|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> A Van /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1524581027 Message started by MnSpring on 04/24/18 at 07:43:47 |
|
Title: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/24/18 at 07:43:47 A Van, is clearly a vehicle, which Only a Professional should possess. Their is NO Reason, a normal citizen should possess one. Their are plenty of other cars/trucks/MC’s, to be able to satisfy the transportation need for a private citizen. A, VAN, should be used Only by a fully Licensed, Professional. (and Kept in a Locked Garage, until it is used) And most certainly, NOT filled with a high octane, alcohol free gasoline, and super grip tires, that can get a grip on a smooth surface, like a sidewalk. Now for the the Fairy Dust Sprinklers, who have their panties in a bunch. Does the above sound a bit ridiculous ? It is, JUST, as Ridiculous, as, BANNING, a type of firearm, and capacity of clips/magazines. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Serowbot on 04/24/18 at 08:03:02 Yes,.. it does sound ridiculous... |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/24/18 at 08:37:34 4650475A42575A41350 wrote:
So glad you agree, That, “… BANNING, a type of firearm, and capacity of clips/magazines…” Is Just as ridiculous as: Banning A Van, (which Only a Professional should possess) Etc, etc, etc, |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/24/18 at 08:49:51 Another Rental used to kill. Maybe the rental companies need to restrict access to their vans. Certain people can't rent without a complete background check. But that would punish the innocent. Can't do that Unless Gunz.. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Serowbot on 04/24/18 at 09:06:25 A gun, if used as intended... kills... A van,... hauls stuff. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/24/18 at 09:14:19 2E3137302D2A1B2B1B23313D76440 wrote:
Wow, never thought of that. Well it’s very clear, if, Rental Companies. Demanded a comprehensive background check, Like: Are you Mentally Ill ? Do you Plan on Running Over People ? Are you going to Blow up the Rental ? Are you going to carry any ‘forbidden’, items in it ? Do you plan to use it for ‘Illegal or Illicit means ? Do you plan to transport any illegal aliens in it ? (And I am sure, the, ‘Fairy Dust Sprinklers’, will think of a WHOLE bunch MORE) Instead of just a “Driver License’. Of course, their is always the ‘other’ way. Require the above things, to get, a D.L. than a rental company, Only, has to ask to see a D.L. because, ’Someone Else’, took care of their, problem/checking/requiring, for them. Because if, ‘Rental, companies did that. Their would be absolutely NO MORE CRIME, Connected with, ‘Renting A Van |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/24/18 at 09:27:15 687E69746C79746F1B0 wrote:
"...A gun, if used as intended… kills..." In, SOME, cases. The numbers used, in, Self Defense, in Suicide, and Hunting, by the ‘BANNING’ people, are all Lumped in the; ‘All Guns Are Bad’ "...A van,… hauls stuff..." AND, can/has, ALSO, been used to, KILL People, (In Many Various ways) If MISUSED. So, why is it, the, ‘Gun’ when a, ‘Person’, has misused it ? Why is it the, ‘Person’, when something else, besides a 'gun', is misused ? |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Serowbot on 04/24/18 at 10:16:08 If a gun is just an inanimate object,... just a tool, like any other,... why do you think you are so passionate about them?... Are you this emotionally invested in your juicer?... It's not about guns usefulness as a tool,... it's not even about the second amendment.... ...it's about the deep psychological need that some Americans have for guns. Very different than a cargo van... I wish guns were just tools... If they were,... we wouldn't be having this argument. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/24/18 at 10:28:27 5741564B53464B50240 wrote:
‘Guns’, ARE Tools. “…it’s not even about the second amendment….” YES it is. That is the Total/Whole reason. When you understand, EXACTLY, what the second amendment, actually Means. Then you will get it. If one does NOT understand, if one, refuses to understand, if one fails to acknowledge, then that one, will Never get it. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/24/18 at 10:30:26 Can, ANYBODY, Answer this: Why is it, the, ‘Gun’ when a, ‘Person’, has misused it ? Why is it the, ‘Person’, when something else, besides a 'gun', is misused ? |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by FormerlyLostArtist on 04/24/18 at 10:42:18 52714C6F6D7671781F0 wrote:
Because the person hasn't misused it. They used it exactly for what it was built for. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/24/18 at 10:49:27 062F322D25322C390C2F3334013234293334400 wrote:
There's one, who doesn't get it. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/24/18 at 13:39:17 Dear lost Do you know why the second amendment exists? Please explain. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by FormerlyLostArtist on 04/24/18 at 14:11:07 51724F6C6E75727B1C0 wrote:
There's one, who doesn't get it. [/quote] if a gun shoots and kills someone, that's not a mis-use. That's how that is supposed to work. I mean I guess guns are good paper weights... maybe, maybe a decent hammer... idk... Have you ever seen that episode of the Simpsons where Homer gets a gun... that's mis-use of a gun. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuG9kUiRC_I[/media] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/23/homer_simpson_if_you_dont_have_a_gun_the_king_of_england_can_just_come_and_bully_you.html yes those are exaggerations, hence the comedy aspect of it.... If you don't want to kill people, why have a tool designed to kill people? Maybe you are in a dangerous environment where people are trying to kill you, so you feel the need to defend yourself with equal if not superior force, you are still killing. Still using the tool exactly how it was designed. It's not a taser, it's a deadly force weapon. and if it makes you feel better, you only do it in defense, not even proactive defense, just scared for your life defense. but that's just to make you feel better, you are still killing. do you have the right to kill in that way, legally sure, morally sure, but the object doesn't care, those are manmade ideas about what we think we should be able to do. but if you feel your individual needs are to kill, regardless of what these other hairless apes are telling you, the object of your choice is the same. you aren't misusing the object, it is designed to exactly what you want to do. In fact, using guns offensively is even a more correct usage of a gun, a gun isn't reactive, the human has to train or otherwise be conditioned to be reactive. The gun's not offensive either, but it's use is far easier when it's not being juggled by reactive responses a bang too late... I get it, it's the person, the person is misguided yes. and a gun is no more dangerous than a sealed envelope of anthrax, and I think it's fine to not want either in your life, and the discussion is healthy. I think it's fine that if you want those in your life, that maybe you should be required to be trained in how to handle them and what they really are. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. the bold part is just as important as the other part. a well practiced militia (even of one) is of equal importance as the access and availability of arms are. those two clauses are balanced, so I don't know why so many are fighting a little encouragement by the government to focus on creating well practiced and meaningful proprietors of arms |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by FormerlyLostArtist on 04/24/18 at 14:12:23 332C2A2D30370636063E2C206B590 wrote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. the bold part is why, it's not just so everyone who desires to have a gun can have one. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/24/18 at 15:06:07 6E475A454D5A445164475B5C695A5C415B5C280 wrote:
WOW, rather revealing how you think. “…if a gun shoots and kills someone, that’s not a mis-use…” In A School, Theater, Church, Concert, etc. OH YEA it IS, a MIS-USE. “…That’s how that is supposed to work…” In the case of a Defense situation. So why, if a Firearm is MIS-USED, It is the Gun/NRA/Gun owners fault. When a Van, is, MIS-USED It is the Person’t fault. (Rhetorical question, because the Liberal, Ultra-Liberals will NOT have a answer, except to say: "BAN”) |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by FormerlyLostArtist on 04/24/18 at 16:13:05 64477A595B40474E290 wrote:
