Now playing on dirty.radio: Loading...

  Dirty Forums > world.

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-20-2009, 10:51 AM
34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j
blue
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 929
Re: Now he's after our guns!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by stimpee View Post
Whats the big deal? does the 2nd ammendment also state that crazy mental retards have a right to arms too? i guess I dont get this right to bear arms thing. its a lucky thing that there were no nuclear weapons in the 18th century and a right to bear nuclear missiles. "but we've always had a right to bear nuclear missiles!".

Okay., the gun debate. im not getting dragged in. besides, godwins law has already been invoked. its over.
I am pretty sure crazy mental retards can't buy weapons now. I am also pretty sure that weapons of mass destruction would never have been a constitutional right if they existed 300 years ago. Gun control is a tricky issue. 99% of the people who buy guns legally are not going to use them to commit crimes. You would think that logically, making it tougher to get guns would put less in the hands that those who would. But come on, that last 1% who do plan to or could forseeably shoot an innocent person in the future would be able to get access to a gun regardless of any such laws. The government bans the sale of marijuana, shrooms, and LSD, but come on, you can get those without much effort. A psychopath is not going to be stopped by a written test. A jealous, motivated killer is not going to drop his carefully laid revenge plans because of a $25 fee and a 2-day waiting period. (is it just me or does the $25 fee sound like a way to fund this new registry? Is that insult to injury or what??)

I'm with Stranglet on this one. There's a good argument to be made against this bill, but there's no reason it has to be so sensationalist. It's one of those arguments that starts "look, I'm not saying that Obama is going to be a brutal, merciless dictator" and then spends 5 pages trying to show just that. But as I recall, liberals had a huge shitfit when the government passed a law to try to monitor the activities of terrorists, saying that we had the right to keep certain things private. Now the conservatives are pulling the same argument, and I dont think it makes the liberals look good when they shoot them down. I dont think comparing Obama to Hitler is much different than accusing Bush of orchestrating 9/11. Although I guess the liberals did at least have a few somewhat logical arguments for that one. And you know, the guy who wrote this carries a firearm.

Whatever..you know Hitler loved Corn Flakes? And Obama eats them every day! I find this veeeeery interesting...
  #12  
Old 10-20-2009, 11:10 AM
jOHN rODRIGUEZ
SystematicallyDisadsomthg
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: THE PLAsTIC VOORRTEEXXX!!!
Posts: 3,570
Re: Now he's after our guns!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j View Post
Whatever..you know Hitler loved Corn Flakes? And Obama eats them every day! I find this veeeeery interesting...

I have an excellant recipe using Corn Flakes on meat/fish for a crunchy, tasty zing! And it's not meatloaf, ... eek.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	475251314_d6b1f696bc.jpg
Views:	120
Size:	63.1 KB
ID:	259  
__________________
8=====)~~(=====8


Last edited by jOHN rODRIGUEZ; 10-20-2009 at 12:09 PM.
  #13  
Old 10-20-2009, 01:23 PM
bryantm3
It's Written In The Book!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: alpharetta
Posts: 1,101
Re: Now he's after our guns!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangelet View Post
Well argued but lets look deeper into this bill

1. It has no co-sponsors. Not even another democrat. Its one of several hundred bills that any of the 535 members of congress can propose any given year.

2. It has no chance of ever passing.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/02/gun-control/#

3. No one is going to deny someone gun ownership because of depression. I mean do you really think that's how its going to pan out? The state of Illinois has its own law that mirrors that of the proposed hr 45 so we can look at its actual implementation for clues as to how hr 45 will work if it ever passes, which it wont. As you can see from below. It specifically mentions being committed, having severe mental retardation, and those whose mental state is so severe as to be a clear danger to the community. We're talking sling blade here, not sad smurf.

3. The "Obama Regime" may be intimately tied to this bill because it comes from chicago, since Obama is from chicago, or it might be because Chicago is a fucking warzone where kids are getting shot while looking out their bedroom window.

4. So if it has no chance of being passed, is infested with hyperbolic misunderstanding, is currently spreading around the internet and used as a talking point for georgian republicans, what does that add up to? If you said tea bagger bait meant to help disenfranchized republicans crawl out of their hole in time fore 2010, you're today's grand prize winner!!!
agreed. i was not aware of the state of the bill in congress, but all congressmen (and congresswomen!) participate in intentionally creating these sorts of 'dead bills'. for example, our senator, saxby chambliss (i am in GA) introduced a bill during the tomato salmonella outbreak (which turned out to be jalapeños) that would ban shipping tomatoes across the georgia state line only during a salmonella outbreak. of course, he knew the bill was crap, but he wanted to be able to say during the campaign that he had attempted to protect georgia citizens from salmonella outbreaks. i suspect the congressman from chicago is trying to make a political gain based on the recent shooting incidents up there. so if this is another one of those 'dead bills' the point is really moot, yet, on the same token, many of these gun ownership restrictions have been discussed by certain congressmen— so there's no point in getting up in arms about this specific bill being passed, but the details do deserve a degree of discussion, as they may come up in another bill.

