Gun ban or not

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Gun ban or not

Post by Legion2512 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:26 pm

you sure did....

BTW, Thanks for proving my point. Very Happy
avatar
Legion2512

Posts : 32
Join date : 2012-12-23
Location : Southwest Florida

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun ban or not

Post by AZ2000 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:04 pm

cafox, nothing has been won or lost. This discussion has degenerated to simply, "Doublespeak a language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing [1]), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass". In other words your discussion in the Aesopian language, a never ending circle that simply concludes at the beginning, has no answer only opinion without fact.

cafox:
"Whatever. I have no common sense I guess... But I do have a sense of humor, which you are lacking."
The "whatever", term seems to normally be used when a person has reached an impass in their selves and have no intelligent response to retort with, generally leading to personal attack and insult. Sad, this was getting interesting and I love a good debate and battle of witt's, but it would appear someone has ran out of ammunition. No, you have not won.

avatar
AZ2000

Posts : 197
Join date : 2012-08-09
Location : AZ

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun ban or not

Post by cafox on Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:31 pm

I know.. it was another joke. But, I'm done with this topic. I don't expect you to change your mind and I'm damn sure not going to change my mind.. so there is no point in discussing it further. I have not ran out of ammunition, just patience.


cafox

Posts : 43
Join date : 2012-12-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun ban or not

Post by Solscud007 on Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:49 pm

To solve any loop holes, guns should be treated like cars.

You buy one or sell one you have to get it registered in your name. Along side this you must go thru background checks.

I don't know how you can deal with people who legitimately had their guns stolen vs the ones who say their guns were stolen just to make a straw purchase.


Require licensing and training. You need to learn to drive a car. Have people pass a proficiency test. Heck, we require that of drivers and they still manage to fuck up driving. See accidents happen but more people are killed by cars than guns. So I don't see the problem. You want to own and shoot a gun? Sure get properly trained and licensed.

_________________
Most of the information I find and collect about the Kriss is documented on my facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kriss-Super-V/157275704339968
avatar
Solscud007
MOD

Posts : 1580
Join date : 2012-01-05
Age : 37
Location : Pittsburgh, PA

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kriss-Super-V/157275704339968?sk=w

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun ban or not

Post by AZ2000 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:50 am

Your right and if you can take just a few minutes and read some of the VERIFIED stories at this link, all of these people should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for not being licensed, properly certified, trained and registered. Because if that happens none of these boozos would or could of had gun's. Just as it is in other countries. England has great stats, If you read into the Home Secretaries Office and changes to the method to report crime, you may find that a few years ago, it seems they took the reporting of a simple murder and spun it into an assualt stat. Wasn't looking good to the rest of the world as far as crime rates go, portraying an uncivilized image and all that. And yes, the training, licensing, etc. should also apply to any and all family members. One quick question, does this gun ban include all the gangsters and such who also have gun's and for some reason seem to commit most of the crimes and usually are repeat offenders?IMO

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/ga-woman-kills-would-be-rapist/
avatar
AZ2000

Posts : 197
Join date : 2012-08-09
Location : AZ

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun ban or not

Post by Solscud007 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:36 am

Thanks. But I am a little confused. Was the link addressed to my post?

_________________
Most of the information I find and collect about the Kriss is documented on my facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kriss-Super-V/157275704339968
avatar
Solscud007
MOD

Posts : 1580
Join date : 2012-01-05
Age : 37
Location : Pittsburgh, PA

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kriss-Super-V/157275704339968?sk=w

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun ban or not

Post by AZ2000 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:48 pm

Yes it was, sorry forgot to put that in.

You are talking about licensing, testing, instruction and taxing, so I pulled up some stats for you to check out. In a nut shell, and you have to realize, these federal stats are from the latest compiled data, updated to 2009. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html

If you look at these you will see over 33,000 people died from car accidents in the US, over 5,000 from distracted drivers (cell phones?) and looking at the stats, the numbers are slowly going up.

