the beauty of Gun ownership (2nd amendment - Page 10 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #91 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 03:23 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove View Post
Of all the cities I regularly travel, Louisville is by far the one with the most impressive slums and the scariest. That area off the interstate (65?) just north of the university looks like a fucking hell hole. I feel safer in Chicago than I do there any day.
That was kinda the point that I was trying to make.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 03:30 PM
Surely A Large Human
 
Qubes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,252
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith View Post
Theft of your car, and the consequent damage caused by it is something your insurance company insures you against. If you leave the keys in the car and and invite the thief to take it, your insurance company might view their obligation in a different light.

Theft of weapons from individuals is not what is enabling the 0.1% of the bad guys to buy assault weapons and police killing, bullet proof jacket penetrating, rounds. It is theft from shipping companies and shipping docks and warehouses. All that can be made the manufacturers' problem. Just make him liable for ammunition usage that is stolen from his inventory until a legitimate new owner has accepted transfer of ownership and liability. The result will be fewer storage facilities, better shippers, and closer tabs on production. And higher prices, lower availability, and all the other things that make it harder for the 0.1% to get their hands on stuff they are not supposed to have.

By making people liable for the consequences that happen with their firearms, whether they are the manufacturers (first, and for all the stuff that is not intended for sale to the individual), or individuals will make no difference to the law abiding and careful manufacturers or individuals. They are not a source of weapons for the 0.1% bad guys. It will make the ones scoffing at the laws (manufacturers mainly) who profit from moving inventory illicitly. Whether it is insurance scams or or just tax write-offs. And the individuals who have guns stolen will have to learn to be better custodians of dangerous shit or give up gun ownership. If you have a weapon stolen, it should become a reason for the authorities to keep better tabs on you too.

Just throwing your hands up in the air and saying there is nothing that can be done is without principle or precedent when it has the potential to so adversely affects the lives of innocent people. It would be like suggesting trying to stop child molestation is just not practical because every time we arrest one, another pops up somewhere else.

Jim
This thread has been a keeper so far...good stuff.

I would just like to add, that as I've recently learned, there's not in fact room for principle in the 21st century. So, that might impact some of your arguments.

That is all.
Qubes is offline  
post #93 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 03:39 PM
Always Remembered RIP
 
cascade's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2006
Vehicle: 1991 560SEC AMG
Location: Grass Valley, N. Calif. / Gardnerville, Nevada
Posts: 10,146
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to cascade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast55 View Post
When the Constitution was written, it was unanimous that the common man should have equal access to the same arms that a government would have to prevent the armed oppression of the general population. Did anyone claim that it's OK to "blow away" someone for looking at them funny clueless? Our Government has actually done a pretty good job of keeping weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear weapons from the public, something that would have been a part of the Constitution if was necessary at the time. No one would need nerve gas or a nuclear weapon to defend themselves, use a little common sense please. Think about it. It was so important that it was the SECOND article to be addressed, right after the one about free speech, religion, and the right to assemble and petition the government when we don't like the way things are going. The second amendment is very clear in its intent and the individual right to keep and bear arms has been upheld at every challenge. Bet that just pisses you off huh? You go right ahead and "blow away" the next guy that looks at you funny, at least we won't have to put up with your condescending bullshit anymore.
Your arguments are specious. JimSmith has blown away most of them, so I will not repeat what he said, but in answer to my query mcbear stated that for one reason or another, over 30,000 Americans are slaughtered with guns a year. Even your pious sanctimony can't wish away those statistics.

With numbers that large, even YOU need to admit something is SERIOUSLY wrong. And yes, a fair number of the eaths are caused by people picking up a gun in anger over a trivial disagreement or just looking funny, at someone.

And you think, even if I killed someone with a gun who looke at me funny, you wouldn't have to put up with by "Condescending bull$hit" think again.
It would be VERY easy to buy "another" gun on the street or anywhere even though there are a few weak laws against that on the books.

As was pointed out there ARE people under the present situations, who would have guns and WOULD blow you away for looking at you funny - not me - just for the record - and in some cases all that is enough is wearing a red jersey when you should be wearing a blue one.

