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 05-22-2009, 10:10 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,671,678 times
Reputation: 35885

Advertisements

My apologies if I was perceived as "dragging your family" into it. There are posters here who have bragged about how much they spend on their guns and ammo. Made me wonder. I still apologize, I was out of line.

Nobody has responded to my challenge to show where you have been reasonable and respectful in your response to a person who has a different view of guns. Where you did not accuse them of wanting to take all your guns away, and call them "wild howling liberals" or similar words. The gun enthusiasts who have risen to the level of gun nuts (you know there are some, just as there are computer nuts and pickup truck nuts) have developed a bunch of stock responses to all dissent, and too many gun owners are quick to cut and paste the standard mantra wherever it appears to fit. The closest anyone gets to forming a thoughtful reply is to bring up their own anecdotal examples of how many times it has been necessary to use guns to save their own lives, which suggests to me that they have been amazingly unlucky, encountering thugs with such alarming regularity. And even the language I've used in this paragraph is regarded as highly inflammatory, merely because it expresses a viewpoint that you do not share.

Last edited by jtur88; 05-22-2009 at 10:32 PM..

 
Old 05-22-2009, 10:53 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,328,799 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Nobody has responded to my challenge to show where you have been reasonable and respectful in your response to a person who has a different view of guns. Where you did not accuse them of wanting to take all your guns away, and call them "wild howling liberals" or similar words.
Read thru the thread & then get back to us about who initiates the hostility. Theres no question that you & others want to take guns away. Not all of course, yet, just the ones you dont think we need.
You made that clear here when you answered my question about assault rifles.


Quote:
Generally, I am for restrictions on some assault weapons, on a case by case basis, because I believe overall the public interest is better served by some restrictios. If a central authority had the tools to track the movement of firearms, there would be less risk of them falling into the wrong hands, and then, less restrictions would be necessary. I'm making this answer very short. We can discuss this further if you like.
You are for restrictions on SOME assault weapons. Hmm, Is that because some look scarier or is it based on use in crime? Whats the reasoning?
On a case by case basis? Whats that mean? Every buyer? Every gun?
A central authority does control the sale of guns, its called NICS & every gun bought thru a dealer gets checked. The FACT is that theres nothing to suggest that what you are calling assault weapons (even tho you admit they arent assault weapons) fall into the wrong hands any more than any other gun. Matter of fact the evidence clearly shows that handguns are a criminals weapon of choice (you have one of those right?) So, you are for banning SOME assault weapons, just to make a point I guess, but, you choose to keep a handgun (that criminals actually use). Why worry about assault weapons if your motive is safety or lowering crime? Why not handguns? Because you have & want acess to them? Guess what, theyre on the chopping block too.
Who is the gullible one here? The one believeing that the motivation behind gun control has your wellbeing at heart.



Quote:
The gun enthusiasts who have risen to the level of gun nuts (you know there are some, just as there are computer nuts and pickup truck nuts) have developed a bunch of stock responses to all dissent, and too many gun owners are quick to cut and paste the standard mantra wherever it appears to fit. The closest anyone gets to forming a thoughtful reply is to bring up their own anecdotal examples of how many times it has been necessary to use guns to save their own lives, which suggests to me that they have been amazingly unlucky, encountering thugs with such alarming regularity. And even the language I've used in this paragraph is regarded as highly inflammatory, merely because it expresses a viewpoint that you do not share.
A shining example of why you face agression in these debates. A person is not paranoid or delusional if they have a fire extinguisher & smoke detector even though they dont have a fire each week. They are wise & prepared. For some gun owners the reason they own guns is the same.
Calling them names is quite childish. The fact that you can find people who actually have used a gun to defend themselves really chaffes your butt. It should because it really lays to rest your entire dogma thats its so rare as to not exist. It happens & it happens alot. Every time it happens a person is given a chance that you would let be taken away.

Maybe someone will quote this so you see it.
 
Old 05-22-2009, 11:20 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,261,330 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
My apologies if I was perceived as "dragging your family" into it. There are posters here who have bragged about how much they spend on their guns and ammo. Made me wonder. I still apologize, I was out of line.

