America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by Brewha. 294 replies replies.
6 Pages<123456>
Wasn't Even A Couple Hours After the Sandy Hook Shooting...
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
ZRX1200 Offline
#201 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 8:12 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
I was speaking to a larger problem not just this incident.

And no matter what are laws are criminals are still the ones that ignore them.
dpnewell Offline
#202 Posted: Wed, Dec 26 2012, 9:21 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Brewha,
How about some honesty then? These semi-auto sporting rifles are NOT combat rifles, nor are they sub-machine guns. That's an indisputable fact. Why then do the gun banners and bed wetters insist on calling them such? Because these outright lies advance their agenda and frighten the un-informed.

If you think semi-auto sporting rifles should be outlawed, then just say so. If you don't want citizens owning these, you have a right to your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Why does your side feel the need for all the lies and mis-directions?
HockeyDad Offline
#203 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 10:04 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
dpnewell wrote:
Why does your side feel the need for all the lies and mis-directions?



If we ban assault rifles, there will be no more assaults. (It says it right in the name!)
HockeyDad Offline
#204 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 10:08 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
Shooting with ASSAULT rifles are like commercial airplane crashes. Nobody reports about all the days when there were no shootings. I wonder how many shootings took place yesterday with .38 specials compared to AR-15s?
DadZilla3 Offline
#205 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 11:15 AM EST
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
Brewha wrote:
I think it is a matter of degree. We both agree to having a shotgun for home protection and a revolver for snakes and such. But a 75mm cannon on the back of your pickup incase someone cuts you off seems unreasonable (but not so much in Texas). I simply question the benefit/return ration of AR-15’s and the like. Seems to me they are doing more damage than good.

I think it's more a matter of deep distrust of the government and the fear that any additional infringement on the right of law abiding citizens is one more step toward eventual firearm confiscation.
Hey, at one time we had no income tax. Then we had a federal income tax to supposedly pay for WWI or some crap like that. In today's money it was a 7% top rate tax on anyone earning the equivalent of $10,000,000 a year adjusted for inflation.

The Federal Government is legendary in their zeal to regulate every aspect in everyday life. At the same time they neglect real issues like border security, balanced budgets, and minimizing of their bloated and hideously expensive bureaucracy.

I think that is an important underlying motive for the rejection of any more attempts at gun restriction laws by the Feds. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe everyone is by birthright sane and stable enough to be permitted to own a semi-automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine. For that matter there's a lot of people walking around free who couldn't be trusted with Jell-o let alone any kind of firearm. But the Fed's voracious reputation and legendary inefficiency precedes it, and not many gun owners trust it to use long-term restraint with any additional firearms legislation.

My question is, rather than having our legislators run shrieking down the halls calling for yet more gun restrictions, why was a career criminal/ murderer and a severely psychologically impaired kid allowed to walk around with no restrictions and no supervision?
cacman Offline
#206 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 11:49 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
DadZilla3 wrote:
My question is, rather than having our legislators run shrieking down the halls calling for yet more gun restrictions, why was a career criminal/ murderer and a severely psychologically impaired kid allowed to walk around with no restrictions and no supervision?

Damn good question!!!
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#207 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 12:39 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
schusler

TOO
Brewha Offline
#208 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 1:59 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
dpnewell wrote:
Brewha,
How about some honesty then? These semi-auto sporting rifles are NOT combat rifles, nor are they sub-machine guns. That's an indisputable fact. Why then do the gun banners and bed wetters insist on calling them such? Because these outright lies advance their agenda and frighten the un-informed.

If you think semi-auto sporting rifles should be outlawed, then just say so. If you don't want citizens owning these, you have a right to your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Why does your side feel the need for all the lies and mis-directions?

The manufactures of AR15’s call them “Assault Rifles” (AR – get it?). These “bet wetting” manufacturers are capitalizing on the existing production of M16’s (a “combat rifle”) by building a cheaper version, less the full automatic switch to keep it street legal.

True, it is not a modern combat rifle – but it is radically superior and more deadly than modern combat rifles of a century ago – in other words it is a military grade weapon, but not by 21st century standards. If Custard had these, Little Big Horn would have been just a bit different.

What sport is “assault” anyway? I understand target, skeet, and hunting. How does assault work? It sounds like paint ball with live fire.




