U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-29-2008, 08:07 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,380,187 times
Reputation: 4893

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
I never said I supported an anti-gun movement. Simply because I am for more regulation does not mean that I am anti-gun. AFter all the headline topic of this thread is gun CONTROL, NOT Anti Gun or GUn Banning.
In other words - you want MORE government regulations - MORE government intrusions into our lives.

And, let's be very clear - you ARE "anti gun" - your own words betray you. Your words, taken together CLEARLY indicate you ARE anti gun.

The 2nd Amendment (which you really need to read) which says, in part: .....shall not be infringed.

What does the phrase "shall not be infringed" mean to you TM?

 
Old 10-29-2008, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,115,320 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
TM - you contradicted yourself. You just wrote:
NO.. but we do require that the drivers take a driver education course, pass a test including eye exams to be able to drive the vehicle.. AND we restrict the age for driving ,[/quote]

Yet earlier, you wrote: [/quote]Who said anyone would be instructing your kid? Parents teach their own children how to drive.. they just have to wait till they are legally of age[/quote]

One time - Parents teach - next time - we require drivers ed

Completely contradictory.

Get your stories straight - you are confusing all of us[/quote]\

LOL..actually I misspoke.. we require them to study from a drivers manual then take a written test to determine that they understant the rules of the road. Not all states require drivers ed courses.. they do lower insurance though if they take drivers education. It also doesn't stop the parent from instructing their child outside of that drivers education course (again.. misspoke .. it is NOT required)
 
Old 10-29-2008, 01:03 PM
 
Location: The Woods
16,455 posts, read 21,485,264 times
Reputation: 8412
Quote:
Those things you mentioned are not labeled "deadly weapons". A gun is.. there is a BIG difference. There is no presumption of guilt because there is no crime committed. I am suggesting a system that protects the public from a deadly weapon, namely the gun, falling into the hands of someone that is not mentally capable or stable. That's not saying they are "guilty" of anything because no crime has been committed. If they are found to be mentally unstable to own a gun, then they simply do not own a gun and are not guilty of anything. You can ONLY be guilty of something if a crime was committed. Don't try to twist this into anything other than making sure that those that handle firearms are mentally stable!

I still don't get if weapons are not banned..why you would be so opposed to having one more check in place to eliminate the possibility of a weapon being used by someone that is mentally unstable... suicidal, etc etc.
Yes this is guilty until proven innocent. You must not understand law well if you don't see that. When you're saying no one can buy a gun until they prove they are not mentally unstable, you are assuming guilt (mental instability to the point that they're too dangerous to have a gun) until they prove their innocence.

I could take and use an SUV to kill dozens and dozens of people, possibly hundreds in a busy city, much easier and quicker than I could with a gun. Your statement that guns are weapons and those other items aren't, is illogical.


Quote:
You are partially wrong in that. A police officer who shoots someone while on the job gets evaluated by a different criteria than the general public and has it pass through their internal system before any crimal charges are brought to bear on the officers. And, an officers job does not neccesarily end when they leave work, as they carry their guns at all times (with the acception of carrying their guns into a bar, for example, where they would be consuming alcohol).. or atleast a lot of them do. There was one incident on LI where an off duty police officer was eating at a McDonalds and a robbery began at hte McD's. The officer intervened and ended up shooting the suspect dead! Had he been a "civilian" it would have been treated differently..but as it was he was an officer of the law!

Yes.. when an officer commits a crime that is OUT OF THE SCOPE of their work they then loose their standing as an "officer" and can be tried as a "civilian" because they are then in breach of their protect and serve and violated the laws they were hired to uphold
You're confusing double standards with the law, and once again, police officers are still civilians...police often cover for their fellow officers, that's been proven and is well known. The same standards still apply as far as deadly force is concerned: they must feel they are in danger of serious harm or death. And no, police are not "on duty" at all hours. That's a myth, and officers on power trips love people to believe it. If they were they would have to be paid.
 
Old 10-29-2008, 01:18 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,324,732 times
Reputation: 2558
[quote=TristansMommy;5905159]I never said I supported an anti-gun movement. Simply because I am for more regulation does not mean that I am anti-gun. AFter all the headline topic of this thread is gun CONTROL, NOT Anti Gun or GUn Banning.
Quote:

Theres already enough regulation, too much really.

Quote:
I am aware of statistics. I don't argue that there are not as many gun accidents as there are guns that are legally owned. Plane crashes are also not as frequent, but does that mean that we ignore precautions taken at security in airports or on maintenance. NO. We make sure that we eliminate as many "accidents" as we can. For example, if there had been a law in place that said that an 8 year old boy was too young to fire a weapon and handle that gun we'd have one less tragic death.. preventable death.
Maybe we would have one less tragic death, maybe it would allow dozens more to happen. Nobody can say one way or the other.

