WTH is wrong with some people??? Shooting at CT Elementary School - Page 59 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

davidmash · #**871** 12-19-2012, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

My point exactly. The words "shall not be infringed" are in the Constitution. So some are advocating directly violating the clear language of the US CON. No news there. Whenever the clear language is an impediment to what someone wants to do, they advocate ignoring it. Why not just throw it out altogether? It was written to limit the power of the government; now it is being used to limit the Rights of citizens.
Yes, the Republic has been lost. As I posted before, emotion will triumph over reason. Tyranny will be the result.
I suppose tyranny is OK, if you are the tyrant==if you get to make the rules. Our Founders had lived under that system, and rejected it. They gave us a republic---if we could keep it. Well, we couldn't.

Are you in favor of allowing people to own RPG's mines, grenades, shoulder launched missiles?

Brian Carlton · #**872** 12-19-2012, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

true, but do the side effects of limiting gun ownership, or ease of ownership, outweigh the future of gun violence in this country what with these types of mass shootings with legally owned weapons? Why don't we discuss what rights and liberties might be affected by more stringent gun control?

Look, you've beat this horse until it's dead. You want more restrictions on weapons. Period.

Many of us see the fallacy of this approach and can easily show that it doesn't work. Period.

What more is there to discuss with you?

davidmash · #**873** 12-19-2012, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

As has been asked by several people on this tread,
How would ANY law or change being discussed here, or anywhere, have prevented the tragedy?
We would be as successful by passing a LAW to make cancer illegal.

These proposed changes do NOTHING to attack the root of the problem. Define the root cause and you might be on your way to a solution.

The gun would have been locked up and he may not have gained access to the guns.

davidmash · #**874** 12-19-2012, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

And, when it fails to have the (declared) effect, then pass another law, and another. Then complain that there are too many laws.

How about " Do not commit murder"?

Planes were not invented on the first try. To insist that a law work perfectly the first time in an unusually high burden and not very realistic.

davidmash · #**875** 12-19-2012, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

The kid could have killed her as she slept with a knife and then opened the safe with power tools and removed the firearms for use. Alternatively he could have opened the safe using force when she wasn't around.

There should be at least some doubt in your mind that passing 'secure all guns in a gun safe all the time laws' would have prevented this tragedy.

Of course he could have done all those things. Since when is any law a panacea and cure all? There are ways around any and every law but I do not see how that means we should not have a law or to say the law may not have worked or work in other scenarios.

davidmash · #**876** 12-19-2012, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

All true, this law might have prevented it from happening, it might have altered the plan a bit or it might have made no difference at all. It's pure speculation to say how a specific law definitively would have effected this particular case.

What is not speculative is how such a law would effect current law abiding citizens.

Many would have to purchase guns safes and make arrangements for buying, transporting and installing them. A measurable percentage of people forced to comply would live alone or in households that didn't contain mentally unstable people and for those people this law would be a total waste of resources and it could create anger and resentment. Current gun owners would also face the difficult question of what to do about the conflict between the primary reason they own guns and compliance with the new law. If someone breaks into your house and intends to do harm you can't really tell them to wait while you go to the safe, open it and retrieve the firearm of your choice. Many people would have to choose between complying with a new law and becoming a criminal by having one loaded firearm out of locked storage.

There are also many gun collectors that have beautiful display cabinetry that showcases rare and unique firearms and people that have guns over their fireplaces - all these would be gone.

I'd sure love to be able to solve this problem with a law but keep in mind that many, many times the side effects of new laws restrict freedoms of people well outside the bounds of the intended target of the law.

Not a waste. Houses are broken in to all the time and weapons are stolen. I am sure the person has friends one of them might steal the gun. That is why when you are home or are using the gun it does not have to be locked up. Not in use ... in the safe, in use .. out of the safe.

As for display weapons, make sure they are incapacitated. Take out the firing pins or what ever has to be done to make sure they cannot fire. Or put them behind bullet proof glass with an alarm system.

Having a safe would part of the cost of having a gun.

Brian Carlton · #**877** 12-19-2012, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Planes were not invented on the first try. To insist that a law work perfectly the first time in an unusually high burden and not very realistic.

Please tell me that you're not going to compare a mechanical device to a law and try to make an analogy?

Laws never work "perfectly". Most of them don't even work "adequately". And, once a law is passed, very rarely is it modified or changed. What usually occurs is that it remains and more laws are passed to further enhance the existing law.

Government is legendary for passing ongoing laws, laws that most people do not even know about, and laws that most people wouldn't follow anyway because there is no enforcement of said laws.

Have you noticed that you can drive without the use of turn signals at all times?

Have you noticed that you can drive 65mph in a 55mph zone at all times?

Have you noticed that you really don't need to pay any taxes if you're creative with your books?

