Obama and gun control

Devil505 wrote:

Hmmmm....I hear that San Francisco is a lovely area!!

Devil, maybe you will run into Nancy in San Fran......

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:

Devil505 wrote:Just PLEASE don't move anywhere near SE Massachusetts!!

Is Rhode Island too close?

Hmmmm....I hear that San Francisco is a lovely area!!

Think I can get a deal on your stove when you go? You won't need it in California anyway. Besides, the CARB would probably send a SWAT team to your house if they ever caught a whiff of it.

coaledsweat wrote:

ray in ma wrote:If you look at any other respected and civil democracy they have 4-6 major parties and 3 or 4 minor parties so they must build a coalition government.

Countries with that form of government are always collapsing, no confidence, blah, blah, blah. Just look at Italy, what have they had since WWII, 63 or so different regimes? How can anything get accomplished when you are constantly reassembling the government?
The two party system obviously divides us, but it has also been our strength.

I think the 2 party system is too limiting and has the potential to create us v/s them mentality IE Either you're for the war or against the troops, where is the NEITHER option?

Although there are exceptions to any rule (point well taken with Italy, but what other country has ever elected a porn star for a major position), I was thinking of the successful coalitions like most of the EU and dare I mention Israel without adding flames to this hot topic.

To restate what I've mentioned before on the "we need more than 2 parties" point, it's incompatible with our fixed term election cycle. When multi-party "coal-itions" fall apart (and they usually do), you need to be able to call elections and change governments.

At the moment, we're not set up that way.

Been having computer problems.

Back on topic guys.

Start a new thread if u want to debate the 2 party system.

I love the grassy knoll I wish we had one in PA for Ed Rendell

Stockingful, you are smoking something.

KLook wrote:Stockingful, you are smoking something.

Not at the moment; in fact, I even wear a mask when slinging the rice and ash around.

But what comment in particular leads you to that reaction?

It seems that whenever I post something it comes into the thread way late. Not sure why. It sure makes me look stupid though. Maybe I am!

I've found it's pretty much impossible to have a sensible conversation with anyone who uses terms like, "gun nuts". They're usually so bananas in their own fantasies they haven't got time or inclination toward facts, ration, and logic.

There's obviously more "gun nuts" out here than there are those who would take them. That means, for now, nothing to really worry about.

That doesn't mean that we don't oppose these goofy gun control laws at every turn and make sure they don't get a toe hold.

What's a toe hold? Registration and licensing for one. Without those two things, confiscation is impossible. It will never happen, because they won't know where they are. Not to mention the fact that there is no way for them to free up enough money or people to sit at computers and enter the information of over 80 million people, and well over 300 million firearms.

Canada has tried for nearly a decade now. Over 70% remain unregistered, and will likely remain that way. Discussions are under way currently about scrapping the entire system, as it has been a debacle of the highest order. The costs have far exceeded estimates, and people are sick of wasting the money.

This foolishness about "reducing the number of guns" in society is exactly that. Silly and naive.

Reduce the number of scumbags and lunatics in society and you'll accomplish something. Devote the energy, money, and other resources toward generating economic opportunity for people to work at, and you will accomplish something. Devote those things toward schools, and you will accomplish something.

Devoting money, time, and resources to fantasies about possibly having a law regulating inanimate objects that are incapable of harming anyone without a deliberate act on the part of a person accomplishes nothing. If it does anything, it insures that the people who should have them don't.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The detective asked the murder suspect why he cut up his wife with an axe. The guy answered, "Because there was a three day waiting period to buy a gun."

Quit focusing on the instrument, and work on the person and the motivation.

Gun nut? Hardly. Former police officer, now a physical therapist. Owned and fired numerous firearms over the years and never harmed anyone with them, and not about to unless they're a danger to me or someone else. Most, obviously, of the 80 million firearms owners in the country are the same way.

LeonMSPT wrote: The costs have far exceeded estimates, and people are sick of wasting the money.

If we know anything about the American public, it's that they very rarely get sick of wasting money!

Devil505 wrote:I am not against citizens owning & carrying firearms. I am against the concept that a phrase in a 250 year old document renders us incapable of using common sense to formulate & enforce laws to protect ourselves from these crazies & criminals who will misuse their rights....& ours.

