U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-22-2009, 10:22 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,574,557 times
Reputation: 35869

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
Other laws do not deprive potential prey of the ability to defend themselves. Less to worry about in plying their trade when more gun laws are enacted, just one more law to disregard.
That has nothing to do with whether criminals will break them or not. How have your guns protected you from drunk drivers or inside traders?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-22-2009, 10:47 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,832,743 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Umm---OK, it's been proven over and over again that a great majority of people who believe in some firearms restrictions or regulations are unable to differentiate between the loudly vocal gun nuts and the quiet peaceful gun owners. I'll just accept that as a gospel truth, and not even ask you for any data to support it. You might be right, many people on both sides of every issue are gullible and stupid. But let's try not to be ourselves.
cut the insults. no matter what i say, you are going to assume that i'm gullible and stupid, but you can at least keep that in the politics & controversies forum.

Quote:
I Know that facts are very unwelcome here, but I'm going to present some anyway.
again, cut it.

you can present facts here as much as you'd like. i enjoy the truth, since it works to liberate; clinging to falsehoods only breeds incompetence.

Quote:
According to a Gallup Poll in October 2007,

---24% of all gun owners favored stricter controls on gun sales.

---35% of all non-owners favored gun restrictions same as now or less strict.

Yes, it shows that a decent majority of people align themselves with the most vocal, on both sides. But, you see, it is not as black and white as you want everyone to think it is.
i have never claimed that it is black and white and that people are cut directly along party lines or anything. straw man argument. take the time to read my posts, and then see if you can respond without just assuming that i'm wrong right off the bat. you are not the only one here that can present or believe in facts.

there is a large percentage in the middle. there are even hardcore democrats that own guns. yadda yadda. i already know. i am not arguing against democrats. i am not arguing against liberals. i am against the fanatic leaders and followers of the gun control movement that uses as a baseline the idea that gun owners are either uneducated fools, or criminals.

again, there is a large population in the middle. if you want to claim allegiance to the gun control group though, be my guest.

in the mean time, i am trying to reach out to the nonfanatics that might be falling for the maliciously ignorant tripe that i am a criminal or a fool. to those that feel i am a menace to society because i own a tool for which they feel unreasonable amounts of fear, if you want to try to take away my rights–the ones that i am responsibly and intelligently following–feel free to try, but don't slander me in the process just because you can't win otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Yes, they will also break all "common sense" drug laws and all "common sense" sex laws and all "common sense" motor vehicle laws and all "common sense" tax laws and all "common sense" SEC regulations, and they won't keep off the grass and they'll park in handicapped zones. So we shouldn't have any of those laws, either?
that was not reno dweller's point. the point was that the laws are not in place now to fix the criminal element, and that they will have no effect on them. all they do now is restrict the responsible gun owner that doesn't have any issues in the first place.

Quote:
Umm---laws are laws. Criminals break them with equal vigor, whether they are gun laws or not. Please explain what makes gun laws special, in the criminal mind, that does not apply to other laws.
sigh. it's really not that hard of a concept to understand. refer to above paragraph.

Quote:
That has nothing to do with whether criminals will break them or not.
again, refer to the above paragraph.

aaron out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 11:28 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
13,340 posts, read 10,909,247 times
Reputation: 12290
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
That has nothing to do with whether criminals will break them or not. How have your guns protected you from drunk drivers or inside traders?
They haven't. Nor will they. But I was not responding to what you were asking apparently. It's late I'm tired and had one hell of a week. So be it. Protection is only one reason I own firearms. My reasons are legion. I will continue to own and use my guns, and I will nevr surrender any of them to anyone for any reason. Warrior mentality? Obsession? whatever the reasons anyone wants to assign, I care not. I like to shoot, my lil' guy likes to shoot, we are damn good at it, and we will continue to own and aquire new shooting iron to enjoy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 11:41 PM
 
Location: Nevada
502 posts, read 424,540 times
Reputation: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
That has nothing to do with whether criminals will break them or not. How have your guns protected you from drunk drivers or inside traders?
Drunk drivers and inside traders are irrelevent here, I use common sense, by being a defensive driver to protect myself against drunk drivers, and I protect myself against inside traders by being cautious on where I invest my money, but if a home invader breaks into my home with the intention to do harm to me or anyone in my family, I have every right to protect myself and I will not hestitate to shoot and kill him.