There is very limited enforcement of nearly every law. No reason to believe your new gun laws will be any different or have an outcome that is any different from the current status quo.

davidmash · #**878** 12-19-2012, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Personally, I'm positive that jail time is not a disincentive. The reason is very simple. There is no enforcement. You decide to require a locked gun safe in every single house, thereby taking away the very need to own a gun. Nobody follows the law. Nobody enforces the law.

The liberals champion their success at gun regulation.

More shootings occur without any abatement.

I think you're wasting your time to attempt to control the weapon, but, as I stated, I have no dog in this fight. I have a loaded shotgun with a pistol grip under the bed...........that's it.

You're not going to require me to have a safe for my shotgun...........are you?

Unless you are carrying that gun around on you at all times, yes I would.

Enforcement is a separate issue.

raymr · #**879** 12-19-2012, 11:37 AM

What's really needed is formalized mandatory education and training in gun safety, if anything to enforce the 2nd amendment, not weaken it. So many accidents could be avoided if people were just better trained. Apparently in Virginia you can buy a pistol for C&C without ever having shot a gun before. That is just wrong.

JamesDean · #**880** 12-19-2012, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

What's really needed is formalized mandatory education and training in gun safety, if anything to enforce the 2nd amendment, not weaken it. So many accidents could be avoided if people were just better trained. Apparently in Virginia you can buy a pistol for C&C without ever having shot a gun before. That is just wrong.

Agreed. Want to buy a gun? Get trained first. That sounds reasonable.

What arguments could there be against it?

"doh well i know what im doing i dont need ur government training"

JB3 · #**881** 12-19-2012, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Look, you've beat this horse until it's dead. You want more restrictions on weapons. Period.

Many of us see the fallacy of this approach and can easily show that it doesn't work. Period.

What more is there to discuss with you?

Id say, look north, whats different about the Canadians and what they have done in relation to gun control with lesser violence, and what parts of that can we implement down here?

Yes, id love more restrictions on weapons. What exactly do you want?
From what I gather, you think any and all ideas are bad, and that nothing anyone does or says will have any effect, and that you still have your shotgun. Does that sum it up?
you say it won't work, why does it work elsewhere?

That hasnt been easily shown at all

Brian Carlton · #**882** 12-19-2012, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Unless you are carrying that gun around on you at all times, yes I would.

Enforcement is a separate issue.

Then, we are in a fundamental disagreement on principle. That weapon is under the bed for a very good reason and I have no intention of locking it in a safe no matter what law the liberals pass.

So, without any enforcement of me violating the law, what do you have?

You claim "enforcement is a separate issue". I call BS..........why pass a law if you cannot or will not enforce it? A fundamental disagreement on principle.

Brian Carlton · #**883** 12-19-2012, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropnosky

Yes, id love more restrictions on weapons. What exactly do you want?
From what I gather, you think any and all ideas are bad, and that nothing anyone does or says will have any effect, and that you still have your shotgun. Does that sum it up?
you say it won't work, why does it work elsewhere?

That hasnt been easily shown at all

No very limited (because that is all you can get) restrictions on handguns will have any effect whatsoever.

Yes, I still have my shotgun.

It works elsewhere because it's a different society with different values. This fact escapes you.

I've proven it to you with the restrictive handgun laws in place in NY and CT. You, being obtuse, choose to ignore it.

Txjake · #**884** 12-19-2012, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

How much of a leap is it for the right to accuse the president of setting this all up so he can grab their guns? i am pretty sure he will allow me to keep mine since I voted for him.

not any more of a leap than it was for the left to concoct accusations that W Bush and Co. created 9/11 as an excuse to go to war.....

JB3 · #**885** 12-19-2012, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

No very limited (because that is all you can get) restrictions on handguns will have any effect whatsoever.

Yes, I still have my shotgun.

It works elsewhere because it's a different society with different values. This fact escapes you.

I've proven it to you with the restrictive handgun laws in place in NY and CT. You, being obtuse, choose to ignore it.

You haven't "proven" any points Mr. Carlton, aside from a cattyness and peevishness in conversation similar to a teenage girl going through puberty, sure. Thats been proven time and again, old news.

You have said that CT has restrictive handgun laws, yes, and you have also pointed out as we know, that the majority of the people killed was with an automatic rifle. The laws on the books may seem overly restrictive to you, however, I do not consider them restrictive in the least if either of these weapons were-

1- available in the first place
2- if available, not secured properly
3- accessible by a known potential problem.

Your restrictive CT handgun laws require an application with 70 buck fee, 8 weeks of waiting for approval more or less, and you gotta take a handgun course, the NRA's pistol course. The sad part, is that CT law IS pretty restrictive compared to other parts of the country, which is the core issue here.