WOW, rather revealing how you think. “…if a gun shoots and kills someone, that’s not a mis-use…” In A School, Theater, Church, Concert, etc. OH YEA it IS, a MIS-USE. “…That’s how that is supposed to work…” In the case of a Defense situation. So why, if a Firearm is MIS-USED, It is the Gun/NRA/Gun owners fault. When a Van, is, MIS-USED It is the Person’t fault. (Rhetorical question, because the Liberal, Ultra-Liberals will NOT have a answer, except to say: "BAN”) [/quote] I've never blamed NRA or gun owners for the fault of one individual. I've blamed the NRA for being misleading and for using antagonistic language and propaganda. and using a lighter to set fire, whether it be arson or not, is not misuse of the lighter. lighters set fire. BBQ or building.... using a space heater to set fire, that's misuse of the space heater using something as it is designed but yet inappropriately according to traditional definitions of morally acceptable or legally allowed is not misuse the object defines it's use, when a human decides to use that object against it's defined usage case, then it's misuse. using a van to kill people is not what a van is designed for, therefor you are using something against it's design = misusing that thing. not sure how many ways I can say the same thing.... I'm not excusing the illegal or immoral behavior that has lead to deaths, but I'm also not turning a blind eye to innate nature of certain objects. You seem to be hell bent on saying that a gun can be misused by killing people with it. if a gun was being used as a crutch, or a cane, that's misuse of a firearm. no where have I advocated for banning any firearm or van or motorcycle or anything. Just want people to actually be responsible for what they are doing and for society to be okay with having a discussion about the consequences of someone abusing their responsibility. I don't want the subject to be shouted down by straw-men bs and "they're coming to take our guns" when I'm personally not about that, so are you going to talk to me or the crazy lefty who you want me to be? |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Serowbot on 04/24/18 at 16:16:03 08213C232B3C223702213D3A0F3C3A273D3A4E0 wrote:
You must be joking... He's going to talk to the crazy lefty he wants you to be... ;D |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/24/18 at 17:25:28 6B7D6A776F7A776C180 wrote:
Would that be, JUST LIKE, I am a, Bat $hit Crazy, Stupid Moron, who because is a Conservative, LOVES, the KKK, Nazis, Fascists, and White Supremacy. Believes in Racism, Biases, and is Prejudice. (Against Other Races, Religions, Skin color) ? |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/24/18 at 17:45:58 1039243B33243A2F1A3925221724223F2522560 wrote:
“….the object defines it’s use, when a human decides to use that object against it’s defined usage case, then it’s misuse. …" OK, a, ‘Gun’ used to Kill/Injure, innocent People. is NOT, a Mis-Use ? Tell me, WHICH, Maker of firearms, has EVER, EVER, said they make Guns to Offensively, KILL People !!!!! (Do NOT, include the firearms designed for the Military, which, Citizens can NOT have. Unless they have met some Very Special requirements, and their has NEVER, been a, ‘MIS-USE’, since 1934) And you also say: “…and using a lighter to set fire, whether it be arson or not, is not misuse of the lighter…” Because: “… lighters set fire…” ? So, NO difference, in your world, if a lighter sets a fire to a, “… BBQ or building…..” And in the same breath, you say: "...people to actually be responsible for what they are doing..." |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/24/18 at 18:07:42 557C617E76617F6A5F7C60675261677A6067130 wrote:
YES !!!!!! But True to how, a LIBERAL Acts, NOT, saying; the REST of the Story, Deflecting what has been SAID, and distorting, on PURPOSE !!!!!!! Take your phrase above, and add the one word, ‘Innocent’, Between ‘killing’ and ‘people’. Their is not ONE, Gun Maker, who EVER has said:, their product is to be used, Offensively. Their are gun makers, that advertise, their product can be easily used for, Defense. (Just in case you are NOT, aware, the words, Offense and Defense, ARE, different) Are their Firearms, that are MADE, for Offensive, Killing? Sure, they are made, Specifically for a group of people, who are, NOT, Civilians. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/24/18 at 18:54:20 7059445B53445A4F7A5945427744425F4542360 wrote: Help me understand this. You said: “…A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. the bold part is just as important as the other part…” Then you said: “…A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. the bold part is why, it’s not just so everyone who desires to have a gun can have one…” Which is it ????????? Then you say: “… a well practiced militia …” in reference to, “… A well regulated Militia…” When, and who, decided, YOU can just make something up? The word, ‘Practiced’, is (again), Quite different than, ‘regulated’. And even More so 250 + years ago. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by FormerlyLostArtist on 04/25/18 at 00:34:33 05261B383A21262F480 wrote:
Would that be, JUST LIKE, I am a, Bat $hit Crazy, Stupid Moron, who because is a Conservative, LOVES, the KKK, Nazis, Fascists, and White Supremacy. Believes in Racism, Biases, and is Prejudice. (Against Other Races, Religions, Skin color) ? [/quote] no, not like any of that at all, you are projecting again and unless you stop, there will be no need to talk to you, you aren't listening, you aren't responding to US, you are responding to some hypothetical crazy extreme lefty person, I'm arguing the semantics of the word misuse as it pertains to objects and their design, you continue to bring social constructs of legality and morals into the discussion. to you, a misuse of something is to use something against social constructs of legality and morals to me, a misuse of something is to use something against it's own design since social constructs change over time and via culture, in my opinion, the only legit, long standing definition of the word misuse has to pertain to the original designed function of the object, not the social constructs that change from place to place. using a device that's designed to launch projectiles into a body and cause injury and/or death to shoot projectiles into a body to cause injury and/or death is not a misuse of that device. using a device that's designed to carry people and or things from place to place to cause injury and/or death is a misuse of that device. the human intent stays the same "to cause injury and/or death." that intent is legally, socially and morally inappropriate and wrong and that belongs to that human alone and is not transferable to the object. the reason that the misuse of the van against it's original design is more egregious than someone using a gun to accomplish the same end, is that it takes a bit more mental effort (not a whole lot but a bit) for someone to use something against it's original design to fulfill a different purpose, so there's more human derangement/creativity used, which goes to argue for the pro-gun point that it's the person not the device, that the person will find another way even if guns are outlawed. it speaks to the human nature of the depravity that caused the tragedy beware a whataboutism is about to happen: this is particularly disturbing from a conservative since I bet if this was about gender, you'd stick to the strict scientific/biological definition and not bring social constructs of law or culture into that discussion. you'd take the word gender to mean only the biological definition of sex. which correlates to the objects original design. and I'd agree that biologically there are only 3 sexes, male (xy) female (xx) and the occasional Klinefelter syndrome (xxy), so for medical and physiological issues those are the required considerations. however I'd disagree that in social/culture issues that those are the only genders, "gender" refers to the roles those various biological sexes take on in culture, and that is a wider spectrum due to various conditioning or possible brain chemistry issues of individuals. (PLEASE IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS, START A NEW THREAD, I really shouldn't have brought it up here but it just illustrates the inconsistency of the logic some conservatives and liberals have) and I may or may not get to responding to the rest of your posts on this thread because you really don't seem to want to have an honest debate |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by FormerlyLostArtist on 04/25/18 at 00:45:08 1A390427253E3930570 wrote:
