JesseL
Member
Eric F said:Ah I see now, I wish it did work this way but it does not.
It does work that way. Just not where you live, apparently.
Like I said above, where I live it works exactly that way and it works very well.
Eric F said:Ah I see now, I wish it did work this way but it does not.
There. Fixed it for you.She is simply and completely misguided in her beliefs that banning certain classes of guns and implementing more restrictions will help with the current crime problems, it is certain they would not BUT, it does not mean she is a horrible woman many people make her out to be.
felons should obviously not be able to get guns legally.
It comes down to a compromise where both parties hopefully can agree. It also fairly dependent on what exactly the issue is as our current social standards obviously have sway.
Unfortunately you must make your laws based upon the lowest common denominator.
I could argue that it is unfair that I cannot walk into a sporting goods store and purchase a fully functional M16, the thing is even if I would use it responsibly - the potential damage it could do when used in a inappropriate manner is of far greater magnitude then that of any gain in allowing me to purchase one in such manner.
It is unfair to the majority of the people, to have to suffer the cost of that gun being used inappropriately if it could be prevented by me giving up something relatively minor.
If a gun ban could magically make guns disappear, obviously gun violence would cease to exist.
She is simply guided to believe that banning certain classes of guns and implementing more restrictions will help with the current crime problems, it is very likely they would not BUT, it does not mean she is a horrible woman many people make her out to be.
I certainly don't have a problem with the background check system she implemented, felons should obviously not be able to get guns legally.
She is hardly anymore evil then you are, you just have two different ideologies. Sometimes people need to be controlled when they can no longer control themselves in a manor which is conducive to a positive environment.
A M16 sprayed into a crowded stadium could do allot of damage, you are correct in saying even a AR-15 with a user who has a happy trigger finger could be used to quiet a negative affect but it still can not output the amount of bullets as quickly as a gun which has FA.
I don't mind losing minor rights, as I understand that sometimes you have to prevent something before it happens instead of simply acting once it does.
I will withdraw from this conversation as it has drawn it off topic, but I simply felt a reply was within regulations due to the comments in regards to rights and perceived violations.
Yes I do believe anyone carrying a gun off of his or her personal property without going directly to an approved recreational area needs to hold a license to do so.
She can BELIEVE anything she wants, just like David Duke or Osama bin Laden.Although I do disagree with some things Brady advocates, I certainly don't vilify her, she believes removing guns will remove violence and in some ways she is correct.
I've got a political science degree. I look at other "perspectives" all the time. That doesn't mean that I have to respect EVIL perspectives, whether they come from Josef Stalin, Nathan Bedford Forrest or Sarah Brady.Many people get so entrenched in their position that they never look at things from the other prospective.
You mean like me and Charles Manson? We certainly have different ideologies. So he's NOT evil, right?She is hardly anymore evil then you are, you just have two different ideologies.
But that's NOT what you want. You want to control people who MIGHT do something wrong, who HAVEN'T.Sometimes people need to be controlled when they can no longer control themselves in a manor which is conducive to a positive environment.
And in my basement, I can make a more reliable and appropriate automatic weapon (Sten SMG) for that purpose. Does that mean that I shouldn't be able to own a sheet metal break, power tools or an arc welder?A M16 sprayed into a crowded stadium could do allot of damage, you are correct in saying even a AR-15 with a user who has a happy trigger finger could be used to quiet a negative affect but it still can not output the amount of bullets as quickly as a gun which has FA.
"MINOR rights"? What's a minor right?I don't mind losing minor rights, as I understand that sometimes you have to prevent something before it happens instead of simply acting once it does.
Of course, they'd also have to ban knives. And bats. And big sticks. And fists.If a gun ban could magically make guns disappear, obviously gun violence would cease to exist.
Sorry I meant vilify,
If a gun ban could magically make guns disappear, obviously gun violence would cease to exist.
Compromise sounds nice; but when you compromise with evil you still get evil.
Now I understand that you may not think Sarah Bray's goals are evil, but it is to me an inescapable conclusion. The only arguments that favor gun control come down to either willful ignorance of its effectiveness or make it a part of a larger plan to pacify and control people against their will. I don't think Mrs. Brady is particularly stupid, so that narrows it down some...
You're not harmed by any of those... any more than you're harmed by me owning an M16... or a water cooled .50 machinegun for that matter.
After reading more of the posts by KP89, I have come to the conclusion that he or she is working for the Brady Bunch, ugh, is
an anti gun
So then concerned citizen calls the local news, the local news puts any spin they want on this story, and dispatchers and supervisors all lose their jobs.
Yeah, no public outcry risk on that one. You obviously have no idea of the politics involved in trying to run a city's police force.
There's a difference in harrasement and sending out a unit to examine the situation. That's what the post was refering to. Read the whole thing before making a comment like that.Nor do I give a damn. It is absolutely not within the proper purview of the police to harass a citizen for a perfectly legal action just to make themselves look good to the ignorant masses.
There's a difference in harrasement and sending out a unit to examine the situation. That's what the post was refering to. Read the whole thing before making a comment like that.
jumped up and casually strolled onto the scene. There were 5 units in the parking lot dealing with a disturbance not related to this one, but two LEO's happened to see my friend walking up to the entrance and stopped him
:banghead: Nope, the only "intended purpose" of a gun is to fire a projectile.Guns have the intended purpose of killing things, I see no reason to openly display that object to anyone else.
I suggest you do the same. This had led to a tangent within the thread where we were discussing whether or not a dispatcher should tell a caller to buzz off when reporting. Again, if you can't read the whole thread, at least read the section you are refering to. Duh.Treo said:Said the man who didn't
Ummm Pot meet Kettle