There are too many guns on the streets and too many volatile, angry and mean people around and ready to use them. How many of those 30,000 gun deaths a year relate to a "well regulated militia"

Quote:

Most of us understand the difference between defending ones life or property and murder. Purposefully inflamatory remarks don't help your anti-gun position or make anyone else look like a "gun nut", sorry. It's absurd to maintain that gun ownership makes one a "nut", just as it's absurd to try to reduce crime by passing increasingly restrictive gun laws. They don't work and it's been proven by FBI and DOJ statistics. The genie is already out of the bottle, putting the cork back in won't help. Addressing the social/racial/economic issues that cause violent crime is the only thing that will reduce it. Face it, the bad guys would all start carrying knives if every gun in the contry disappeared today. Next it would be hammers, screwdrivers, ice picks.
Just because you don't like being called a "gun nut" doesn't make you not one. Mere gun ownership per se doesn't make you a gun nut, but advocating as you do, that utter unregulated ownership of guns, such as you appear to do, WOULD make you one. The NRA's position that guns made for the efficient mass destruction of human life, such as the AK-47, be utterly unregulated, show quite clearly that they serve only the interest of gun nuts - and those who manufacture them. Sorry, this is NOT Baghdad today where possession of them is the norm. It is the USA

Pleading "the genie is already out of the bottle" is a lame excuse for doing nothing. People like you let that genie out of the bottle in the first place anyway

Frankly the assertion that if all bad guys couldn't get guns they would resort to guns, hammers and icepicks, would be a GREAT improvement.

It would be a LOT harder to casually kill people with those, as it takes proximity and real physical effort to kell even one person with an icepick or a hammer. Not quite the same effort required as hosing down a room of civilians with an AK 47. You have inadvertantly made a pretty good argument for banning guns with a remark like that.

The 2nd Amendment never could be proven to be a license for a mass of unregulated Rambo wannabes hypersensitive to insults or in constant fear of armed street thugs and home invaders, or so utterly unregulated that in excess of 30,000 deaths a year - few if any, related to national defense, occur.

Jim
<--- superschnelle 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV, Hochverdichtung = high compression (11/2011) ... Wie im Freien Fall. Nur horizontal.


"I swear to god, it's like I live in a trailer of common sense, and stare out the window at a tornado of stupidity." >'='<
cascade is offline  
post #94 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 04:59 PM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Fast55's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2004
Vehicle: 2006 E55, 2005 SLK55, a few others
Location: Ventura County USA
Posts: 986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You're really starting to make yourself look bad here. Show me where I advocate "utter unregulated ownership of guns". You can't. Your 30K number also conveniently leaves out the fact that 65%+ of those deaths are suicides. It also includes deaths of criminals at the hands of police or citizens defending themselves, and accidental gun deaths. What makes a law "weak"? The fact that it isn't enforced, not that it isn't there. I am 100% for nailing criminals to the wall and keeping them there. Do you honestly believe that completely outlawing guns would get any of them except those owned by the law abiding out of the public's hands? Do you really think that? My "genie out of the bottle" analogy is in reference to the fact we as a nation own 225 million+ firearms. They aren't going to disappear no matter what laws are passed. Do you advocate that the government outlaw guns and be allowed to search any and all persons and property in search of these weapons? The Second Amendment isn't a "license for a mass of unregulated Rambo wannabes hypersensitive to insults or in constant fear of armed street thugs and home invaders, or so utterly unregulated that in excess of 30,000 deaths a year - few if any, related to national defense, occur. " nor did I claim it to be. It is a guarantee that I may arm myself for the purpose of defending myself or my family and has been proven to be an individual right every single time a "gun control nut" or group, has challenged that fact. I don't mind being called a "gun nut", it just makes you look bad, not me. I am well trained (former military), and quite responsible. I go out of my way to encourage responsible ownership, handling, marksmanship, and storage of firearms to anyone who will listen and have no problem "dropping dime" on anyone who does not. Jim has not "blown away" a single point I have made, nor have you. The problem is indeed socio-economic, not the number of guns owned legally or illegally.
Fast55 is offline  
post #95 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 05:37 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast55 View Post
I fail to see how a mfg. should liable for theft of their product once it has been transferred into the hands of a shipping company. Isn't the shipping company liable? Who are the mfgs. that move product illicitly? I'd be more than a little surprised to find a mfg. that falls into that category and if there are any, I'll bet they are already out of business. At least in Ca. you are already completely liable for what happens with a firearm registered to you if it isn't/wasn't stored legally, ie: locked up in an approved container or disable through some form of trigger/action locking device. I don't even begin to suggest that anyone shouldn't be liable when they don't follow the rules, just that we have plenty of rules now.
You are kidding about the shipping question aren't you? I have seen how money is transferred and how firearms are transferred. The difference is remarkable, and the basis is cost. So, if you ship with a low cost bidder with lower security practices than is used for other commercial transactions, like picking up or delivering cash, you did so consciously. If there is a consequence you should be responsible. Quite simple. I did not mean to suggest the manufacturers were using illicit means to ship things. Just negligence. All it should take is a single shipment that is hijacked in this industry to make it clear that security is a prime consideration. Since that didn't work, making the manufacturer liable until there is a registered transfer of ownership that is filed with the local, state and federal government should.