So, if it's not working with drivers, why do you think it will work with guns.

I do not hunt but do enjoy shooting, but disagree with a $200.00 fee to own a gun, another tax?

I have a friend who recently went to the gas station at 11pm in an upper class area one night to get gas. He always carries his 1911, while he was putting gas in his car, a man came up from behind and stuck a .45 to the temple of his head and told my friend to give him the money, motherfucker. My friend is 67 and an ex F4 Nam pilot, he raised his arm and knocked the gun out of the bad guys hand and drew his own .45 before the bad guy could get to his . The guy ran off and was later arrested. If my, untrained, unlicensed buddy hadn't had his .45, he probably would be dead. Not sure if the bad guy was licensed and trained or not?

I do agree with the mental stability aspect with limitations.

Sad thing is it didn't work for the school shootings, even though the guns used were legal and registered?IMO


avatar
AZ2000

Posts : 197
Join date : 2012-08-09
Location : AZ

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun ban or not

Post by Solscud007 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:51 pm

Excellent retort. I'm a big fan of training. But a majority of shooters think going to the equivalent of a driving range is the same as playing a round of golf.

_________________
Most of the information I find and collect about the Kriss is documented on my facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kriss-Super-V/157275704339968
avatar
Solscud007
MOD

Posts : 1580
Join date : 2012-01-05
Age : 37
Location : Pittsburgh, PA

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kriss-Super-V/157275704339968?sk=w

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun ban or not

Post by AZ2000 on Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:39 am

One more comment from a Marine in an open letter to Senator Feinstein, and in my heart he speaks for the majority of American veterans such as myself and others who may not be veterans, but are Americans. If you lose your right and say nothing before hand, only you are to blame and our brave men and women have given all, was for nothing. IMO Call, write or e-mail your representatives, they will listen.


Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012
avatar
AZ2000

Posts : 197
Join date : 2012-08-09
Location : AZ

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun ban or not

Post by CatMostFeared on Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:59 am

amen
avatar
CatMostFeared
Admin

Posts : 799
Join date : 2012-01-05
Age : 48
Location : Kentucky

http://www.krisstalk.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun ban or not

Post by AZ2000 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:06 pm

avatar
AZ2000

Posts : 197
Join date : 2012-08-09
Location : AZ

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun ban or not

Post by AZ2000 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:56 am

Hot off the presses from Detroit.

The homicide rate in the city of Detroit continued a grim upward trend in 2012, hitting its highest peak in nearly two decades, officials said Thursday.


Follow @NBCNewsUS
Follow @andrewjmach

A dwindling population -- 706,585 people in 2011, according to the U.S. Census estimate -- and the rise in homicides combined to Detroit’s murder rate among the highest in the nation, Detroit Mayor Dave Bing and Police Chief Chester Logan announced at a press conference.

“We’ve just lost respect for each other; we’ve lost respect for life,” Bing said. “I don’t want to say that you can forget about this generation or the generation before us, but if we’re going to solve the problem, we’ve got to get into the heads and the minds and the hearts of our young people, and it’s going to take all of us to do that.” I think it will take 20 years to change the mind set, after you get rid of the criminal influence. IMO

Detroit’s total of 411 homicides in 2012, up from 377 the previous year, includes 386 criminal homicides and 25 “justifiable homicides” that included three shootings by police, according to numbers released by the city. The number of criminal homicides increased 12 percent from 344 in 2011. The total in 2010 was 308.

And if you are not aware, gun laws in Detroit are almost as strict as those in DC, except for the politicians. Kinda like the medical thing, EXCEMPT. wtf
avatar
AZ2000

Posts : 197
Join date : 2012-08-09
Location : AZ

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun ban or not

Post by AZ2000 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:16 am

A little long but makes sense to me?

Mr. President,

The committee has reached the conclusion that the next priority for expanded federal regulatory control should be alcoholic beverages. Our reasons and suggested regulations are detailed in the attached report – but the following is a comprehensive summary.

