01-18-2013, 01:19 PM | #133 | |
Brigadier General
2066
Rep 4,365
Posts
Drives: '07 Z4 Coupe, '21 X3, '16 GMC
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Iowa
|
Quote:
There are only 2 I took issue with really. The one allowing doctors to ask about gun in the home (seems weird, unless psychiatric) and the full background check before returning seized weapon, cause they can seize for any number of reasons yeah?
__________________
2007 Z4 3.0si Coupe • 6 MT • Black Saphire Metallic • PP • SP
2016 GMC Sierra SLT Z71 Premium Plus 4x4 2017 Harley StreetGlide • Denim Black • V&H Tune 2021 BMW x30i • Phytonic Blue Metallic • Fully loaded |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 03:04 PM | #134 | |
Major
160
Rep 1,134
Posts
Drives: '07 M Roadster
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 03:17 PM | #135 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
273
Rep 1,883
Posts
Drives: 2011 E92 M3
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: One of the coasts...
|
Quote:
As far as the points made, I have no problems coming down harder on people who fail to report stolen weapons, or people who sell their weapons to murderers and criminals, but that isn't what happened in NY State... That logic has been IGNORED by the NY Governor. He'd much rather let killers only use 7 bullets at a time instead of 10...
__________________
'11 BMW E92 ///M3 - ZCP and DCT
'15 Ford F-250 - Lariat, 6.7 Powerstroke Turbo-diesel |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 04:03 PM | #136 |
There is No Substitute
77
Rep 1,186
Posts |
Anyone calling Ms. Lanza a responsible gun owner has lost credibility in my eyes as well.
__________________
'13 Audi A6
'07 Porsche GT3 RS '08 BMW E90 335i |
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 04:47 PM | #137 |
Lieutenant
110
Rep 418
Posts |
Wow... It's really quite frustrating when you say something in facetious way that normally is very effective at illustrating a point, and it's missed completely because people defensively fixate on the wrong thing. (sigh)
Let's try again. If this still doesn't work, then I give up. How can I say she's was responsible? Well, legally speaking, she was not being irresponsible, otherwise there would be a specific crime to charge her with. As we all know, a legal opinion is the only opinion that has teeth. You subjective opinion, or my subjective opinion, wont affect someone's life any more than my cat's opinion. I can call you a thief, but unless the law agrees with that, it does not cause you to suffer the penalties a real thief would. There is no distinction in the lifestyle of an innocent person or a guilty person unless the law says you are a guilty person. The point I'm trying to make is that under the only system of judgement that affects the real world, she did nothing wrong. If pro-gun people subjectively feel that ain't right (and it seems like many do), then I'd think they'd all be in favor of taking a look at making the laws more strict, so that there would be greater alignment between what sanctions can be imposed in the real world, and what sanctions they'd like to see imposed. Yet, many (not all) of the people who vilify her are also quick to be hyper defensive at the first suggestion of any gun laws (and I'm NOT just talking about the silly 7-round-rule, I'm talking about ANY dialog regarding tightening things up, this thread has included more fundamental discussion points than just the NY law). It's like "stop right there, I wont even finish listening to what you have to say if if might come within a 1000 mile radius of any possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and I'm not open to legally revising it first either". You dont normally see that sort of, well, lack of appetite to consider negotiation, outside of the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of gov. Honestly, I think if someone suggested re-instituting alcohol prohibition, that would get less of a rise out of people than, "lets talk about your guns". |
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 04:59 PM | #138 |
There is No Substitute
77
Rep 1,186
Posts |
Sure, there is a "legal interpretation" of responsible.
But anyone who leaves fire power like that unsecured is simply irresponsible by the definition of the word itself. For instance, it's not technically illegal to leave your car running in your garage with all the doors and windows sealed shut while you work on your car, but it's very irresponsible. Anyone calling what Ms. Lanza did "responsible" has lost credibility or doesn't know the meaning of the word, plain and simple, regardless of any invented strawmen arguments.
__________________
'13 Audi A6
'07 Porsche GT3 RS '08 BMW E90 335i |
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 05:22 PM | #139 | |
Banned
149
Rep 2,014
Posts |
Quote:
The reason we gun owners are hyper defensive about anything that infringes on our rights is that the anti-gunners are using a tragedy to further their agenda. If they really cared about saving lives they would look at statistics and data and find that their proposals will do nothing, they are out for political equity and control. The cynic in me wonders what really shady back room deals are going down while we are all busy arguing about this. We also see this as a ‘slippery slope’ and we want to stop these clowns before they can get any momentum. I think I speak for most gun owners when I say, we don’t think that guns are the problem. Mental health and bad people are the problem. We should not allow these things to mix, but that seems to be a very small part of the discussion, and there are many problems there too. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 05:31 PM | #140 | ||
Lieutenant Colonel
273
Rep 1,883
Posts
Drives: 2011 E92 M3
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: One of the coasts...