I agree that some, maybe most, gun owners are carefull to meet regulations and act responsibly. They are not the ones putting guns into the hands of criminals, so adding onerous oversight by the government that makes them miserable for complying with the intent and letter of the law is a waste of time. A study on how the system loopholes serve the 0.1% of bad guys needs to be conducted to identify how to keep these guys gun-less. While I am getting older, I would feel a lot better dealing with a doped up assailant who had a hammer than a gun. Or a knife, or a baseball bat. It is the gun that makes us most unequal.

The other side of the coin is the fact that no one needs to have an automatic weapon, or something capable of spewing 50 lbs of lead in a minute as several ounce projectiles moving at Mach 2. The second ammendment words are just out of context when that argument is made. It has no more validity than letting me order a new, fully functional, nuclear MIRV'd intercontinental missile because the second ammendment gives me the right without any recourse by the government. Suggesting Arms=guns only is already a major concession by the NRA, because that is not what the words mean. I would rather start the discussion from the perspective the words are defective because they make it my right to own a nuke, as they exist. And, that is not what we want, so we need to start working on figuring what we want. If there are some gun lobbyists who think it is ok for me to have a nuke, they will likely be voted down. This is America, and we should still be able to find a rational solution that enough Americans agree with to change the words. If not I want my nuke - fuck guns. I'll be likek Crocodile Dundee in NYC - "That's not a knife.... THIS is a KNIFE."

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #96 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 06:00 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
mcbear and Fast55 have made the point that there is a socio-economic problem at the center of the aggressive behavior that gives gun ownership a bad name. I won't deny there are socio-economic circumstances that contribute a significant element to the mix that often ends up with guns going off and killing people. I agree with the premise. I just don't think guns get a free ride because the socio-economic problem has been issued a trump card by the pro-gun ownership side.

The first reason is, there are very few gun lobbyists who are collecting money and volunteering to help solve the socio-economic problems. I would suggest, and I know this is not the case for all gun ownership activists, even NRA activists, that many of the people offering this argument to win their gun ownership case, are the last ones to support government or other programs to support inner city programs to divert the youth there from a path to guns and violence. So, I hear the words but they are no more than insincere levers in an argument that all too often shrilly supports the right to own any gun, with any capability, for anyone. The NRA guys did not support any of the laws on the books today, that need to be enforced, but apparently without the dedicated cooperation of the NRA. There is a concept called "malicious compliance" and the NRA is often guilty of this means of complying with gun laws.