According to the CDC 75,000 deaths annually can be directly attributed to alcohol – 13,674 of these were motor vehicle deaths directly attributable to driving drunk. To these deaths can be added approximately 7,000 additional deaths in motor vehicle accidents in which alcohol is a major factor, meaning that the at fault driver has a significant amount of alcohol in their system below the legal limit. (This 2:1 ratio has been constant for decades.) Of course, many more deaths are by caused alcohol each year – but just the 75,000 annual deaths CDC attributes to drinking each year is the equivalent of a plane crash killing 205 people every day. If this were happening, would it not be headline news? Would the public not demand that all planes be grounded and remain so until a way could be found to stop the crashes?

Furthermore, this figure is 7.5 times higher than the number of firearms homicides last year, and is at least 200 times higher than homicides committed with the “assault rifles” we were recently able to ban.

We should remember that alcohol impacts our children. Nearly 2,000 kids die each year (1,794 in 2006 alone) in motor vehicle accidents. Since at least 75% of traffic deaths are “alcohol related”, we can estimate that 1,500 kids die year in auto accidents caused by alcohol. The CDC indicates that 171 children die each year due to neglect directly caused by alcohol.

Then there is the matter of child murders. Indexing a 1997 study for population growth, and applying the fact that 75% of murders of young children are alcohol related, 609 children under 6 are murdered each year due to alcohol abuse! That is almost two kids murdered every day due to alcohol abuse!

While it is impossible to know how many kids die each year due to alcohol, using just the figures above, at least 2,700 kids die each year – THE SAME AS A “SANDY HOOK” HAPPENING EVERY THREE DAYS!

Of course, many more children are impacted by alcohol than are killed by it. Alcohol is the single biggest factor in child abuse - mothers convicted of child abuse are 3 times more likely to be alcoholics, fathers are 10 times more likely to be alcoholics. Further more, most alcoholics begin drinking long before they can legally buy alcohol. In fact, a full 40% of those who take their first drink before age 15 will become dependent upon it.

Then there is the matter of child molestation. Our studies indicate that 49% of child molestations involve the abuse of alcohol.

ALCOHOL SCARS MILLIONS OF KIDS FOR LIFE.

We need to do something to control alcohol in the US. After all, no one “needs” to consume alcohol of any kind, much less hard liquor. There is also no constitutional right to alcohol – and since we were able to severely restrict firearms in spite of the 2nd Amendment – there should be no legal obstacle to much more stringent regulation.

We also should reject the argument that alcohol is already heavily regulated by both state and federal governments. This same old tried argument was made by gun rights advocates to oppose the recent gun control measures. Obviously with so much abuse of alcohol, these laws are not enough. More must be done to protect the public, especially the children! (Note to the press: This is your rallying cry – keep pounding on it.)

We should also reject the argument that more restrictive laws should not be passed because of the unfortunate experience with prohibition. We have much better technology now, this will allow us to actually control alcohol in many new ways. Clearly, the fact that a total ban on alcohol failed in the past is completely irrelevant – after all we did not allow the fact that a total gun ban in Jamaica has failed to work after 40 years to stop us from banning many guns, so why should we let our past experience stop us from doing SOMETHING.

Therefore, we propose the following “common sense” restrictions:

First, no one should be permitted to buy alcohol without a license. After all, we require both drivers and gun owners to have a license – why not those who purchase alcohol? Every time someone wishes to purchase alcohol at a bar, liquor store or market, they will have to present their license, which will be scanned at the time of purchase.

In order to obtain a license, an applicant will have to pass a criminal background check and take a 10 hour course on responsible alcohol use and the dangers of consuming alcohol. A standard license will allow the holder to buy beer and wine. To purchase “hard liquor” the applicant will have to take more classes and post a million bond or provide proof that they have purchased a million dollar liability insurance policy, just like handgun owners.

Second, we should establish a computerized system to track the purchases each license holder makes. This will enable us to identify those people who may be abusing alcohol. It will not interfere with the purchases of those who consume alcohol responsibly – but it will enable us to identify abusers, as well as “straw purchasers” who buy alcohol to resell it to prohibited persons such as minors or people identified as abusers.