|
Quote:
There will always be extremists on both sides of the argument. But while the more "middle of the road" folks are offering up logical solutions, only the "let's ban all guns" or "we need access to RPG's too" people find themselves on TV. Now it seems like you're backpedaling. How many people in this thread said they would have a problem with harsher punishments for those involved with crimes with guns? Or those who sell them to people who commit these atrocities? When it comes to stripping the weapons from law abiding gun owners, or labeling something an "assault weapon" and saying it should be banned because of the way it looks, that's when the MAJORITY of owners become defensive. Tell me. Do you have any idea what the purpose of a flash suppressor on an AR-15 is? Can you tell me how that changes the functionality of the rifle? I'll wait while you google it... And also: Quote:
__________________
'11 BMW E92 ///M3 - ZCP and DCT
'15 Ford F-250 - Lariat, 6.7 Powerstroke Turbo-diesel |
||
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 05:33 PM | #141 |
If You Aint First, You're last !!!
100
Rep 2,508
Posts |
She did not have a safe. So irresponsible.
__________________
08 BMW BSM 335i 6MT (Sports, Premium, NAV, PDC, AS, IPOD, HD Radio, Rear Sunshade, OEM Alarm) Angel iBright V3, Luminics Fog Bulb, Turbo Tuner, K&N Drop in Filter, Dinan Exhaust, Dinan Pedals, Vorsteiner CF Front Lip, and CF Rear Diffuser. Ordered:08/25/07 Started: 09/09/07 Finished: 09/14/07 On Ship: 09/15/07 Arrived: 10/08/07 Delivered: 10/10/07 |
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 05:44 PM | #142 |
Major
190
Rep 1,105
Posts |
Question: Do you know why a constitutional amendment was required to prohibit the production and sale of alcohol?
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 06:22 PM | #143 | |
Lieutenant
110
Rep 418
Posts |
Quote:
Hmmm... let's see... because back then, the Supreme Court could not leverage judicial fiat to change the meaning of the words in the constitution as easily as they can today? Please tell us your version, I'm sure it serves your agenda better than my version does. What exactly does that have to do with my theory that it's easier to find some who will say "Pry this gun from my cold dead hand", than it is to find someone who will say "Pry this beer from my cold dead hand". People toss "strawman argument" around quite liberally, and yet I'm being asked if I know what a flash suppressor is. WTF? For the record, I do know, although I cannot claim to have personally used one myself. Totally unclear as to the relevance of that question. Lets say I didnt know what it was (which is what I'm sure you were hoping for). Would it somehow refute my suggestion that it's a disgraceful reflection on the gun laws that Ms. Lanza couldnt be charged with much of anything if she were still alive today? These tangential obfuscations are really becoming quite bizarre. Richard Dawkins engaging the Pope himself about the existence of God would yield more productive talking points..... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 06:26 PM | #144 |
is probably out riding.
6062
Rep 2,292
Posts |
i think.... i know what Al is saying.
If most gun owners feel that she was irresponsible, why isn't the NRA offering up middle ground solutions rather than staunch defense. I feel the answer to that is, NY didn't offer up any middle ground solution that makes sense, they just passed laws with no real thought or research into the real issues and solutions that could make a real world difference. When governments do that, it appears as if they have a completely different agenda being imposed. It's almost as if there is a scripted plan to ban all firearms from the public. Like when there is enough support after a horrible incident like Sandy Hook, the hand book calls for action: institute step C-3.2 as outlined in your ban all guns book. If there were a true desire to curb as much gun violence as possible we'd be talking about a whole other scenario. But i guess washington doesn't care about 18-24 black males shooting themselves with hand guns in inner cities. Because thats where the majority of gun violence comes from. Incase someone missed it in a seperate post... it's taken 30 YEARS to amass the same number of fatalities from mass shootings as there are in only 1 year in the city of Chicago. And only .0005% of ALL those mass shootings throughout ALL 30 YEARS were perpetrated with a rifle, assault or otherwise. That means on average, over the last 30 years there have been roughly 8 people per year killed by a rifle, assault or otherwise. That's 8 out of the roughly 13,000 gun homicides per year. The lack of logic in the legislation is what sets us off. Just like pork in other legislation, it seems that the politicians have their own agendas because they don't come to the table with logical solutions.
__________________
"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat"
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 06:55 PM | #145 |
There is No Substitute
77
Rep 1,186
Posts |
The legislation is NY isn't meant so solve a problem, it's feel good law making to sooth liberal fears. That's irresponsible.