Now, I am far from a gun expert and am not currently involved in the sport or collector aspect. But I am waiting for “your side” to show the great benefit of these guns that justifies the risk; The risk is aiding a lunatic to double his body count when he goes ballistic.

So, tell me how we benefit from Buba down the street have them along with 15 clips.





BTW, you’re the one that looked at the senseless loss of life and responded by sniveling about gun control and calling people names who are honestly concerned about civil safety. Don't be a name caller - Man up, will ya?
Brewha Offline
#209 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 2:00 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
dpnewell wrote:
. . . . That's an indisputable fact.


You were just teasing me, right?
Brewha Offline
#210 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 2:13 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
DadZilla3 wrote:
I think it's more a matter of deep distrust of the government and the fear that any additional infringement on the right of law abiding citizens is one more step toward eventual firearm confiscation.
Hey, at one time we had no income tax. Then we had a federal income tax to supposedly pay for WWI or some crap like that. In today's money it was a 7% top rate tax on anyone earning the equivalent of $10,000,000 a year adjusted for inflation.

The Federal Government is legendary in their zeal to regulate every aspect in everyday life. At the same time they neglect real issues like border security, balanced budgets, and minimizing of their bloated and hideously expensive bureaucracy.

I think that is an important underlying motive for the rejection of any more attempts at gun restriction laws by the Feds. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe everyone is by birthright sane and stable enough to be permitted to own a semi-automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine. For that matter there's a lot of people walking around free who couldn't be trusted with Jell-o let alone any kind of firearm. But the Fed's voracious reputation and legendary inefficiency precedes it, and not many gun owners trust it to use long-term restraint with any additional firearms legislation.

My question is, rather than having our legislators run shrieking down the halls calling for yet more gun restrictions, why was a career criminal/ murderer and a severely psychologically impaired kid allowed to walk around with no restrictions and no supervision?

True, true, but it is always a trade off. We have to take our best shot (pardon) at passing the right regulations.

I don’t want people to be able to own grenades. I see no benefit that is worth the risk. The more I think about assault rifles, the more I question why they are available. And aside from a few disconnected reasons – I am hard pressed to figure why they are sold.
They are way cool. But so are grenades . . . .



About the impaired kid;
Should we spend more on heathcare?
Do we need more government regulations?
Or – do we just hang it on the thought that until we get a nation of better parents, that do their job, boot straps and all, we will just have to live in fear of crackpots and the weapons we allow them?
stogiefan Offline
#211 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 2:24 PM EST
Joined: 10-23-2012
Posts: 80
Brewha wrote:
The manufactures of AR15’s call them “Assault Rifles” (AR – get it?). These “bet wetting” manufacturers are capitalizing on the existing production of M16’s (a “combat rifle”) by building a cheaper version, less the full automatic switch to keep it street legal.

True, it is not a modern combat rifle – but it is radically superior and more deadly than modern combat rifles of a century ago – in other words it is a military grade weapon, but not by 21st century standards. If Custard had these, Little Big Horn would have been just a bit different.

What sport is “assault” anyway? I understand target, skeet, and hunting. How does assault work? It sounds like paint ball with live fire.




Now, I am far from a gun expert and am not currently involved in the sport or collector aspect. But I am waiting for “your side” to show the great benefit of these guns that justifies the risk; The risk is aiding a lunatic to double his body count when he goes ballistic.

So, tell me how we benefit from Buba down the street have them along with 15 clips.





BTW, you’re the one that looked at the senseless loss of life and responded by sniveling about gun control and calling people names who are honestly concerned about civil safety. Don't be a name caller - Man up, will ya?


Wrong. AR stands for Armalite not assault rifles. Nice try though. There really is not a tactical advantage for a mad man to go into a gun free zone with what you would consider an "assault rifle". Its the tactical equvilent of using a cleaver to spread butter on a piece of toast. Will it work, yes, but so would a butter knife just as effectively. The Sandy Hook killer killed 27 people including himself. That number wasn't that high because he had a Bushmaster rifle. The body count was that high because he was shooting fish in a barrel.
cacman Offline
#212 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 2:28 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Brewha wrote:
About the impaired kid;
Should we spend more on heathcare?
Do we need more government regulations?
Or – do we just hang it on the thought that until we get a nation of better parents, that do their job, boot straps and all, we will just have to live in fear of crackpots and the weapons we allow them?