Third, in order to prevent the abuse of alcohol, anyone identified as an alcoholic will be denied the privilege of purchasing alcohol. We simply will revoke their license. We will enforce this through the computerized tracking program. People who show a pattern of purchases consistent with abuse, will be “cut off”, just as people are at bars when they are drunk. They would then no longer be able to purchase the booze that fuels their addiction.

Of course, this necessary, common sense system will cost money. This money will be raised through increased taxes on alcohol and a $250.00 per year license fee. Of course, this will result in far fewer people buying alcohol – but is this really a problem? The poor will find it very hard to buy alcohol – but we ask again: Why is this a problem? If we can restrict an explicitly protected constitutional right (the right to keep and bear arms) by charging a similar fee, why not apply the same principle to the much, much larger problem of alcohol?

While this system will form the core of our “alcohol control policy”, some additional measures will be needed – specifically we will need to regulate the storage and transfer of alcohol after it leaves the store.

Safe Storage: All alcohol must be stored in a government approved locking cabinet to prevent unauthorized access, especially access by children. License holders will have to log their consumption and will be required to report any theft of alcohol purchased under their license within 72 hours – and will be subject to prosecution if a minor obtains access. People who chooses to own this dangerous substance must take responsibility for it.

We will also have to address the issue of “unlicensed bars”, “unlicensed liquor disturbers” and close the “wine tasting” loophole.

Unlicensed bars: We simply cannot allow anyone with a license to purchase booze and serve it to anyone who happens to be a guest in their home – this would defeat our entire alcohol control program. To prevent this, we will need to require anyone who wants to serve alcohol to their guests – or who wants to purchase more than one fifth of hard liquor or four six packs or bottles of wine per month – to obtain a “home bar license”. They will have to install a license “card reader” and provide proper storage. Just as we required gun collectors (who have more than 5 firearms) to submit to unannounced “spot inspections”, we will require the same of home bar license holders. Remember, we were able to do this to gun owners, so why not home bar owners?

We must also control unlicensed liquor distributors and close the wine tasting loophole. This can also be accomplished by following the same model we recently used to control guns. Anyone wishing to give or sell any amount of alcohol to anyone will have to conduct the transaction through a licensed liquor store. We also must require wine tasting venues to be licensed and scan the alcohol licenses all participants. In this way, we can insure that the person receiving the alcohol is legally allowed to do so, and prevent “prohibited persons” from buying alcohol.

This system will save thousands of lives every year. Of course, the “liquor lobby” is very powerful and many people who consume alcohol will consider this a profound restriction upon their freedoms – but our recent victory over the gun lobby has provided a blueprint for how we can control many areas of our society. If we can beat the gun lobby, we can accomplish anything.

In the future we can apply these same principles to controlling religion. (Cults are very destructive – remember Jonestown? There’s also the matter of encouraging hate. Not to mention the whole terrorist thing and kids being molested by priests.). After that, we can look at controlling food so it’s more healthy and requiring people to prove that they are exercising three times per week – that will save even more lives. Who cares if people loose many of their freedoms, if we can at least promise them increased safety? I think we are in the majority. owned


avatar
AZ2000

Posts : 197
Join date : 2012-08-09
Location : AZ

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun ban or not

Post by afponiky on Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:02 pm

WOW, guess you had a lot to get off your chest!

Good for you to be able to speak your mind.

Wish a whole lot of people would have had your thoughts during elections.........
avatar
afponiky

Posts : 72
Join date : 2012-12-29
Location : North Coast of Ohio

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun ban or not

Post by AZ2000 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:24 pm

afponiky: Sadly enough I didn't write it, came from a friend who does alot of research on different points of view. Smile
avatar
AZ2000

Posts : 197
Join date : 2012-08-09
Location : AZ

Back to top Go down

Re: Gun ban or not

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum