grbeck Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 (edited) so in your eyes its ok that fruitloops and nutjobs find it easy to arm themselves, so I guess everything is just peachy in the land of napfirst....just keep govt regulations outa your hair...what good are regulations anyways...ESPECIALLY when it comes to arms....And no, not thin skinned, but when retorts are all fired from the same corner, they just get old real fast....so rather than constantly throwing barbs, bring something to the table for once and offer an opinion...even if you dis-agree it can be appreciated for a different perspective.... There are plenty of regulations that cover gun ownership. If the system is broken, more regulation generally isn't the answer. Here in Pennsylvania, there is a serious crime problem in Philadelphia. The governor of the state and mayor of Philadelphia want to make it harder to own a gun in Philadelphia and limit handgun purchases to one a month for every one in the state, on the grounds that it will supposedly eliminate "straw man" buyers who purchase several hand guns at a time and resell them to criminals. This ignores that fact that virtually all crimes are committed by people who haven't bothered to observe any of the current gun laws, and they aren't even bothering to have others purchase these guns for them. So either restriction is basically worthless. Of course, there is a problem with judges letting too many people out on probation, along with a probation system that doesn't do a very good job of tracking the population it is supposed to be watching, along with community pressure aiming to prevent witnesses, i.e., "snitches," from testifying against perpetrators...but it's easier to ignore those factors. Edited March 12, 2009 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 There are plenty of regulations that cover gun ownership. If the system is broken, more regulation generally isn't the answer. Here in Pennsylvania, there is a serious crime problem in Philadelphia. The Governor of the state and Mayor of Philadelphia want to make it harder to own a gun in Philadelphia and limit handgun purchases to one a month for every one in the state, on the grounds that it will supposedly eliminate "straw man" buyers who purchase several hand guns at a time and resell them to criminals. This ignores that fact that virtually all crimes are committed by people who haven't bothered to observe any of the current gun laws, and they aren't even bothering to have others purchase these guns for them. So either restriction is basically worthless. Of course, there is a problem with judges letting too many people out on probation, along with a probation system that doesn't do a very good job of tracking the population it is supposed to be watching, along with community pressure aiming to prevent witnesses, i.e., "snitches," from testifying against perpetrators...but it's easier to ignore those factors. theres a loophole,, how about one gun only... NOT multiple...and if you want another, first must be RETURNED...hey, I'm a dreamer i know....but that might halt the multiple gun buyer that passes them on to the "wrong" people....OR, if one owns more than one, bring them in for a 5 yearly inspection...if any missing, pull the licence, confiscate the rest with fines...i don't know, guess that will raise some ire here.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Nut shell...point is you stated the rifle is a modern spear....they are NOT even comparable nick... Sure they are. The bullet is just a modern spear tip or arrowhead. The shaft of the spear along with the fulcrum of the thrower's arm was the firing mechanism instead of the shell casing, firing pin, and gunpowder. They are both meant to inflict damage upon a specified target in a precise and deadly manner. Just because a rifle does a far better job of it due to advances in technology doesn't mean they aren't directly related to one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 theres a loophole,, how about one gun only... NOT multiple...and if you want another, first must be RETURNED...hey, I'm a dreamer i know....but that might halt the multiple gun buyer that passes them on to the "wrong" people....OR, if one owns more than one, bring them in for a 5 yearly inspection...if any missing, pull the licence, confiscate the rest with fines...i don't know, guess that will raise some ire here.... Yes. It will. Less government, thanks. Not more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Yes. It will. Less government, thanks. Not more. I agree...EXCEPT in instances like this.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I agree...EXCEPT in instances like this.... So they can put their nose into everyone's 2nd Amendment rights and regulate it as well as say...education? Oh wait, bad example. Maybe the war on drugs? Oooo, sorry. Health ca--- nope. Get my drift? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Sure they are. The bullet is just a modern spear tip or arrowhead. The shaft of the spear along with the fulcrum of the thrower's arm was the firing mechanism instead of the shell casing, firing pin, and gunpowder. They are both meant to inflict damage upon a specified target in a precise and deadly manner. Just because a rifle does a far better job of it due to advances in technology doesn't mean they aren't directly related to one another. would be interesting to substitute Spears or Bows and arrows for guns with all the gangs....imagine the drive bys......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 The main reasons that gangs exist is prohibition of firearms and drugs. Take away the prohibitions and you take away the profit motive and the glamour. When guns and drugs were completely legal, there wasn't a problem with them. Now that they are prohibited or restricted, they are a big problem. What does that tell you? They cost the taxpayers countless billions of dollars per year. Legalizing them and taking away restrictions can only improve the situation. It couldn't possibly get any worse. It is the intrusions into peoples' lives by government that sets off wacko killers. The guy in Montreal killed all of those women because of affirmative action which excluded him from a university course. I bet that all nut job killings can be traced to government control. That does not excuse them, but it is a barometer. Government is the root cause of most of the problems in society. If you are looking for solutions, look at cutting government, not adding more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 The main reasons that gangs exist is prohibition of firearms and drugs. Take away the prohibitions and you take away the profit motive and the glamour. When guns and drugs were completely legal, there wasn't a problem with them. Now that they are prohibited or restricted, they are a big problem. What does that tell you? They cost the taxpayers countless billions of dollars per year. Legalizing them and taking away restrictions can only improve the situation. It couldn't possibly get any worse. It is the intrusions into peoples' lives by government that sets off wacko killers. The guy in Montreal killed all of those women because of affirmative action which excluded him from a university course. I bet that all nut job killings can be traced to government control. That does not excuse them, but it is a barometer. Government is the root cause of most of the problems in society. If you are looking for solutions, look at cutting government, not adding more. perhaps..or perhaps Armegeddon...sure is a lot of anti Govt sentiment here.