New Message Board Post
You must be logged in before you can post a message!
Login to Two Peas
Username
Password

forgot your password?
 

Current Thread:

Gun makers held accountable for...
Post ReplyPost New TopicPosted 2/27/2013 by Enough in NSBR Board
1 2 >
 

Enough
PeaAddict

PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 1,855
Layouts: 0

Posted: 2/27/2013 6:02:00 PM

MizIndependent
Is there another word for synonym?

PeaNut 256,623
April 2006
Posts: 14,868
Layouts: 2
Loc: Right where I'm s'posed to be.

Posted: 2/27/2013 6:22:17 PM
Just when you think 'Teh-Stupid' can't get any more stupid, some moron goes and out-stupids them all.

*face/palm*

ETA: I agree this is necessary though - "Requiring in-person training for concealed-weapons permits, which now can be obtained through online courses"




Youtube: Hungry For Change - Your Health is in Your Hands. Dieting doesn't work, this movie tells you why.

Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does.


IleneTell
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 434,842
August 2009
Posts: 2,837
Layouts: 654

Posted: 2/27/2013 6:22:55 PM
The link takes you to an app store (I'm on an iPad though)



MizIndependent
Is there another word for synonym?

PeaNut 256,623
April 2006
Posts: 14,868
Layouts: 2
Loc: Right where I'm s'posed to be.

Posted: 2/27/2013 6:23:44 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22523196/colorado-democrats-roll-out-tougher-gun-proposals-tuesday



Youtube: Hungry For Change - Your Health is in Your Hands. Dieting doesn't work, this movie tells you why.

Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does.


WillowJane
Running the Marathon, Not the Sprint

PeaNut 110,589
October 2003
Posts: 7,066
Layouts: 8
Loc: Texas

Posted: 2/27/2013 6:34:58 PM
    This is the equivalent of holding Coors, the distributor and the 7-Eleven from which the 12-pack of beer was stolen responsible for the drunk-driving accident."


And all car manufacturers being held responsible for car accidents where alcohol is not involved, all knife and scissor makers being held responsible for cuts, all food makers being held for people getting fat, and the list goes on.

However, for a state as like Colorado that is so pro-gun control to have an online concealed weapons class is beyond me. We have to physically show up for the class in Texas and actually show proficiency before we get a passing grade.

I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,376
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 2/27/2013 6:38:37 PM
Holding manufacturers liable for the actions of idiots, is idiotic.

...and I'm in favor of gun control...not stupidity.

leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,091
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 2/27/2013 6:39:19 PM
And the Vice President being held accountable for everyone who follows his gun advice.....





If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!

PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 29,016
Layouts: 417
Loc: The final frontier

Posted: 2/27/2013 6:39:56 PM
No need to hold the gun manufacturers responsible. Just require every gun owner to purchase liability insurance for every gun they own. Let the insurance company bean counters assess and quantify the risk.



Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!

PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 29,016
Layouts: 417
Loc: The final frontier

Posted: 2/27/2013 7:06:48 PM
I'll let the police worry about the criminals and illegal weapons. I want to keep unstable and unfit people from using legally purchased weapons since those are the weapons that have been used in the majority of mass shootings in our country in recent years.

If an insurance company had assessed Adam Lanza's mother's home and any potential risks, she would not have been able to insure those weapons. The pro-gun people keep saying they don't want the government involved, they don't want new laws, they don't want background checks, they don't want limitation on types of weapons, they don't want limitation on ammunition - quite frankly, in practical terms they don't seem to want anything to change. Well, let the free market handle it then. If you're insurable, buy as many guns of as many types as you like. Shoot all the targets and skeet that fill your heart with joy and contentment. You can bet if an insurance company is potentially on the hook for any crime committed by a legally purchased weapon, they are going to make damn sure that weapon is unlikely to be used in the commission of a crime.



batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,822
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 2/27/2013 7:21:07 PM
Fine. Then what changes do you support?


OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!

PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 29,016
Layouts: 417
Loc: The final frontier

Posted: 2/27/2013 7:24:00 PM
That's why you make insurance a requirement. Any law abiding person who doesn't pose a risk can then still purchase any weapon they choose. But you weed out those who are falling through the cracks of the current system of checks. States don't turn over their mental health records to the feds, criminal databases don't match, software isn't compatible. Let the insurance companies figure all of this out, assessing risk is what they are good at.



Krazyscrapper
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 131,612
February 2004
Posts: 2,678
Layouts: 0
Loc: Sonoma County

Posted: 2/27/2013 7:24:41 PM
You are assuming insurance companies will want to take the risk and write the coverage. Since 99.9% would be bodily injury claims my guess is that they won't want the risk as it will be unprofitable or if they write the coverage the premiums would be high with low liability limits so no one would buy the coverage.

Which would leave individual state run plans. Again low limits and high premiums.

By the nature of the risks the losses would be high.

MontanaCowgirl
TaWanDa Riot!