Help me understand this. You said: “…A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. the bold part is just as important as the other part…” Then you said: “…A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. the bold part is why, it’s not just so everyone who desires to have a gun can have one…” Which is it ????????? Then you say: “… a well practiced militia …” in reference to, “… A well regulated Militia…” When, and who, decided, YOU can just make something up? The word, ‘Practiced’, is (again), Quite different than, ‘regulated’. And even More so 250 + years ago. [/quote] I've heard conservatives say that when the constitution was written, in this context of this amendment, that the word "regulated" was more akin to the word "practiced" and it doesn't mean governmental regulation as we think of it today. here's an article that defends that position: https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm what I think is the key passage to that "This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics." So, no, I didn't just make that up, but rather I listened to pro-gunners and heard them use it to dismiss the term regulate as an excuse for governmental regulation, but I took what they said and how the second amendment is constructed to actually potentially mean that there might be a conditional aspect of owning and bearing firearms. But I'm not a constitutional expert or anything so I'm open to discussion on that as well. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by eau de sauvage on 04/25/18 at 01:02:39 @MnSpring, Seriously Mn, you need to brush up on the Straw Man fallacy. It's a common theme in all your posts and it's such a tiresome technique. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by FormerlyLostArtist on 04/25/18 at 01:06:54 1A390427253E3930570 wrote:
YES !!!!!! But True to how, a LIBERAL Acts, NOT, saying; the REST of the Story, Deflecting what has been SAID, and distorting, on PURPOSE !!!!!!! Take your phrase above, and add the one word, ‘Innocent’, Between ‘killing’ and ‘people’. Their is not ONE, Gun Maker, who EVER has said:, their product is to be used, Offensively. Their are gun makers, that advertise, their product can be easily used for, Defense. (Just in case you are NOT, aware, the words, Offense and Defense, ARE, different) Are their Firearms, that are MADE, for Offensive, Killing? Sure, they are made, Specifically for a group of people, who are, NOT, Civilians. [/quote] oh dear lord. I was hoping not to have to get into the semantics of offense and defense but..... offense vs defense these are human constructs, at their base, offense: an action that is taken to affect outside of one's own purview. defense: an action that is taken to maintain the integrity of one's own purview. so offense is an action that affects an exterior subject, one outside of oneself. example, throwing a ball away from yourself is offensive, um, striking someone in a way to injure or negatively affect the other person's health... meaning to cause pain, injury to another defense - building a wall, wearing a flack jacket, moving oneself from point a to point b because of a perceived threat in one's area, wearing appropriate motorcycle gear when riding, these are ways to protect your own self against potential threats without preemptively taking action against something outside of yourself. I think I've discussed the rest of your arguments here in a previous response so I wont' bother repeating myself again except to say that you keep bringing a social construct into the design of a device,the innate properties of a gun make it offensive in it's nature of operation. the word "innocent" does not affect the design of the device. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by eau de sauvage on 04/25/18 at 01:25:03 @FLA, I was hoping not to have to get into the semantics of offense and defense but..... See my straw man post above to understand what is going on. You don't have a chance with those who adopt this line, you'll just keep getting dragged into the quicksand. http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Straw-Person.html |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/25/18 at 08:05:14 567F627D75627C695C7F6364516264796364100 wrote:
This part, “… the bold part is just as important as the other part…” “… the bold part is why, it’s not just so everyone who desires to have a gun can have one…” you did NOT answer, Which do you believe in ! “…I’ve heard conservatives say…” OK, Describe, ’those’, Conservatives. They can be many kinds. Knowledgeable, or DFI’s or somewhere in-between ? What do they believe in ? All questions, you and I, simply don’t know. So to say: “…I’ve heard conservatives say…”, without any knowledge about them. Means Nothing. The meaning of the word, ‘regulated’, 250+ years ago, I have been told, by Historians, and studies of the Bill of Rights, and practices of Freedom which has been passed down, from a past generation of people that were, studies of the Bill of Rights, where were passed to them by, studies of the Bill of Rights, etc. etc, etc. Is simply. ’The Same Thing’. In other words. They all had, the same caliber, of rifle, so they could all share the same lead ball, or Minnie bullet, if needed. “Straw Man”, Sure, well known Debate Strategy. One brought to it’s purest art form by the he/she, called T&T. And you have learned, partly. Last, (as don’t have time to waste on you anymore, done boiling sap, to make syrup, which requires a lot of attention, to which I can respond frequently in between watching the boil. Today is clean up for next year) So, 100’s of AR-15 Type rifles are made by different manufactures. and 100’s of thousands are made, each year. And EVERY ONE of them, You say, The, Designers, Manufactures, Jobbers, Distributors, Dealers, and Consumers, ALL Say, they are, made ONLY to KILL, another Human ! Let’s see, do YOU, have a gun that YOU, have locked up. So You, are now knowledgeable about the 2nd, so, YOU Know, it will not case any harm to BAN, one kind of a firearm ? |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Serowbot on 04/25/18 at 08:34:19 0E2D1033312A2D24430 wrote:
wiki... "In 1956, ArmaLite designed a lightweight assault rifle for military use and designated it the ArmaLite Rifle-15, or AR-15." "Assault is a threat of imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. " |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by FormerlyLostArtist on 04/25/18 at 11:01:51 193A0724263D3A33540 wrote:
This part, “… the bold part is just as important as the other part…” “… the bold part is why, it’s not just so everyone who desires to have a gun can have one…” you did NOT answer, Which do you believe in ! I believe, and I'm not saying that this should be law, this is just what I believe, I believe that if you are going to own a gun, you should understand your responsibilities and be trained on how to use that device, in whatever capacity you are going to use that device, hunting (I had to take a hunting safety course before I could get a hunting license, it is much much much more thorough than the one page pamphlet I had to fill out to own a handgun) self defense, I haven't taken it yet, but I imagine the CHL classes go into some more detail, and that might be totally sufficient, but you can, and I have, bought a gun without that class, and maybe that's not such a good idea. and it's not a choice, I believe the whole thing, not just the end. If you want a well regulated militia, to protect the safety of a free state, then to those people, the government shouldn't abridge their right to own and bear firearms. if Jimmy Jo James Brown wants to buy the newest, hottest AR/AK whatawhozit to go shoot rats at the local dump, then, it might be okay for the government to abridge his rights and hand him an single shot shotgun instead. but yes, I could be misreading the syntax of the second amendment, I'm not an expert in the english language, especially not from 1776, and yes the language back then is significantly different than how we use the same language today, not all across the board but certain words have different cultural/emphasis and relevance than they do today. “…I’ve heard conservatives say…” OK, Describe, ’those’, Conservatives. They can be many kinds. Knowledgeable, or DFI’s or somewhere in-between ? What do they believe in ? All questions, you and I, simply don’t know. So to say: “…I’ve heard conservatives say…”, without any knowledge about