking beer is driving up the cost for us good Americans, dammit.
Does not make any sense to me. It strikes me that you advocate the creation of gun laws for the purpose of enforcing them. Kind of like the entire CCW permit process. What is the real point?
edit:
Perhaps, Mr. Fox, you advocate a government issued card to confirm citizenship? A card that must be presented on demand if you have a firearm in your possession? If you need to prove citizenship, a copy of your birth certificate (you have one right?) has always been proof enough. Why do you suggest making it more complicated with a "government issued card?"
The bottom line is that there is no good 'gun law'. Gun laws do not and will never protect people from people [size If a convicted violent felon is in route to your house to kill you and somehow gets stopped by the police and that felon possesses a gun against the law, then that felon can be stopped at that point. Before he trys to kill you. Without a gun law in this case, the police must left him go on his way with the gun and do as he pleases. In that respect a gun law has helped people [/size=2] or people from government. Their sole purpose is to protect government from people.
The slope be slippery, Mr. Fox.
To your first point: Are you suggesting that everyone who chooses to have a firearm with him be mandated to carry a birth certificate to prove citizenship? No, that would be silly, would it not? I do not carry mine with me, do you?
Your scenario was that the possession of a rifle by an illegal adds to his crime. To enforce that law, every citizen who is in possession of a rifle will have to prove citizenship upon demand. I know, if you have nothing to hide..... Possession of a firearm does not aggravate the crime of being in this country illegally. The creation of a law to make it so will simply add the burden of proof of citizenship to all.
Your second point is equally specious. Any armed person could be on their way to kill me, regardless of their history. It would be best for the police to stop the ones I wouldn't suspect, as I would recognize the threat posed by a violent criminal immediately and have a much better chance than if it was, say, George down the street who doesn't like the way I mow my lawn.
Far better to stop George, force him to prove his citizenship, and then force him to explain why he is in possession of a rifle.
But the real answer is that we all be responsible in the protection of ourselves and our loved ones, and not have government assume that responsibility. Some grabbers fear all armed citizens, and some seem to focus on fearing an armed ex-offender. I simply choose not to live in fear.
Brad Steele
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
Oh contrare my fine Fox. It can be denied and is. There is no right to rape, murder, etc. in the Constitution. You again attempt to state something as fact that totally misrepresents the truth. Try again.
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
I deny it; but more importantly, common sense and the U.S. Constitution deny it.
Laws against harming someone are an issue for the individual states, and the Constitution does not prevent states from making those laws. Prosecuting someone for harming others or theft is perfectly within the rights of the states, and is to be encouraged.
Possessing a firearm is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, hurts no one and should not be a crime in and of itself. If one uses a firearm during the commission of a crime, he should be prosecuted for the crime committed, not how he committed it.
The concept of 'Gun Crimes' and 'Hate Crimes' are birds of a feather, and appeal to the emotional, not the reasonable.
Brad Steele
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
I had held out "some" hope for you Larry. But with this statement it becomes abundantly clear. You just do not get it, and you NEVER WILL. [V]
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
I deny it; but more importantly, common sense and the U.S. Constitution deny it.
Laws against harming someone are an issue for the individual states, and the Constitution does not prevent states from making those laws. Prosecuting someone for harming others or theft is perfectly within the rights of the states, and is to be encouraged.
Possessing a firearm is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, hurts no one and should not be a crime in and of itself. If one uses a firearm during the commission of a crime, he should be prosecuted for the crime committed, not how he committed it.
The concept of 'Gun Crimes' and 'Hate Crimes' are birds of a feather, and appeal to the emotional, not the reasonable.
Regardless what entity makes the laws (federal, state, city, county) if laws cannot protect us against gun violence, then of course it would have to be true that laws cannot protect women against rape.
So, let's eliminate laws against rape and all other crimes (robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc.)
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
I had held out "some" hope for you Larry. But with this statement it becomes abundantly clear. You just do not get it, and you NEVER WILL. [V]
I believe you gave up hope on me a long time ago. And yes, I "do not get" what you and the others are selling.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
I had held out "some" hope for you Larry. But with this statement it becomes abundantly clear. You just do not get it, and you NEVER WILL. [V]
I believe you gave up hope on me a long time ago. And yes, I "do not get" what you and the others are selling.
Fox,
You again try to state an opinion as a fact of undeniable truth. Until you are able to tell the difference between the seven Common Law Torts of crimes against persons as opposed to the rights of the individuals to lead a peaceful life, you will continue to mistate and mislead those around you.