PeaNut 298,090
February 2007
Posts: 7,483
Layouts: 50
Loc: Big Sky Country

Posted: 2/27/2013 7:40:10 PM

Fine. Then what changes do you support?


bears repeating and repeating and repeating until we get some answers.....


Stephi

"people generally see what they look for,
and hear what they listen for.

-To Kill a Mockingbird-




Plapple
ResPEAratory therapist in flight

PeaNut 27,059
January 2002
Posts: 8,990
Layouts: 48
Loc: Albuquerque, NM

Posted: 2/27/2013 7:57:05 PM
Here's an idea: Let's hold the CRIMINALS responsible for their own actions? How about that? I realize I'm a fringe-thinker with that kind of logic going on. Just an idea I have.


That's about as stupid as holding spoons accountable for making people fat. This country needs to stop allowing everyone to just "feel good" and start holding everyone accountable for their own actions. Everyone! I know there are consequences to be had if I break the law. If I choose to break the law, I therefore have also chosen to accept the consequences of my behavior. It's a pretty simple concept, really.


Kim


MizIndependent
Is there another word for synonym?

PeaNut 256,623
April 2006
Posts: 14,868
Layouts: 2
Loc: Right where I'm s'posed to be.

Posted: 2/27/2013 8:06:47 PM

s an idea: Let's hold the CRIMINALS responsible for their own actions? How about that? I realize I'm a fringe-thinker with that kind of logic going on.
Sorry Plapple, logic has no place in this discussion.



Youtube: Hungry For Change - Your Health is in Your Hands. Dieting doesn't work, this movie tells you why.

Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does.


Plapple
ResPEAratory therapist in flight

PeaNut 27,059
January 2002
Posts: 8,990
Layouts: 48
Loc: Albuquerque, NM

Posted: 2/27/2013 8:08:52 PM

Sorry Plapple, logic has no place in this discussion.
Yeah, I got that when I read the rest of the thread after I posted. I should have known.


Kim


Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!

PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 29,016
Layouts: 417
Loc: The final frontier

Posted: 2/27/2013 8:23:39 PM

Let's hold the CRIMINALS responsible for their own actions? How about that? I realize I'm a fringe-thinker with that kind of logic going on.


How would holding Adam Lanza responsible for what he did change anything about what happened at Sandy Hook? I agree that holding gun manufacturers accountable is foolish but the only way to keep this from continuing to happen is to keep the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

If this became a law and you're a law abiding person and you choose not to insure your gun, then you choose to become a criminal. Free will and all of that. I would think that most people would rather have a private entity rather than the feds collect the info re. mental health, substance abuse, domestic violence, criminal history, etc. If we're so worried about a bloated, inefficient, ineffective federal government, just take it out of the equation.



Gia LuPeaA
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 416,889
March 2009
Posts: 2,796
Layouts: 0
Loc: The right place, at the right time.

Posted: 2/27/2013 8:25:11 PM

Are they going to come to my house and search for any weapons I might have and force me to insure them? Try getting past my front door.
They actually did try to put that into legislation in Washington.


Princess of Procrasti Nation.

Glitterati Polka Dotti


*Kath*
Official Time Clock of 2Ps

PeaNut 2,739
February 2000
Posts: 10,052
Layouts: 0
Loc: On a cruise ship fighting zombies

Posted: 2/27/2013 9:22:42 PM

And the Vice President being held accountable for everyone who follows his gun advice.....


Ha, ha, good one!



Then what changes do you support?


I support enforcing the current laws. That would be a change.



--------------------
Welcome to Hotel California, the Green Room, where the laws of physics don't apply, effect determines cause, Deja Vu is Master, and the white rabbit runs free.

Your punch-in has been duly noted.



Live4Crafts
PeaNut

PeaNut 536,949
January 2012
Posts: 196
Layouts: 3
Loc: The middle of the middle of nowhere

Posted: 2/27/2013 10:25:53 PM
How would holding Adam Lanza responsible for what he did change anything about what happened at Sandy Hook?
---

Do you really believe for one minute that he wouldn't have found another way? Insurance on guns isn't going to stop someone who wants a gun but can't get it for whatever reason before he goes on a murderous rampage. You (general you) are trying to apply logic to an illogical person and situation.
I have no problems with more strict background checks, the biometric triggers, waiting periods, really just about anything else that has been put on the table. But to put a business man in an office to have the ability to say yeah or nay because his "insurance company" doesn't like that 20 years ago I had to be on antidepressants for situational depression brought on by an assault...I don't call that reasonable at ALL. Day after day I hear people talk about how screwed up insurance companies are...and you seriously want to put them in charge of gun control?
I just love (yes, a LOT of sarcasm intended) that weeks after Sandy Hook we are STILL debating gun laws, but in my state, we're cutting services to community mental health...I just don't get when the ptb are going to realize that legislating guns doesn't fix everything.

batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,822
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 2/27/2013 10:40:28 PM
Wow. Mrs. T. You are being downright nasty.


OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,822
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 2/27/2013 10:45:40 PM
Do you talk to people like this IRL? You don't see how this is rude?


Do you not remember the three or four multi-page threads back in December outlining the regulations that we do support? It has been answered over and over.
Many of us have repeatedly shared what gun control regulations we do support. I'm sorry you have such poor memory. Maybe I'll go back and look for some of those old threads, but really, it's ridiculous that you're demanding answers that have already been given so many times.


I regret that I tried to take you seriously and inquired. My mistake.


OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,822
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 2/27/2013 11:00:45 PM
You've never heard of saying, "I'm sorry," have you?

You could have said, 'I took your tone to be rude and I responded in kind. I should not have, I'm sorry.'

You could have said, 'here are things I would support, but you know, I took your tone as rude. That wasn't necessary.'

I was simply saying, Fine. You don't accept the insurance solution, etc. Then what changes do you support? That did not warrant your very nasty response. It was not snippy. You told me I have a poor memory, I am ridiculous, you were sarcastic and rude and I am demanding answers when you yourself said : "I don't see anyone saying we are against any and all changes." It invited the inquiry. You could have simply answered the question.

You have a lot to learn and a lot of growing up to do.


OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,822
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 2/27/2013 11:18:23 PM
I was interested in the same, but you were clearly reluctant to answer me when I asked. Funny, frequently when I meet peas, like today, they say they thought I'd be older. Not younger or more immature. Interesting.

You NEVER think you owe anyone an apology. Yet often peas think you do. Food for thought.

ETA:

I'm done trying to appease you.


You have to start something to be 'done' with it.


OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,822
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 2/27/2013 11:28:37 PM
After you were compelled to be nasty to me. That cut off any interest in your response. I made the error of giving you an opportunity. I can read more compelling sources than yours and do not need lend any credibility or give an ear to your opinions. Not a problem.

You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If you want to spray vinegar all over the place you can catch other flies.


OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,822
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 2/27/2013 11:35:10 PM

Oh darling, I tried for many years to be respectful towards you. We interacted many times in peamail messages and I used to care what you thought. But since December that has changed and you have lost my respect because of your incredibly rude and condescending manner.


Darling? Unless my name is Clementine, you can save it. You are digging your insolence in deeper and deeper. You just don't learn.

Your nastiness is neither warranted nor charming. It overshadows the points you want to make. Do you want people to know and understand your thoughts? Do you think they can make a difference? Or do you just want to have the last word and be the loudest? It always seems like the latter. I'd rather from me, the former.


OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




batya
Making the WWW better, one post at a time.

PeaNut 59,094
December 2002
Posts: 32,822
Layouts: 24
Loc: up on my high horse

Posted: 2/27/2013 11:36:51 PM

You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. If you want to spray vinegar all over the place you can catch other flies.

Perhaps you should take your own advice then. Food for thought.


Now you're not actually making sense.


OK. Newbie. This is how it works. If your post consists of 80% sanity, 10% stupidity and 10% all kinds of crazy, we immediately focus on the 20% b/c it discredits the 80%.




I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,376
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 2/27/2013 11:59:50 PM

When the government crosses the lines established by the Constitution, it's the responsibility of the citizens to do something about it. A law like that would be ineffective and very unpopular. They could not possibly require all existing guns owned by law abiding citizens to be insured because they couldn't possibly know about every single gun owned by all US citizens. Heck, the government failed to track the guns THEY supplied to foreign criminals in the Fast and Furious debacle. This is not a solution that is reasonable or doable. I do understand why you might think it's a viable solution, but I will tell you it is not workable because of all the guns already owned by US citizens. They can't realistically enforce that kind of legislation and we already have far too many gun control laws that aren't being enforced. No need to add any new restrictions or legislation when we can't enforce the ones we already have.



I'm not clear on how this is crossing the line established by the Constitution. Can you be more specific?

I hadn't given much thought to the idea of insuring guns before, and I'm not sure how one would go about doing that but surely, if the Govt. required it, all those 'responsible' gun owners would comply. Would it not be the responsible, legal thing to do?

If we have to insure our vehicle, why not our guns?

I agree that a lot of the laws on the books are not being enforced.




Here's an idea: Let's hold the CRIMINALS responsible for their own actions? How about that?


Are criminals not held accountable for their actions? Presuming they are caught, and convicted.

There's a lot of people, sitting in prison today, who were not criminals until they picked up the gun that was purchased for 'protection', but ended up being used to shoot their spouse, neighbor, or some other person who pissed them off.



If outrageous mass murders of innocents are what is putting gun laws front and center, where is the logic to pass laws that actually would have effectively stopped those slaughters?


