Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
 [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 12-20-2018, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Ft Myers, FL
2,771 posts, read 2,302,911 times
Reputation: 5139

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgregor View Post
I hope that Florida guy owns a gun and can travel as freely as any patriotic right-thinking American. Do we now feel more secure?

If you want to reduce gun homicide (non-cop) by 80%, simply pass a law that the first purchase will be responsible for the use of its weapon for its lifetime. 81% of homicdes are committed with a gun somebody else bought first and then sold, lost, gave away, pawned, whatever.

Making the purchaser wholly responsible for the use of a gun in its lifetime will screen out the idiots-- after the first dozen or so have gone to jail for life when the gun they got rid of years ago is used to kill someone. Guns will no longer be viewed as just another household appliance.

Those who continue to buy them will know that it is their sacred responsibility to never allow them into another's hands-- like King Arthur and his Excalibur. They will in effect become an adjunct of ATF, every one of them a weapons control inspector. They will buy the weapon they want to have for the rest of their life, and as many weapons as they want under current laws.

And at bottom, there is no constitutional right to traffic in personal firearms.
Great idea. Let's also bury the guns with the owner. By the way, if anyone wants to try to rid America of her guns this way, you'd need to bury every American gun owner who dies in 2019 with 446 guns.

Lemme know how that works out for you.

300M firearms / (327M US population x 25% gun owners x 0.00823 US annual death rate) = 446 guns per burial plot
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-20-2018, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Retired in VT; previously MD & NJ
14,267 posts, read 6,952,754 times
Reputation: 17878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corvette Ministries View Post
Great idea. Let's also bury the guns with the owner. By the way, if anyone wants to try to rid America of her guns this way, you'd need to bury every American gun owner who dies in 2019 with 446 guns.

Lemme know how that works out for you.

300M firearms / (327M US population x 25% gun owners x 0.00823 US annual death rate) = 446 guns per burial plot
Might have to pay for a second casket for the guns. Do you put the gun casket above or below the body casket?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2018, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Ft Myers, FL
2,771 posts, read 2,302,911 times
Reputation: 5139
Quote:
Originally Posted by ansible90 View Post
Might have to pay for a second casket for the guns. Do you put the gun casket above or below the body casket?

You put the guns BELOW the body casket. "Cold, dead bones!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2018, 04:52 PM
 
809 posts, read 997,777 times
Reputation: 1380
"You can have my gun when you unglue it from my cold, dead fingers!"
-- New NRA slogan
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2018, 10:46 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,356 posts, read 26,489,954 times
Reputation: 11350
Quote:
Originally Posted by ansible90 View Post
So maybe we should allow people to have muskets only - after all, the founders couldn't imagine assault rifles, tanks and atomic bombs, so clearly they were talking about muskets and shot guns. If someone wants to build their own musket from parts they buy at Home Depot, have at it. Just don't complain when it blows up in your face. [[end sarcasm]].

I don't see how the banning of plans has anything to do with banning firearms. If you live your life being afraid of all the "what ifs" in life, you will end up being a very paranoid person.
Of course the logical end of that line of reasoning would be the first amendment only applies to quill pens and hand operated printing presses. Which is why the SCOTUS strongly rejected that argument in 2008. The founders intended the rights to apply to current technology. Some of them were involved in developing new weapons. Benjamin Franklin invented a rather deadly hand grenade for example. Several of the founders lived long enough to see weapons like this too: https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2...intlock-rifle/


Why would you ban the dissemination of information if the end goal isn't a ban on guns?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2018, 10:49 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,356 posts, read 26,489,954 times
Reputation: 11350
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgregor View Post
Well, I'm not too sure about that.

When the Louisiana Purchase happened, Jefferson thought it would take 1,000 years to settle it. Seventy year later it was impossible to ride from Mexico to Canada without running into fences.

So, the Founders were, I think, pretty much concerned with the issues at hand rather than possible issues in the future when they wrote the Constitution.
No one in 1803 expected the railroads of the future or the Irish Potato Famine sending millions of immigrants running to our shores. Technology made settlement more rapid. Technology has changed but people haven't. There are still very dangerous humans out there who enjoy inflicting violent harm on others, and some of them find their way into the governments of every nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2018, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Venus
5,851 posts, read 5,279,150 times
Reputation: 10756
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgregor View Post
I hope that Florida guy owns a gun and can travel as freely as any patriotic right-thinking American. Do we now feel more secure?

If you want to reduce gun homicide (non-cop) by 80%, simply pass a law that the first purchase will be responsible for the use of its weapon for its lifetime. 81% of homicdes are committed with a gun somebody else bought first and then sold, lost, gave away, pawned, whatever.

Making the purchaser wholly responsible for the use of a gun in its lifetime will screen out the idiots-- after the first dozen or so have gone to jail for life when the gun they got rid of years ago is used to kill someone. Guns will no longer be viewed as just another household appliance.

Those who continue to buy them will know that it is their sacred responsibility to never allow them into another's hands-- like King Arthur and his Excalibur. They will in effect become an adjunct of ATF, every one of them a weapons control inspector. They will buy the weapon they want to have for the rest of their life, and as many weapons as they want under current laws.

And at bottom, there is no constitutional right to traffic in personal firearms.
How about making the gun manufacturers accountable? Or making the sellers accountable?


Cat
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2018, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Ft Myers, FL
2,771 posts, read 2,302,911 times
Reputation: 5139
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatwomanofV View Post
How about making the gun manufacturers accountable? Or making the sellers accountable?


Cat

There are already laws against that. See, to some, gun laws WORK!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2018, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Vermont
3,459 posts, read 10,266,886 times
Reputation: 2475
Ok guys....if you want to discuss general gun issues there are other places to do so. If this doesn't get back on to the original topic you know what will happen
__________________
City Data Terms of Service:
http://www.city-data.com/forumtos.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2018, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Retired in VT; previously MD & NJ
14,267 posts, read 6,952,754 times
Reputation: 17878
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Of course the logical end of that line of reasoning would be the first amendment only applies to quill pens and hand operated printing presses. Which is why the SCOTUS strongly rejected that argument in 2008. The founders intended the rights to apply to current technology. Some of them were involved in developing new weapons. Benjamin Franklin invented a rather deadly hand grenade for example. Several of the founders lived long enough to see weapons like this too: https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2...intlock-rifle/


Why would you ban the dissemination of information if the end goal isn't a ban on guns?
Maybe you want to prevent a bunch of know-it-all jerks who don't know how to follow a set of directions from trying to build something that will blow up in their faces, or hurt their friends. There's a lot of stupid people out there.
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 > U.S. Forums > Vermont
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:07 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top