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 . . . 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · Next

AuthorMessage
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 Gone with the wind Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 41577
Credit: 41,999,167
RAC: 646
Message 1345025 - Posted: 10 Mar 2013, 17:53:16 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!
ID: 1345025 · 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 Gone with the wind Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 41577
Credit: 41,999,167
RAC: 646
Message 1345061 - Posted: 10 Mar 2013, 19:25:28 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.

ID: 1345061 · 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: 2,359,715
RAC: 398
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: 17796
Credit: 407,175,184
RAC: 142,027
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
Profile Gone with the wind Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 41577
Credit: 41,999,167
RAC: 646
Message 1345237 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 8:35:37 UTC

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.

And in addition to that, those firearms that are allowed must be strictly controlled so as far as is practicable, they only get in the hands of sane, responsible people. Accepting of course that professional criminals will always get hold of them regardless. Any firearm has the POTENTIAL to kill, just as any firearm owner has the POTENTIAL to use one to kill. In fact you could make the same argument about a car or a knife, or any other object that could cause death.

There is a move to ban public ownership of assault weapons, but even if they did overturn the 2nd Amendment and restricted gun ownership to the military and law enforcement officers, the majority of Americans would still keep their guns. You couldn't search every house in America for hidden weapons! One answer is to have a voluntary 3 month amnesty. Hand in any gun at a police station, and no questions will asked where you got it. That will reduce the number of guns available by a bit.
ID: 1345237 · Report as offensive
Nick: ID 666
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 13056
Credit: 36,544,889
RAC: 21,029
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 Gone with the wind Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 41577
Credit: 41,999,167
RAC: 646
Message 1345252 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 10:48:00 UTC

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

Rob suggested that we should, but it is up to ID who started it. If he is happy with the way that the thread is going, then fair enough.

The truth is that realistically, whatever curbs you put upon gun ownership, some mentally unstable person will always get hold of a gun and commit atrocities. All we can hopefully do is reduce that risk as far as we can. It is my honest opinion that the inbred American attitude to gun ownership does not help that aim.

ID: 1345252 · Report as offensive
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 455
Credit: 2,359,715
RAC: 398
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: 2,359,715
RAC: 398
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: 2,359,715
RAC: 398
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
Nick: ID 666
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 13056
Credit: 36,544,889
RAC: 21,029
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 Gone with the wind Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 41577
Credit: 41,999,167
RAC: 646
Message 1345284 - Posted: 11 Mar 2013, 12:39:57 UTC

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.





ID: 1345284 · 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
Previous · 1 . . . 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · Next

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


 
©2019 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.