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.
I addressed your claims and pointed out where I believed they were wrong. I guess since you didn't address that you agree. O.K.
"The government makes as much if not more off of smoking."
Okay, if you say so, but again I'm not sure about your point here. Gun and cigarette manufacturer's both make a lot of money and use it to promote their products regardless their ill effects. Not sure it makes any difference to me or anyone else which makes more or less money given this discussion.
"Moving cigarette's from a machine to a rack is a feel good solution, nothing more. It didn't stop a single person from smoking. The idea should be to stop these things, not make you feel good that you did "something" no matter how worthless that thing was to address the problem."
How can anyone possibly know whether the above statement is true? I know I have personally been kept from buying cigarettes because no machine was available where once there would more likely have been, in lobbies and such. Who can know when someone decides to just give up the habit or for what reason? No doubt for minors in particular, the banning of machine vending had some impact, though of course there is the debate put up by the cigarette and vending machine manufacturers. Common sense would dictate here, that preventing minors from buying cigarettes without adult purview is bad policy, not justifiable or responsible -- even if some kids might find other ways...
"So do it even though it stops nothing? You might want to listen to yourself.....your argument is to do something even though that something is going to do nothing."
Your premise is a false one! You presume far too much! Who needs to listen to themself? If this is how you address measures to curtail access to smokes (or guns), with the assumption that "it stops nothing," then we are certainly at odds. Just like we have speed limits to prevent accidents, you could argue the limits "do nothing" simply because anyone can exceed the speed limit. That's not a very strong argument in my opinion, even if hard to quantify either way.
Internet gun sales are restricted. They have to be sent to a licensed dealer, who then does his thing. I'll go back to post 1272 but I imagine it's much like this one which is why no one addressed it.[/quote]
Maybe you know something that Hillary Clinton doesn't know, but you do and think as you wish of course...
"The government makes as much if not more off of smoking."
Okay, if you say so, but again I'm not sure about your point here. Gun and cigarette manufacturer's both make a lot of money and use it to promote their products regardless their ill effects. Not sure it makes any difference to me or anyone else which makes more or less money given this discussion.
"Moving cigarette's from a machine to a rack is a feel good solution, nothing more. It didn't stop a single person from smoking. The idea should be to stop these things, not make you feel good that you did "something" no matter how worthless that thing was to address the problem."
How can anyone possibly know whether the above statement is true? I know I have personally been kept from buying cigarettes because no machine was available where once there would more likely have been, in lobbies and such. Who can know when someone decides to just give up the habit or for what reason? No doubt for minors in particular, the banning of machine vending had some impact, though of course there is the debate put up by the cigarette and vending machine manufacturers. Common sense would dictate here, that preventing minors from buying cigarettes without adult purview is bad policy, not justifiable or responsible -- even if some kids might find other ways...
"So do it even though it stops nothing? You might want to listen to yourself.....your argument is to do something even though that something is going to do nothing."
Your premise is a false one! You presume far too much! Who needs to listen to themself? If this is how you address measures to curtail access to smokes (or guns), with the assumption that "it stops nothing," then we are certainly at odds. Just like we have speed limits to prevent accidents, you could argue the limits "do nothing" simply because anyone can exceed the speed limit. That's not a very strong argument in my opinion, even if hard to quantify either way.
Internet gun sales are restricted. They have to be sent to a licensed dealer, who then does his thing. I'll go back to post 1272 but I imagine it's much like this one which is why no one addressed it.
Maybe you know something that Hillary Clinton doesn't know, but you do and think as you wish of course...
The vast majority know more than Hillary.....You can't buy a gun on the internet and have it sent to your house....it has to be sent to a licensed gun dealer for you to go pick it up.
If Hillary said otherwise, Hillary isn't know for her truthfullness.
The vast majority know more than Hillary.....You can't buy a gun on the internet and have it sent to your house....it has to be sent to a licensed gun dealer for you to go pick it up.
If Hillary said otherwise, Hillary isn't know for her truthfullness.