If lawmakers in Washington pile up more senseless gun laws on that books, that would gradually make it impossible for a typical law-abiding citizen like myself to own a firearm, and we'd be like sitting ducks for criminals. Is that hard to understand?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 11:58 PM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,254,348 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
I know I am inviting hate mail here, but here are a few ideas I have:

1. First, revoke governmental immunity in torts when it comes to gun licensing -- that will encourage governmental agencies to enforce laws that are already on the books (I mean, it makes no sense to add more laws if the powers that be won't enforce them). If the agency (municipality for example) knew or should have known that the gun owner did not qualify for a license (due to past convictions for violent crimes, mental illness, etc.), then that agency should be liable in tort to any person injured by that gun owner's unjustified use of a firearm. Right now, gun licensing falls under "governmental discretion" that's immune from lawsuits -- I think the rule should be different for situations where the government puts a deadly weapon into someone's hands.

2. Require classes and evidence of knowing how to use, store and clean a gun before licensing. Hey, we require people to learn how to drive before licensing them to do so, I don't see why we shouldn't do that for any instrumentality capable of wreaking havoc.

3. Impose strict liability upon gun owners for injuries or property damage caused by an unjustified or negligent use of a firearm. We already impose strict liability for such things as keeping predatory wild animals, operating inherently dangerous instrumentalities, etc., the same rule should apply to guns. And, since the people who are least responsible also tend to have the least money (just from my observations as a tort lawyer), I would also require insurance.

4. Just like with cars, create a rebuttable presumption of permissive use when a gun is negligently or unlawfully discharged by someone other than its owner, and impose vicarious liability -- that will encourage gun owners to report their guns stolen promptly, and to safeguard them more zealously, as well as create a further disincentive for illegally buying guns for people who don't qualify.
There is a slight problem with what you outlined though. Operating a car is a privilege, Owning a gun is a RIGHT. What you outlined also puts more restriction on law abiding citizens, where Criminals are the problem. Criminals are not going to follow laws, they are not going to be worried about being sued in a civil case because they shot an innocent person in a robbery. We just need to enforce the laws on the books more vigorously, not add any more weight on the shoulders of law abiding citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2009, 12:03 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,254,348 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
There is also a fundamental right to travel. It's not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has it well-settled that the right to travel is implicit in the liberty prong of the Due Process clause. So a "car nut" could argue that licensing laws impose an undue burden on his right to travel.
you still have feet right? Therefore restricting an automobile would not be putting an undue burden on you. Those people who wish to strip us of our rights, give no alternative except to be victimized by someone who does not care about laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2009, 12:17 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,574,557 times
Reputation: 35869
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
I will continue to own and use my guns, and I will nevr surrender any of them to anyone for any reason..
What have I ever said that implies that I want you to surrender them? Who are you addressing your remarks to?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2009, 12:27 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,574,557 times
Reputation: 35869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
Operating a car is a privilege, Owning a gun is a RIGHT. .
The courts keep strtiking down this silly canard over and over again.

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2009, 12:34 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,254,348 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The courts keep strtiking down this silly canard over and over again.

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution.
please re read my post, I never said anything about travel being a privilege. OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE is ONLY A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT.

You sure as hell can be restricted from being on the highway, if you are on foot, or bicycle. There are laws on the books within Colorado that deal with this. You can be arrested, have your car impounded and sold at auction, and if you kill someone with a car while driving with a license you will get prison time. The right to be able to travel does not mean you automatically get to drive a car, if you meet the requirements set by law, you can then operate a car under a strict set of rules of operation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2009, 12:38 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,574,557 times
Reputation: 35869
Do you have a reading comprehension disability?

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege

Before carriages had engines in them, people had a right to move about on public roads. Somehow, putting engines in them switched it from a right to a privilege. Can you cite the clause in the Constitution that clarifies how that happened?

The free exercise of every right carries with it the responsibility to do so with regard to public safety and convenience, and can lawfully be regulated accordingly. But it does no good to tell that to anyone who believes that bearing arms is the only right Americans have and everything else is a privilege.

Last edited by jtur88; 05-23-2009 at 12:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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
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