@ #3, the thing that bothers me is that the bill proposes that the government should receive a copy of your private records from your psychologist. i don't believe anyone should have access to that data except for you. that's why they passed HIPAA.

Quote:
This is where we really start to part ways. There are lists everywhere keeping track of our income, our cars, our homes...all for specific reasons that we all seem to accept and live with just fine. So personally, no, I have no inherent problem with a federal gun registry, assuming it's not somehow abused. If it's simply a registry to keep track of what gun is in what person's possession, then we're that much more informed when a crime is committed and we need to maybe track down where the gun involved came from, who may be involved, etc.
since gun licenses are not issued by the federal government, it's not their business. personally, i don't believe the government has a right to know how much income a person makes, so that fact doesn't sit easily with me. i just see it as part of an overall plan to cede more rights to the federal government when the states, for the most part, do just fine on their own. for example, our public school systems began locally and are run by the state/county. i see no reason for the feds to intercede in any way, including funding, unless the school is obviously in trouble and the state can't fix it. it's the same with gun licenses: the federal government should make a limited outline of how it should work, and let the states handle it. it's simply more efficient. we were formed as a federal republic so that individual states can determine how they want to run their government instead of having to answer to the national government. that's outlined in the tenth amendment.

i do agree that it's a matter of gun safety to have a safety test, and although it seems like a good idea, i feel that the government, at any time, could decide to make the test more and more vigorous to prevent people without military or police training to own guns. it just leaves too much room for that. an idea might be a state-by-state rule that if you get a gun license, you have to take a gun safety course from a private instructor within the year, leaving no room for 'tweaks' in the tests.
  #14  
Old 10-20-2009, 01:27 PM
bryantm3
It's Written In The Book!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: alpharetta
Posts: 1,101
Re: Now he's after our guns!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j View Post
I am pretty sure crazy mental retards can't buy weapons now. I am also pretty sure that weapons of mass destruction would never have been a constitutional right if they existed 300 years ago. Gun control is a tricky issue. 99% of the people who buy guns legally are not going to use them to commit crimes. You would think that logically, making it tougher to get guns would put less in the hands that those who would. But come on, that last 1% who do plan to or could forseeably shoot an innocent person in the future would be able to get access to a gun regardless of any such laws. The government bans the sale of marijuana, shrooms, and LSD, but come on, you can get those without much effort. A psychopath is not going to be stopped by a written test. A jealous, motivated killer is not going to drop his carefully laid revenge plans because of a $25 fee and a 2-day waiting period. (is it just me or does the $25 fee sound like a way to fund this new registry? Is that insult to injury or what??)

I'm with Stranglet on this one. There's a good argument to be made against this bill, but there's no reason it has to be so sensationalist. It's one of those arguments that starts "look, I'm not saying that Obama is going to be a brutal, merciless dictator" and then spends 5 pages trying to show just that. But as I recall, liberals had a huge shitfit when the government passed a law to try to monitor the activities of terrorists, saying that we had the right to keep certain things private. Now the conservatives are pulling the same argument, and I dont think it makes the liberals look good when they shoot them down. I dont think comparing Obama to Hitler is much different than accusing Bush of orchestrating 9/11. Although I guess the liberals did at least have a few somewhat logical arguments for that one. And you know, the guy who wrote this carries a firearm.

Whatever..you know Hitler loved Corn Flakes? And Obama eats them every day! I find this veeeeery interesting...
*thumbs up* Dan Bryant hoffi hyn.
  #15  
Old 10-20-2009, 04:57 PM
the mongoose
talks to God
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: nomadic
Posts: 1,326
Re: Now he's after our guns!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j View Post
you know Hitler loved Corn Flakes? And Obama eats them every day! I find this veeeeery interesting...
Dude, you are totally fucking on to something!
__________________
Romans 6:4
  #16  
Old 10-20-2009, 05:03 PM
Sean
Where in the world...?
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,437
Re: Now he's after our guns!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3 View Post
since gun licenses are not issued by the federal government, it's not their business. personally, i don't believe the government has a right to know how much income a person makes, so that fact doesn't sit easily with me. i just see it as part of an overall plan to cede more rights to the federal government when the states, for the most part, do just fine on their own. for example, our public school systems began locally and are run by the state/county. i see no reason for the feds to intercede in any way, including funding, unless the school is obviously in trouble and the state can't fix it. it's the same with gun licenses: the federal government should make a limited outline of how it should work, and let the states handle it. it's simply more efficient. we were formed as a federal republic so that individual states can determine how they want to run their government instead of having to answer to the national government. that's outlined in the tenth amendment.

i do agree that it's a matter of gun safety to have a safety test, and although it seems like a good idea, i feel that the government, at any time, could decide to make the test more and more vigorous to prevent people without military or police training to own guns. it just leaves too much room for that. an idea might be a state-by-state rule that if you get a gun license, you have to take a gun safety course from a private instructor within the year, leaving no room for 'tweaks' in the tests.
Very good points. I don't personally subscribe to the idea that testing would be as manipulative as you feel it could be here, but all the stuff about state versus federal and such sounds fair enough to me.
__________________
Download all my remixes
Post Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.