Why should the majority give up their rights because a very small number are complete idiots?
Brewha Offline
#213 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 2:31 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
stogiefan wrote:
Wrong. AR stands for Armalite not assault rifles. Nice try though.

Thanks, I did not want to disappoint DP.


stogiefan wrote:
There really is not a tactical advantage for a mad man to go into a gun free zone with what you would consider an "assault rifle". Its the tactical equvilent of using a cleaver to spread butter on a piece of toast. Will it work, yes, but so would a butter knife just as effectively. The Sandy Hook killer killed 27 people including himself. That number wasn't that high because he had a Bushmaster rifle. The body count was that high because he was shooting fish in a barrel.

Wow, I just don't agree. I read that some adults where killed while they charged him. If all he had was a pump shot gun or a revolver I think it would have been different.

Anyway - if these weapons present no advantage, then why have them?
Brewha Offline
#214 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 2:36 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
cacman wrote:
Why should the majority give up their rights because a very small number are complete idiots?


To keep our wives and children safe.
Wait – do you think K-mart should have blue-light specials on grenades?

You know, there is a reason you don't have a right to own high explosives.
ZRX1200 Offline
#215 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 2:40 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
If you read and understood how retarded the language of the last "assault weapon ban" was you might understand better.


Regulations and laws are no fail safe from harm and the prevailing additude by DC and many sheep that we can save everyone is ridiculous. No defined endgame justifies the peoples concern of a creeping legislature. Most amerikans have pretty defined endgame. Stay outta my goddamn business if I'm not hurting anyone.
stogiefan Offline
#216 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 2:56 PM EST
Joined: 10-23-2012
Posts: 80
Brewha wrote:
Thanks, I did not want to disappoint DP.



Wow, I just don't agree. I read that some adults where killed while they charged him. If all he had was a pump shot gun or a revolver I think it would have been different.

Anyway - if these weapons present no advantage, then why have them?


The VT shooter used handguns (one of which a Walther 22) not an "assault rifle" and killed 33. 33 adults, not 20 kids. This proves the death toll has much more to do with the location being a gun free zone than it does with the type of weapon used.

They are sporting rifles used for a variety of shooting sports. Its not practical using a handgun for shooting sports where the target is more than 100 ft away. My point was they have no tactical advantage in an environment that is full of unarmed children where at most you are shooting at someone at best 20 feet away but more likely within 5 to 10 feet.
cacman Offline
#217 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 2:57 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Brewha wrote:
To keep our wives and children safe.
Wait – do you think K-mart should have blue-light specials on grenades?

You know, there is a reason you don't have a right to own high explosives.

I don't need or want the guberment dictating to me what they think is safe for my wife and children. We can decide that for ourselves. If you think the guberment knows what best for you, then that's on you.

More gun regulations will not stop such horrible crimes. People just reload faster, or find a faster more efficient means to perpetrate their action. Explosives are highly regulated too, but don't seem to stop people from blowing stuff up.

The only suggestion I agree with (and with some reservation) is the regulation of ammo - in that you can only buy ammo for a gun you legally own. That's it. You shouldn't be able to purchase ammo without a check on your registration first.
ZRX1200 Offline
#218 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 3:05 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
But euthanasia, infanticide and poisoning people with pharma and GMO are doing less harm to life.

I'm glad no knee jerk reaction ever takes place.
victor809 Offline
#219 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 3:10 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
The "Gun control" argument always reminds me of the old joke....
Man to a woman: Will you sleep with me for $1million
Woman: Oh, but yes....
Man: Well, how about for $5...
Woman: What kind of woman do you think I am???
Man: We already established that, now we're just haggling over the price.

Every last person here wants some control to the 2nd amendment (I'd like to see a single person here who'd like to see their #sshole neighbor with a tactical nuke). You idiots are just haggling over where the line should be drawn. To pretend that just allowing people to have fully automatic weapons is "Supporting the 2nd amendment" is just as much a lie as only allowing people to have handguns.

I personally support an individual's right to buy just about any gun they want. But you're lying to yourself if you think that's not still restricting the people from having military hardware. We have all agreed a long time ago to restrict the 2nd Amendment and ensure the government will be much better armed than its populace.
ZRX1200 Offline
#220 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 3:26 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
You know Victor I always chuckle when you sprinkle a little bit of asinine on a cogent point
victor809 Offline
#221 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 3:34 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
ZRX1200 wrote:
You know Victor I always chuckle when you sprinkle a little bit of asinine on a cogent point


I've got a fan base I have to keep happy.
Brewha Offline
#222 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 5:42 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
stogiefan wrote:
The VT shooter used handguns (one of which a Walther 22) not an "assault rifle" and killed 33. 33 adults, not 20 kids. This proves the death toll has much more to do with the location being a gun free zone than it does with the type of weapon used.

They are sporting rifles used for a variety of shooting sports. Its not practical using a handgun for shooting sports where the target is more than 100 ft away. My point was they have no tactical advantage in an environment that is full of unarmed children where at most you are shooting at someone at best 20 feet away but more likely within 5 to 10 feet.


Oddly, and honestly - I start to see your argument as cogent and having merit. I suppose if one had and automatic pistol (I understand that some can hold 15 or more in the magazine) with lots of clips . . . well, it would get ugly.

Hmmmm . . . . It is your argument that assault rifles pose no unusual danger, relative to other automatic guns . . .

I'll give it more thought. But the 100 round clip seems irresponsible. I heard that when you buy an AR15 you can only get a 10 round clip. You get the bigger ones after market in order to stay outside of the law. Perhaps it is the magazines that are the real concern - and possible target for regulation reform . . . .


Squeezing off 50 or more rounds with out a reload just seem needlessly dangerous.
rfenst Offline
#223 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 5:49 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,447
cacman wrote:
Why should the majority give up their rights because a very small number are complete idiots?



i don' think there is a significant majority on either side.
DadZilla3 Offline
#224 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 6:14 PM EST
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
Brewha wrote:
I'll give it more thought. But the 100 round clip seems irresponsible. I heard that when you buy an AR15 you can only get a 10 round clip. You get the bigger ones after market in order to stay outside of the law. Perhaps it is the magazines that are the real concern - and possible target for regulation reform . . . .


Squeezing off 50 or more rounds with out a reload just seem needlessly dangerous.


That makes sense, but unfortunately most psychotic individuals will make do with whatever instruments of destruction are at hand. Nearly 20 children have been killed in China by knife attacks in schools. President Lincoln was killed with a single shot black powder Derringer. President Garfield was killed with a common revolver, as was president McKinley. President Kennedy was killed by a so-so quality WWII surplus bolt action rifle. Bobby Kennedy was killed by, of all things, a .22 caliber rim fire revolver. And Timothy McVeigh didn't use a firearm at all when he killed 168 people and injured over 800 in Oklahoma City.

Maybe large capacity magazines...say, 10 rounds or more...could be more closely regulated or even licensed. That may appear to make society at large safer, but realistically I doubt if it will keep future nut jobs from taking lives however they can manage it.
Brewha Offline
#225 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 8:40 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
DadZilla3 wrote:
That makes sense, but unfortunately most psychotic individuals will make do with whatever instruments of destruction are at hand. Nearly 20 children have been killed in China by knife attacks in schools. President Lincoln was killed with a single shot black powder Derringer. President Garfield was killed with a common revolver, as was president McKinley. President Kennedy was killed by a so-so quality WWII surplus bolt action rifle. Bobby Kennedy was killed by, of all things, a .22 caliber rim fire revolver. And Timothy McVeigh didn't use a firearm at all when he killed 168 people and injured over 800 in Oklahoma City.

Maybe large capacity magazines...say, 10 rounds or more...could be more closely regulated or even licensed. That may appear to make society at large safer, but realistically I doubt if it will keep future nut jobs from taking lives however they can manage it.


Just because a nut, or worse a clever man, can break the law does not mean we should not have laws.
DrafterX Offline
#226 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 9:26 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
Brewha wrote:
Just because a nut, or worse a clever man, can break the law does not mean we should not have laws.



I thought we had laws.... Think
dpnewell Offline
#227 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 9:45 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Something just hit me. It is against NJ law to "posses" any magazine that holds over 15 rounds. Under N.J.S. 2C:39-3, the mere possession of a 30 round magazine is a crime of the fourth degree punishable by 18 months in prison and a fine of $7,500. These magazines are already banned in NJ, so if the mother had them, she was breaking NJ gun laws and was risking prison time.