It was outrage over drunk drivers getting away with vehicular homicide that caused stricter DUI laws. It does stop drunk drivers, it doesn't stop people from being killed by drunk drivers, but it sure has heck has lowered the rate of both.

leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,091
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 2/28/2013 1:52:25 AM

We would be remiss if we left the information about sex to PG-13 and R movies. But that's precisely what our society is doing with guns when we are so delicate we won't speak of them except to buy our kids the latest X-Box game or ticket to a blockbuster movie.


You forgot how many people get their information about firearms from politicians.

We can always count on them to be accurate.





I hadn't given much thought to the idea of insuring guns before, and I'm not sure how one would go about doing that but surely, if the Govt. required it, all those 'responsible' gun owners would comply. Would it not be the responsible, legal thing to do?

If we have to insure our vehicle, why not our guns?


You don't have to insure a vehicle that is on your property and not being used. It's not a good comparison.






Health insurance is working so well for all Americans these days. Very efficient. No problem getting coverage. Let's add mandatory firearm insurance to what is required.

Oh, and while we're at it, maybe we can actually ask for photo ID's when people vote.

What? That's not fair? Some people find it difficult to acquire a photo ID that's mandatory for many benefits of modern living, but any difficulty may impede a person's Constitutional right to vote.

Yet mandating that people get insurance, when there's no evidence to support the idea that insurance will even be available, is not an impediment to the Constitutionally protected right to bear arms?





And just because it's front page news......Jodi Arias shot Travis Alexander. After she stabbed him 29 times slitting his throat from ear to ear. We definitely need to hold the knife manufacturer accountable for this crime, as well as the manufacturer of the gun. The government can charge a tax on both payouts. All of us will benefit.








If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,376
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 2/28/2013 2:18:59 AM

Show me gun laws that have a demonstrated relationship to cutting gun violence, and we can have a discussion. But no one can explain how the gun laws being proposed will actually stop the next Sandy Hook, the next Aurora, etc. At most, we are asking to restrict magazines to hold 10-15 bullets to give people under assault a break while the shooter reloads (and I've been told a practiced gunman can reload in 2-4 seconds, so I'm not seeing that this is where our efforts need to be exerted if we're serious about trying to save lives) Slowing someone down to be able to shoot 2 seconds slower is not a serious solution.


To be honest, it's not the Sandy Hooks, and Auroras that bother me as much as the number of guns that are owned by people who use them to commit single homicides, and the number of people who use them to kill themselves. Despite the fact we have had a fairly dramatic increase in mass shootings, they are still rare compared to the one on one homicides that occur every single day in this country.

These are not committed by people who are psychologically disturbed, a lot of them are homicides committed by people who lost it for a couple of minutes and had a lethal weapon available.

Whenever a solution is suggested, there's a cacophony of voices coming from the pro-gun side, asserting 'that won't work'. Nothing is going to stop the bloodshed completely, but I'd like it better if it went from a river to a stream. The easy access to guns by law abiding citizens is one of the biggest reasons criminals have them...but nobody on the pro-gun side ever takes responsibility for that. The NRA would have us believe that all those illegal guns just appear in the hands of criminals....then they demand the right to buy more guns to combat the criminal element.

Maybe it's time that gun owners accepted some restrictions, quit claiming that if gun ownership is restricted in anyway, the 2nd Amendment is going to implode. Admit that the rate of armed intruders shooting homeowners is negligible compared to the number of guns that were legally purchased, then found their way into the hands of criminals....or take responsibility for the river of blood that is shed when people shoot each other....but something has to give.

The louder y'all object, and the more offensive the NRA gets with their ads, the more I believe y'all don't give a damn about the number of gun deaths in this country....and that includes gang bangers who kill each other....they're still someone's son, brother, husband, best friend. Every gun death is mourned by someone. This is becoming more about who's going to win the argument than it is about reducing gun violence.

It's starting to remind me of little kids fighting over toys, screaming 'it's mine, it's mine', mom saying 'no, you have to share'. If the screaming child refuses to budge, won't accept a compromise, mom says 'fine, you wanna be like that, I'm taking all your toys away until you learn to be more reasonable'.

*maureen*
Bad Wolf

PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 6,012
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton

Posted: 2/28/2013 6:23:49 AM

When the government crosses the lines established by the Constitution, it's the responsibility of the citizens to do something about it. A law like that would be ineffective and very unpopular. They could not possibly require all existing guns owned by law abiding citizens to be insured because they couldn't possibly know about every single gun owned by all US citizens.


I'm interested in hearing why you think insuring against potential misuse is a violation of the second amendment. I'm also not comfortable with you speaking for all gun owners, I for one wouldn't have a problem complying with such a law. The second amendment guarantees the right to own a weapon, it doesn't guarantee it would be cheap.

lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?

PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,715
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio

Posted: 2/28/2013 6:48:53 AM

Whenever a solution is suggested, there's a cacophony of voices coming from the pro-gun side, asserting 'that won't work'. Nothing is going to stop the bloodshed completely, but I'd like it better if it went from a river to a stream. that the rate of armed intruders shooting homeowners is negligible compared to the number of guns that were legally purchased, then found their The easy access to guns by law abiding citizens is one of the biggest reasons criminals have them...but nobody on the pro-gun side ever takes responsibility for that. The NRA would have us believe that all those illegal guns just appear in the hands of criminals....then they demand the right to buy more guns to combat the criminal element.

