Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: help with gun control
msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 12/26/12 10:19 AM
doctors take an oath to 'do no harm' that accidents happen in an activity that happens on a regular and occupational basis (surgical doctors have a CAREER in which they perform surgery, with years of TRAINING to keep the number of deaths down) its a bad comparison,, cars are likewise used to transport people, on a regular and routine basis, for their CAREERS And other needs most citizens dont tie gun use to a necessity of their CAREER or other needs true, nothing is ever ABSOLUTELY Safe, but that is no excuse not to try and make things SAFER,,,,

Kleisto Joined Tue 05/13/08 Posts: 5704	Wed 12/26/12 10:22 AM
true, nothing is ever ABSOLUTELY Safe, but that is no excuse not to try and make things SAFER,,,, And yet by removing weapons from the RESPONSIBLE people, which is what WILL happen if you let them start to regulate your guns, you make them LESS safe than if they had it to protect themselves in the first place. I believe that's called bass ackwards.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 12/26/12 10:22 AM
more guns no guns equally INSANE,,, trained and sane/rational persons should have access to certain types of weaponry, but not any and all known weapons,,, untrained, impulsive, irrational persons should not have access to weaponry that can take life with such little effort or chance to retreat,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 12/26/12 10:24 AM Edited by msharmony on Wed 12/26/12 10:25 AM
true, nothing is ever ABSOLUTELY Safe, but that is no excuse not to try and make things SAFER,,,, And yet by removing weapons from the RESPONSIBLE people, which is what WILL happen if you let them start to regulate your guns, you make them LESS safe than if they had it to protect themselves in the first place. I believe that's called bass ackwards. well, thata another assumption I dont agree wiht they already have some regulations about guns and plenty of supposedly responsible people in this forum seem to still have theirs I believe thats called a reality check no guns would be constitutionally wrong more guns would be logically jumping from the pot into the fire,,, we dont hand cars out to anyone, we dont hand doctors licenses out to anyone, why should guns be in the hands of anyone who wants one, without some logical and reasonable constraints?

Kleisto Joined Tue 05/13/08 Posts: 5704	Wed 12/26/12 10:32 AM Edited by Kleisto on Wed 12/26/12 10:35 AM
true, nothing is ever ABSOLUTELY Safe, but that is no excuse not to try and make things SAFER,,,, And yet by removing weapons from the RESPONSIBLE people, which is what WILL happen if you let them start to regulate your guns, you make them LESS safe than if they had it to protect themselves in the first place. I believe that's called bass ackwards. well, thata another assumption I dont agree wiht they already have some regulations about guns and plenty of supposedly responsible people in this forum seem to still have theirs I believe thats called a reality check no guns would be constitutionally wrong As if they care about the constitution, they've already shown they don't in how they flagrantly tear it to pieces with each new law they put on the books. I believe you need the reality check.....fact is, whether you want to believe it or not, they care nothing for your rights, god given or otherwise, just their own power and control. If you let them, they will take just about every last one you have away. Doesn't matter whether you agree with that "assumption" or not, it will happen, history has shown it with any dictatorship. Leave power unchecked and it will consume the people it is supposed to be governing. Even now we are already less free than we were just 20-30 years ago. These things do not happen over night, they are a gradual thing. You may not think they can do certain things now, but there's a lot of things people didn't think would happen, that did with time because of that lack of paying attention. We must be vigilant if we want our freedom. If we aren't, we will lose it.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 12/26/12 11:18 AM
true, nothing is ever ABSOLUTELY Safe, but that is no excuse not to try and make things SAFER,,,, Does it matter to know that what you are doing is effective?

JOHNN111 Joined Wed 05/13/09 Posts: 9273	Wed 12/26/12 12:04 PM
Fingerprint Biometric technology for firearms has been around for 10years+... Gun lobby thinks it's too expensive, it would certainly help with all future generations of gun owners. too expensive? so what? weapons should be expensive IMO LOL

Sojourning_Soul Joined Fri 02/13/09 Posts: 10767	Wed 12/26/12 12:34 PM Edited by Sojourning_Soul on Wed 12/26/12 12:36 PM
doctors take an oath to 'do no harm' that accidents happen in an activity that happens on a regular and occupational basis (surgical doctors have a CAREER in which they perform surgery, with years of TRAINING to keep the number of deaths down) its a bad comparison,, cars are likewise used to transport people, on a regular and routine basis, for their CAREERS And other needs most citizens dont tie gun use to a necessity of their CAREER or other needs true, nothing is ever ABSOLUTELY Safe, but that is no excuse not to try and make things SAFER,,,, And police and soldiers use automatic weapons every day to defend us, transport unarmed prisoners, protect shopping malls and banks... and it's not a "tool of a trade" equally as viable as any car? Because I smoke you must? No! Because there are regulations and laws, but they don't ban certain cigarettes because of it! However, smokers are denied rights daily in favor of nonsmokers who have a right to leave or avoid an area as well as any smoker. Many laws and regulations are unjust, unconstitutional in the fact that they are democratic (the rule of a mob) rather than freedoms allowed under a Republic.....which our country is supposed to be! "Congress shall make no laws...."

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 12/26/12 12:38 PM
Fingerprint Biometric technology for firearms has been around for 10years+... Gun lobby thinks it's too expensive, it would certainly help with all future generations of gun owners. too expensive? so what? weapons should be expensive IMO LOL So a person who cannot afford one would be denied the ability to protect themselves?

JOHNN111 Joined Wed 05/13/09 Posts: 9273	Wed 12/26/12 12:40 PM
Many laws and regulations are unjust, unconstitutional in the fact that they are democratic (the rule of a mob) rather than freedoms allowed under a Republic.....which our country is supposed to be! A wise dude on here once said: "Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins" So yea... cigarette Smoke falls into this category IMO

Sojourning_Soul Joined Fri 02/13/09 Posts: 10767	Wed 12/26/12 12:42 PM Edited by Sojourning_Soul on Wed 12/26/12 12:49 PM
Many laws and regulations are unjust, unconstitutional in the fact that they are democratic (the rule of a mob) rather than freedoms allowed under a Republic.....which our country is supposed to be! A wise dude on here once said: "Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins" So yea... cigarette Smoke falls into this category IMO They are called "Public" areas.... some of the public smokes! Then you would keep us segregated as they did blacks in the South and call it moral and your right? So I have none in your world?

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 12/26/12 12:46 PM
Many laws and regulations are unjust, unconstitutional in the fact that they are democratic (the rule of a mob) rather than freedoms allowed under a Republic.....which our country is supposed to be! A wise dude on here once said: "Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins" So yea... cigarette Smoke falls into this category IMO What if we considered the exhaust from cars to be just as offensive? You can only drive your call in doors from now on!

JOHNN111 Joined Wed 05/13/09 Posts: 9273	Wed 12/26/12 12:49 PM
Fingerprint Biometric technology for firearms has been around for 10years+... Gun lobby thinks it's too expensive, it would certainly help with all future generations of gun owners. too expensive? so what? weapons should be expensive IMO LOL So a person who cannot afford one would be denied the ability to protect themselves? That's not quite right... regulations on "new gun" ownership should include biometric technology... end of story.

Sojourning_Soul Joined Fri 02/13/09 Posts: 10767	Wed 12/26/12 12:51 PM Edited by Sojourning_Soul on Wed 12/26/12 12:53 PM
Many laws and regulations are unjust, unconstitutional in the fact that they are democratic (the rule of a mob) rather than freedoms allowed under a Republic.....which our country is supposed to be! A wise dude on here once said: "Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins" So yea... cigarette Smoke falls into this category IMO What if we considered the exhaust from cars to be just as offensive? You can only drive your call in doors from now on! No worries. If you can't afford a gun, or own one legally, Obozo will let Eric know and he'll see you get a few! quoted wrong post.... but you can figure it out....

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 12/26/12 12:55 PM Edited by Bushidobillyclub on Wed 12/26/12 01:03 PM
Fingerprint Biometric technology for firearms has been around for 10years+... Gun lobby thinks it's too expensive, it would certainly help with all future generations of gun owners. too expensive? so what? weapons should be expensive IMO LOL So a person who cannot afford one would be denied the ability to protect themselves? That's not quite right... regulations on "new gun" ownership should include biometric technology... end of story. Yea, which would mean that when that tech is mandated in all new weapons and the price of those weapons in some cases doubles, which then puts it out of the range of ownership for the poorest of Americans . . . yea, it effectively makes guns unattainable for the people who are poor. Guns are a part of a criminals business model. It is essential to their business. The cost is a business cost, even if the cost is much much higher than what a civilian is willing to pay, they would pay it, even if it meant hacking the technology used to restrict access to the firearm. Just have your local tech geek jailbreak your Glock for a price and your back in business. 30 years of companies doing there best to prevent people from piracy, and device hacking and where are we? See this is my point, all of these suggestions all in absence of critically examining, a) the past to see if it was tried, and what the results were, and b) just ask questions about what behaviors are actually taking place and put yourself in the persons shoes . . . WOULD IT STOP YOU!?

tombraider Joined Wed 09/12/07 Posts: 5042	Wed 12/26/12 01:00 PM
gun control is just like the war on drugs and the fact that it's too deep seated in our society that no matter what you throw at it.."it just ain't gonna happen"...