If you do not choose to buy reality, I'd be happy to rent you the sandcastle in the sky. I could always use another example of capitalism over socialism.
COB
Regardless what entity makes the laws (federal, state, city, county) if laws cannot protect us against gun violence, then of course it would have to be true that laws cannot protect women against rape.
So, let's eliminate laws against rape and all other crimes (robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc.)
This makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.
Obviously laws against rape do not protect a woman from being raped, they exist to remove the rapist from society after the fact.
Justice is not protection, and preemptive justice is not freedom.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Regardless what entity makes the laws (federal, state, city, county) if laws cannot protect us against gun violence, then of course it would have to be true that laws cannot protect women against rape.
So, let's eliminate laws against rape and all other crimes (robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc.)
This makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.
Obviously laws against rape do not protect a woman from being raped, they exist to remove the rapist from society after the fact.
Justice is not protection, and preemptive justice is not freedom.
In red above. Then you agree that we might as well get rid of anti-rape laws? Since you yourself describe them as worthless?
Why would you not want to rid us of ALL worthless laws?
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Regardless what entity makes the laws (federal, state, city, county) if laws cannot protect us against gun violence, then of course it would have to be true that laws cannot protect women against rape.
So, let's eliminate laws against rape and all other crimes (robbery, murder, kidnapping, etc.)
This makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever.
Obviously laws against rape do not protect a woman from being raped, they exist to remove the rapist from society after the fact.
Justice is not protection, and preemptive justice is not freedom.
In red above. Then you agree that we might as well get rid of anti-rape laws? Since you yourself describe them as worthless?
Why would you not want to rid us of ALL worthless laws?
Fox, you keep trying the same old rhetoric. Get a mind. Laws do not protect the public from predators. Laws against the person are only there to enforce governmental will on those who commit an act contrary to public policy. If you doubt this, then reflect on a restraining order when the woman holds it up as protection from the jilted boyfriend. Of course, he will stop and go away at the sight of that paper... yeah right.
Secondly, you keep trying to mix crimes against a person with public policy laws in violation of a Constitutional Right.
You still don't get it.
COB
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
ok, fox.
first off, i gotta say, i got a chuckle out of the fact that your first example, after mentioning the term "gun laws", was the "laws against rape".
the way your mind jumps from legislation governing the purchase of firearms to a crime involving the use of sex gives a glimpse at the psychology at work underneath that furry little foxtail.
[:p]
anyway....
i will admit, i'm sure that background checks, waiting periods, awb's and "hi" cap bans have probably saved a life or 2, somewhere.
i'm also positive that waiting periods, "gun free zones", restrictions on concealed carry, not allowing our soldiers to carry on base, background checks, etc etc, have cost lives.
why is it so friggin' hard for you to understand, we need to regulate idiots, not weapons.
why do murder and rape laws (sometimes) work?
because there are harsh penalties for offenders.
since you made the comparison to rape....
is there a license for sexual activity?
is there a background check before one goes into a bar to cruise for women?
does an outside party keep possession of your man parts for 10 days before they give you possession, at which time you can use them in a regulated manner?
do you need a permit to wear your * under your clothes?
no.
do you suggest government issued chastity belts, or some similar device, should be in place on ever individual until they pass a background check, waiting period, citizenship status check, mental health screening, before their allowed to use their privates in a responsible and adult manner?
or, like me, do you think that we should be allowed to do what we want with our own business until we violate another's rights, at which point we pay the penalty for our crimes?
seriously, dude, advocating ANY position, other than total freedom for those who can take personal responsibility for themselves and stiff penalties for those who can't, is both preposterous on it's face, and subversive and dangerous at it's core.
the idea of being able to legislate safety, morality, or responsibility, is like a cancer.
it will slowly spread to all areas of our lives, until we wither away and die leaving naught but a memory of what we once were.
regulation of firearms is the first step towards total control of the population.
for sake of our republic, please, grow up..
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
Dear God!!
Absolutely amazing to see such a display of abject ignorance and convoluted thought.
"Malum en se" as opposed to "malum prohibitum".
Google it.
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
OK, Don, I will approach this from an entirely different angle.
If you, and others here, insist that having at least a minimual amount of guns laws can never do any good, then you have to say the very same thing about laws against rape, robbery, murder, tax cheating, child poronography, etc. etc. This cannot be denied.
Dear God!!
Absolutely amazing to see such a display of abject ignorance and convoluted thought.
"Malum en se" as opposed to "malum prohibitum".
Google it.
Don't forget Malum per se'