Nobody has responded to my challenge to show where you have been reasonable and respectful in your response to a person who has a different view of guns. Where you did not accuse them of wanting to take all your guns away, and call them "wild howling liberals" or similar words. The gun enthusiasts who have risen to the level of gun nuts (you know there are some, just as there are computer nuts and pickup truck nuts) have developed a bunch of stock responses to all dissent, and too many gun owners are quick to cut and paste the standard mantra wherever it appears to fit. The closest anyone gets to forming a thoughtful reply is to bring up their own anecdotal examples of how many times it has been necessary to use guns to save their own lives, which suggests to me that they have been amazingly unlucky, encountering thugs with such alarming regularity. And even the language I've used in this paragraph is regarded as highly inflammatory, merely because it expresses a viewpoint that you do not share.
If you go back through EVERY gun thread that gets started on these forums, you will find that many of us gun owners say the same thing at one point in time.

We do not care if you wish to not own a gun, you are not obligated under the constitution to own one. You are however given the right to or not to own a gun. But because you do not own a gun, does not mean you can force others to not own a gun. I implore you to go back and re read every gun post within the past two years on the forum, you will find it from every common poster that wishes to practice their second amendment rights to arm themselves as they see fit.
 
Old 05-22-2009, 11:23 PM
 
Location: West Michigan
12,084 posts, read 33,184,640 times
Reputation: 16742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Read thru the thread & then get back to us about who initiates the hostility. Theres no question that you & others want to take guns away. Not all of course, yet, just the ones you dont think we need.
You made that clear here when you answered my question about assault rifles.


You are for restrictions on SOME assault weapons. Hmm, Is that because some look scarier or is it based on use in crime? Whats the reasoning?
On a case by case basis? Whats that mean? Every buyer? Every gun?
A central authority does control the sale of guns, its called NICS & every gun bought thru a dealer gets checked. The FACT is that theres nothing to suggest that what you are calling assault weapons (even tho you admit they arent assault weapons) fall into the wrong hands any more than any other gun. Matter of fact the evidence clearly shows that handguns are a criminals weapon of choice (you have one of those right?) So, you are for banning SOME assault weapons, just to make a point I guess, but, you choose to keep a handgun (that criminals actually use). Why worry about assault weapons if your motive is safety or lowering crime? Why not handguns? Because you have & want acess to them? Guess what, theyre on the chopping block too.
Who is the gullible one here? The one believeing that the motivation behind gun control has your wellbeing at heart.



A shining example of why you face agression in these debates. A person is not paranoid or delusional if they have a fire extinguisher & smoke detector even though they dont have a fire each week. They are wise & prepared. For some gun owners the reason they own guns is the same.
Calling them names is quite childish. The fact that you can find people who actually have used a gun to defend themselves really chaffes your butt. It should because it really lays to rest your entire dogma thats its so rare as to not exist. It happens & it happens alot. Every time it happens a person is given a chance that you would let be taken away.
Very well said Tin Knocker. I have both Fire Extinguishers and firearms in my home; thank goodness I have NEVER had to use either in my home. But they are both tools that are at my disposal if a situation calls for that particular tool. Some people don't understand how a firearm can be viewed as just another tool to do a particular job. It falls under the same reasoning that somehow the firearm has a particular moral compass attached to it that acts outside of the owners own moral compass. It is an inanimate object, no different than a hammer, or a vehicle. My wife was like some posters in this thread who didn't understand that, until she actually got more familiar with just what they are.
 
Old 05-22-2009, 11:40 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,671,678 times
Reputation: 35885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
practice their second amendment rights to arm themselves as they see fit.
When did they slip in the "as they see fit" amendment?. Was that part of the Credit Card Bill? It looks to me like the 2nd Amendment says government has no right to compel a person to be unarmed. You have a right to keep and bear arms, and if you have a gun, you are not unarmed.

Gun owners have been way, way too irresponsible, and are letting guns by the millions flow to the drug cartels in Mexico. What do you think can be done about that? How can we be sure that you are not one of the people selling your guns to the Mexicans? Easy. The same way we are sure you're not driving a stolen car. Register it. If you resist that simple check, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

If your phone rang right now, and the voice on the other end said "This is Barry. I'm giving you full authority right now as commander of the well-regulated militia, which is necessary to the security of a free state". What would you say would be the minimum criterion of "well-regulated"? Would you want your chain of command to know who has a gun and who doesn't? And what kind they've got? Or do you want your officers running up and down the streets knoeking on doors yelling "Anybody got a gun in there? The Huns are coming".
 