Has there been verification that the shooter had 30 round mags, or is this just another mis-direct being used by the gun grabbers and media? If he did have 30 round mags, it's further proof that gun laws can't and won't stop this type of tragedy.
Brewha Offline
#228 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 9:51 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
DrafterX wrote:
I thought we had laws.... Think

d'oh!
DrafterX Offline
#229 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 10:01 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
How many laws did this kid break..?? Would more laws have stopped him.?? Huh
Brewha Offline
#230 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 10:13 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
DrafterX wrote:
How many laws did this kid break..?? Would more laws have stopped him.?? Huh

Just because a nut, or worse a clever man, can break the law does not mean we should not have laws.

Would you feel better is his acts of murder broke no laws?
Brewha Offline
#231 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 10:20 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
dpnewell wrote:
Something just hit me. It is against NJ law to "posses" any magazine that holds over 15 rounds. Under N.J.S. 2C:39-3, the mere possession of a 30 round magazine is a crime of the fourth degree punishable by 18 months in prison and a fine of $7,500. These magazines are already banned in NJ, so if the mother had them, she was breaking NJ gun laws and was risking prison time.

Has there been verification that the shooter had 30 round mags, or is this just another mis-direct being used by the gun grabbers and media? If he did have 30 round mags, it's further proof that gun laws can't and won't stop this type of tragedy.

We keep people safe, buy and large but not always, by having regulation and laws, you dim bulb.

By your reasoning - or lack there or - we would not need laws against murder. People will just go right on doing it. So why have big government take away our freedom by regulating murder? people gonna kill people anyways -
victor809 Offline
#232 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2012, 10:29 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Laws and regulations serve a purpose. They raise the bar for acquiring the item you are regulating... essentially ensuring that most stupid of criminal minded individuals won't acquire that which you've regulated. The more you regulate something, and the more you regulate all the aspects surrounding that something, the higher you raise the bar.

There will always be people consciously breaking whatever regulations exist (I can't believe I have to say this in a forum where 98.2% of the posters buy regulated illegally imported cigars from a specific island). To say that "see, they broke the law, therefore we shouldn't have it" is a false argument. Increasing the regulation and enforcement (enforcement being key) around a law will always reduce the acquisition of said item.

Again... everything is a balance. We all agree there has to be some regulation around weaponry, it's a matter of degree. I think it's an interesting discussion, as long as we stick to cogent and real arguments.
DadZilla3 Offline
#233 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 7:59 AM EST
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
victor809 wrote:
Again... everything is a balance. We all agree there has to be some regulation around weaponry, it's a matter of degree.

But to what degree will the government go regarding any new firearm regulations in addition to the thousands we already have on the books? And how effective would yet more regulations be, on top of all the firearm regulations we already have? I think that is the valid mistrust that most gun owners have right now for the ongoing legislative 'we've got to do something! ' frenzy.
HockeyDad Offline
#234 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 8:28 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
Brewha wrote:
We keep people safe, buy and large but not always, by having regulation and laws, you dim bulb.

By your reasoning - or lack there or - we would not need laws against murder. People will just go right on doing it. So why have big government take away our freedom by regulating murder? people gonna kill people anyways -



Perhaps we should have a law against murder and another law against murder using your right hand. This should cut down heavily on murder by right-handed individuals.
victor809 Offline
#235 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 8:30 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
The government will go as far as you let it. Theoretically we live in a representative democracy, so government regulations will generally favor the majority ( with some caveats). Effectiveness of regulations would vary based on enforcement. Interestingly, while I do hear the NRA say over and over again that we just need greater enforcement of existing laws, I don't actually believe they think that. I think that is like someone on here saying "we don't need new laws on Cuban cigars, we just need to enforce the existing ones!!" Yeah.... right... you just don't want new laws and you know enforcement costs money, so its less likely to happen.... :)

I'm just trying to point out where either side is using crappy arguments....
HockeyDad Offline
#236 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 8:39 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
If enforcement of existing laws cost money, wouldn't enforcement of new laws also cost even more money?

Whether a person breaks 30 laws or 50 laws doesn't stop anything. The final solution is to ban all firearms. Many people recognize that this day will come.
dpnewell Offline
#237 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 8:42 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Brewha wrote:
We keep people safe, buy and large but not always, by having regulation and laws, you dim bulb.

