Gun Control - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

DieselAddict · #61 07-30-2005, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

What does carrying loaded gun on an airplane have to do with anything.

Isn't that a form of gun control? Why aren't you against it?

boneheaddoctor · #62 07-30-2005, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Isn't that a form of gun control? Why aren't you against it?

it isn't.....people should be allowed to carry them as checked baggage...IF they are law abiding citizens of the USA.

DieselAddict · #63 07-30-2005, 09:07 PM

I meant allowing passengers to have loaded guns with them on an airplane. What do you think of that idea?

Botnst · #64 07-30-2005, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I meant allowing passengers to have loaded guns with them on an airplane. What do you think of that idea?

Depends on the passenger.

boneheaddoctor · #65 07-30-2005, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I meant allowing passengers to have loaded guns with them on an airplane. What do you think of that idea?

DO you also avocate smoking in an oxegen tent in a hospital?

DieselAddict · #66 07-30-2005, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azimyth

When one claims there is no threat to personal liberty while advocating the removal of same, he/she becomes the seed sower of tyranny.

What about banning gay marriage and abortion? Isn't that removal of personal liberty and thus the seed of tyranny? Let's face it, it is human nature to desire banning something that one is against regardless of what others want. Like I said earlier, it helps to look at both sides of the argument.

Botnst · #67 07-30-2005, 09:46 PM

I agree with you concerning gay marriage and would ask that you apply the same reasoning to every other aspect of life. That is, people are naturally free, it is government that we willingly or unwillingly cede our freedom to. The more we ask gov to run our lives, however convenient the reason, the less freedom we have as a result.

mikemover · #68 07-30-2005, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Hey I can actually see both sides of the gun control debate, unlike you and a few other people. To me the issue is not as black and white.

Somewhere along the line, in some old document that was of some historical significance, I saw these four little words: RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

These four words mean that this issue is 100% "black and white".

Mike

mikemover · #69 07-30-2005, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

What about banning gay marriage and abortion? Isn't that removal of personal liberty and thus the seed of tyranny?

Yes. Which is why I'm firmly against banning either one.

Mike

J. R. B. · #70 07-30-2005, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Let's face it, it is human nature to desire banning something that one is against regardless of what others want. .

It's my nature then to desire to ban anti-gunners regardless of what you want.

Azimyth · #71 07-30-2005, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

What about banning gay marriage and abortion? Isn't that removal of personal liberty and thus the seed of tyranny? Let's face it, it is human nature to desire banning something that one is against regardless of what others want. Like I said earlier, it helps to look at both sides of the argument.

I think that at the core of any issue, the principle is freedom at any cost but the life of the innocent and/or defenseless.

DieselAddict · #72 07-31-2005, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

Somewhere along the line, in some old document that was of some historical significance, I saw these four little words: RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

These four words mean that this issue is 100% "black and white".

Mike

I understand that. But look at how many times the constitution has been amended. The founding fathers couldn't have possibly thought of everything. So just because it's in the constitution doesn't necessarily mean it's 100% black and white. But yes you have the right to bear arms at least for now.

DieselAddict · #73 07-31-2005, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I agree with you concerning gay marriage and would ask that you apply the same reasoning to every other aspect of life. That is, people are naturally free, it is government that we willingly or unwillingly cede our freedom to. The more we ask gov to run our lives, however convenient the reason, the less freedom we have as a result.

Too much of a good thing can be bad, and that includes freedom. I'm glad people are not free to kill each other, for example.

Moderation is the path forward.

Tirebiter · #74 08-01-2005, 03:42 AM

I like target shooting and I held an FFL for about twenty years. I am not against hunting animals but I choose not to. I also reload.

In 1989, a very large and very angry man entered my Porsche shop brandishing a chrome plated revolver. He was angry because his car wasn't fixed properly but my shop hadn't worked on it. He was mistaken.

Luckily I had my 9mm Glock close at hand. As he approached, I took a modified Weaver stance and LOUDLY ordered him to drop his gun, twice. Just as he pointed his gun at me, I shot him one time in the heart at about eleven feet away. Twenty seconds later he was dead. Before he stopped moving he reached out to get his pistol again and I stepped on his wrist to stop him.

One of the witnesses was his best friend and he told me that showing off his gun was just his way of "bullying" people into doing what he told them to do. He was only twenty four years old. He died of stupidity.

Because of all the witnesses, it was deemed a justifiable homicide and I was never charged with a crime. His parents sued me for 10M in a wrongful death suit, claiming that with my expertise I could have selectivly wounded him or shot the gun out of his hand

They lost their case and I sold my shop. I never want to deal with the public again.

The police refused to return my Glock and also an Olympic shooting pistol I had in my toolbox. They claimed the target pistol was stolen and my Glock had to be destroyed since it killed a person. I sued them a week before the statute of limitation had run. The Olympic pistol had been given to me by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge so it was hardly stolen. There is also no law that requires a firearm to be destroyed when it was lawfully used. The court ordered them to be returned.

What a bummer.

pj67coll · #75 08-01-2005, 09:19 AM

What a moron. I'm glad you won the case but the part about the police not wanting to give back your weapon is interesting. Back home - I'm from South Africa -the police used to "privately and unofficially" advise people who were confronted by intruders in their homes to make sure they killed them even if they only wounded them with the initial shot. That way there was no chance of any BS in court with the criminal pressing charges etc. Now however I hear the law has been amended. It's still theoretically legal to defend yourself but your weapon will be confiscated if you do and you wont get it back and apparently you will lose your license to posess a weapon on top of it. Glad I live in the USA.

- Peter.