Old 05-23-2009, 12:51 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,261,330 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
When did they slip in the "as they see fit" amendment?. Was that part of the Credit Card Bill? It looks to me like the 2nd Amendment says government has no right to compel a person to be unarmed. You have a right to keep and bear arms, and if you have a gun, you are not unarmed.

Gun owners have been way, way too irresponsible, and are letting guns by the millions flow to the drug cartels in Mexico. What do you think can be done about that? How can we be sure that you are not one of the people selling your guns to the Mexicans? Easy. The same way we are sure you're not driving a stolen car. Register it. If you resist that simple check, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

If your phone rang right now, and the voice on the other end said "This is Barry. I'm giving you full authority right now as commander of the well-regulated militia, which is necessary to the security of a free state". What would you say would be the minimum criterion of "well-regulated"? Would you want your chain of command to know who has a gun and who doesn't? And what kind they've got? Or do you want your officers running up and down the streets knoeking on doors yelling "Anybody got a gun in there? The Huns are coming".
"as they see fit" meaning one person may find that a shotgun is enough for their own protection, others may feel that they require several hand guns. as per your opening sentence, i think you need to get some sleep, it makes absolutely no sense.

You let me know where in the Constitution that the government has the authority to force "registration" of firearms. Please do. All I see is the very end of our second amendment which places a restriction on the authority of government to regulate firearms and I quote.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, "shall not be infringed".

The government has no authority to know weather I own a firearm or not.

As for your reference to the Mexican gun thing, You fell into Obama's smooth wording of something that is of non issue.

The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.


It is a very easily verifiable fact, I will leave you to do your own research, because you do not seem to like looking at information posted for you.

I suppose you will not read the following link, given your history of ignoring information given to you so you may hold on to your ignorant ways, but here is one study of the second amendment by praise, wording, and punctuation used at the time of our constitutions creation.
Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment
 
Old 05-23-2009, 12:55 AM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,836,513 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Yes, because the producer of the video chose to lump himself in with everybody else who believes their video gains authority by self-declaring its truth
no, he chose to call it the truth because it is the truth. again, you can disagree with his apparent intent or not, but it is the truth.

Quote:
I have never posted simply because people disagree with me. There is an allowance in my world for people who disagree. I object to people who make statements I disagree with, without supporting them with anything except assertions of my deficient character.
sounds familiar, huh? yeah, i can promise that we all hate that too.

Quote:
And whom did I insult? Your entire post is nothing but a deflection, not addressing the OP issue, but my personal behavior on the board.
feel free to look back through your post history and reread the names that you've given everyone on this and other threads that has disagreed with you. again, as i have stated a few times before, you know how to click the back page button. in fact, i'll bet that you even remember a few of the insults that you've used.

and if you think that i am deflecting, you might want to go read the definition of that particular strategy. i have not deflected anything. just because i am not addressing nv's topic in its entirety, does not mean that i am deflecting. i am addressing some of the issues that this conversation has brought up. i am not ignoring, hiding from, or being sneaky or devious about anything that has been asked or challenged.

try again.

Quote:
No its not. It like saying pedophiles are bad, and their participation in the debate reflects poorly on the legitimate issues that they espouse. Now who is deflecting?
no, it is not even remotely like that. i'll repost what i said, so that you can understand what i was saying.

Quote:
because that is the base–along with the illegally toting criminal–that you and your buddies are using to describe us as, and using to justify your desire to take away rights that we lawfully and responsibly enjoy.

it is the equivalent of the uber right claiming that gay marriage is bad because homosexuals are pedophiles.
i stated that slandering law-abiding gun owners as rabid, trigger-happy maniacs or socially deviant criminals is not an acceptable political strategy. your analogy says that it doesn't matter that they're law-abiding, because they are stiller pedophiles. nice. you play this way with your wife and kids too?

and again, go to wikipedia and read about deflections; then you'll have a little bit of a base for what you are accusing me of.

Quote:
Generally, I am for restrictions on some assault weapons, on a case by case basis, because I believe overall the public interest is better served by some restrictios. If a central authority had the tools to track the movement of firearms, there would be less risk of them falling into the wrong hands, and then, less restrictions would be necessary. I'm making this answer very short. We can discuss this further if you like.
while i disagree with some of the ideas here, or at least the manner of implementation here, it was nice to finally get some feedback. thank you.

