Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
People always love to say "try it and see"...they don't realize we see the hotdog making machinery that grinds out their great ideas.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
On the management of risk in a society...
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
People always love to say "try it and see"...they don't realize we see the hotdog making machinery that grinds out their great ideas.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,249
I have not seen anyone say that don't want gun control but we want effective gun control and what's being tossed out by washingotn is NOT effective
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Drasken
Brown Belt
Oh I'm all for background checks at gun shows and the like. As long as the citizen isn't paying huge dollars for them and there isn't a long waiting period. Heck, I went through a background check in 15 minutes when I bought my gun (at a pawn shop btw. They have had to run background checks at pawn shops here by law for a long time now) and walked out with it in less than 30 minutes.
As far as limiting magazines and a national registry, well they could hurt. As stated before the 2nd amendment is also in place to protect us from government tyranny. If all guns are registered, a tyrannical government will start by rounding up all guns possible. It has been done many times before.
And please don't give me the old and tired "Can't or Won't happen here" argument. I'm sure everyone getting raped, murdered, robbed etc. Including victims of the mass shootings thought similar thoughts about it happening to them.
I'm not saying the government is tyrannical on the level with Nazi Germany or the USSR. But, I think that giving up an ability to protect oneself in the improbable, but far from impossible, occurrence in the future is moronic. Learn from history or you are doomed to repeat it.
Also, in the case of a foreign invasion which is also EXTREMELY unlikely but not impossible, every citizen should be expected to answer a call for armed militia with their own weapons.
Passing a law that doesn't address the problem at hand, because "What can it hurt?" Really? That's your answer?
Perhaps you should really research the reasoning behind the amendment before you go changing it.
Effective gun control addressing the real problems? Fine. But not this. They're using a problem to push an agenda that has no effect on the problem they are claiming to be solving.
Last edited:
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
On background checks..
Wife's cousin calls me 2 months ago...he tried to buy a gun.
Failed BG check...dealer cant tell him why hes is told to contact the FBI.
FBI requires you to pay for fingerprinting to straighten out BG check failures.
FBI says his data (name. Dob. Etc) "is similar" to a guy in NC who was put on the ban list....call THAT agency.
Calls that agency and is told he would have to come to NC with a lawyer to PROVE he wasn't this guy...wtf?
Cousin is able to talk directly to the judge..after many pleas.
Judge says he will fix the problem.
Cousin tries a gun purchase again...fails..note on reply says to call a phone#...supervisor approves sale.
Cousin afraid this will be a regular thing when NY demands BG checks for ammo purchases.
All this to exercise a right. Because his data was "close" to a guy 4 States away.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
Wife's cousin calls me 2 months ago...he tried to buy a gun.
Failed BG check...dealer cant tell him why hes is told to contact the FBI.
FBI requires you to pay for fingerprinting to straighten out BG check failures.
FBI says his data (name. Dob. Etc) "is similar" to a guy in NC who was put on the ban list....call THAT agency.
Calls that agency and is told he would have to come to NC with a lawyer to PROVE he wasn't this guy...wtf?
Cousin is able to talk directly to the judge..after many pleas.
Judge says he will fix the problem.
Cousin tries a gun purchase again...fails..note on reply says to call a phone#...supervisor approves sale.
Cousin afraid this will be a regular thing when NY demands BG checks for ammo purchases.
All this to exercise a right. Because his data was "close" to a guy 4 States away.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
Drasken
Brown Belt
Yep. And my name is common. I've had to wait for 5 hours to pick up $250 wired to me from my parents because of similar issues. So I can only imagine buying guns or ammo.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2010
- Messages
- 10,480
- Reaction score
- 1,249
Look no farther then the no fly list stories people post all up in arms to see how well this is going to go.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
People are going to base their opinion on what they are used to now, ie. Account for current laws, rights etc.
I like the premise of your thread, how to managed society if you had to start from scratch.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
OP
- Thread Starter
- #70
This is the debate that I'd like to address. The idea that society can dictate to everyone which risks are appropriate and which risks are not is a double edged sword. It can swing in all kinds of unintended directions and may swing in directions that make no rational sense. It's really ugly in practice and ends up criminalizing people who may not really be a threat to anyone.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #71
Problem is that owning a firearm is also a lifestyle choice and it carries obvious risks to people in your community. There is no denying this. So, who gets to decide which risks are appropriate?
Yeah, you're the reasonable one in this conversation.
Drasken
Brown Belt
Hahahaha how am I unreasonable? Pointing out the original intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Pointing out that, while seriously unlikely, that nothing is impossible and that history, for those of us that actually were attentive in school, should definitely have shown us that?
I don't find that unreasonable. I find your lack of expressed knowledge about our Constitution, your lack of caring how these legislations are being pushed through with no actual knowledge of what they contain, and the lack of care that there IS no compromise or actual debate on the subject at the governmental level on BOTH sides to be unreasonable.
But I'm sure you view me, and would like to make me out to be, some redneck in a bunker wearing an aluminum foil hat. Shame the reality is that I'm not.
“No one is taking away all the guns. But now I get it. Now I see what is happening. So this is what it is, their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present. We can’t even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that are actually in reality happening in this country every year because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of imaginary Hitler.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/...s-rant-guns-needed-to-fight-imaginary-hitler/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/...s-rant-guns-needed-to-fight-imaginary-hitler/
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Which was why amendments were bright line limits that need a convention to alter.
Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2
Conventions? For amendments? Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
For example, we amended to have Prohibition, and then to repeal it, without any convention; we altered the election of the VP without one.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
The benefits accrue principally to the owner but the risks accrue not only to the owner but also to others.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #80
That could be sais for a lot of forms of risk that are prohibited.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
Taiji Quan for Self Defense- Latest: windwalker099
-
-
-