Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 09-13-2018, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
20,794 posts, read 9,435,750 times
Reputation: 15522

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NY_refugee87 View Post
Not really... As a license is no indication of driver skill or ability.
Then why do you not object to them? If a driver's license does not really do anything, shouldn't you object to their existence?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-13-2018, 03:34 PM
 
Location: PSL
8,224 posts, read 3,482,550 times
Reputation: 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
Then why do you not object to them? If a driver's license does not really do anything, shouldn't you object to their existence?
I know what you're trying to do, I'm tugging at your feels a little longer

A driver's license is merely a form of identification that states you can drive 4 blocks with little traffic and parallel park a vehicle and have the privilege to operate a motor vehicle on roads.

It does not test any skill or ability.
It does not test your reaction time.
It does not place you in an oversteer/understeer condition.
It does not place you at a high rate of speed to take corners at twice the posted suggested speed limit.

On one hand. It allows everyone who can afford the privilege not the right, the privilege to drive a car. On the other hand. It does afford everyone the privilege to drive. Be it the ditzy teenaged girl playing on a cell phone.
The hot head teenage-20 something who's never entered inclement weather or high speed maneuvers to drive outside of their ability.
It allows the drunk to take out 4 of your friends the night after highschool graduation.
Etc etc. There are no standards really involved in getting a driver's license.

Driving isn't a Constitutionally protected right. It is a privilege to those who can afford it.

Thus I support constitutional carry. Like Vermont and Missouri. No permit needed to carry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2018, 03:39 PM
 
172 posts, read 107,334 times
Reputation: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post
Having the highest homicide rate in the developed world along with the most and deadliest spree shootings doesn't constitute a problem? If these aren't problems, then by all means, what is?
A few hundred people dying every year by semi automatic weapon's is not a problem. It is an anomaly and not relevent. There are bigger issues in life you should worry about.


A real problem is making too much money and getting a 401k refund due to low participation in an employer sponsor plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2018, 03:40 PM
 
172 posts, read 107,334 times
Reputation: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
Do you object to having to get a license to drive a car?
Driving a car is a privilege and is not defined in the bill of rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2018, 03:42 PM
 
949 posts, read 568,645 times
Reputation: 1490
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14 View Post
I doubt anyone needed a study to tell them that. But the 2nd Amendment folks will tell us it's too bad, we have to live with it, because the founding fathers were more concerned about the rights of unhinged people wielding weapons of mass destruction (that they didn't know were coming) than the rights of their victims. Because guns are more important than people.

Oh, they'll couch it in different words, but that's basically what it comes down to.
Come on, you know that money is more important than people, guns are a close second.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2018, 03:48 PM
 
Location: San Jose
2,594 posts, read 1,234,535 times
Reputation: 2590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
I call complete BS. The deciding factor in every major engagement of typical military (massed forces) since WWI has been the ability to employ artillery (and/or deny your enemy the ability to employ their artillery). The kill counts of WWI to today in large formation engagements show small arms accounts for around 5% of casualties. About 1% are not combat related (trips, falls and getting run over). The remaining 94% comes from artillery (ground, sea, and ordinance from aircraft, which is just very mobile artillery).

Sure in FISH and CHIPS as the Brits use (Fighting In Someone's House and Causing Havoc In Peoples Streets), small arms are best used to minimize collateral damage. But not in traditional large formation battles, or even UO where you don't care about collateral damage.
In infantry to infantry engagements, bullets fired was the determining factor. The entire small arms and squad tactics development during and after the war is predicated on this very notion. Yes, in major battles artillery caused the most casualties, but this fact has no practical relation to the topic at hand and was thus not worth mentioning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2018, 04:00 PM
 
Location: Clyde Hill, WA
6,061 posts, read 1,999,881 times
Reputation: 2167
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t
In my opinion it is not so much the semi-automatic style weapons, though I would love to see them stamped out. It's the high cartridge clips that make these weapons so deadly. This comes to me from a police friend who, needless to say, is an expert on guns and weapons. It's imperative to address the high cartridge clips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck View Post
Did you post this in sarcasm ? WTF is a "high cartridge clip" ? That is a new one to me...SMH
No sarcasm... I may have the terminology slightly wrong. Perhaps I should have said "high caliper clip." In any case, you know what I mean. I am the first to admit I am not an expert on guns, but what I do know is that something must be done to stop the mass slaughter of innocents. What kind of civilized nation allows these high caliper clips to remain legal, when so many are being slaughtered?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2018, 04:04 PM
 
172 posts, read 107,334 times
Reputation: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
No sarcasm... I may have the terminology slightly wrong. Perhaps I should have said "high caliper clip." In any case, you know what I mean. I am the first to admit I am not an expert on guns, but what I do know is that something must be done to stop the mass slaughter of innocents. What kind of civilized nation allows these high caliper clips to remain legal, when so many are being slaughtered?
What is a high caliber clip? What does a cartridge caliber have to do with anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2018, 04:11 PM
 
Location: San Jose
2,594 posts, read 1,234,535 times
Reputation: 2590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
That the 2A has been violated thousands of times does not make it any less clear, nor my philosophy any less logical. All the thousands of violations mean to me is that the government doesn't much care for limitations on their power, while caring a great deal for increasing that power over the citizenry.

Your acquiescence to tyranny makes it no less tyrannical. I simply refuse, at least philosophically, to acquiesce to tyranny, and will fight at least the rhetorical debate fight to maximize the liberty and freedom of the individual while minimizing the power and reach of the government.
When in American history has the government been "tyrannical"? 230 years and counting and one has yet to show up. Something that hasn't happened in 230 years or may never happen at all is far less concerning then acts of grotesque violence that occur on a monthly basis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
But back to the government not caring about limitations on their power. You do realize that this is the point of explicitly singling out the right to keep and bear arms for protection from government mischief? Right? If they never face any reprisal for their actions, the tyrannical government will never stop increasing their level of oppression.
You actually think a bunch of soft and fat Americans with AR-15's will halt government mischief? You and all the rest of the ilk on here have far to much to lose to ever be that foolish. As stated before, find one example of a group of "armed citizens" successfully taking on a professional military in the last 100 years and I just might take your point seriously. If you ever wanted to take on government mischief you better partner up with a Russia or a China, because on your own you stand ZERO chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
During our own American Revolution, there were loyalists like you who were cool with King George's tyrannies, and there were revolutionaries like me who fought against it. The population hasn't changed, just the names of what we call loyalists and revolutionaries. I am an individual with natural rights first and always, and the government of the United States is supposed to be my servant, not my master. You and I will never agree on something fundamental like natural individual rights so why discuss technical points past that? You are cool with tyranny, I am not. We can agree to disagree. If it ever gets down to the marrow, we'll see how it goes I guess.
And who decides what is a "natural right" ? Some of those revolutionaries you are so found of thought it was their "natural right" to own black people, others thought it was their "natural right" to wipe out a native American village.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2018, 04:11 PM
 
Location: PSL
8,224 posts, read 3,482,550 times
Reputation: 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis t View Post
No sarcasm... I may have the terminology slightly wrong. Perhaps I should have said "high caliper clip." In any case, you know what I mean. I am the first to admit I am not an expert on guns, but what I do know is that something must be done to stop the mass slaughter of innocents. What kind of civilized nation allows these high caliper clips to remain legal, when so many are being slaughtered?

Or
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 > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:19 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