Maybe it's time that gun owners accepted some restrictions, quit claiming that if gun ownership is restricted in anyway, the 2nd Amendment is going to implode. Admit way into the hands of criminals....or take responsibility for the river of blood that is shed when people shoot each other....but something has to give.

The louder y'all object, and the more offensive the NRA gets with their ads, the more I believe y'all don't give a damn about the number of gun deaths in this country....and that includes gang bangers who kill each other....they're still someone's son, brother, husband, best friend. Every gun death is mourned by someone. This is becoming more about who's going to win the argument than it is about reducing gun violence.




But I-95, can't you see that yes, illegal guns concern us, senseless gun deaths concern us. But Its not our FAULT that these things happen, and it's not our responsibility to curtail and give up our constitutionally protected rights to stop these things from happening?

Are you honestly saying that someone who legally and responsibly owns a gun, keeps it in their home with their doors locked, is at if someone breaks into their home (an illegal act, is it not?) and steals that gun and uses it in ANOTHER crime? I just can not wrap my head around that argument, no matter how many times I hear it.

That' is the flaw in the pro-gun control movement. It's not about controlling the GUNS. It's about controlling the PEOPLE. And until SOCIETY decides to change and embrace morality that has been eschewed as old fashioned, and to realize that government welfare has bred the gang and drug and criminal culture, controlling the GUNS will have no effect. People will still choose the criminal life, people will still kill others and themselves.

Honestly, this society has become so enamored with political correctness and the sham of "victim classes", that it has somehow become easier to strip all American's of their right to bear arms, than to address the REAL issues of broken families, immorality, poverty bred by dependence on government, glorified violence for profit, and total lack of personal responsibility that is perpetuated by people who believe it's MY fault because a criminal steals my gun and uses it in an illegal way.

Instead of trying to take away MY rights in order to curb your river of blood, why don't you (general you, not yelling at you directly, 95) try taking a look at what else you could be doing to promote a different culture in our society. Try analyzing exactly how those big government handouts in the war on poverty have really worked, and ask yourself if there is a better way.

Ask yourself why we are so shocked when a kid who has spent his teen years playing violent video games and seeing violent movies goes off the deep end and kills with a gun over sneakers...but our only inclination is to go after all the other gun owners instead of going after the movie and video game industries? If you are going to take away MY rights to own my gun because one kid freaks out...then be fair and take away everyones rights to play and watch those games and movies as well.

We have argued this ad naseum...gun owners have accepted thousands of restrictions on ownership already, with promises that every law that is passed would stop the violence. IT HAS NOT. Background checks were instituted because politicians assured us that it would definately cut down on guns "finding their way" into the wrong hands. IT HAS NOT. We were assured that these checks would never ever lead to a national registry (silly gun owners, there is no such thing as a slippery slope. Trust us.) Well, the slope is getting steeper and slipperier every single day it seems as the call for a national registry is growing louder and louder.



It's starting to remind me of little kids fighting over toys, screaming 'it's mine, it's mine', mom saying 'no, you have to share'. If the screaming child refuses to budge, won't accept a compromise, mom says 'fine, you wanna be like that, I'm taking all your toys away until you learn to be more reasonable'.


But we are not fighting over toys. Guns are a tool, a right, and a fundamental cornerstone of our constitutional republic. I submit that American's right to bear arms is more important and more ingrained than our right to vote. Honestly, sometimes I think I would like to see the right to vote go back to being restricted to property and business owners. I think letting people who are dependent on government handouts vote is insane. But that isnt going to happen, is it? Hell, as left said, liberals won't even let us ask for an ID to exercise the right to vote, yet voting has the ability to be far more dangerous to the general welfare than guns do.





"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge

Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill.

lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?

PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,715
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio

Posted: 2/28/2013 7:08:45 AM

I'm interested in hearing why you think insuring against potential misuse is a violation of the second amendment. I'm also not comfortable with you speaking for all gun owners, I for one wouldn't have a problem complying with such a law. The second amendment guarantees the right to own a weapon, it doesn't guarantee it would be cheap.


The 15th amendment guarantees the right to vote. Actually, it prohibits federal or state governments from prohibiting the right to vote based on "race, color, or previous conditions of servitude". It doesn't guarantee that you will never have to prove your identity or current condition of citizenship in order to exercise that right. So you will 100%n support universal voter ID laws, right?

So a few people might have to jump through some hoops (like take a bus and stand in line, and maybe pay $25 or so) to get an ID...but if the right to vote is so important to them, they will gladly do all that so that we can maintain the integrity of our elections. Afterall, the 15th amendment guarantees you the right to vote, but it doesn't guarantee that it has to be easy for you.

