Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look, I'm not advocating for gun control at all, infact the very thought of it makes me cringe. Something I do believe though, is that there are ways to better ensure that criminals have a very hard time accessing guns that don't infringe on our rights as law abiding citizens to easily and responsibly acquire a firearm. It's understandable why the pro-gun camp almost refuses to sit down and talk to the anti-gun camp. Our rights are constantly under attack and most of the anti-gun people want to take it to the extremes. I normaly live by the old addage that "if you giv'em an inch, they'll try and get away with a mile" and I bet a lot of you do to and thats why any more gun laws seem like a threat to our rights if not in the short term, then in the long term. If ever a time comes when we are forced to face restrictions on gun ownership on a national level, I can only hope that the legislators doing it are level headed, willing to compromise a little, and use common sense.
I think there are definately ways of doing it that will keep both sides happy. NGOAT is right, whatever happens, there does need to be a bit more uniformity in gun laws.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 11-18-2012 at 03:22 PM..
Correct, you don't have the problem, but it could be argued that other ststes have a problem because of your laws. It would be kind of like a neighbor that parties all the time and has loud music. THEY don't have a problem, they like the loud music and the loud and unsavory people that often come to their parties, but the people around them do have a problem with it. So should nothing be done? should the guy next door not compromise a bit and turn the music down? Maybe turn it off at a certain reasonable hour? Or should you or I have to just deal with it?
Yes, it's a bad example, but the only one I can think of.
Well, it's a decent enough example for the sake of discussion. We, as adults, are expected to police our own actions until it is proven that we cannot accomplish that task and then help is called in. Law enforcement, new laws, whatever. The example is telling me that the neighbor cannot police his own actions and there for should have somebody step in. In the same example, I am not having a problem, so nobody is calling in to have LE come to my house. So should new laws be inacted to change the way I do things? Certainly not. I'm not doing anything wrong.
Quote:
I haven't suggested anything that would infringe on your right to own a gun.
Sure it is. You are doing a couple things. Right now, we have a NICS check. With registration, a law officer has a list of your guns, by serial number, when they come up to the door. The fact that that law officer has that list, puts him in a different posture than normal. That posture can be dangerous when it doesn't need to be. If you think not, then you are assuming that ALL law enforcement are good guys and never do anything wrong. When you get pulled over, the LO has a list of your guns on his computer. Same scenario. With registration, you have introduced the ability of the Federal Government, to have a list and to be able to walk up and take away my guns. The same guns, that the 2nd ammendment gives me the right to have, to protect myself from the exact same government. The NICS check, is a first step to that above. It should be governed by State and the State should regulate what it needs to cntrol it's problems. If I don't like the state''s laws, I can always move. But it's a little rediculous to have to leave the Country. So yes, I consider it infringing on my rights to own whatever firearms I can own. Do you think the federal government would give ME a list of all of their firearms and who they are issued to or where they are kept? It has to work both ways, or it doesn't work. The old adage of "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" doesn't work if only one of us complies.
Quote:
Thats a bit of a selfish approach don't you think? It would be like the neighbor saying, " we don't have to get up for work in the morning, and we don't have people breaking in to our home, so we are going to continue playing our loud music at 3:00 am and inviting whoever we want into the neighborhood.
I don't think so, I refer back to each man is responsible for policing his own actions. The neighbor has a responsibility to fit in with the immediate neighbors. I could care less if a person living on the far side of town played his music too loud. We just don't allow that in this neighborhood.
Quote:
I agree. Unfortunately though, in order for it to work both ways, no one side can have everythiong they want. Both have to compromise a little.
Why should residents in Wyoming comply with NY law or, why should NY comply with Wyoming law? Shouldn't that be up to the state? Texas, just a couple weeks ago, opened up West Texas Iterstate to a new speed limit of 85mph. Would that work everywhere? Obviously not. There are different circumstances in different areas and those different areas, require different laws.
Why should residents in Wyoming comply with NY law or, why should NY comply with Wyoming law? Shouldn't that be up to the state? Texas, just a couple weeks ago, opened up West Texas Iterstate to a new speed limit of 85mph. Would that work everywhere? Obviously not. There are different circumstances in different areas and those different areas, require different laws.
No lanket policy for all.
The policy that would work is to have speed limits be set based on 85th percentile measured vehicle speeds, as measured by traffic engineers. Sadly, few states use this engineering standard and instead set speed limits based on the whims of local politicians and law enforcement for revenue generation purposes.
The policy that would work is to have speed limits be set based on 85th percentile measured vehicle speeds, as measured by traffic engineers. Sadly, few states use this engineering standard and instead set speed limits based on the whims of local politicians and law enforcement for revenue generation purposes.
Personally I have a really hard time discussing Gun Laws and Laws to control guns when the Legal system in the US does not enforce the laws already on the books. As far as I can tell the issue is not really about controlling guns or limiting rights. What I see is that a relatively tiny number of people do some pretty horrendous things and happen to use a firearm in the course of the activity. As a result, the rest of the people who own a gun now have to defend the fact that they own an item that is associated with some heinous act and they are now suspect of being capable of doing a similar horrendous act.
But ya know what I think REALLY drives a lot of this? I think the thing that really irks a lot of folks is that they cannot pass laws that will MAKE people do the "Right thing" all of the time. I honestly think that as much as we Americans talk about our rights and our freedoms...the actual truth is that we only want everyone to have "freedom" if it means that in enjoying that freedom folks will always make decisions that result in them acting the way I want them to act.
Am I wrong?
Does anyone else see this?
FWIW.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We, as adults, are expected to police our own actions until it is proven that we cannot accomplish that task and then help is called in. Law enforcement, new laws, whatever. The example is telling me that the neighbor cannot police his own actions and there for should have somebody step in. In the same example, I am not having a problem, so nobody is calling in to have LE come to my house. So should new laws be inacted to change the way I do things? Certainly not. I'm not doing anything wrong.