"Clinton, who said that the gun control issue has been taken over by “extremists," renewed her call for universal background checks and for closing the gun show loophole. She also called for banning military-style assault weapons from the streets, and for a crackdown on the sale of guns on the Internet and at gun shows."
"Clinton, who said that the gun control issue has been taken over by “extremists," renewed her call for universal background checks and for closing the gun show loophole. She also called for banning military-style assault weapons from the streets, and for a crackdown on the sale of guns on the Internet and at gun shows."
So she was just typically ranting. A rant that doesn't dispute that you cant just buy a gun off the internet.
There is a standard profile of a serial killer, and has been for years. Male, 20's, and a loner. How many females, or people over 40 have taking a gun and massively shot random strangers?
Auto insurance companies profile young males under 30 for auto accidents and charge them higher rates. Maybe young males should be profiled for gun ownership also? If under 30 years old, require more mental health testing?
1) There is no law that "might prevent mass killers." I am not sure who is
fooled by these set-up introductions, but the intent is to pass laws that might
reduce gun violence. There is no way to prevent gun violence just like
preventing terrorism is impossible, but surely this does not mean we don't do
all possible to reduce the number of incidents, tragedies
So when we pass universal background checks, assault weapons bans, magazine limits, etc. and the next wacko goes out and shoots a bunch of people.... then what? These kind of laws are proposed in the context of preventing mass shootings, so when none of them stop the next one, it stands to reason that we'll be having this discussion again..... and again.... and again..... until there's nothing left.
Quote:
2) The claim that we are considering laws that "do absolutely nothing" is
another argument I find altogether unreasonable. Who is to say or know that
running a back-ground check prior to a gun show gun sale may not prevent
some nut case from going through with his immediate act of rage?
I actually have no problem with expanding BGC's to gun shows and internet sales. I have a gun for sale on the internet right now and I made it clear in the description that I wouldn't sell to anyone without doing the transfer through and FFL even though I am not required to..... The problem is "universal background checks"..... you can't regulate what people do in their kitchens or on street corners, unless you assign a cop to walk around with every person...
Again, please! Surely we all know better, we know this is not about Hillary or anyone else for that matter. This issue is about tightening gun control laws -- that are Constitutionally sound -- until there are no more such laws that can be passed. Only then can we have real peace about this issue. Gun enthusiasts can continue to do their gun thing and gun control advocates will have nothing more to reasonably advocate. That's where we need to land.
Is it reasonable to conclude that Hillary would only tighten the laws to the point that they are "Constitutionally sound"... when she doesn't even acknowledge the Constitutional right to begin with? That's my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by And D
Maybe you know something that Hillary Clinton doesn't know, but you do and think as you wish of course...
I would venture to guess that the majority of gun control opponents do know far more than those who want more laws. For example, how many people probably think that when we're talking about "assault weapons", we're talking about machine guns? Or how many people have been lead to believe that you can go on the internet and buy a gun and have it delivered to your door the next day?
Now, some people, like Hillary Clinton DO know what they're talking about, but are intentionally deceptive to fool useful idiots who don't know any better.
There is a standard profile of a serial killer, and has been for years. Male, 20's, and a loner. How many females, or people over 40 have taking a gun and massively shot random strangers?
Auto insurance companies profile young males under 30 for auto accidents and charge them higher rates. Maybe young males should be profiled for gun ownership also? If under 30 years old, require more mental health testing?
We can't have special standards for certain people and not others when it comes to a Constitutional right. That's called discrimination. I'm willing to entertain the idea of mental health evals, but not just for certain people..... Everyone has to have equal access to a right.
So she was just typically ranting. A rant that doesn't dispute that you cant just buy a gun off the internet.
One woman's "rant" is "music" to the mother of yet another victim, but I'll leave the judgement about rhetoric to those who might rather focus on the rhetoric, which is mostly a waste of time as far as I'm concerned.
I offered the more precise description of what Hillary is advocating, and I think if you consider those facts a little more carefully, you will see that the issue is not whether you "can just buy a gun off the Internet."
I mentioned before that I expected those most enthusiastic about guns to know more about this, and I was accused of being condescending. Would hate to do that again...
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.
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.
To be precise...