Gun control laws are not enforced for reasons. There is another place to look for why people who want them enforced figure the laws are inadequate. If gun ownership supporters want to take the wind out of the gun control advocates, actively pursue the enforcement of the existing laws. I don't (and this is purely sarcastic and not based on any intimate knowledge) believe that is a high priority topic at the NRA meetings for some reason. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #97 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 07:59 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith View Post
mcbear and Fast55 have made the point that there is a socio-economic problem at the center of the aggressive behavior that gives gun ownership a bad name. I won't deny there are socio-economic circumstances that contribute a significant element to the mix that often ends up with guns going off and killing people. I agree with the premise. I just don't think guns get a free ride because the socio-economic problem has been issued a trump card by the pro-gun ownership side.

The first reason is, there are very few gun lobbyists who are collecting money and volunteering to help solve the socio-economic problems. I would suggest, and I know this is not the case for all gun ownership activists, even NRA activists, that many of the people offering this argument to win their gun ownership case, are the last ones to support government or other programs to support inner city programs to divert the youth there from a path to guns and violence. So, I hear the words but they are no more than insincere levers in an argument that all too often shrilly supports the right to own any gun, with any capability, for anyone. The NRA guys did not support any of the laws on the books today, that need to be enforced, but apparently without the dedicated cooperation of the NRA. There is a concept called "malicious compliance" and the NRA is often guilty of this means of complying with gun laws.

Gun control laws are not enforced for reasons. There is another place to look for why people who want them enforced figure the laws are inadequate. If gun ownership supporters want to take the wind out of the gun control advocates, actively pursue the enforcement of the existing laws. I don't (and this is purely sarcastic and not based on any intimate knowledge) believe that is a high priority topic at the NRA meetings for some reason. Jim
Guns don't get a free ride. No one has ever said they do. We have laws to buy them, laws to carry them, laws to cover ammunition sales, laws to address possession issues. But again to bring up that annoying little ditty that the gun lobby sings, Forks did not make Rosie FAT. Address the socio-economic problem WHILE aggressively going after gangs and drug traffickers and the problem will CONTINUE to drop.

NOTE that 56.5&#37; of all gun deaths are suicide so using the 30,000 number is a bit misleading. 12863 is still too high.

As for folks who support firearms addressing the socio-economic issues, apparently you are unaware of all the camps that the NRA, DU, Sportsmens Leagues and youth centers around the country support. I know that when I taught range classes and USPSA classes I had several other instructors that I worked with that did nothing but teach skeet shooting and target shooting and gun safety at inner city camps all over the country.

As for discussing strict enforcement of current laws. You can be sure it is a high priority topic at NRA and other organizations. They are the groups most interested in insuring that gun ownership gets back to the good name it used to have before is was cooped by gangs.

You say "Gun control laws are not enforced for reasons". What reasons? Why?

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.

Last edited by mcbear; 09-21-2007 at 08:02 PM.
mcbear is offline  
post #98 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 08:13 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
In 2004 there were 12,863 non-suicide gun related deaths in the United States according to the CDC, 43.5&#37; of all gun related deaths.

In 2004 there were 16,694 DUI related deaths in the United States according to the NHTSA, 39% of all traffic related deaths.

Why is there blind outrage to ban guns, to highly regulate gun owners, to take entire classes of weapons away from existence [which make up .0012% of deaths] and then blow off the current laws on the books?

Where is that same blind outrage to address the volume of deaths caused by drunk drivers? Where is the call to ban cars, to highly regulate car owners, to take entire classes of cars away from existence [which make up a higher percentage of accidents, by the way] and just let the current ineffective laws stay on the books?

