Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?

Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,422,890
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1344824 - Posted: 10 Mar 2013, 4:39:59 UTC

you my be right about the survey though if i were to by a gun today i would

by it at a gun show not from a dealer and i would not advertise that i owned one.

it is just getting to close to were the second amendment might come in to play.


ID: 1344824 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1345008 - Posted: 10 Mar 2013, 16:56:24 UTC

Thanks but we have many firearm laws already. The difference between the two.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1345008 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1345009 - Posted: 10 Mar 2013, 17:01:24 UTC

More reasons for being armed.


Perhaps it is needed.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1345009 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1345022 - Posted: 10 Mar 2013, 17:42:28 UTC
Last modified: 10 Mar 2013, 17:42:44 UTC

Ummmm.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1345022 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1345044 - Posted: 10 Mar 2013, 18:39:55 UTC - in response to Message 1345025.  
Last modified: 10 Mar 2013, 18:50:18 UTC

Mission statement

The mission of RenewAmerica is to expand the influence of America's grassroots — both among individual citizens and among principled groups — in the cause of preserving our nation upon its founding ideals, specifically those in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, as well as those derived from biblical principles.


I.e. we like guns!



Much more to the two founding documents then JUST the second amendment. Do you always just read the first chapter of every book and say you have all knowledge about the book and know all you to know on the subject?
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1345044 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1345169 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 1:36:03 UTC - in response to Message 1345061.  
Last modified: 11 Mar 2013, 1:37:33 UTC

Much more to the two founding documents then JUST the second amendment. Do you always just read the first chapter of every book and say you have all knowledge about the book and know all you to know on the subject?

Of course not, but in relation to the title of this thread, which is what these posts are supposed to be all about, the first bits are the most relevant. Don't get me wrong I respect the American Constitution and all that it stands for. But it was written in times that are different to today. That is all I am trying to say.



I see.

So, the first amendment only applies to the printing press, not TV news.

The second amendment only applies to muskets, not semi-auto rifles.

The Soldier shall, be quartered in any house. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall be violated, and no Warrants shall issue.

Persons shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, without a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall not enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.

The right of trial by jury shall not be preserved.

Excessive bail shall be required, excessive fines imposed, cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution shall be held by only the federal government, it is prohibited by the States, they are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people in general.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1345169 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,422,890
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1345194 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 4:57:37 UTC

as to who is dangerous let me remind you that it wasn't all that long ago that this happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vyzoNCJvy4c
ID: 1345194 · Report as offensive
rob smith Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 22160
Credit: 416,307,556
RAC: 380
United Kingdom
Message 1345218 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 6:47:26 UTC

ID, you have amply demonstrated how to abstract in-absurdity
In the process shown your true political colours.
I must congratulate you on your honesty.


Now can we move away from the inevitable debate about the flawed US constitution (past, present and future) and get back to the subject "Firearms. Who or what is dangerous".

The truth is that a loaded firearm, in a locked gun safe is "safe", but the same firearm in the hands of a human being is "less safe". In the hands of a human being it can be used as a club, a missile in its own right, or to shoot at a target, living or otherwise; all these actions may result in injury to a human being, and that injury may result in death.

Now if we want to reduce the possibility of death due to the use (or abuse) of firearms there is only one way to do it - reduce the number of firearms available to humans.
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
ID: 1345218 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19013
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1345249 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 10:33:12 UTC

If you wat to go back to the thread title then,

Who is dangerous - All those who should be banned from owning guns, that's what the proposed lengthier background checks are for.
I don't see how a sufficient check can be carried out with the present day 5 day check. (For those of you who have had US security checks, How long does that take? About 6 months even though the UK Goverment says you are a good guy.)

What is dangerous - Quick reloading and firing weapons with large magazines. Thats why the proposals suggest a magazine with 10 rounds max.
ID: 1345249 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,422,890
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1345264 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 11:41:18 UTC

saying gun violence is a major problem belie's the fact that guns are used 100 times more often to prevent a crime rather than commit one.

and cars knives baseball bats as well as falls in the shower kill far more than guns.

and if you truly want to see how bad government can get disarm the us the last people to have a check on a tyrannical government.
ID: 1345264 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1345266 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 11:52:21 UTC - in response to Message 1345264.  

saying gun violence is a major problem belie's the fact that guns are used 100 times more often to prevent a crime rather than commit one.

and cars knives baseball bats as well as falls in the shower kill far more than guns.

and if you truly want to see how bad government can get disarm the us the last people to have a check on a tyrannical government.

+1
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1345266 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1345269 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 11:58:23 UTC - in response to Message 1345218.  

ID, you have amply demonstrated how to abstract in-absurdity
In the process shown your true political colours.
I must congratulate you on your honesty.


Now can we move away from the inevitable debate about the flawed US constitution (past, present and future) and get back to the subject "Firearms. Who or what is dangerous".

The truth is that a loaded firearm, in a locked gun safe is "safe", but the same firearm in the hands of a human being is "less safe". In the hands of a human being it can be used as a club, a missile in its own right, or to shoot at a target, living or otherwise; all these actions may result in injury to a human being, and that injury may result in death.

Now if we want to reduce the possibility of death due to the use (or abuse) of firearms there is only one way to do it - reduce the number of firearms available to humans.


Then the second amendment only applies to nuclear warhead tipped rockets. NO science payloads? And only the government can own them?

Collectively, governments act like the individual.

It is the science of the firearm that gave us the rocket that placed a man on the moon and beyond.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1345269 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1345271 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 12:05:43 UTC - in response to Message 1345218.  

ID, you have amply demonstrated how to abstract in-absurdity
In the process shown your true political colours.
I must congratulate you on your honesty.


Now can we move away from the inevitable debate about the flawed US constitution (past, present and future) and get back to the subject "Firearms. Who or what is dangerous".

The truth is that a loaded firearm, in a locked gun safe is "safe", but the same firearm in the hands of a human being is "less safe". In the hands of a human being it can be used as a club, a missile in its own right, or to shoot at a target, living or otherwise; all these actions may result in injury to a human being, and that injury may result in death.

Now if we want to reduce the possibility of death due to the use (or abuse) of firearms there is only one way to do it - reduce the number of firearms available to humans.


Life is full of choices. Make the right ones or suffer the consequences. I'm 48 and have never had a accident with a firearm, ever.

If we want to reduce the possibility of death due to the use (or abuse) of nuclear arms we want to outlaw rockets, science payloads or not.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1345271 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1345272 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 12:10:50 UTC - in response to Message 1345249.  

If you wat to go back to the thread title then,

Who is dangerous - All those who should be banned from owning guns, that's what the proposed lengthier background checks are for.
I don't see how a sufficient check can be carried out with the present day 5 day check. (For those of you who have had US security checks, How long does that take? About 6 months even though the UK Goverment says you are a good guy.)

What is dangerous - Quick reloading and firing weapons with large magazines. Thats why the proposals suggest a magazine with 10 rounds max.


That would make us a police state. Not a Constitutional Republic. When the police are better armed then the public...

We have rule of law for a reason.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1345272 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,422,890
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1345274 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 12:16:25 UTC

if you check with the model rocketry people you will find that guidance systems are prohibited for private launches.

if you go to DuPont to pickup a ton of dynamite and some amfo you will need a Federal Explosives License.

and while it may not technically be illegal to build a nuke the fissile material is vary closely regulated.

i do not object to this and do not know anybody that would.
ID: 1345274 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,422,890
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1345278 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 12:21:23 UTC

and on the nuclear card, like with guns i expect those that hold then to act as

responsible adults those that can not demonstrate this need not apply.
ID: 1345278 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19013
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1345279 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 12:22:32 UTC - in response to Message 1345264.  

saying gun violence is a major problem belie's the fact that guns are used 100 times more often to prevent a crime rather than commit one.


Do you have evidence, and please not NRA propoganda. If it were true then the number households where a gun is owned would not be falling. (see one of my previous for links)

and cars knives baseball bats as well as falls in the shower kill far more than guns.


True
and if you truly want to see how bad government can get disarm the us the last people to have a check on a tyrannical government.


If you think that, then either find a way to change your government system, or emigrate.
ID: 1345279 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1345295 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 12:55:21 UTC - in response to Message 1345284.  

That would make us a police state. Not a Constitutional Republic. When the police are better armed then the public...


If you go to any country in the EU including the UK, that is exactly what you will find. Why?
    1. We live in a society where the public do not feel the need to be armed, on a day to day basis.

    2. We trust our police to protect us, and use their arms in a responsible fashion.


The fact that you think like you do means to me that either

    1. You live in some god forsaken society where noboody trusts anyone, and are continually looking over their shoulder.

    2. You don't trust your police

    3. You are just paranoid.



I have my own opinion.









But with the morals of God.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1345295 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1345312 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 13:38:13 UTC - in response to Message 1345284.  

2. You don't trust your police

May you have a temporary skin condition that turns you a few shades darker and then spend a couple weeks in Los Angeles.

ID: 1345312 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6895
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1345337 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 14:38:51 UTC

1. You live in some god forsaken society where noboody trusts anyone, and are continually looking over their shoulder.

2. You don't trust your police

3. You are just paranoid.


Sounds Like The MO of A Very Successful Country. And One Which Will Continue To Be Successful.

And Be Looked To For Protection And Help when Other Countries Fall Off Their Rails.

Bound For It.

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!
ID: 1345337 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.