them. Means Nothing. But you've claimed expert knowledge about liberals in the same way... anyway, no, I heard it on some pro gun radio show, maybe even Gun Talk with Tom Gresham, I occasionally listen to that, it's been awhile though, but it's been awhile since I heard that explanation of the words "well regulated" So it wasn't just Jimmy Jo talking out his butt on the corner. The meaning of the word, ‘regulated’, 250+ years ago, I have been told, by Historians, and studies of the Bill of Rights, and practices of Freedom which has been passed down, from a past generation of people that were, studies of the Bill of Rights, where were passed to them by, studies of the Bill of Rights, etc. etc, etc. Is simply. ’The Same Thing’. In other words. They all had, the same caliber, of rifle, so they could all share the same lead ball, or Minnie bullet, if needed. " I have been told, by Historians, and studies of the Bill of Rights, and practices of Freedom which has been passed down, from a past generation of people that were, studies of the Bill of Rights, where were passed to them by, studies of the Bill of Rights, etc. etc, etc." and yet you struggle to use english in complete sentences..... and prefer to obfuscate your language by styling it just so that only someone familiar with your cultural usage of the language can possibly understand it (and I'm not sure that I do) to make your points... if you look up the word regulated in Webster's dictionary: regulated; regulating transitive verb 1 a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning regulate the industries of a country 2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to regulate one's habits 3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of regulate the pressure of a tire it seems to kind of fit that. Cause you aren't really suggesting that it means that only one kind of weapon is allowed under the second amendment are you? or are you saying that militias all had to have the same regulated ammo..?? I'm not exactly sure how your interpretation of the word "regulated" fits here.. I think what I'm suggesting is a far more accommondating and practical interpretation. and here's another way to see it: https://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf "English common law had long acknowledged the importance of effective arms control, and the meaning of the Second Amendment seemed clear to the framers and their contemporaries: that the people have a right to possess arms when serving in the militia. Over the years, this “collective rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment was upheld in three Supreme Court decisions, in 1876, 1886, and most recently, in 1939 (Bogus 2000). The meaning of the Second Amendment remained uncontroversial until 1960, when a law review article using sources like American Rifleman asserted an additional, individual, right to bear arms for the purposes of self-defense (Hays 1960). Since that time, a growing bloc of constitutional scholars and historians has asserted that only the individual rights interpretation of the right to bear arms is correct, even calling this new reading the “standard model,” as if the original, collective rights interpretation hadn’t prevailed for more than a century (Bogus 2000b). And the majority of Americans now believe that the Second Amendment guarantees their right to tote a gun" and I'm sure you can find some scholar or someone who can defend your point of view as well, so all leads us no where, so thanks for wasting my time “Straw Man”, Sure, well known Debate Strategy. One brought to it’s purest art form by the he/she, called T&T. And you have learned, partly. Last, (as don’t have time to waste on you anymore, done boiling sap, to make syrup, which requires a lot of attention, to which I can respond frequently in between watching the boil. Today is clean up for next year) So, 100’s of AR-15 Type rifles are made by different manufactures. and 100’s of thousands are made, each year. And EVERY ONE of them, You say, The, Designers, Manufactures, Jobbers, Distributors, Dealers, and Consumers, ALL Say, they are, made ONLY to KILL, another Human ! Let’s see, do YOU, have a gun that YOU, have locked up. So You, are now knowledgeable about the 2nd, so, YOU Know, it will not case any harm to BAN, one kind of a firearm ? [/quote] and I have absolutely no idea what you are saying in this last bit. so, you've absolutely exhausted me in just trying to understand what the heck you are saying half the time. I tried, and now I'm done. ANYWAY-------------- hopefully now, you or maybe some other readers, might understand that there is some history and logic behind some gun control advocacy, yes some of it is extreme, but the majority of us aren't in the "ban guns" or take your guns away, positions, and we'd like to be heard when we advocate for a better background check system or a better way to screen people before they buy a gun, without being accused of being a gun banner or crazy extremist left wing nut job. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Serowbot on 04/25/18 at 11:20:16 It is illegal to own a sawed-off shotgun,.. or brass knuckles... You can't go out and buy a cruise, or a SAM missile. The right to bare arms is not all encompassing,.. it is regulated... AR's should be in the same category. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/25/18 at 11:37:41 To what effect, Row? People who are willing to kill innocent people , how does removing the AR15 from the hundreds and hundreds of deadly options stop a killer? Murderous Maniac In deep thought,, " Well, dammitall, I was Gonna kill a buncha people, but they screwed up my plan, they banned the AR15,, now I can't do it. " Is that what you think will happen? |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Serowbot on 04/25/18 at 15:33:00 Banning the AR15 wouldn't hurt,.. but I was thinking more of a ban on all high capacity guns... The limit in Australia for semi-auto's is 5 rounds I believe,... but so many guns have 7 to 10 round clips I would think 10 rounds is more reasonable. Guns with higher capacity could always be limited just by clip capacity without being banned completely. I know that's outrageous to some, but for the majority of people I think they would see it a fair compromise. Aren't shotguns limited to 3 or 5 rounds?.... something like that?... That's not unreasonable... |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/25/18 at 16:02:31 6A435E41495E405560435F586D5E58455F582C0 wrote:
Very Clear where you stand. Yep, BAN a kind of gun, then, ’That’, gun may not be used in a crime again. But, A DIFFERENT one will !!!!!!! So you truly believe that by giving up a Freedom, you will get Security !!!!! Hey found some Ocean Front Lots in NE, Ya better hurry before Bot & TT, buys them all. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by FormerlyLostArtist on 04/25/18 at 16:20:41 5F7C4162607B7C75120 wrote:
Very Clear where you stand. Yep, BAN a kind of gun, then, ’That’, gun may not be used in a crime again. But, A DIFFERENT one will !!!!!!! So you truly believe that by giving up a Freedom, you will get Security !!!!! Hey found some Ocean Front Lots in NE, Ya better hurry before Bot & TT, buys them all. [/quote] that's quite a jump... Asking the government to keep killing arms out of a crazy guy's hands is somehow giving up a freedom? so I'm going to play your game now. Why does he have the right to KILL? There is a link between hurting animals and anti-social behavior which can lead to criminal activity. So to curb that a bit, that guy gets a shotgun, not an AR/AK whatawhozit. Now with that shotgun he can still do his activity but if that activity leads to a more depraved criminal nature he now doesnt' have a tool to inflict the most damage and he'll have to at least think of something else, possibly delaying that depraved criminal activity. and hey, we could set up a test of some kind to determine if he is in-fact mentally capable with dealing with the responsibility of owning a high powered, semi-automatic killing device. This is just We the PEOPLE, looking out for each other, you know, see something say something kind of thing. you're okay with profiling muslims and limiting their freedoms but not gun tooting crazies??? |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Serowbot on 04/25/18 at 16:35:46 I know there's the "slippery slope" argument... give an inch and they'll take a mile. ... but there's also the "hold yer' breath 'till yer' blue" argument,... which is... If you aren't willng to reasonable compromise and negotiations... in less than a year, Dem's may take the House and Senate,.. and in 3 years very likely the Presidency.... and you may be shut out of the decision. Much as the Pub's are doing now... Is that the game you want to play?.... Every day, people become more angry, and people want some action. You can work with them to make something fair,... or get steamrolled down the line. Is there any compromise that you would accept as reasonable? |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/25/18 at 16:50:31 4E677A656D7A647144677B7C497A7C617B7C080 wrote:
Not even Close. Good try though. Just keep watching TT, you may learn how to make something totally different. Then Cry about it. so I'm going to play your game now. Why does he have the right to KILL? Na, Not a game. And that person you describe, does NOT have a right to kill, except in self defense. There is a link between hurting animals and anti-social behavior which can lead to criminal activity. Yep, Hurting/Torturing, not hunting. So to curb that a bit, that guy gets a shotgun, not an AR/AK whatawhozit. Now with that shotgun he can still do his activity but if that activity leads to a more depraved criminal nature he now doesnt' have a tool to inflict the most damage and he'll have to at least think of something else, possibly delaying that depraved criminal activity. So, YOU, know he should not get a AR, but a Shotgun. And HOW, do you know that ?????? Did it EVER occur to you, if that person cannot have a AR, they can't have a shotgun either !!!!!!!!!!!!! and hey, we could set up a test of some kind to determine if he is in-fact mentally capable with dealing with the responsibility of owning a high powered, semi-automatic killing device. Sure, My Test, Your Test, His Test, Her Test ? Which test, who makes it up, who decides pass or fail ??????? Perhaps some day, most certainly NOT TODAY This is just We the PEOPLE, looking out for each other, you know, see something say something kind of thing. Yep, another good idea. Until YOU, decide your neighbor dosen't cut his grass the way, YOU, like. So you, '"Report'" him. you're okay with profiling muslims and limiting their freedoms but not gun tooting crazies??? Nop. Did Say, their are Muslims, that want to kill me, AND YOU. Did say I want to LIMIT, their Freedom to KILL, me and you. Never said, wanted to limit their freedom to live their life. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/25/18 at 16:58:29 7C6A7D60786D607B0F0 wrote:
Shotgun, for, Waterfowl Hunting. By Federal law, are limited to 3 rounds. And that is 3 rounds. So if you have a 3-1/2" shotgun, if checked, it Will be checked with 2-3/4" shells. Any other hunting, or defense, their is no limit on shells. 5, is the number, Most, shotguns will carry, without some sort of modification. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/25/18 at 17:12:35 6E786F726A7F72691D0 wrote:
Why does the, 'Compromise', have to be, 'Take away a firearm, or restrict Mag capacity' ? (or some Freedom given up) Why cannot the, 'Compromise', be: Take DOWN those Silly Signs, that have Proven to NOT work, Time after Time. Allow, the people that are skilled/knowledgeable/etc, with firearms, to HAVE them, to PREVENT, a school/etc shooting. Why does a, compromise, Have to be, a Conservative, position giving way to a Liberal position. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Serowbot on 04/25/18 at 17:29:34 Because it's a Conservative issue... On the issue of women's reproductive rights all compromises are limitations on women's rights to manage their own bodies... It's in the nature of the issue. Taking down "No Guns" signs will be as useless as putting them up. As I've said before,.. "No Guns" signs are there to warn law abiding gun toters that they will be mistaken as a menace in this area,.. ...and potentially could be shot by police in the event of any eruption of violence. Nobody on the Left thinks a "No Guns" sign will prevent a mass shooter from shooting. They won't care if the signs go down either. They are crazy and mostly suicidal. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Eegore on 04/26/18 at 06:21:42 "They won't care if the signs go down either. They are crazy and mostly suicidal." I wondered how long it would take for someone to toss this out there. If we want to reduce crime we need to focus on criminals and criminal behavior. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/26/18 at 06:51:52 But if we, as a people, FORGET that not so many years ago, kids TOOK GUNS TO SCHOOL,and don't ask ourselves, What changed, how can we fix it? Seriously, think about the society of the fifties,sixties, and ask yourself What attitudes changed, what behaviors changed, where is the root of the anger and lack of caring for the lives of others. I'm REALLY, REALLY T I R E D Of the same people having the answers. Banning guns and accessories WILL NOT ACCOMPLISH ANY MORE THAN THE LEGISLATION AND THOSE IDIOTIC SIGNS. Instead of punishing Cruz He was subjected to, Ohhh My GAWD, Counseling... Uhh, that's a psychologist, Mental health type person.. Did a gotta good, didn't it.. Sociopaths simply occur, in every society, but the sociopath can learn to fit in,even lacking empathy, and can function without hurting others, but it takes discipline, not rewarding bad behavior. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/26/18 at 07:19:04 3224332E36232E35410 wrote:
“…Taking down “No Guns” signs will be as useless as putting them up…” Totally Disagree. For the SAME reason, YOU, don’t put up a sign, (No Guns In Here) In front of your house. “…Because it’s a Conservative issue…" (compromise) No it’s NOT a Conservative issue, Conservatives are NOT, Crying out to BAN, Guns and # of Ammunition. Let’s see if I got this straight. Liberals, Because they ‘Perceived’, they were ‘wronged’. By a State, Limiting the time a Baby can be aborted. They consider that a, compromise. So Now, it’s the Liberals Turn, so the Conservatives have to Compromise. By allowing a DFI to Willy-nilly, shoot and KILL, anyone they want. Gollyieeee GEEEEEEEE, What ever happened to, ‘Let’s do what Works’ and Not do what we all know does NOT work ! |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Serowbot on 04/26/18 at 08:24:08 4D6E537072696E67000 wrote:
Tell it to Australia... :-? |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/26/18 at 09:07:53 It's not about rules and available tools. It's about the society and the hearts of people. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Serowbot on 04/26/18 at 10:41:58 6D7274736E6958685860727E35070 wrote:
True... |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/26/18 at 11:55:41 I went to school with kids who were regular visitors to the principal's office. No, not a counselor, the Principal. He had a paddle. Used it. Not one of the punks, thugs and miscreants I went to school with went in shooting. And Again The guns aren't at fault. The social program, the Promise program protected Cruz from the natural and reasonable consequences for his antisocial behavior. The F.B.I. Admitted they failed to follow up on warnings The cops Went to His HOUSE over Thirty TIMES And the Resource officer stated he suggested Cruz be forcibly committed over a year before he killed. But Guns |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MShipley on 04/26/18 at 12:59:21 This debate is so dumb. I own guns, you know why? Because I want to! I live in a free country, I am of sound body and mind, I have never been arrested. I have paid my taxes since I was old enough to work and have never taken any tax payers money. It quite frankly is nobody else's business what I own, and it is certainly no one else's right to tell me what I can or can not have. I happen to believe that if I want to set up a .50 cal automatic machine gun on my porch to DEFEND my home that is MY business. I have never pointed my guns at a human, I have never fired a gun at a human. But I guarantee if someone comes in my house uninvited they will find there is a first time for everything. Who does ANYBODY think they are to tell me how I am allowed to defend my home and my family. leave me alone and go after the criminals. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by FormerlyLostArtist on 04/26/18 at 13:19:01 617E787F62655464546C7E72390B0 wrote:
correct. listen, I'm not anti-gun, but I am more Pro-education. I did state that even though I might believe that, I wasn't sure if it should be law, just a preference of my own, to be educated about what I'm really buying and getting into and how serious it is. Life and death isn't something to be so cavalier about, a constitutional right or not. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/26/18 at 14:01:33 While I agree with people knowing how to handle guns safety, I'm not seeing that as part of the reason for this thread. Cruz knew how to shoot. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by FormerlyLostArtist on 04/26/18 at 14:29:30 213E383F22251424142C3E32794B0 wrote:
well, this thread is about van being misued and someone getting their panties in a bunch about the word misuse (that someone is me) |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/26/18 at 15:08:15 Right, IIRC since Armalite advertising described the AR15 as an Assault Weapon it was right and proper use to commit murder with it. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by FormerlyLostArtist on 04/26/18 at 15:35:49 455A5C5B4641704070485A561D2F0 wrote:
No, it's not right and proper, but it's using the device as it's designed to be used without without changing any of it's functional or definitional parameters. I've already explained this and I wish you'd all quit trying to make it sound like I'm condoning murder. The hyperbole is not appreciated. A tool is designed to do what it does, when you use it to do that, you aren't misusing it. This is not a moral or legal stance, but a strictly functional stance pertaining to the device. It's not a misuse of a computer to hack into a store's database and steal your identity. the computer is functioning 100% within it's design parameters. It's still illegal and morally wrong, but the computer isn't going against it's design. it's the difference between the sayings: "You're using it wrong." <-- me and "That's not what that's for." <--- you all and that's the last time I'm attempting to explain it to you all. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/26/18 at 16:05:32 1204130E16030E15610 wrote:
Guessing you are comparing the gun BAN/buy back, Australia did, with the fact that, their Gun, violence/death rate, went down. Would that be the SAME WAY. as if the US BANNED MC’s and they would see, the accidents/deaths by MC’s rate, Going Down ? Then saying: “See, it works” !!!!!!!!!!! Hurry, those Ocean front lots in Iowa, are almost sold out. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by FormerlyLostArtist on 04/26/18 at 16:09:27 5D7E436062797E77100 wrote:
Guessing you are comparing the gun BAN/buy back, Australia did, with the fact that, their Gun, violence/death rate, went down. Would that be the SAME WAY. as if the US BANNED MC’s and they would see, the accidents/deaths by MC’s rate, Going Down ? Then saying: “See, it works” !!!!!!!!!!! Hurry, those Ocean front lots in Iowa, are almost sold out. [/quote] can you post something without being antagonistic?? or do you just love to complain when people call you "Batshit crazy" etc... if you can't take it, don't serve it. Snowflake |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/26/18 at 16:25:08 022B36292136283D082B37300536302D3730440 wrote:
OH, So Sorry Lost. I Forgot to save, YOU, some of those lots. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/26/18 at 19:28:59 not a misuse of a computer to hack into a store's database and steal your identity. the computer is functioning 100% within it's design parameters. It's still illegal and morally wrong, but the computer isn't going against it's design. , And yet, banning the machine is more appealing than dealing with the idiots who would misuse the gun. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Eegore on 04/27/18 at 05:43:38 Besides re-hashing the same topic over and over, repeating ourselves over and over, making comparisons over and over; is there any suggestions on what can actually be done in correlation with your opinion? For instance if we are going to argue over banning vehicles do you have suggestions or people in your local legislation that can get it in motion? If not, what about firearms, or local LE funding? Or is it more productive to our local community and country as a whole to keep repeating our arguments to each other on here? |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/27/18 at 06:32:29 One way would be to, (’GASP’), Enforce the LAWS, already on the Books !!!!!! Like Prosecute, More than, 0.04% of the people that LIE on the 4473. “…U.S. Attorneys’ Office policy not to prosecute people for lying on background check forms while attempting to illegally acquire a firearm. Investigators found that the office did not prosecute such cases unless they were accompanied by other charges…” “… the decision not to prosecute background check-related crimes was the result of a shift in policy by the Obama administration following the Sandy Hook school shooting…” “…between 2008 and 2015, the FBI denied 556,496 gun purchases following background checks. During that time period, the report shows that only 254 false statements were even considered for prosecution, amounting to a 0.04 percent prosecution rate…” Or, actually REPORT, Violent Crimes, for a ‘Background Check’, (Which EXISTS, un-like the LIES H.R.C. has said). http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-fbi-gun-background-check-system-missing-records-20171110-story.html “…The FBI's background-check system is missing millions of records of criminal convictions, mental illness diagnoses and other flags that would keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands…” “…The FBI said it doesn’t know the scope of the problem, but the National Rifle Association says about 7 million records are absent from the system…” “…”at least 25% of felony convictions . . . are not available" to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI…” See Bot, no need to, Compromise, Just ENFORCE the Existing LAWS ! |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/27/18 at 07:00:11 How does a Felon, determine if he/she, is on the, ‘List’ ? Simple, just walk into a Gun Shop (Which in actuality is already a crime, as a Felon cannot be near guns) Fill out a 4473, the dealer does the, “Background check”, (Which Sarah Brady got put into place in 1993, which prevented, dangerous people from purchasing guns) and it comes back, ‘Proceed’ or ‘Deny’. If it is, ‘Proceed’, a FELON Just got a GUN, Complements of the FBI. If it is, ‘Deny’, then Nothing Happens. I will Repeat, NOTHING HAPPENS. (And yes their is a, ‘Delay’, which a, ‘Proceed’ or, ‘Deny’, is the ultimate result.) (Well unless you are from Chicago, then just go to the trunk of a car, in a dark ally) Oh, BTY, How's that, 'War', on Drugs going ? |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Serowbot on 04/27/18 at 07:25:27 4E5157504D4A7B4B7B43515D16240 wrote:
Just how much mental health evaluation, treatment, supervision, involuntary commitment, or incarceration, are you willing to pay for?... A national health might help, but it would need greatly expanded mental services. You're now ready to loosen your purse strings?... Good... 8-) |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/27/18 at 07:35:22 3E283F223A2F22394D0 wrote:
Perhaps start with, Reporting, what has already HAPPENED. Instead of paying someone to push a piece of paper, back and forth on their desk? "...Or, actually REPORT, Violent Crimes, for a ‘Background Check’, (Which EXISTS, un-like the LIES H.R.C. has said). ..." |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/27/18 at 08:01:01 7B6D7A677F6A677C080 wrote:
Just how much mental health evaluation, treatment, supervision, involuntary commitment, or incarceration, are you willing to pay for?... A national health might help, but it would need greatly expanded mental services. You're now ready to loosen your purse strings?... Good... 8-)[/quote] Your concept of Dealing with the idiots Isn't the same as mine. How many counselors did Cruz get? You know that's what they did, right? Instead of locking that nutjob up,because They Wanted The MUNNEY.. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Serowbot on 04/27/18 at 08:52:57 Minority Report... Cool... |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/27/18 at 09:08:55 Really? The F.B.I. was warned more than once The cops were called to his house over THIRTY FUKKING TIMES, Are you blind? Did you not understand the part about IGNORING ARRESTABLE OFFENSES To get the Statistics Right And Get Federal Money? Did you fail to read the report of the SRO who recommended that he be Forcibly committed? Who do you think Cruz was to the regular students? He was an unholy terror and the system Comfukkingpletely FAILED the innocent kids. But GUNZ |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by FormerlyLostArtist on 04/27/18 at 12:51:30 634341495443260 wrote:
I think it's important to discuss semantics, because there is seriously a communication issue between those that argue the word "misuse" set off someone trying to make a point about the media being misleading and their bias against guns. When really, it's just a totally fine and accurate word to use in this case. Sure the headline for a gun incident could be "the killer misused an AR-15 in this violent shooting" or something, but would that really make the original poster happier. Does he want to force his own word preferences on the media which has a 1st amendment right? using the word misuse in this incident is more complete, it really backs up all of the definitions of the word misuse completely, not just the social one. It's not a term that was meant to enforce any bias in the media, yet the OP is so obsessed that everything the media does is biased against conservative point of views that he's incensed enough by it to start a post here about it, trolling us into a gun control debate that he knows is useless and will change no ones' mind on here. except for them to cast judgement while declaring that if we do that to him he'd like a moderator to do something about it. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by FormerlyLostArtist on 04/27/18 at 12:56:59 0A151314090E3F0F3F07151952600 wrote:
so, if they wouldn't have ignored those things, which, yes they shouldn't have, would you be okay with them preemptively taking away his guns? or forcably committing him, taking away his freedom even though he hadn't committed any actual crimes (sorry if I'm totally wrong on that case I don't have all the details here so I'm totally open to being complete wrong about his situation) but in general, someone calls the cops on you 30 times to complain about you, then it's okay for the cops to take away your freedom... when is it okay for the authorities to revoke some of your freedoms? |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/27/18 at 17:37:14 He Committed CRIMES. Do you not read? Read what he DID. Understand that the Promise Program gives the cops a way to shrug off arresting and instead Recommend Counselling. Good God man, I'm TIRED of explaining the Obvious. Get it through your head. He committed ARRESTABLE OFFENSES. Really, you know a buncha people who have been Socially VISITED by the cops over THIRTY TIMES? People REPORTED what a scary guy he was And NOTHING WAS DONE http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/08/nikolas-cruzs-mom-tormented-by-his-behavior-weighed-signing-over-parental-rights-family-source.html But Goddam Gunz.. Bullshit |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/27/18 at 17:43:15 “a professional school shooter." Special Agent Rob Lasky, in charge of the FBI’s Miami division, confirmed during a Thursday morning news conference the agency investigated a comment made on a YouTube video in September that matched the remark reported by vlogger Ben Bennight. After conducting database reviews, however, the FBI said it could not identify the user who made the comment. "No other information was included in the comment which would indicate a particular time, location or the true identity of the person who posted the comment," the FBI said in a subsequent statement. The comment, made by user Nikolas Cruz, stated: “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.” Probably not something to take action on.. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/27/18 at 18:31:56 including a February 2016 call from a neighbor warning he made a threat on Instagram to "shoot up" the high school, and another last November advising he was collecting guns and knives and appeared to be "a school shooter in the making." Though deputies visited Cruz at his home, they did not try to recover his weapons, despite requests from relatives who feared he planned to use them on his classmates. So, action taken by the cops against This guy would be unreasonable. But infringing on the RIGHTS OF EVERY PERSON is okay. You guys are geniuses. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Eegore on 04/28/18 at 00:52:57 I know we had this conversation already, but I cant recall the specifics. What did Cruz do to get arrested prior? |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/28/18 at 07:09:24 He had stolen property in his locker. It was taken from him And Labeled Found property. He threatened others. He threw things. He took bullets to school. He carried multiple knives, Because he sold them At school I read all of those things earlier. Now, they are hard to find. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Eegore on 04/28/18 at 09:35:59 I know where I live a high school kid will not be arrested for having stolen property unless its over $1000, although I've seen as low as $500 and this is only a trip in to set a court date, no actual jail time. Maybe taking bullets to school would get a quick trip down to the station but none of the other stuff would get you arrested where I live, certainly throwing things is not worth adding another body to an overcrowded jail. You would receive a citation to appear in court. Selling knives at school from what I've read is speculative as it was student statements, but maybe there's a police report on it. Maybe in FL they can incarcerate people easier than in CO. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/28/18 at 10:39:57 Looked like he had to bloody murder some people. I'm not someone who gets Visited By the cops. I Have been around people who got a Couple of visits. They were promised that Another Visit For whatever reason WOULD result in an arrest. His family was afraid. But pretend the system Did everything it could To do things right. While the F.B.I. admits they screwed up. And any sentient being can evaluate the absolute lack of cops doing their job. Because if the system is at fault It CAN'T be Gunz And Since we KNOW it's Gunz It's not a complete and fustercluck failure of the System So Gunz |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/28/18 at 15:58:41 08213C232B3C223702213D3A0F3C3A273D3A4E0 wrote:
WOW LOST, Who TAUGHT you to, CRY, like that ??? (Good Job, as a, Student, you are Learning well) |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Eegore on 04/30/18 at 10:31:07 Well he's not wrong. There's nothing about bringing up banning vans that's productive, or if there is it hasn't been brought up in this post. In the same capacity that another post brought up teachers and negligent discharge of firearms can be countered by how many motorcyclists kill pedestrians. They aren't the same and everybody knows that. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 04/30/18 at 11:21:43 0727252D3027420 wrote:
I guess that some just Missed the 'Point', (In the Very First Post) That Banning a Van used by a Crazy, who KILLED people. Is Just as effective as a, Banning a Gun used by a Crazy, who KILLED People. "... It is, JUST, as Ridiculous, as, BANNING, a type of firearm, and capacity of clips/magazines..." |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Eegore on 04/30/18 at 11:28:00 I understand however it also makes equal sense as banning motorcycles on public roads because more motorcyclists will kill pedestrians in one year than those that accidentally injure themselves or others with their own guns. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/30/18 at 21:49:48 Makes equal sense? Or, equal stupidity? |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Eegore on 05/01/18 at 05:09:18 I'm not going to call anyone's analogy stupid. Its not like anyone out in the world would actually vote for the proposed limitations in this thread. The comparisons are so different that the average person in the US wouldn't take it seriously. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/01/18 at 07:23:48 I'm not saying the analogy is stupid, It's accurate, to me. It's that no matter how ridiculous the gun control idea can be shown to be, they don't yield. They refuse to admit They have been Wrong And rather than admit it and change They double down. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Eegore on 05/01/18 at 08:43:36 I feel like both sides do that. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 05/01/18 at 09:12:45 48686A627F680D0 wrote:
So then, WHO, Compromises ? Say their are two sides. Pro/Anti - Gun Should the ‘Anti’, compromise, and allow, people that are trained/comfortable/skilled/etc, about guns. To Have them and Use then, (when necessary). ? Should the ‘Pro’, compromise and allow a ban on a certain kind of firearm? (their are a lot more ideas on the table, this is a ‘sample’) Or perhaps, NO one compromises ! That would be, just, ENFORCING, the Laws already ON THE BOOKS. Like Prosecuting, More than, 0.04% of the people that LIE on the 4473. And, the REPORTING, Violent Crimes, for a ‘Background Check’, “…The FBI's background-check system is missing millions of records of criminal convictions, mental illness diagnoses and other flags that would keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands…” Both those are, ‘Compromises’, the Pro people, HAVE done, in the past. And because, they are NOT DONE, Have NOT BEEN Done, Have been IGNORED, by a POTUS for the last 8 years. Their is to be, MORE, Comprise ! Banning a gun, to ‘Fix’, a school/etc shooting. Is the SAME THING, as rebuilding the Carb on your S-40, (When you have a, ‘Wobble’) and saying: ‘Yep that will work” |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Eegore on 05/01/18 at 09:35:16 I think both need to compromise. The first step is to stop having endless debates about the 2nd Amendment or firearm types and allow for actual studies to be done and audited. These would include how to streamline the reporting process to law enforcement, and not have more debate about what might happen to our rights. Just see what works, then look into the constitutionality and such. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 05/01/18 at 09:53:58 624240485542270 wrote:
“… allow for actual studies to be done …” And one study is, ‘Pro’, and another is, ‘Anti’. And the discussion continues. “… how to streamline the reporting process to law enforcement…” And one study is, ‘Pro’, and another is, ‘Anti’. And the discussion continues. “…look into the constitutionality…” And one study is, ‘Pro’, and another is, ‘Anti’. And the discussion continues. Pushing a piece of paper from one side of the desk, to the other, is NOT going to, "Get ‘er Done” |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Trippah on 05/01/18 at 10:44:48 Quite Frankly (or perhaps Germanicly speaking) IF I were King, I would go through the end around process. I would have The Congress define what a well regulated militia is, in this day and age. Once that is established, I would then proceed to compartmentalize the ownership of "Weapons of War" or "Semi & Fully automatic" weapons based on the Well Regulated Militia standard. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ps since I no longer ride (as of this moment) I guess I am no longer. ;) |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Eegore on 05/01/18 at 10:50:43 If we don't conduct study, that's audited, then how will we use any actual data to create a method? Do we just imagine up numbers and then guess our way to something that works? That's like Suzuki designing a bike and never starting it up or putting it to any road tests before distribution. The numbers are too high to get the entire US population to come to agreement, however those who will create actual legislature can have data, or the screams of people marching down a sidewalk. Which one will most likely end up as law? |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by FormerlyLostArtist on 05/01/18 at 13:38:52 5675486B6972757C1B0 wrote:
So then, WHO, Compromises ? Say their are two sides. Pro/Anti - Gun Should the ‘Anti’, compromise, and allow, people that are trained/comfortable/skilled/etc, about guns. To Have them and Use then, (when necessary). ? Should the ‘Pro’, compromise and allow a ban on a certain kind of firearm? (their are a lot more ideas on the table, this is a ‘sample’) Or perhaps, NO one compromises ! That would be, just, ENFORCING, the Laws already ON THE BOOKS. Like Prosecuting, More than, 0.04% of the people that LIE on the 4473. And, the REPORTING, Violent Crimes, for a ‘Background Check’, “…The FBI's background-check system is missing millions of records of criminal convictions, mental illness diagnoses and other flags that would keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands…” Both those are, ‘Compromises’, the Pro people, HAVE done, in the past. And because, they are NOT DONE, Have NOT BEEN Done, Have been IGNORED, by a POTUS for the last 8 years. Their is to be, MORE, Comprise ! Banning a gun, to ‘Fix’, a school/etc shooting. Is the SAME THING, as rebuilding the Carb on your S-40, (When you have a, ‘Wobble’) and saying: ‘Yep that will work” [/quote] how about the Pro gun side compromise and try to encourage the "people that are trained/comfortable/skilled/etc, about guns. To Have them and Use then, " as more of a NORM than the exception. This includes those in the business of selling guns, doesn't need any government regulation, good guys with guns shouldn't have a problem with that and I'm glad to see that you agree that the background check system needs fixing. I'm 100% fine with doing that and seeing how that works. and the reason they are ignored by the POTUS is that those are STATE issues, those things are done at a LOCAL level, so to have a POTUS speak about those things, could you imagine the shouts of TYRANNY coming from libertarians and conservatives about big government overreach? |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 05/01/18 at 14:56:06 1A332E31392E302510332F281D2E28352F285C0 wrote:
"how about the Pro gun side compromise and try to encourage the "people that are trained/comfortable/skilled/etc, about guns. To Have them and Use then, “ as more of a NORM than the exception…” WHAT in the HE LL, are you talking about ? That, “… to encourage the “people that are trained/comfortable/skilled/etc, about guns…”. Is, NOT WANTED, by the ANTI Gun side !!!!!!!!! Are you NOT, paying attention ? or just, ‘Parroting’ again ? “…and I’m glad to see that you agree that the background check system needs fixing. I’m 100% fine with doing that and seeing how that works…” Does not need, ‘fixing’, it need to be DONE ! (Unless you call, NOT Doing Something, then Doing it, ‘fixing’) “…and the reason they are ignored by the POTUS is that…” Could it be, that the, (then), POTUS, After Sandy Hook, even did LESS !!!!!!! (Never waste a good Tragedy to make your point) “… those are STATE issues, those things are done at a LOCAL level, so to have a POTUS speak about those things, could you imagine the shouts of TYRANNY coming from libertarians and conservatives about big government overreach?” Wait, that is what you said the NRA Said. And you said it was BAD ! So, The NRA is BAD for saying that, yet now, suddenly, it is, ‘Good’ ????????? Cheese and Rice. Do, two simple things, Which were HUGE, Compromises Which were NOT Done !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Like the, Anti's Said they would be. Before, one starts PAYING, someone to push a piece of paper back and forth on a desk. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by Eegore on 05/01/18 at 15:12:21 "people that are trained/comfortable/skilled/etc, about guns. To Have them and Use then" I think "comfortable" would have to be removed. Anyone can say they are comfortable with a gun and there you go. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/01/18 at 16:38:42 Everything must be tested and proven. Well EXCEPT FOR STUPID, like passing laws that made Protecting the CHILDREN the same way we protect money, art, and politicians ILLEGAL. No studies done, just a buncha idiots doing what THEY believed would work, WHILE IT WAS ILLOGICAL TO BELIEVE THAT. Bullshit, Allow staff to pass gun handling classes and pull those idiotic Free Kill Zone signs down. If it isn't PERFECT, it surely won't be Worse than the idiotic crap of the last few decades. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by verslagen1 on 05/02/18 at 08:00:56 5A736E71796E706550736F685D6E68756F681C0 wrote:
Maybe it's too early but I don't get what you're proposing. Pro gun side try to encourage the "guys with guns", about guns? To Have them and Use then, " as more of a NORM than the exception. More coffee. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 05/02/18 at 14:23:57 0A2A28203D2A4F0 wrote:
Well that,would be true. Seeing just ONE, TV commercial, Ray Charles, could see, John Kerry was NOT, ‘comfortable’, with a firearm. So John Kerry LIED !!!!!!!!!!! AGAIN !!!!!!!! Anyone, that is ANYONE, that is already, ‘comfortable’, with and around firearms. Can, in SECONDS, spot someone who is NOT, just as soon as they handle one. |
|
Title: Re: A Van Post by MnSpring on 05/02/18 at 14:49:30 687771766B6C5D6D5D65777B30020 wrote:
Perfectly Said !!!!! |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |