illustrator is offline illustrator Post #81  August 25,2008, 6:12pm
illustrator's Avatar

- in stealth mode.

Virtuoso

Joined: Mar 2008

Smack dab in the middle of the U.S.

Posts: 3,000

See profile

faust,232238 wrote :

But I still think the 2nd Amendment Kool-Aid (and all the gun talk on this thread)is scary.


And nobody refuted my point about crime statistics in socialist countries....

I personally don't know enough about the crime statistics in socialist countries to offer you an intelligent debate. But I assume if you were to replace Socialist Countries with Communist Country or Police State, my guess would be their crime rate would also be lower. The thing is the good ol U S of A is none of those so we just have to make do with the best we have and coexist with the crime the best we know how.
 
  Reply With Quote
hazmat is offline hazmat Post #82  August 25,2008, 6:36pm
hazmat's Avatar

is not back

Veteran

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 2,060

See profile

faust,232238 wrote :

honey28,232126 wrote :


illustrator,232111 wrote :


From the eH Awards thread :


Most likely to shoot someone entering his house: irishbrian


Least likely to join the military: faust


LOL....I saw that too!


hehe


Iwas actually a military kid and have a profound respect for those who serve our country. Fly-boys in particular are hot (which is why I would never date one).


But I still think the 2nd Amendment Kool-Aid (and all the gun talk on this thread)is scary.


And nobody refuted my point about crime statistics in socialist countries....

Socialist countries don't have our level of freedom. The people are also brought up with a fear of the government. The courts and police over there don't put up with the crap we do here. Criminals KNOW they're truly screwed if they get caught over there.


If some loon over here goes on a shooting spree at the mall when you're Christmas shopping with the family, you'll be happy one of us are able to put two in his chest.


That wasn't meant to sound harsh, just informative.
 
  Reply With Quote
PosiTiv65 is offline PosiTiv65 Post #83  August 25,2008, 6:52pm
PosiTiv65's Avatar

Unregistered

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 907

See profile

hazmat,232689 wrote :

If some loon over here goes on a shooting spree at the mall when you're Christmas shopping with the family, you'll be happy one of us are able to put two in his chest.

Amen to that - with the emphasize on able to ...
 
  Reply With Quote
faust is offline faust Post #84  August 25,2008, 7:09pm
faust's Avatar

Quick Study

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 161

See profile

hazmat,232689 wrote :

faust,232238 wrote :


honey28,232126 wrote :


illustrator,232111 wrote :


From the eH Awards thread :


Most likely to shoot someone entering his house: irishbrian


Least likely to join the military: faust


LOL....I saw that too!


hehe


Iwas actually a military kid and have a profound respect for those who serve our country. Fly-boys in particular are hot (which is why I would never date one).


But I still think the 2nd Amendment Kool-Aid (and all the gun talk on this thread)is scary.


And nobody refuted my point about crime statistics in socialist countries....





Socialist countries don't have our level of freedom. The people are also brought up with a fear of the government. The courts and police over there don't put up with the crap we do here. Criminals KNOW they're truly screwed if they get caught over there.


If some loon over here goes on a shooting spree at the mall when you're Christmas shopping with the family, you'll be happy one of us are able to put two in his chest.


That wasn't meant to sound harsh, just informative.
I was actually thinking of countries that are more Democratic Socialist, such as many European countries, rather than North Korea.


It would be hard to argue that their level of freedom and quality of life is less than ours, Yet, their crime levels are dramatically lower.


And I'd probably feel pretty confident of your ability to "put two" in the chest of some nutjob on a shooting spree, Haz. But what about some of the other loonies who are carrying concealed? How do I know they know what the f*ck they are doing? They might be just as likely to shoot me (or my kid) instead of the intended target. How would that help anything?


Just keep the guns in their cases and no one gets hurt....
 
  Reply With Quote
hazmat is offline hazmat Post #85  August 25,2008, 8:03pm
hazmat's Avatar

is not back

Veteran

Joined: Apr 2008

Posts: 2,060

See profile

faust,232786 wrote :




And I'd probably feel pretty confident of your ability to "put two" in the chest of some nutjob on a shooting spree, Haz. But what about some of the other loonies who are carrying concealed? How do I know they know what the f*ck they are doing? They might be just as likely to shoot me (or my kid) instead of the intended target. How would that help anything ?
I will agree with you on that point. Not everyone that carries a gun should carry a gun. There are plenty of people out there without the temperament, judgement,or skillneeded to carry a gun.
 