Quote:
If I'm ever in your neighborhood, can I come over and look at a human being through the sights of your Para Ordnance Compact LDA 45ACP that you are so in love with? I bet that works better than viagra.
back to square one. it's just not sinking in, is it? i'll quote you on this one, since you are still having issues with it.

Quote:
I object to people who make statements I disagree with, without supporting them with anything except assertions of my deficient character.
i'd rather that we all quit with the inane "oh yeah, well in your world" bullcrap. all it is doing is escalating itself and leading to insults and pissing contests. that goes for both sides.

Quote:
No, no, no, you just don't get it. The reason nobody with an opposing view are ever taken seriously in a gun debate is because they dare to challeng people who are in love with their guns and treat them better than their wives and probably even spend more money on them
wrong again, buddy. but again, nice set of fabricated character attacks.

Quote:
Here's a challenge for you. Go back through all the posts in all the gun debates, and find me one, just one, comment from a person who has an opposing point of view, that any of you have ever taken seriously or treated with respect.
i just did in my last post to you. that was quick. anything else?

Quote:
You are so irrational that you even detest the ACLU, who are the first people who would go to bat for you if the government ever tried to take away your guns in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Which nobody has ever threatened to do.
i don't have feelings one way or another for the aclu. if you have knowledge that swagger specifically detests the aclu, and you were talking only to him, then i am in error. but since you were just referring to all of us a second ago when mentioning how you think we treat our family members–based off of the extensive knowledge that you have of our home situations, i am sure–then i am guessing that you are making more baseless generalizations.

Quote:
You automatically reject every opinion from every non-gun enthusiast, and call him a wimp and tell him how superior you are to him.
your turn. you go back and find where i have ever said anything even similar to this. then, when you fail there, move on to the others. feel free to take your time; i'll wait.[/quote]

Quote:
Even a person like me who is a gun owner and an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment as written, but dares to disagree with one tiny detail of your precious absolutist platform.
you are again making the mistake of lumping everyone together into the same boat, because this doesn't apply to all of us.

Quote:
My apologies if I was perceived as "dragging your family" into it. There are posters here who have bragged about how much they spend on their guns and ammo. Made me wonder. I still apologize, I was out of line.
that was nice to hear. so long as you realize that, even ignoring the insulting nature of the comment, it was still a supposition based on nothing more than, as you said, wonder.

that really is the level that the most ardent of the gun control supporters have come in here with. i am sure that you've seen some of trickyd's and rlchurch's posts, where they say stuff like the above insult and then do not even have the decency to take it back or even explain it or defend it.

either way, you did both, so i'll drop it.

Nobody has responded to my challenge to show where you have been reasonable and respectful in your response to a person who has a different view of guns. Where you did not accuse them of wanting to take all your guns away, and call them "wild howling liberals" or similar words.[/quote]

i have been taking you seriously since i started the conversation. why do you think i got riled up earlier with whatever comment you made that i told you was over the line.

i don't go into these arguments expecting to be right all of the time. neither do i go in expecting to be absolutely perfect in my argument strategy. the biggest experience that i have with logically fallacious arguments is observing my own slips after the fact.

either way, i do use and sometimes overuse sarcasm, but i take this very seriously, and i take the stances of the opposition very seriously, because we are never going to be able to successfully defend our rights if we use flawed strategies.

Quote:
The gun enthusiasts who have risen to the level of gun nuts (you know there are some, just as there are computer nuts and pickup truck nuts)
no argument there. i just hate it when they are brought up as my representation.

Quote:
have developed a bunch of stock responses to all dissent, and too many gun owners are quick to cut and paste the standard mantra wherever it appears to fit.
i hate that too, but this is a human problem, evident in any area of conflict, and is not endemic to the gun owners–hell, it's not endemic to any one group.