The right to privacy is used to guarantee your right to an abortion. But it doesn't guarantee that it will be cheap, so it's okay to withdraw all tax dollars from Planned Parenthood, right?

See, only once, ONCE, in our entire constitution, are the words "Shall not be infringed" used. In the SECOND amendment. I think that assures us that the Founders valued this right and knew it's importance. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - powerful words.





"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge

Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill.

*maureen*
Bad Wolf

PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 6,012
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton

Posted: 2/28/2013 7:26:18 AM

So you will 100%n support universal voter ID laws, right?



yes, I support a states right to have ID required in order to vote.


So a few people might have to jump through some hoops (like take a bus and stand in line, and maybe pay $25 or so) to get an ID...but if the right to vote is so important to them, they will gladly do all that so that we can maintain the integrity of our elections. Afterall, the 15th amendment guarantees you the right to vote, but it doesn't guarantee that it has to be easy for you.



The 24th Amendment requires that there not be a poll tax in order to vote, I support a free ID system for those states that require a voter ID.


The right to privacy is used to guarantee your right to an abortion. But it doesn't guarantee that it will be cheap, so it's okay to withdraw all tax dollars from Planned Parenthood, right?



Yep, we are way over budget and spending, everyone has to give a little.


See, only once, ONCE, in our entire constitution, are the words "Shall not be infringed" used. In the SECOND amendment. I think that assures us that the Founders valued this right and knew it's importance. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - powerful words.


It sucks that you made an assumption about how I would answer your questions in order to beat me over the head with the second amendment, made you look a little irrational don't you think.


The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Excessive monetary demands to allow citizens a right that has been already granted is infringement.


Define excessive. Is the cost of a gun excessive? How about the cost of ammunition?

*Erin
triathlon pea

PeaNut 80,864
April 2003
Posts: 10,658
Layouts: 13
Loc: Gone to chemo with BethAnne

Posted: 2/28/2013 7:43:54 AM

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Excessive monetary demands to allow citizens a right that has been already granted is infringement.
So. Free guns for everyone, then?

Infringement has not been adequately defined, and in my opinion an insurance requirement does not constitute infringement.



Sarah*H
Bring me that horizon!

PeaNut 239,162
December 2005
Posts: 29,016
Layouts: 417
Loc: The final frontier

Posted: 2/28/2013 8:00:45 AM

Infringement has not been adequately defined, and in my opinion an insurance requirement does not constitute infringement.


You know what also needs to be defined? (Okay, I'll go with you know what else needs to not be completely ignored?)

"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state"




I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,376
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 2/28/2013 8:01:56 AM

The right to privacy is used to guarantee your right to an abortion. But it doesn't guarantee that it will be cheap, so it's okay to withdraw all tax dollars from Planned Parenthood, right?


Your argument here is flawed. Tax dollars do support Planned Parenthood, but not abortions performed there. Federal funds have not been used at PP for abortion services in 36 years. So the right to privacy as it applies to abortion is sound. No, it doesn't have to be cheap, but withdrawing tax dollars from PP by trying to tie it to abortions is not valid.

*Erin
triathlon pea

PeaNut 80,864
April 2003
Posts: 10,658
Layouts: 13
Loc: Gone to chemo with BethAnne

Posted: 2/28/2013 8:06:23 AM
Good point, Sarah. Why is that part always ignored?



I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,376
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 2/28/2013 8:21:15 AM

But I-95, can't you see that yes, illegal guns concern us, senseless gun deaths concern us. But Its not our FAULT that these things happen, and it's not our responsibility to curtail and give up our constitutionally protected rights to stop these things from happening?

Are you honestly saying that someone who legally and responsibly owns a gun, keeps it in their home with their doors locked, is at if someone breaks into their home (an illegal act, is it not?) and steals that gun and uses it in ANOTHER crime? I just can not wrap my head around that argument, no matter how many times I hear it.


Ummm, yeah, I think that's exactly what I'm saying . A lot of those guns manage to get into the hands of criminals because the gun owner did not have them adequately secured. And I put myself into that guilty group. I've mentioned before that our house was robbed, during the day, nobody home or hurt, but the thieves picked up the locked gun case and left with it along with the 8 guns inside. In hindsight, it should have been bolted to the floor, or wall, but it wasn't. That's on us (well, DH since they were his guns!!) There is not a week goes by that I don't wonder whether any of those lethal weapons has been used to take a life. Our guns were more secure than those kept in most homes I've been in. As far as responsibility goes, I do feel responsible for our part in adding to the weapons cache of a criminal. The experience was enough to convince me that we do not need guns in our house.




That' is the flaw in the pro-gun control movement. It's not about controlling the GUNS. It's about controlling the PEOPLE.


Of COURSE it's about controlling people. Every law we have is about controlling people. That's what the laws do, they control people when they can't control themselves.