  Reply With Quote
faust is offline faust Post #86  August 26,2008, 7:07am
faust's Avatar

Quick Study

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 161

See profile

hazmat,232921 wrote :

faust,232786 wrote :





And I'd probably feel pretty confident of your ability to "put two" in the chest of some nutjob on a shooting spree, Haz. But what about some of the other loonies who are carrying concealed? How do I know they know what the f*ck they are doing? They might be just as likely to shoot me (or my kid) instead of the intended target. How would that help anything ?


I will agree with you on that point. Not everyone that carries a gun should carry a gun. There are plenty of people out there without the temperament, judgement,or skillneeded to carry a gun.
So how do we find a good middle ground - i.e., making sure that those who are permitted to carry guns do in fact have the temperament, training, judgement, and skill to ensure that they don't compound threats to the general public? I think the *last* thing we need are legions of vigilante do-gooders and military wannabeswho might not be much more balanced than the criminals they purport to protect against. (I think a lot of them might live in Idaho, but they're probably sprinkled everywhere.)


If we could address that problem effectively, I'd probably have a far more favorable view of the 2nd Amendment "right to carry" argument. But that would require a much more stringent procedure for obtaining a permit, and the Kool-Aid drinkers of the NRA are going to fight that proposal tooth and nail.


Hence my argument that we get rid of them all - unless you are a member of a well-regulated militia, which is what the 2nd Amendment specifies.
 
  Reply With Quote
marthak is offline marthak Post #87  August 26,2008, 8:59am
marthak's Avatar

Veteran

Joined: Jan 2008

Washington, D.C.

Posts: 1,085

See profile

faust,233138 wrote :

hazmat,232921 wrote :


faust,232786 wrote :





And I'd probably feel pretty confident of your ability to "put two" in the chest of some nutjob on a shooting spree, Haz. But what about some of the other loonies who are carrying concealed? How do I know they know what the f*ck they are doing? They might be just as likely to shoot me (or my kid) instead of the intended target. How would that help anything ?


I will agree with you on that point. Not everyone that carries a gun should carry a gun. There are plenty of people out there without the temperament, judgement,or skillneeded to carry a gun.


So how do we find a good middle ground - i.e., making sure that those who are permitted to carry guns do in fact have the temperament, training, judgement, and skill to ensure that they don't compound threats to the general public? I think the *last* thing we need are legions of vigilante do-gooders and military wannabeswho might not be much more balanced than the criminals they purport to protect against. (I think a lot of them might live in Idaho, but they're probably sprinkled everywhere.)


If we could address that problem effectively, I'd probably have a far more favorable view of the 2nd Amendment "right to carry" argument. But that would require a much more stringent procedure for obtaining a permit, and the Kool-Aid drinkers of the NRA are going to fight that proposal tooth and nail.


Hence my argument that we get rid of them all - unless you are a member of a well-regulated militia, which is what the 2nd Amendment specifies.
Traditionally faust, that dilema has beensolved though mandatory firearms education. My dad lettered in marksmanship in high school.
 
  Reply With Quote
lawyergirl08 is offline lawyergirl08 Post #88  August 26,2008, 9:11am
lawyergirl08's Avatar

passed the bar :)

Enthusiast

Joined: Jul 2008

?

Posts: 830

See profile

faust,233138 wrote :

So how do we find a good middle ground - i.e., making sure that those who are permitted to carry guns do in fact have the temperament, training, judgement, and skill to ensure that they don't compound threats to the general public? I think the *last* thing we need are legions of vigilante do-gooders and military wannabeswho might not be much more balanced than the criminals they purport to protect against. (I think a lot of them might live in Idaho, but they're probably sprinkled everywhere.)


If we could address that problem effectively, I'd probably have a far more favorable view of the 2nd Amendment "right to carry" argument. But that would require a much more stringent procedure for obtaining a permit, and the Kool-Aid drinkers of the NRA are going to fight that proposal tooth and nail.


Hence my argument that we get rid of them all - unless you are a member of a well-regulated militia, which is what the 2nd Amendment specifies.
That may be the literal text but that is not the recognized meaning of the 2nd A. It has been interpreted by about half of our state courts to confer an individual right to possess firearms. The Supreme Court officially recognized this individual right in June 2008 (DC v. Heller) when it held that the operative clause of the 2nd A ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed") is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny. The Ct based its decision on the common meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" at other places in the Constitution, and historical materials supporting the clause's original public meaning (i.e. analogous arms-bearing rights that can be found in contemporaneous state constitutions, the drafting/legislative history of the 2nd A, and records of the amendment’s interpretation by 19th century scholars, courts, and legislators).
Thus, officially the core of the 2nd A is self-defense. Under Heller, laws cannot impede this basic purpose. BUT, I completely agree your point about the need for regulation (and so did the SCt). And, as with all rights, the Ct noted the 2nd A is not unlimited, though it declined to explore what standard of review it would employ when considering these the constitutionality of gun control laws. In all likelihood, most current laws (no ownership by felons, mentally ill; school zone laws, etc.) will remain on the books as it is unlikely the Ct will ever hold the 2nd A to be a fundamental right deserving of the highest level of constitutional protection (which would put a huge burden of proof on the state to prove the necessity and narrow tailoring of the law). And, because the lowest standard of review for laws impacting constitutional rights is highly deferential to the state and its interests, it is likely the Ct will uphold new procedural regulations, provided the 2nd A’s self-defense purpose is not entirely contravened.
Personally, given the health and safety interest underlying gun control laws, I see nothing wrong with requiring more training or additional procedural protections (more extensive background/mental health screenings perhaps) to ensure owners have the knowledge and skill to safely handle a gun, but I am against banning classes of weapons or deciding what “type” of person should own a gun (beyond felon or mentally unstable). Overall, though, as far as I’m concerned, the Patriot Act is a greater threat to our constitutional rights than any judicially approved gun control measure ever could be (and I’m a military member and own multiple handguns, FWIW).
 
  Reply With Quote
Jacquesne is offline Jacquesne Post #89  August 26,2008, 9:26am
Jacquesne's Avatar

knows the answer...42

Veteran

Joined: May 2008

Reno, NV

Posts: 1,356

See profile

hazmat,232921 wrote :

faust,232786 wrote :





And I'd probably feel pretty confident of your ability to "put two" in the chest of some nutjob on a shooting spree, Haz. But what about some of the other loonies who are carrying concealed? How do I know they know what the f*ck they are doing? They might be just as likely to shoot me (or my kid) instead of the intended target. How would that help anything ?


I will agree with you on that point. Not everyone that carries a gun should carry a gun. There are plenty of people out there without the temperament, judgement,or skillneeded to carry a gun.
I would make this same exact argument for motorized vehicals. Honestly, how much of the population should really be allowed to drive!? Just the other day I watched a woman drive through an intersection with both hands off the stearing wheel changing her shirt at 35 miles per hour. Through an intersection.


I assure you the numbers of people dying in car crashes is considerably higher than people dying from guns, and that includes people dying in the current WAR we have overseas.


Perhaps we should ban driving? Just a thought =).


Jacquesne
 
  Reply With Quote
Jacquesne is offline Jacquesne Post #90  August 26,2008, 9:28am
Jacquesne's Avatar

knows the answer...42

Veteran

Joined: May 2008

Reno, NV

Posts: 1,356

See profile



For my previous post, perhaps guns should be a bit like cars...you need to take a test before you can purchase one. Or maybe more like a motorcycle which has arguably a better test. Just a thought.
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« Opinions on trustworthiness/safety please! | About You | Maintenance of personal appearance: Ladies and Gents, what say you? »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“I did everything. And the repairs where sure expensive. Grr!I paid for them too. :-/” –  LadyVee

Join the “Confusing Man (LONG STORY)” discussion

“I think people change their "type" depending on what they think they need at that point in their lives. It's so subjective that it might be best if we all just let someone else choose a mate for us ... ” –  harnomygirl

Join the “Changing your "type"” discussion

“In the end, aren't we all winners?” –  harnomygirl

Join the “Last Post Wins!” discussion

“4: sex um. both our values hold sex for marriage, so the next best thing to do when you are driven by lust, i guess is making out? If sex equals marriage, then if his goal is to have sex with you, ... ” –  harnomygirl

Join the “Confused~ He likes me or He wants sex?” discussion

“You know, profile writers remind me of junior high school. The kids who came into an exam clueless, and just rambled on and on, hoping that in there somewhere(?) might possibly be something that the ... ” –  harnomygirl

Join the “How much profile do you like to read?” discussion

“Chemical burns when one splashes around in nature are no fun! Tree farming, huh. Tax breaks or love of all things tree... Tax break. (I can make these calls, because I'm on the internetz.) He ... ” –  harnomygirl

Join the “What kind of add you see on this board?” discussion

“The standard method is to eliminate alcohol and bread (and any other gassy carbs) from your diet. You can also try saran wrapping your midsection for a few days. I've heard that works but I haven't ... ” –  harnomygirl

Join the “Belly Fat” discussion

“My boyfriend will be meeting my ex-boyfriend for the first time this weekend so I will let you know how it goes. He almost met him awhile ago so I thought about this before. I told my boyfriend that ... ” –  alethea

Join the “Hold on, hold on, hold on!” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:15pm.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0