Quote:
The closest anyone gets to forming a thoughtful reply is to bring up their own anecdotal examples of how many times it has been necessary to use guns to save their own lives, which suggests to me that they have been amazingly unlucky, encountering thugs with such alarming regularity.
if this is the most thoughtful of responses that you've seen from any of us, then i would say that you are even more guilty of dismissing and disrespecting any opinion that differs from yours.

there have been by now hundreds of articulate, source-linked, fact-filled posts that would do a debate class proud. there have even been some on the gun control side.

for either side to claim that the other side is completely wrong is a logical fallacy in and of itself.

as far as he or she that has horrific adventures with armed thugs every week, i sincerely doubt their claims. but you won't see me dispute the veracity, because i have no way of checking it or not.

but it does happen, and with the number of people on this forum, there are bound to be hundreds that have had run-ins with thugs. i know that i have had multiple conflicts with thugs, though i was unarmed for all of them except for the terrorists in iraq....

either way, those are not the backbone of what i see as the 2nd amendment's purpose, and therefore, they are just secondary situations for which the amendment can help out.

Quote:
And even the language I've used in this paragraph is regarded as highly inflammatory, merely because it expresses a viewpoint that you do not share.
i would disagree there too. i haven't considered you inflammatory until you lumped us all together as trolls, violent, raging, uncontrolled gun nuts, and other choice, endearing monikers–and i specifically mentioned to you the moment that i felt you crossed that line. no vague definitions, no deflections, no confusing words. i feel that i have been very frank and direct regarding this topic.

again, i feel that anything less leads to a crippled conversation and an incompetent level of action when it comes to making decisions based off of the things we've discussed.

Quote:
It looks to me like the 2nd Amendment says government has no right to compel a person to be unarmed.
you do know that this was specifically what he was arguing against, only a few sentences above, don't you?

Quote:
Gun owners have been way, way too irresponsible, and are letting guns by the millions flow to the drug cartels in Mexico. What do you think can be done about that? How can we be sure that you are not one of the people selling your guns to the Mexicans? Easy. The same way we are sure you're not driving a stolen car. Register it. If you resist that simple check, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

If your phone rang right now, and the voice on the other end said "This is Barry. I'm giving you full authority right now as commander of the well-regulated militia, which is necessary to the security of a free state". What would you say would be the minimum criterion of "well-regulated"? Would you want your chain of command to know who has a gun and who doesn't? And what kind they've got? Or do you want your officers running up and down the streets knoeking on doors yelling "Anybody got a gun in there? The Huns are coming".
see, now we are back to meaningful conversation. i am smiling.

i don't agree with it all, and i still have reservations about registration, but i am not going to say that it is 100% the wrong answer. this is where a great debate can come in.

i personally feel that registration has some merit. some. there are some good things that could come of registering them. there are some bad things too, and while i think that it would be political suicide for someone to try to use a registration to round them all up, i wouldn't put it past either the democrats or the republicans at some point. we have already seen limited incidents like this in our own country, and we certainly have large, tyrannical examples of this throughout the history of other countries.

i am not a gun nut. i have two. both of them were bought used. both of them are shot occasionally (enough to reassure myself that i am a good shot, but not enough to get reeeeeaaaaally good). i live in a suburban community, though on the outskirts of a rural area, but have no need for guns as a source of food. they serve as a sport right now; i don't even have them capable of self defense at the moment.

but despite all of that, there is no way in hell that i would turn my weapons in to the government because of "new regulations." barring psychological problems derived from iraq or something, i'm keeping them (and my wife has a say in that decision). it is my right, one that is use responsibly and safely. i intend to raise my children around them, to teach them proper use, maintenance, and safety rules, and i intend to make sure that should we ever need them, we have them in working order, with knowledgeable users.

if someone wants to call me a gun nut, feel free. i suppose that the term is very subjective in its use nowadays, but i know that i am not one. i am merely a citizen that wants to protect a right that he enjoys–one of many. and i'd stick up for you too if you had a right that someone was trying to trample.

aaron out.
 
Old 05-23-2009, 01:03 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,671,678 times
Reputation: 35885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
The government has no authority to know weather I own a firearm or not.


The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

]
The government has the authority do do anything it wants to do in order to protect the citizenry, including declare martial law and suspend constitutional rights. If the citizenry can be protected by registration of firearms, they have the authority. You have a steep uphill climb ahead of you if you want to prove that the mere fact of registration is by itself an infringement of a right to possession.

If "only" 17 percent of motorists are drunk, do we just blow that off and say that is insignificant and doesn't deserve our attention?