__________________
'13 Audi A6
'07 Porsche GT3 RS '08 BMW E90 335i |
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 06:55 PM | #146 | |
Lieutenant
110
Rep 418
Posts |
Quote:
The NRA types are happy to stand around, and verbally express their disgust and moral outrage at how irresponsible she was. But, when it comes time to make her legally responsible (so you can effect real change, rather than just standing around, shaking your finger and saying "shame on you"), then they back off REAL quick, because going there means touching the huge political hot potato of revisiting gun laws. Yes, the 7-round-rule is silly, as I've already said. However, before that even came out, right after the Sandy Hook shooting, the NRA had AMPLE opportunity to have taken a position that would have endeared them to the MAJORITY of people who want to see some kind of change now. They could have said, hey, mass confiscations are certainly off the table, but we'd be willing to engage in preliminary discussions to see if something could be changed to prevent or deter the next one. Maybe make it so the next Ms. Lanza knows she could be charged if she does survive, and maybe that will cause her to lock her stuff away. Maybe register her guns with the authorities, so that it's easier to identify and monitor households which contain both mentally unstable people and guns (just like insurance companies want to understandably monitor households with muscle cars and teenage boys) Not an unreasonable olive branch. Maybe if they did something like that, anti-gun crowd would say, OK, we have something to work with here, and the 7-round-rule would have never seen the light of day. They'd be too busy working on picking the real juicy fruit. These mass shootings are very rare. However, parents of 6 year olds who saw what happened are understandably very upset and nervous. These people are not ALL driven by a subversive liberal agenda to strip you of all your guns. Before Newtown, many of them probably didnt think about it that much. For the NRA to respond as they did, with a "the answer is MORE guns in your kids school", reveals a clumsy social insensitivity that is beyond words. I dont have kids, and even I could anticipate the fear they must have had sending their kids to school the next day. Is it logically sound, statistically speaking? Nope. But, when it comes to possibly losing your own child, I can understand that emotion may cloud reason. That should come as no surprise. For the gun owner, well I dont have a gun either, but I cannot possibly imagine that someone's attachment to their AR-15 being as strong as a parent's attachment to their 6-year old daughter, so the really have less "excuse" to respond as irrationally or emotionally. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 06:55 PM | #147 |
Banned
149
Rep 2,014
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 07:11 PM | #148 | |
is probably out riding.
6062
Rep 2,292
Posts |
Quote:
It seems clear that there will be some type of legislation coming down the pipe, so why not get in there first and be part of the solution. Even with guarding the 2nd amendment fiercely being their agenda, they could have more easily done that being in on the new talks. Keep your enemies close....
__________________
"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat"
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 07:11 PM | #149 |
There is No Substitute
77
Rep 1,186
Posts |
Why is it that liberals think they can simply evoke the dead children at Sandy Hook to support their viewpoints anytime the word "gun" comes up, instead of discussing "effective" legislation that would actually punish irresponsible and criminal negligence and usage of a firearm, instead of a blanket punishment across the board?
I feel the left today is just as bad as their Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones counterparts when it comes to sensationalism. There's very little logical thought and approach to their arguments, disregarding any data that doesn't support their viewpoint, and in general just making emotional appeals as their main points.
__________________
'13 Audi A6
'07 Porsche GT3 RS '08 BMW E90 335i |
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 07:24 PM | #151 | |
There is No Substitute
77
Rep 1,186
Posts |
Like this argument:
Quote:
That's a total appeal to emotion, just like the people who post pictures or discuss the dead children at Sandy Hook. Total sensationalism, and strawman. It doesn't help to address the point about what is effective legislation for gun ownership. It's basically "You love kids more than guns, right? Right?" What a crock. This thread has become tiresome.
__________________
'13 Audi A6
'07 Porsche GT3 RS '08 BMW E90 335i Last edited by MediaArtist; 01-18-2013 at 07:32 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 07:50 PM | #152 | |||
Lieutenant Colonel
273
Rep 1,883
Posts
Drives: 2011 E92 M3
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: One of the coasts...
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for being all over the place, your "argument" has gone a long way and mutated quite a bit from your first post in this thread...
__________________
'11 BMW E92 ///M3 - ZCP and DCT
'15 Ford F-250 - Lariat, 6.7 Powerstroke Turbo-diesel |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 09:30 PM | #153 |
Lieutenant
110
Rep 418
Posts |
LOL at people suggesting I'm some super left wing liberal.
Haven't spent much time reading most of what I've written in the Politics and religion thread, huh? Talk about people whose opinion has credibility issues.... |
Appreciate
0
|
01-18-2013, 09:32 PM | #154 | |
Lieutenant
110
Rep 418
Posts |
Quote:
Seriously ? One side uses the emotional fear of losing your own child (despite the insanely low risks) to motivate them. The other side uses the threat of mass gun confiscation and the inevitable resulting government tyranny (despite the equally low risks) to motivate them. The difference is, the number of recent mass shootings at schools is not zero. The number of recent tyrannical government takeovers in places without an armed populace is zero. This suggests that a LOGICAL response would be to say that one risk is in fact lower than the other, at least today. If you must compromise 1 to respond better to another, the lower risk position should give more ground. It's pretty hard to find logical fault with that axiom. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|