By your reasoning - or lack there or - we would not need laws against murder. People will just go right on doing it. So why have big government take away our freedom by regulating murder? people gonna kill people anyways -


No, you totally mis-understood (willfully). There are existing laws in place that banned 30 round mags. NJ also has a far stricter Assault Weapon ban, that was implemented by Florio before Clinton's National ban. NJ's ban did not expire when the National ban did, and is still in place. NJ's existing Assault weapon ban did not stop this guy, nor did the even stricter Connecticut firearm laws, nor did the "Gun Free School Zone" signs. Thinking that adding additional laws will stop a madman, when he broke dozens of existing laws, is wishful thinking or just plain insanity.
victor809 Offline
#238 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 8:58 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HockeyDad wrote:
If enforcement of existing laws cost money, wouldn't enforcement of new laws also cost even more money?

Whether a person breaks 30 laws or 50 laws doesn't stop anything. The final solution is to ban all firearms. Many people recognize that this day will come.


Of course.
The reality is that new laws in place will likely be enforced to the levels of existing laws, because there won't be any additional money for enforcement. If anyone is caught, they'll be charged with breaking two laws instead of one (yes, likely more than 2, I'm just using this for illustrative purposes). But no one will be caught, because the ATF has bigger problems and no additional manpower.

This is a retarded argument on both sides.

One side wants new laws, because it will make them look like they care and are doing something.
The other side doesn't want any new laws, because it will make them look like they aren't supporting the already compromised 2nd amendment.

Neither side actually wants to set up task forces to enforce the existing laws in place, because that costs money and will actually inconvenience/arrest potential voters (the same way stronger enforcement of the cuban embargo might inconvenience some of us).

Meanwhile, the jesters and peasants on either side are making up arguments for their specific viewpoint which have little basis in reality.

Man, I love coming to the circus. Herfing Herfing
stogiefan Offline
#239 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 9:35 AM EST
Joined: 10-23-2012
Posts: 80
victor809 wrote:
Laws and regulations serve a purpose. They raise the bar for acquiring the item you are regulating... essentially ensuring that most stupid of criminal minded individuals won't acquire that which you've regulated. The more you regulate something, and the more you regulate all the aspects surrounding that something, the higher you raise the bar.

There will always be people consciously breaking whatever regulations exist (I can't believe I have to say this in a forum where 98.2% of the posters buy regulated illegally imported cigars from a specific island). To say that "see, they broke the law, therefore we shouldn't have it" is a false argument. Increasing the regulation and enforcement (enforcement being key) around a law will always reduce the acquisition of said item.

Again... everything is a balance. We all agree there has to be some regulation around weaponry, it's a matter of degree. I think it's an interesting discussion, as long as we stick to cogent and real arguments.


To me it is not "see they broke the law, therefore we shouldn't have it". My grievence is with the unintended consequences of laws creating a worse scenario than previously existed without the law. This just doesn't have to do with guns it has to do with many laws today.

I don't favor a society without laws. But laws have to be 1) Realistically enforceable 2) Based on logic and reason divorced from emotion 3)Not limit individual liberty but rather safeguard others from having their liberty and rights trampled on by someone or something else. These new gun control laws being suggested do not meet any of the criteria above and in my opinion should be ignored and not made into law.
DadZilla3 Offline
#240 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 11:32 AM EST
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
stogiefan wrote:
To me it is not "see they broke the law, therefore we shouldn't have it". My grievence is with the unintended consequences of laws creating a worse scenario than previously existed without the law. This just doesn't have to do with guns it has to do with many laws today.

I don't favor a society without laws. But laws have to be 1) Realistically enforceable 2) Based on logic and reason divorced from emotion 3)Not limit individual liberty but rather safeguard others from having their liberty and rights trampled on by someone or something else. These new gun control laws being suggested do not meet any of the criteria above and in my opinion should be ignored and not made into law.


If any more proof is needed that more gun laws and restrictions won't stop a psycho from doing mayhem is the fact that a gunman recently opened fire INSIDE A POLICE STATION in New Jersey.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8934293

Any well-publicized arguments yet from lawmakers about calling for stricter guidelines regarding career criminals free to walk the streets ?
Any well-publicized arguments yet from lawmakers about re-evaluating our culture's belief that 'crazy people have rights too'?

Nah, lets just call for further restrictions on what firearms law-abiding citizens have access to.
dpnewell Offline
#241 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 11:43 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
DadZilla3 wrote:
If any more proof is needed that more gun laws and restrictions won't stop a psycho from doing mayhem is the fact that a gunman recently opened fire INSIDE A POLICE STATION in New Jersey.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8934293

Any well-publicized arguments yet from lawmakers about calling for stricter guidelines regarding career criminals free to walk the streets ?
Any well-publicized arguments yet from lawmakers about re-evaluating our culture's belief that 'crazy people have rights too'?