(in order for this to not grow to epic length, I'm going to continue in a separate post)

I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,376
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 2/28/2013 8:57:44 AM


Instead of trying to take away MY rights in order to curb your river of blood, why don't you (general you, not yelling at you directly, 95) try taking a look at what else you could be doing to promote a different culture in our society. Try analyzing exactly how those big government handouts in the war on poverty have really worked, and ask yourself if there is a better way.
If you are going to take away MY rights to own my gun because one kid freaks out...then be fair and take away everyones rights to play and watch those games and movies as well.


Oh how I wish I could actually influence a different culture. I would MUCH rather our tax dollars be spent on education, after school programs to keep kids off the streets, and a whole bunch of other programs that support making a citizen employable, literate, and have a sense of self worth. Our current welfare system is designed for failure, but a lot of the same people who demand their gun rights, are the same people who yell the loudest about, and object to, almost any social program. Every time I think about how many tax dollars we poured into two unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With that money we could have given the most underprivileged citizens a real chance at success. I know we'd still have a certain segment who don't want to be part of society, but given the right tools, a huge number would choose to be righteous citizens.

I'm not trying to take away your right to own a gun. I want to keep my right to own one too.



We have argued this ad naseum...gun owners have accepted thousands of restrictions on ownership already, with promises that every law that is passed would stop the violence. IT HAS NOT. Background checks were instituted because politicians assured us that it would definately cut down on guns "finding their way" into the wrong hands. IT HAS NOT. We were assured that these checks would never ever lead to a national registry (silly gun owners, there is no such thing as a slippery slope. Trust us.) Well, the slope is getting steeper and slipperier every single day it seems as the call for a national registry is growing louder and louder.


I agree that there are tons of laws on the books that are not enforced. I completely support a taking a cold hard look at what's already in place before we start adding new laws. I really do think State Governments need to clean up their own backyards before inviting the Feds to do it for them. If States would take the 'Joe Arpaio approach' and apply it to enforcing gun laws, or the lack thereof, we wouldn't need the Feds to run around trying to appease everyone, and being completely ineffectual. (NB: I don't much like the way Sheriff Arpaio does things, but at least he does something, with no apologies)



But we are not fighting over toys.


No, we're not, but we (both sides of the debate) are behaving like irrational toddlers fighting over toys. Instead of welcoming rational debate, both sides are digging in deeper, getting more frustrated until we're both entrenched in an all or nothing fight...and like the mom in my analogy, you run the risk of the Feds stepping in and taking it all away.



Hell, as left said, liberals won't even let us ask for an ID to exercise the right to vote, yet voting has the ability to be far more dangerous to the general welfare than guns do.


Liberals?? You really must start saying 'some Liberals', so as not to tar us all with the same brush. Personally I support voter ID. If you want to vote, get off your ass and go get an ID. If you're too poor to pay the $3 for a State ID (or whatever your State charges) then I'm more than happy for the State to waive the fee. After reading some of the ignorant cr*p people post to Facebook, I'm ready to require an IQ test before you're allowed to vote!!!

Enough
PeaAddict

PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 1,855
Layouts: 0

Posted: 2/28/2013 10:47:41 AM

Ummm, yeah, I think exactly what I'm saying that. A lot of those guns manage to get into the hands of criminals because the gun owner did not have them adequately secured. And I put myself into that guilty group. I've mentioned before that our house was robbed, during the day, nobody home or hurt, but the thieves picked up the locked gun case and left with it along with the 8 guns inside. In hindsight, it should have been bolted to the floor, or wall, but it wasn't. That's on us (well, DH since they were his guns!!) There is not a week goes by that I don't wonder whether any of those lethal weapons has been used to take a life. Our guns were more secure than those kept in most homes I've been in. As far as responsibility goes, I do feel responsible for our part in adding to the weapons cache of a criminal. The experience was enough to convince me that we do not need guns in our house.


So when your stolen guns turn up as used in a crime, you don't mind taking responsibility for "your part" in those guns ending up being used in a shooting death or 2-3 and being charged s few thousand dollars x2-3 and spending a year in jail x 2-3 because you didn't bolt the locked gun case in your locked house to the floor?





MizIndependent
Is there another word for synonym?

PeaNut 256,623
April 2006
Posts: 14,868
Layouts: 2
Loc: Right where I'm s'posed to be.

Posted: 2/28/2013 10:51:45 AM

So. Free guns for everyone, then?
Seems to work in Switzerland.



Youtube: Hungry For Change - Your Health is in Your Hands. Dieting doesn't work, this movie tells you why.

Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does.


*Erin
triathlon pea

PeaNut 80,864
April 2003
Posts: 10,658
Layouts: 13
Loc: Gone to chemo with BethAnne

Posted: 2/28/2013 12:11:51 PM
Great, so you're all for the other parts of Swiss gun law like mandatory military service, gun training courses, and registered ammunition? Also, carrying a concealed weapon is not allowed without a permit, but unlike here you'd need a bona fide reason to get a permit. "I want one" wouldn't be a good enough reason.