JOHNN111 Joined Wed 05/13/09 Posts: 9273	Wed 12/26/12 01:03 PM
Fingerprint Biometric technology for firearms has been around for 10years+... Gun lobby thinks it's too expensive, it would certainly help with all future generations of gun owners. too expensive? so what? weapons should be expensive IMO LOL So a person who cannot afford one would be denied the ability to protect themselves? That's not quite right... regulations on "new gun" ownership should include biometric technology... end of story. Yea, which would mean that when that tech is mandated in all new weapons and the price of those weapons in some cases doubles, which then puts it out of the range of ownership for the poorest of Americans . . . yea, it effectively makes guns unattainable for the people who are poor. Guns are a part of a criminals business model. It is essential to there business. The cost is a business cost, even if the cost is much much higher than what a civilian is willing to pay, they would pay it, even if it meant hacking the technology used to restrict access to the firearm. What you are asking would have NO effect on gun violence, but would have an effect on the poorest segments of our population from being able to defend themselves. Aw Cmon... Find solutions man not add more obstacles. There are enough saturday night specials out there to satisfy ALL of your poorest neighborhoods already.... Canada's & Mexico's poorest neighborhoods too

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Wed 12/26/12 01:05 PM
Fingerprint Biometric technology for firearms has been around for 10years+... Gun lobby thinks it's too expensive, it would certainly help with all future generations of gun owners. too expensive? so what? weapons should be expensive IMO LOL So a person who cannot afford one would be denied the ability to protect themselves? That's not quite right... regulations on "new gun" ownership should include biometric technology... end of story. Yea, which would mean that when that tech is mandated in all new weapons and the price of those weapons in some cases doubles, which then puts it out of the range of ownership for the poorest of Americans . . . yea, it effectively makes guns unattainable for the people who are poor. Guns are a part of a criminals business model. It is essential to there business. The cost is a business cost, even if the cost is much much higher than what a civilian is willing to pay, they would pay it, even if it meant hacking the technology used to restrict access to the firearm. What you are asking would have NO effect on gun violence, but would have an effect on the poorest segments of our population from being able to defend themselves. Aw Cmon... Find solutions man not add more obstacles. There are enough saturday night specials out there to satisfy ALL of your poorest neighborhoods already.... Canada's & Mexico's poorest neighborhoods too Sure . . . that's the answer. More throw away comments.

alleoops Joined Sat 08/06/11 Posts: 10832	Wed 12/26/12 01:05 PM
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/cgc-criminals-for-gun-control-t5293.html THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE™ Richard Davidson: It's not easy in my line of work, a lot of "job sights" I am scared to go to because of NRA stickers on the cars out side. It really can make life difficult for me, I have cocaine, hookers, and other things that I need to spend money on and now I can't even afford your basic beer on my tiny welfare check. I need more opportunities out there and as long as people can just go buy guns I'm just up ** creek in a lot of aspects of my life style. Barbara Witswerth: I don't like guns, People have no idea what it's like to lose sleep over worry of some guy with a Tea Party shirt and a Assault rifle crawling in my kids room at night through a window. Did you know that Abraham Lincoln was killed with a gun? That's all they do is serve as a tool to destroy lives. Another problem with them is they cause war, if guns didn't exist there would be no war and nothing left but peace and love, and that's why I don't allow them in my home! Joe "The R*st" Kenjerski: I keep hearing that more and more women are getting concealed weapon permits. Pepper spray is the lesser of the two evils in my opinion. But as long as these concealed weapons are allowed on the street, it makes my hobby very risky. I hear that in Canada hand guns are illegal period. I've been considering vacationing up there for eleven months of the year. Leroy Calvison: It's true, the more guns that are out there in the hands of people, the harder it is to make money for me. People can't comprehend what it's like going into a situation not knowing for sure if I can get out of it okay or not. I think it is completely stupid that I have to risk getting hurt on the job! How about, at birth, every babies trigger finger is cut off. They could call it circumtriggercision. That should fix it. but, that would deny ones right to pick his nose or others noses. Which ever would be the case. Never mind.

JOHNN111 Joined Wed 05/13/09 Posts: 9273	Wed 12/26/12 01:11 PM
Fingerprint Biometric technology for firearms has been around for 10years+... Gun lobby thinks it's too expensive, it would certainly help with all future generations of gun owners. too expensive? so what? weapons should be expensive IMO LOL So a person who cannot afford one would be denied the ability to protect themselves? That's not quite right... regulations on "new gun" ownership should include biometric technology... end of story. Yea, which would mean that when that tech is mandated in all new weapons and the price of those weapons in some cases doubles, which then puts it out of the range of ownership for the poorest of Americans . . . yea, it effectively makes guns unattainable for the people who are poor. Guns are a part of a criminals business model. It is essential to there business. The cost is a business cost, even if the cost is much much higher than what a civilian is willing to pay, they would pay it, even if it meant hacking the technology used to restrict access to the firearm. What you are asking would have NO effect on gun violence, but would have an effect on the poorest segments of our population from being able to defend themselves. Aw Cmon... Find solutions man not add more obstacles. There are enough saturday night specials out there to satisfy ALL of your poorest neighborhoods already.... Canada's & Mexico's poorest neighborhoods too Sure . . . that's the answer. More throw away comments. Well WTF do you expect? Not one of you pro-gunners offers up a solution... All we hear is "We need to protect ourselves" or "that will never work"