Quote:
What I think should happen will not in anyway affect your ability to own a handgun, only the ability of someone that is not equipped to handle such a weapon from owning one. It will not prevent you from bonding with your child on a hunting trip, they can still come along but maybe not with their own weapon that they discharge.
Well, that would definately effect my time with the kids, do you suppose they would come traipsing out in the freezing cold if they couldn't shoot?

Every Sunday we spend the afternoon shooting, do you think they would feel the same if they had to sit & watch?

Quote:
It's the time you are spending with them that counts the most, not what they got to shoot at with a gun! You are still teaching them something valuable and when they come of age, they will be able to shoot that gun right alongside with you. Same as being a passenger in a car. THey can still be in it with you, they just can't drive it until they are of age is all. It's not a reality at the moment, all I'm saying is that I favor an age restriction on discharging a weapon.
Well Ma'am, we will have to agree to disagree. On another note my 12 year old has already been taught to drive.



Again, they do not dictate when your kid can drive or learn to drive. Only on public roads. As such this is already covered by federal law. By federal law they can actually drive several years before they can actually own a gun let alone carry one in public.
 
Old 10-29-2008, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Between Philadelphia and Allentown, PA
5,077 posts, read 12,713,940 times
Reputation: 3713
I and my fiance are avid gun owners / shooters. I have kids from a previous relationship. Until they turned 18, the guns were locked up BUT we did teach them about gun safety and even quizzed them on gun safety. I've taken my son shooting after he learned all of this too and he to enjoyed it. Do we need gun control? No, we need to educate parents and not allow parents to have guns if they can't pass a safety test. (and yes I'm being unrealistic by that statement)
If a child in a home is injured by a gun that wasn't secure, then the parent needs to be held responsible.
It is our right as citizens to bear arms and I don't want anyone dictating to me ANYthing about what I own, what I buy, where I keep it, how I use it, etc... It's no ones business but my own.
 
Old 10-29-2008, 10:01 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,115,320 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
In other words - you want MORE government regulations - MORE government intrusions into our lives.

And, let's be very clear - you ARE "anti gun" - your own words betray you. Your words, taken together CLEARLY indicate you ARE anti gun.

The 2nd Amendment (which you really need to read) which says, in part: .....shall not be infringed.

What does the phrase "shall not be infringed" mean to you TM?

There you go again Great Day telling me what I am and what I'm not I don't need YOU to tell me what I am and what I'm not..

I'm NOT anti- gun.. I AM pro regulation on guns!! PERIOD.. get that through your head and stop telling me what I am or not or what I think or don't. I can do that all on my own thank you very much..


I don't care if people have guns as long as they are sane!!
 
Old 10-29-2008, 10:11 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,257,121 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
Again. . nowhere in my post do I mention instruction of weapons The government doesn't dictate who your son learns to drive from Only what age they can legally be on the road to learn to drive and actually drive
again, you are comparing apples to oranges, driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a RIGHT
 
Old 10-30-2008, 06:43 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,115,320 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
again, you are comparing apples to oranges, driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a RIGHT
But both are HUGE responsibilities that require a certain amount of maturity, understanding, training etc to operate! Both, in the hands of someone not yet mature enough or trained enough or able to comprehend the responsibility, can cause serious damage to not only the person operating it but those around them.

And THAT is the point.
 
Old 10-30-2008, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,380,187 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
And THAT is the point.
I disagree - as was previously noted - one is a PRIVILEGE the other a RIGHT

Also, I provided a portion of a quote from the Constitution TM - the part where it said "....shall not be infringed" (from Article 2). What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you TM? And, it is a very serious question
 
Old 10-30-2008, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,115,320 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
I disagree - as was previously noted - one is a PRIVILEGE the other a RIGHT

Also, I provided a portion of a quote from the Constitution TM - the part where it said "....shall not be infringed" (from Article 2). What does "shall not be infringed" mean to you TM? And, it is a very serious question

First off.. GD.. the constitution was written in a completely different time under different circumstances. Bearing arms was KEY to survival back then.. now it's not so much a matter of survival, as all we have to do is drive to the local mart to purchase food!

Secondly, the constitution was written so that it CAN change with the times. That's the genious of it.

In modern society there comes a different set of circumstances and responsiblity. A paranoid schizophrenic does not have the right to a gun when there is a strong probability that he will use that weapon to harm himself or others.. I'm not asking to ban guns .. I'm asking for guns NOT to fall into the hands of someone that is NOT mentally stable who will use those guns to shoot up a mall..

I suppose you are okay if a suicidal homicidal mentally unstable person has a gun? You wouldn't feel that way if you were a victim of a shooting in which a persons right to bear arms wasn't subjected to a psych evaluation that had he had to take would have never had that weapon in hand to shoot up the joint!

Everyone's all for guns with no infringements until they are a victime of those uninfringements!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top