MizIndependent
Is there another word for synonym?

PeaNut 256,623
April 2006
Posts: 14,868
Layouts: 2
Loc: Right where I'm s'posed to be.

Posted: 2/28/2013 12:14:00 PM
I'm all for responsibility in gun ownership including required training, storing, etc.



Youtube: Hungry For Change - Your Health is in Your Hands. Dieting doesn't work, this movie tells you why.

Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does.


*Erin
triathlon pea

PeaNut 80,864
April 2003
Posts: 10,658
Layouts: 13
Loc: Gone to chemo with BethAnne

Posted: 2/28/2013 12:17:01 PM
And mandatory military service until age 50 or so? I kind of think the "patriots" would balk at that one.



I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!

PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 20,376
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando

Posted: 2/28/2013 12:28:52 PM

So when your stolen guns turn up as used in a crime, you don't mind taking responsibility for "your part" in those guns ending up being used in a shooting death or 2-3 and being charged s few thousand dollars x2-3 and spending a year in jail x 2-3 because you didn't bolt the locked gun case in your locked house to the floor?


No, I don't mind taking responsibility for some part of that. We were remiss in not securing that cabinet, even though it never X'ed my mind that someone would pick the whole thing up (not a one man job by any means) Maybe they should come with warning labels??

I would be more horrified by the fact a weapon I was responsible for securing had been used in a crime, than I would be about paying a fine for the transgression. Since the guns were secured in a locked gun cabinet, I don't think I should go to jail over it.

People are held responsible for the crimes of others all the time. Let's say you are riding around town with your BFF, she asks you to stop so she can get a coke at the gas station. You stop, she gets out, goes in, robs the place and shoots the owner dead. In some States you are considered as responsible for his death as the person who pulled the trigger. There are thousands of people sitting in jail who didn't commit the crime themselves, but because they transported the criminal to the scene, or were somehow involved in felony act which resulted in a homicide, even if they had no clue anyone was going to get killed.

As far as I'm concerned a lax gun owner, whose weapons are stolen, does bear some responsibility for their actions.

Enough
PeaAddict

PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 1,855
Layouts: 0

Posted: 2/28/2013 1:07:01 PM
How funny that as I'm getting ready to read your reply the phone rings. On the caller ID: NRA

leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,091
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 2/28/2013 1:10:44 PM

So. Free guns for everyone, then?

Infringement has not been adequately defined, and in my opinion an insurance requirement does not constitute infringement.


There will be free guns available only when the government takes over this industry.

I'm not for that and no one I know is for that.



Look at the health insurance requirements and how well they work before trying to push firearm insurance as a panacea for all the wrongs done by criminals with guns.

It's an infringement on the 2nd Amendment because at least at this point in time, firearm insurance is completely above our ability to make and keep available to those who would be required to have it. That is the very definition of infringement - requiring someone to buy something that is not available.







If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,091
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 2/28/2013 1:22:46 PM
I95 - I know this tears at you. It would tear at me too.

But.... you are not responsible for the criminal actions of others. If people broke into your home and carried out a heavy gun safe along with the 8 guns inside, it's ridiculous to assume that just bolting it to the wall or floor would have stopped them from getting the weapons.

If boltheads were inside the safe - and they'd be pretty easy to undo if they were outside - then what's to stop them from cutting that part of the wall or floor out with a saw and still taking the whole caboodle?

You need to forgive yourself at some point. {{{hugs}}}







If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



Enough
PeaAddict

PeaNut 553,030
April 2012
Posts: 1,855
Layouts: 0

Posted: 2/28/2013 1:35:08 PM

I would be about paying a fine for the transgression. ...I don't think I should go to jail over it.
I don't think you get to choose the sentence they impose.





Let's say you are riding around town with your BFF, she asks you to stop so she can get a coke at the gas station. You stop, she gets out, goes in, robs the place and shoots the owner dead. In some States you are considered as responsible for his death as the person who pulled the trigger. There are thousands of people sitting in jail who didn't commit the crime themselves, but because they transported the criminal to the scene, or were somehow involved in felony act which resulted in a homicide, even if they had no clue anyone was going to get killed.
"or were somehow involved in felony act" are your keywords. Does it happen? Yes but, there's a lot more to a conviction than driving someone and being clueless about what is going to take place and remaining clueless to what has taken place. You've left a lot out and have reduced it to the ridiculous to make your point and it doesn't hold up in actual real life scenarios.





As far as I'm concerned a lack gun owner, whose weapons are stolen, does bear some responsibility for their actions.
So when will Obama be in jail for his role in Fast & Furious which ultimately allowed illegal aliens to kill border patrol agents?




1 2 >
Post Reply . Post New TopicShow/Hide Icons . Show/Hide Signatures
Hide
{{ title }}
{{ icon }}
{{ body }}
{{ footer }}