And I am against the notion of "common sense".

To pick on two "common sense" proposals on the table...

I find no common sense in the idea of stamping ammunition with serial numbers, much less passing laws requiring manufacturers to do this with an unproven (not even in a limited run, pilot project) technology that is apparently only available from a single source supplier due to patents.

I find no common sense in the idea of passing laws requiring guns to be "child proof" without even a single workable proof of concept, integrated technology available to do it. And I won't think it has much common sense even when/if the technology becomes available because it is just another way for the firearm to fail or yet another "safety" to overcome when the undesired critical moment arrives.

And one more, I also find many of the provisions of the so called "assault weapons ban" to be utterly devoid of common sense.

How's this for common sense? I will soon be receiving my Utah non-resident concealed carry permit. This permit will allow me to carry concealed in PA, OH, and a number of other states. Yet I do not have my CCW in my home state of NY, because I live in a county that has chosen to interpret a state supreme court ruling in the most draconian way and require applicants to provide a reason for why they should get the permit, and self-defense is specifically excluded as a valid reason. I say the faulty common sense is with my state and it's screwed up, highly subjective, non-standard application and approval process. Some co-workers in PA would probably say the fault is with their state legislature allowing a non-resident permit from another state to be valid in their state. Some people in Utah probably aren't down with the whole idea of granting permits to non-residents, particularly non-residents who aren't likely to ever once step foot in their state. And Obama is probably pretty sure common sense dictates that the country would be better off if CCW permits weren't granted to anyone.

Screw common sense. It doesn't exist, Thomas Paine be damned. Propose something, encourage debate, advocate and defend your position logically, put it to a vote. If there is common sense to be found, we can only hope it is to be found in the aggregate vote of the people and the standards to which they hold their elected representation.

Devil505 wrote:
I am not against citizens owning & carrying firearms. I am against the concept that a phrase in a 250 year old document renders us incapable of using common sense to formulate & enforce laws to protect ourselves from these crazies & criminals who will misuse their rights....& ours.

"The devil is in the details."

Show me a single gun control law that will accomplish what it sets out to do, in any way, without destroying my rights and I will support it. I haven't seen a single law written regarding guns that isn't offensive to my rights, and as porous and ineffective as screens in a submarine.

We have laws against rape, robbery, shooting people, and murder. Those things are bad, and should be outlawed. Over 80 million people in this country own and possess guns on a daily basis. Explain what is so inherently bad about possessing a firearm that we have some overwhelming "common sense" need to regulate them.

I'll personally have no more of it. I believe 26,000 laws are sufficient regulation.

I believe that when the NICS system flags someone as being prohibited from buying a gun, and the sale is stopped, it should generate an arrest warrant for that person. If they're prohibited, they lied on the 4473 in order to activate the NICS check. That is a felony, and they should be charged.

Until they are, every last swinging noodle, and those without, don't bother me about more laws. You're not using what you've got already because, "There's too many, we don't have enough people." Well, if you can't enforce the laws you've already got, what on earth are you going to do with more of them?

And one more, I also find many of the provisions of the so called "assault weapons ban" to be utterly devoid of common sense.

1. Now, hold on a minute. They fire as fast as a revolver does... deadly.
2. They fire an intermediate, at best, rifle round... not very powerful at all. Frequently, those shot are wounded and not killed because of the design of most of the ammunition fired through them.
3. A BAYONET! You know the problems we've had with drive by bayonetings... never mind you can sharpen a stick and likely do more damage.
4. A FLASH SUPPRESSOR! You know people are much more dead when they're shot and they don't see as big a flash from where the bullet came from.
5. PISTOL GRIPS! Holy crap! A PISTOL GRIP makes a weapon twice as deadly. Shoot the engine right out of a car with that thing. Crap blows to kingdom come in the movies when it gets shot with one of those.
6. And the things are usually BLACK! We all know black is an evil color. Even the bad guys in westerns wore black.

You find that "devoid of common sense"? Hmmm... an entirely uncommon level of "common sense" in that statement.

Don't forget barrel shrouds....you know, the shoulder thing that goes up.

Deadly.

Wait for it, only 54 seconds long : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U