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #99 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 08:19 PM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Fast55's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2004
Vehicle: 2006 E55, 2005 SLK55, a few others
Location: Ventura County USA
Posts: 986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Careful, this may also be termed "specious".
Fast55 is offline  
post #100 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 08:57 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
Guns don't get a free ride. No one has ever said they do. We have laws to buy them, laws to carry them, laws to cover ammunition sales, laws to address possession issues. But again to bring up that annoying little ditty that the gun lobby sings, Forks did not make Rosie FAT. Address the socio-economic problem WHILE aggressively going after gangs and drug traffickers and the problem will CONTINUE to drop.
There are several issues wrapped in this single argument. First, I am not advocating that all guns be turned in. Or, necessarily, that new laws need to be written and enacted to address the ownership of "reasonable" kinds and numbers of gun. I am motivated by the defense of the distorted (my opinion) interpretation of the words in the second ammendment to mean anyone can own any kind of weapon as long as you call it a gun. I don't think that is the context of the words and their intended meaning. Otherwise I should be allowed to buy a scrapped SSN688 Class sub for its scrap value, but intact. And a bunch of other heavy military stuff. The words in the second ammendment are being stretched out of context every day by the NRA and gun lobbies on this issue. It would be far more constructive to negotiate some new words and have a debate, a vote, and if it passes, live with the new words.

Now, I also concede Rosie gets fat by eating, and she would eat with her hands to get fat if there were no forks. I get it. I don't think the socio-economic problem is inadequate training of kids to use guns safely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
NOTE that 56.5% of all gun deaths are suicide so using the 30,000 number is a bit misleading. 12863 is still too high.
This is a pointless argument and could be sustained endlessly with more pointless bullshit. Nearly every town in America has had a gun murder in the last five years. We all actually have had a neighbor or closer person involved in some kind of gun event that went wrong for someone. If 12863 is still too high, lets confine ourselves to that number. The point is shitty things are happening to more people every year that involve guns than in the past. It is a growing problem, with no sign of effective control. Yes it is a socio-economic problem, at least part of which is the belief by some small minority that they are going to solve their immediate socio-economic hardship with a gun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
As for folks who support firearms addressing the socio-economic issues, apparently you are unaware of all the camps that the NRA, DU, Sportsmens Leagues and youth centers around the country support. I know that when I taught range classes and USPSA classes I had several other instructors that I worked with that did nothing but teach skeet shooting and target shooting and gun safety at inner city camps all over the country.
I appreciate the time role models are spending teaching the next generation of gun advocates about how to safely handle guns. It is far better than if they didn't. I just don't for the life of me mcbear, understand how that is solving the larger socio-economic problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
As for discussing strict enforcement of current laws. You can be sure it is a high priority topic at NRA and other organizations. They are the groups most interested in insuring that gun ownership gets back to the good name it used to have before is was cooped by gangs.
I would suggest that if we go examine the record of the development of every gun control legislative inititiative there would be precious little support from the NRA and other gun ownership advocating groups. It is clearly not in their best interests to defy these laws once they are passed, or continue to rail against them or encourage anyone else to defy them. But support their effective enforcement? I would like to see broad evidence of the NRA active support of efforts to limit distribution of illegal ammo and guns.

You say "Gun control laws are not enforced for reasons". What reasons? Why?[/QUOTE]

I am parroting other's claims that the laws that exist are suitable, they just are not enforced (sounds a lot like the immigration issue?) and would like to know why they are not enforced myself. The claim was made this time (but there is always someone willing to make this claim from the pro-gun ownership without limits side in any argument) by Fast55 a few posts ago. But my point is, if there is a law on the books, and it is not being enforced, there is a reason. I do not claim to know what it is, and I think I suggested the situation be examined to ferret out the reasons. Laws in general, but gun control laws especially, are not ignored across the land by some inadvertent accident.

And, while Rosie probably would be just as fat as she is now if no one had invented forks, I would venture a guess that the kids and teachers who died in last year's Virginia Tech shootings would have faired a lot better if Cho had a knife, or several knives, or a tire iron, or some other hand held weapon.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    5th Amendment Abolished...?? Qubes Off-Topic 111 07-24-2007 05:41 PM
    Blind Texas Gun Laws- Would you pickup a gun and hunt if you were blind? Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 7 12-13-2006 12:59 PM
    first amendment right? azimuth Off-Topic 37 05-29-2005 01:58 PM
    First Amendment No Big Deal, Students Say GeeS Off-Topic 21 02-02-2005 10:20 PM
    Just got my 2nd SLK32 or How replacing fog lamp bulb got me a free 2nd car! Rick G. R170 SLK-Class 21 12-11-2001 10:58 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome