Are you armed?

[mike_s]

Better yet, they break into your house while you're not there and help themselves to your guns. If you don't have them in the house, fewer will end up on the streets in the hands of those who could not access them through legal avenues.

That's a pretty stupid solution to something that you don't like.


it's like saying, why don't we get rid of EVERYONE's cars, so that a few don't Drink-and-Drive. If you don't have cars, it will allow fewer on the streets that could fall into the hands of those that shouldn't have them.




one of these days I'm gonna order this shirt.

 

[gypsyjim]

Recently, in the city where I work a law was proposed by one of our wonderful civic minded politicians, drastically limiting and recording all ammunition sales. Her response to any and all apposition, including civil liberty points, was to say "if it saves just one life if will be worth...." :shocked2:

She did not enjoy my suggestion that she also outlaw all motor vehicles within the city limits, because autos kill far more people here each year in this city than all the guns and ammo combined, and besides, "if it saves just one life it would be worth it, right?".
Somehow she thought her statement, as used by her as quite logical, while the very same suggestion, used against her was purely argumentative!

 

[drbill]

The way to "deal" with guns is to give harsh punishment for their improper use, not to punish those who own and use them correctly. Yes, I know, that seems a strange comment from a "leftie" but I live in an environment where hunting and fishing are appropriate methods of obtaining food and I don't find anything wrong with target shooting and other non-harmful uses of guns.

I would return to hunting or fishing to obtain food if I found it necessary. However, "sport" hunting and fishing is anathema to me.

 

[letterboy]

The way to "deal" with guns is to give harsh punishment for their improper use, not to punish those who own and use them correctly. Yes, I know, that seems a strange comment from a "leftie" but I live in an environment where hunting and fishing are appropriate methods of obtaining food and I don't find anything wrong with target shooting and other non-harmful uses of guns.

I would return to hunting or fishing to obtain food if I found it necessary.

Does this include shooting tourists?

 

[gypsyjim]

I agree, but....
We already do have some very stiff laws regarding possession of or use of a fire arm in a crime. Like so many other laws, enforcement of these existing laws is hit or miss, and courts are often very lax, quickly returning even repeat offenders to the streets, to continue their behavior. If the existing laws were routinely and strongly enforced against those who chose to criminally use weapons there would be much less incentive to ignore those laws.
Any use of a fire arm in a crime needs to be a ticket to long term care, at any age. Being a minor should not be an excuse when a crime involves the use of a fire arm. Mostly, the laws are already in place, just poorly applied and enforced.

Suggesting that somehow, by making new, even more invasive laws, by disarming or curtailing civil rights of the law abiding citizens, the rest of society is being protected from the criminal element is at best, ludicrous, and worst case, a deliberate smoke and mirrors / slight of hand excuse to disarm the law abiding citizen by a big brother government. A bit of both is the likely answer.

 

[mike_s]

Recently, in the city where I work a law was proposed by one of our wonderful civic minded politicians, drastically limiting and recording all ammunition sales. Her response to any and all apposition, including civil liberty points, was to say "if it saves just one life if will be worth...." :shocked2:

She did not enjoy my suggestion that she also outlaw all motor vehicles within the city limits, because autos kill far more people here each year in this city than all the guns and ammo combined, and besides, "if it saves just one life it would be worth it, right?".
Somehow she thought her statement, as used by her as quite logical, while the very same suggestion, used against her was purely argumentative!

the municipality I live in tried to pass a law to ban firearms on city property a few years ago. They passed the law.

The the State Attorney General sent them a reference to the code in the State Constitution that makes it illegal for any muncipality (city/county/etc) to pass any lawn that restricted the rights of the 2nd amendment.

the city had to resend it's new ordinance at the next city council meeting.

 

[dmoore19]

the municipality I live in tried to pass a law to ban firearms on city property a few years ago. They passed the law.

The the State Attorney General sent them a reference to the code in the State Constitution that makes it illegal for any muncipality (city/county/etc) to pass any lawn that restricted the rights of the 2nd amendment.

the city had to resend it's new ordinance at the next city council meeting.

Finally someplace has the guts to stand up to being bowled over one bite at a time. Good news for the citizenry in general!

 

[gypsyjim]

Erosion of civil liberties is a subtle thing. Like a ratchet wrench the process slowly advances, one little right at a time. It's not a law that effects you this time, just some unknown small group of strangers, elsewhere, so you don't act. Next time it's some other small group that everyone can agree that they feel comfortable seeing better monitored or controlled, "for the public good".
Even if you have no use for your neighbor, and think he's a fool, you will spring into action when a brush fire threatens his home. Why? Because 1, the fire may spread, and 2, next fire may be at your place. Rights eroding are the same way; if you don't defend that ignorant neighbor's rights, even when he's being foolish there won't be any reason for him to defend yours.

 

[dmoore19]

Erosion of civil liberties is a subtle thing. Like a ratchet wrench the process slowly advances, one little right at a time. It's not a law that effects you this time, just some unknown small group of strangers, elsewhere, so you don't act. Next time it's some other small group that everyone can agree that they feel comfortable seeing better monitored or controlled, "for the public good".
Even if you have no use for your neighbor, and think he's a fool, you will spring into action when a brush fire threatens his home. Why? Because 1, the fire may spread, and 2, next fire may be at your place. Rights eroding are the same way; if you don't defend that ignorant neighbor's rights, even when he's being foolish there won't be any reason for him to defend yours.

Can't find a thanks button here in the pub but, THANKS! My previous posts have tried to point this out. Maybe I was trying to say it wrong.

 

[gypsyjim]

Thank you.