Page 11 of 41 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 820

Thread: Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

  1. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    My biggest fear is that this national conversation will take the path of least resistance and that is video games and violence on TV. IMO those should be on the bottom of the list.
    I wouldn't be afraid. One thing you can bet on is since the President alluded to change sales of violent video games, assault rifles and armor piercing amo will go up substantially. There's still 8 days to shop before Christmas.

  2. #202
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    My biggest fear is that this national conversation will take the path of least resistance and that is video games and violence on TV. IMO those should be on the bottom of the list..
    +1

    PK has been listening to heavy metal since he was 4 and he turned out OK.



  3. #203
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    (┌・。・)┌ lolgfy
    Posts
    32,602
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    My biggest fear is that this national conversation will take the path of least resistance and that is video games and violence on TV. IMO those should be on the bottom of the list.

    First and foremost we need to change the way we view and treat mental illness. The majority of these mass murderers are mentally ill. Then we need to have stricter gun regulations. I have been thinking a lot about this the past few days and I agree with what the President said last night. If we can save just one victim or prevent one of these tragedies then it would be worth it. I understand that there are hundreds of millions of gun in circulation and there will never be a way to completely control them. But we have to try. We also need a better database of gun owners and people who are excluded from the right to own a gun.

    I am not a religious person but I think there may be a correlation between the decline of faith and the overall decline of society. Gov't spends a lot of time separating itself from faith. I was surprised to see how much Obama was referencing faith and religion when trying to console the nation. Like I said, I am not a religious person but I do think religion or faith of any kind does have a positive impact on society.


    I agree with most of your points except religion - well, except religion taken to extremes like those WBC idiots and Islamic extremists, etc.
    If anything, seeing this sort of stuff makes it even harder to put your faith in something that isn't real - or at least seems non existent. Faith in humanity is probably at an all time low these days.

  4. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by RaoulDuke View Post
    +1

    PK has been listening to heavy metal since he was 4 and he turned out OK.


    Well, except for a heavy dose of nihilism, and a desire to destroy via atomic weapons an entire subcontinent, sure.

    Oh, and his preference that the World end on 12/21 too. Yep, that too.

    Other than that, he's a real peach of positivity.

    :metalupyourass:

    (Metal doesn't make you bad. Some ssmall subset of bad people listen to metal. PK is not a bad person. Wargarbl).

  5. #205
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Well, except for a heavy dose of nihilism, and a desire to destroy via atomic weapons an entire subcontinent, sure.

    Oh, and his preference that the World end on 12/21 too. Yep, that too.

    Other than that, he's a real peach of positivity.
    .

  6. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by Snell41 View Post
    Nuclear weapons have long been referred to as Nuclear Arms. I guess you have no problem with your neighbor having one stashed in the closet for "defense purposes"?

    That is a moronic statement. A rifle can cost under $100. So can a pistol. A nuke costs hundreds of thousands and you can get fissionable material where? I suppose the average teen can construct a nuke. A little common sense please.

  7. #207
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,344
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    That is a moronic statement. A rifle can cost under $100. So can a pistol. A nuke costs hundreds of thousands and you can get fissionable material where? I suppose the average teen can construct a nuke. A little common sense please.
    PM me

  8. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    That is a moronic statement. A rifle can cost under $100. So can a pistol. A nuke costs hundreds of thousands and you can get fissionable material where? I suppose the average teen can construct a nuke. A little common sense please.
    Of course, but you see the point. The right to bear arms was written for the weapons of the time. A glock would be one hell of a weapon compared to colonial days. I think it's ridiculous to continue to tout the constitutional right to bear arms without bearing any consideration that "arms" have changed. I have to wonder what the founding fathers would think if they were given a future glimpse of weapons today, and the fact that citizens would be pointing to their written Amendment as their right to carry around a bushmaster, for example.

  9. #209
    The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution allows us to bear arms. But it doesn't say what kind of arms. We need to legally distinguish between deadly arms and non-deadly arms.

    Deadly Arms: Present day revolvers, pistols, etc. These are deadly and should be outlawed, because they are deadly.

    Non-Deadly Arms: Highly effective stun guns, highly potent pepper spray guns. These guns are non-deadly so they should be allowed.

    The Constitution (Bill of Rights) was written in the 1700s - when stun guns and pepper spray, et al, didn't exist yet.

    Got it?


  10. #210
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,344
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbanyJet View Post
    The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution allows us to bear arms. But it doesn't say what kind of arms. We need to legally distinguish between deadly arms and non-deadly arms.

    Deadly Arms: Present day revolvers, pistols, etc. These are deadly and should be outlawed, because they are deadly.

    Non-Deadly Arms: Highly effective stun guns, highly potent pepper spray guns. These guns are non-deadly so they should be allowed.

    The Constitution (Bill of Rights) was written in the 1700s - when stun guns and pepper spray, et al, didn't exist yet.

    Got it?

    How about knives? Bricks? Cars? Poison? Fists of Fury?

    Got it?