Nah, lets just call for further restrictions on what firearms law-abiding citizens have access to.


Saw this report this morning on my local. Happened about 15 minutes from my house. Suspect was being "processed" when he "obtained a weapon". I.E. he struggled with police and disarmed one of them. If we just had more gun laws maybe we could have stopped this senseless attack.

If the gun grabbers really wanted to reduce crime, they'd be looking at the things you suggested. Instead, they use crime prevention as an excuse for nothing more then a power grab. Too bad so many fall for their illogical arguments and become nothing more then pawns.
HockeyDad Offline
#242 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 11:47 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
dpnewell wrote:
Saw this report this morning on my local. Happened about 15 minutes from my house. Suspect was being "processed" when he "obtained a weapon". I.E. he struggled with police and disarmed one of them. If we just had more gun laws maybe we could have stopped this senseless attack.



We need a law to make it illegal to forcefully take a firearm from a police officer.
DrafterX Offline
#243 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 11:52 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
maybe some smarter cops too.... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#244 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 11:58 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Not to point out the obvious, but this is not an example which successfully defends your points.

If anything this would argue one of two things:
1 - the presence of other armed individuals does not deter a nutjob from opening fire (therefore, while casualties may be reduced, arming all teachers won't actually reduce the number of attacks). Or
2 - that all police officers should be disarmed and left with only billy-clubs, ala Britain, to protect them from any nutjob that decides to take their gun and start shooting at them.

Come on people... use logic. (and again, because I feel like it needs to be said, I support people's right to own just about any firearm, I don't care if you want an uzi.... I just don't like bad arguments for why you should have them.)
victor809 Offline
#245 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 11:59 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
maybe some smarter cops too.... Mellow


^ that would likely be the best fix in this situation....
DrafterX Offline
#246 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 12:04 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
victor809 wrote:


Come on people... use logic. (and again, because I feel like it needs to be said, I support people's right to own just about any firearm, I don't care if you want an uzi.... I just don't like bad arguments for why you should have them.)



I wonder if they hadn't introduced and passed the Brady thing if there would be as much interest in assault style weapons...... the only reason I bought my first SKS was because I was told I might not be able to ever get one again.... then I started shooting it and had a blast... they are nice guns but the threat sealed the deal for me.... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#247 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 12:06 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
I wonder if they hadn't introduced and passed the Brady thing if there would be as much interest in assault style weapons...... the only reason I bought my first SKS was because I was told I might not be able to ever get one again.... then I started shooting it and had a blast... they are nice guns but the threat sealed the deal for me.... Mellow


I'm tempted to point out that the best way to get a child to do something is to tell them they can't....

:)
DrafterX Offline
#248 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 12:09 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
some truth to that.... look at the ammo shelves in Walmart next time your there.... people are stocking up in feart of not being able to get more.... prolly some kind of plot by gun and ammo manufactures... Think
Brewha Offline
#249 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 2:29 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
victor809 wrote:
Of course.
The reality is that new laws in place will likely be enforced to the levels of existing laws, because there won't be any additional money for enforcement. If anyone is caught, they'll be charged with breaking two laws instead of one (yes, likely more than 2, I'm just using this for illustrative purposes). But no one will be caught, because the ATF has bigger problems and no additional manpower.

This is a retarded argument on both sides.

One side wants new laws, because it will make them look like they care and are doing something.
The other side doesn't want any new laws, because it will make them look like they aren't supporting the already compromised 2nd amendment.

Neither side actually wants to set up task forces to enforce the existing laws in place, because that costs money and will actually inconvenience/arrest potential voters (the same way stronger enforcement of the cuban embargo might inconvenience some of us).

Meanwhile, the jesters and peasants on either side are making up arguments for their specific viewpoint which have little basis in reality.

Man, I love coming to the circus. Herfing Herfing


Victor, you're going to need a much taller ladder if you want to talk down to us . . . .
victor809 Offline
#250 Posted: Fri, Dec 28 2012, 2:36 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Brewha wrote:
Victor, you're going to need a much taller ladder if you want to talk down to us . . . .


not if you're gonna keep rooting around in the mud like that I won't.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
6 Pages<123456>
Back to Top