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 perhaps..or perhaps Armegeddon...sure is a lot of anti Govt sentiment here.... Not anti-government. Anti-intrusive government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Not anti-government. Anti-intrusive government. hey, you guys voted for your own management team....but its everywhere Nick....and in this case i have no issues if they attempt in ANY way to appese the problem....tired of reading these types of headlines... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 So they can put their nose into everyone's 2nd Amendment rights and regulate it as well as say...education? Oh wait, bad example. Maybe the war on drugs? Oooo, sorry. Health ca--- nope. Get my drift? Is there anything they do that they don't screw up? How about is there anything they run efficiently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Is there anything they do that they don't screw up? How about is there anything they run efficiently? their YEARLY pay raises..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 their YEARLY pay raises..... OK you got me! Let's try anything that benefits us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 OK you got me! Let's try anything that benefits us? may take me a while to get back on that one...oh, how about 3 1/2 hrs in line to get on a plane...oh, wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 may take me a while to get back on that one...oh, how about 3 1/2 hrs in line to get on a plane...oh, wait... According to the government, there are 1 million names on the terrorists watch list. And that is after they removed 33,000. Be glad you don’t have to wait in a cattle chute and pin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 theres a loophole,, how about one gun only... NOT multiple...and if you want another, first must be RETURNED...hey, I'm a dreamer i know....but that might halt the multiple gun buyer that passes them on to the "wrong" people....OR, if one owns more than one, bring them in for a 5 yearly inspection...if any missing, pull the licence, confiscate the rest with fines...i don't know, guess that will raise some ire here.... You're missing the point...criminals don't obey current gun laws, so why would they obey the one you are proposing? How, exactly, will limiting law-abiding people to ownership of one gun affect people who don't obey the current laws in the first place? Answer - it won't. All that you are doing is making life more difficult for law-abiding gun owners. If that is your goal, fine, but please don't pass it off as a solution to crime prevention. Because it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 How, exactly, will limiting law-abiding people to ownership of one gun affect people who don't obey the current laws in the first place? It won't (for the most part), but making a uniform system across the country that requires certain checks and tests in order to own guns might. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) . Edited March 13, 2009 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 It won't (for the most part), but making a uniform system across the country that requires certain checks and tests in order to own guns might. Nothing will, a criminal will always get what they want. Prohibition, Drug War????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) Nothing will, a criminal will always get what they want. Prohibition, Drug War????? Was there a check to get moonshine? Is there one to get drugs? We don't usually screen people before thy do illegal things. Of course criminals will always get guns, but that doesn't mean you give up. People need to be screened for gun ownership. There is no more efficient way to kill another person. It may help to keep a few illegal guns out of the system, and that's a good thing. Edited March 13, 2009 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) It won't (for the most part), but making a uniform system across the country that requires certain checks and tests in order to own guns might. Buyers must already undergo a background check to buy a gun, and, if I recall correctly, it is effective throughout the nation. Edited March 13, 2009 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Was there a check to get moonshine? Is there one to get drugs? We don't usually screen people before thy do illegal things. Of course criminals will always get guns, but that doesn't mean you give up. People need to be screened for gun ownership. There is no more efficient way to kill another person. It may help to keep a few illegal guns out of the system, and that's a good thing. There wasn't a "check" to buy moonshine because it was illegal to brew and possess, period. Same with drugs today. But people still were able to buy moonshine if they wanted it - just as they can get drugs today - even with those prohibitions in place. And there are already federal background checks in place for people who want to buy a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 hey, you guys voted for your own management team....but its everywhere Nick....and in this case i have no issues if they attempt in ANY way to appese the problem....tired of reading these types of headlines... Some other guy voted for them. I sure didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) Buyers must already undergo a background check to buy a gun, and, if I recall correctly, it is effective throughout the nation. Then it isn't working. It needs to be enforced better. People are licensed to drive cars, they should be licensed and checked to buy guns. Large purchases (many guns at once) should also be a flag to authorities. http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/firestar/gunlaws.html I'm not saying it needs to be as strict as the Canadian laws listed, but what happens in Georgia isn't nearly enough. Edited March 13, 2009 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.