  11. #211
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    19,386
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbanyJet View Post
    The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution allows us to bear arms. But it doesn't say what kind of arms. We need to legally distinguish between deadly arms and non-deadly arms.

    Deadly Arms: Present day revolvers, pistols, etc. These are deadly and should be outlawed, because they are deadly.

    Non-Deadly Arms: Highly effective stun guns, highly potent pepper spray guns. These guns are non-deadly so they should be allowed.

    The Constitution (Bill of Rights) was written in the 1700s - when stun guns and pepper spray, et al, didn't exist yet.

    Got it?

    Good luck with that. The Supreme Court just ruled that categorically prohibiting the ownership of handguns is unconstitutional, so me thinks you are fighting an uphill battle.

    Why not focus on something practical? Or, failing that, on inventing a magical spell that will make all the privately held guns in the country disappear.

    That's about the only way you will get rid of your "deadly" arms.

  12. #212
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In Morris Co., N.J. at the right end of a Browning 12 gauge, with Nick to my left n Rex to my right.
    Posts
    17,274
    It's the nut behind the bolt.

  13. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    How about knives? Bricks? Cars? Poison? Fists of Fury? Got it?
    Nah, they're fine.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnWFJZkdB8Y

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJedPx7Hr1I


  14. #214
    Pepper Spray and Taser Hunting?

    PETA will not be amused.

    Nor will the Deer or Turkey I would presume.

  15. #215
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    How about knives? Bricks? Cars? Poison? Fists of Fury?

    Got it?
    We'll ban bricks the next time someone walks into an elementary school and kills 20 first graders by striking them in the head 3 -11 times each with a brick.

  16. #216
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cape Cod, MA
    Posts
    3,673
    Quote Originally Posted by Snell41 View Post
    Of course, but you see the point. The right to bear arms was written for the weapons of the time. A glock would be one hell of a weapon compared to colonial days. I think it's ridiculous to continue to tout the constitutional right to bear arms without bearing any consideration that "arms" have changed. I have to wonder what the founding fathers would think if they were given a future glimpse of weapons today, and the fact that citizens would be pointing to their written Amendment as their right to carry around a bushmaster, for example.
    I'm no constitutional scholar, but I think the intent was to allow the people to repel a government occupation, a la the forced housing of troops, etc. I would think their intention was for the arms to be commensurate with the ones at the time (likely not foreseeing nukes and tanks and such).
    Last edited by stanner; 12-17-2012 at 03:32 PM.

  17. #217
    Schluberator & Gadfly ®
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,710
    Quote Originally Posted by stanner View Post
    I'm no constitutional scholar, but I think the intent was to allow the people to repel a government occupation, a la the forced housing of troops, etc. I would think their intention was for the arms to be commensurate with the ones at the time (likely not foreseeing nukes and tanks and such).
    They had cannons back then. I wonder if anyone tried to keep a cannon?

  18. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbanyJet View Post
    The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution allows us to bear arms. But it doesn't say what kind of arms. We need to legally distinguish between deadly arms and non-deadly arms.

    Deadly Arms: Present day revolvers, pistols, etc. These are deadly and should be outlawed, because they are deadly.

    Non-Deadly Arms: Highly effective stun guns, highly potent pepper spray guns. These guns are non-deadly so they should be allowed.

    The Constitution (Bill of Rights) was written in the 1700s - when stun guns and pepper spray, et al, didn't exist yet.

    Got it?

    I'm confused here. Drugs are illegal yet they are readily available in every neighborhood. 45% of homes in America contain a firearm. Are you advocating that a task force be created to forcibly search homes across America and confiscate the weapons? Would you agree then that those that resist are to be shot or arrested on site?

    Now assuming, that after millions of lives are lost in the fighting to enact your gun ban concept, you win this second civil war (not likely but..) can you say with any level of confidence that this would lead to the end of guns in the USA? Please cite examples of other rights that were removed by government and never returned. They tried it with alcohol, that was a bust. They tried it with drugs. Also a bust. Prostitution? Not so much. Where is the example where a government ban on something actually worked? There isn't one.

    My point? Also this blather about gun laws and bans etc are just emotional foolishness born of a desire to do something, anything, to prevent this tragedy from happening again. Well if that was truly the desire then we should look in to realistic causation and solutions. The shooter in Newtown was mentally ill. Those around him sensed that he was going over the edge and were powerless to stop him. He likely had been in touch with mental health counseling on numerous occasions. The same can be said for other recent similar events including Arizona and Colorado. The problem seems to be in the inability to get these people off the streets before they commit crimes.

  19. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Are you advocating that a task force be created to forcibly search homes across America and confiscate the weapons?
    No, just the manufacture and/or sale of "deadly" firearms. Hunting rifles are OK!


  20. #220
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,083
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    I'm confused here. Drugs are illegal yet they are readily available in every neighborhood. 45% of homes in America contain a firearm. Are you advocating that a task force be created to forcibly search homes across America and confiscate the weapons? Would you agree then that those that resist are to be shot or arrested on site?
    So why does your party still support banning drugs if it's just a futile as banning guns?

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us