How are you going to command your "well-regulated militia" when you have absolutely no idea who has a gun, and no way to find out---you didn't address that question.

Come on---really---get serious. Do you really think I'm going to accept a blog from guncite.com as the authority on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and say "Oh, gee, I guess you're right after all"?

If all you want is a couple of suitable hunting guns, and a handgun or two, as you described, I sure don't know anybody who has a problem with that.
 
Old 05-23-2009, 06:41 AM
 
Location: MS
3,975 posts, read 3,863,948 times
Reputation: 1377
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
If "only" 17 percent of motorists are drunk, do we just blow that off and say that is insignificant and doesn't deserve our attention?
Staying with your analogy, we then limit the number of drinks to everyone in every bar so that no one can get drunk and drive. What about the people who walked to their local bar? What about the group that has a designated driver? What about the people who have easy access to a cab or other form of transportation? Of that 17 percent, how many people actually got drunk at home?

Of that 17%, no one ever told us the number of those U.S. sourced guns that were sold legally to the Mexican military and Mexican police departments. These numbers would be an embarrassment to the Mexican government because it would show just how rampant corruption is down there.

Currently there is only 1 gun store owner that the ATF has charged with selling a gun that ended up in Mexico. That's right - 1. The people he sold to were legal residents of Arizona and passed FBI background checks. A quick check has found that the case was dismissed due to lack of evidence - link. The ATF has the serial numbers of 17% of the Mexican guns, why only charge one person? If laws were broken go after all the sellers.

Instead of enacting more laws that will impact law abiding gun owners, why don't we secure our borders better? I watched the show "Homeland Security" or whatever the name was on ABC this year. They stated multiple times the 'hundreds of thousands of cars' that passed through checkpoints into Mexico each day. What are we checking .001% of them each day? And these are random checks. Why not use logic and look for the car load of young Mexican men covered in gang tattoos? We can't do that because it is profiling. For every thug car that is searched, they have to search grandma's mini-van or they risk being sued.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
If all you want is a couple of suitable hunting guns, and a handgun or two, as you described, I sure don't know anybody who has a problem with that.
Who sets the limits? I have 4 shotguns, 3 EBR's (Evil Black Rifles), 2 hunting rifles (both more powerful than my EBR's) and 20 or so pistols. Is that too much? Next thing the government will tell me that my house is too big for two people and 3 cats. Would Oprah get an exception on her house because she is friends with Barry? link to Oprah's house - Too much for 1 person?

-Robert
 
Old 05-23-2009, 07:56 AM
 
129 posts, read 508,395 times
Reputation: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J View Post
Staying with your analogy, we then limit the number of drinks to everyone in every bar so that no one can get drunk and drive. What about the people who walked to their local bar? What about the group that has a designated driver? What about the people who have easy access to a cab or other form of transportation? Of that 17 percent, how many people actually got drunk at home?

Of that 17%, no one ever told us the number of those U.S. sourced guns that were sold legally to the Mexican military and Mexican police departments. These numbers would be an embarrassment to the Mexican government because it would show just how rampant corruption is down there.

Currently there is only 1 gun store owner that the ATF has charged with selling a gun that ended up in Mexico. That's right - 1. The people he sold to were legal residents of Arizona and passed FBI background checks. A quick check has found that the case was dismissed due to lack of evidence - link. The ATF has the serial numbers of 17% of the Mexican guns, why only charge one person? If laws were broken go after all the sellers.

Instead of enacting more laws that will impact law abiding gun owners, why don't we secure our borders better? I watched the show "Homeland Security" or whatever the name was on ABC this year. They stated multiple times the 'hundreds of thousands of cars' that passed through checkpoints into Mexico each day. What are we checking .001% of them each day? And these are random checks. Why not use logic and look for the car load of young Mexican men covered in gang tattoos? We can't do that because it is profiling. For every thug car that is searched, they have to search grandma's mini-van or they risk being sued.

Who sets the limits? I have 4 shotguns, 3 EBR's (Evil Black Rifles), 2 hunting rifles (both more powerful than my EBR's) and 20 or so pistols. Is that too much? Next thing the government will tell me that my house is too big for two people and 3 cats. Would Oprah get an exception on her house because she is friends with Barry? link to Oprah's house - Too much for 1 person?

-Robert
Looks like the pro-gunowners are in the majority on this thread
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