Hey folks, you remember common sense?

[Darren King]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

And why, pray tell, do you consider you have any idea what anybody else needs? Please let us know your qualifications in that regard, or that's just silly.
Also, like I said before, you do realize you are part of this "'Merikuh" you speak of? Might want to put more thought into your insults, lest they insult you personally as well. You can do better than that.

We are part of North America.

[Iowatech]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

I've been following this post from the beginning...i think common sense left this post a long time ago...i can see the point of both sides of the argumemt...but to be honest...isn't it about time everybody agreed to disagree....no matter what point is made...someone else is going to counter point it....i don't see the point in getting hot under the collar about what is happening in someone else's country...that is their laws & their constitution...so how about a return to common sense once more

Actually, if you look carefully this is kind of about what rights the governed have from the Government despite any kind of heartbreaking drama that might be inserted into the mix, this time flavored with guns. At least that's my take. If I'm wrong, let me know. (If I am wrong, that would be so much easier, so I hope that's the case.)
This is probably not common sense, though, so never mind.

[Jimbo1]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

We are part of North America.

Indeed you are but a totally separate nation. Like France and Germany.

[Darren King]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

Indeed you are but a totally separate nation. Like France and Germany.

I was just pointing out that we are not part of "Merikuh". Whatever that is.

[DWise]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

photo.JPG

[Jimbo1]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

I was just pointing out that we are not part of "Merikuh". Whatever that is.

Yeah obviously he doesn't care much for this country.
Don't you know that really deeply bothers me.

[Jimbo1]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19202[/ATTACH]

boomstick.jpg

[ankit]

xerox pro 3545

Communication error 3 5 4 5

[Darren King]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

Yeah obviously he doesn't care much for this country.
Don't you know that really deeply bothers me.

Huh? I didn't say anything about the US. If I offended anyone somehow it was not intentional.

[Jimbo1]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

Huh? I didn't say anything about the US. If I offended anyone somehow it was not intentional.

Not you Darren.
Our friend who speaks of Merikuh.

[Jimbo1]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19203[/ATTACH]

guide.jpg

[Iowatech]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

We are part of North America.

Actually, sorry about that, I meant no offense to Canada or anyone who lives there. I was only replying specifically to Akitu, as while they are a pretty good tech, it appeared to me they weren't fully thinking out their posts in this thread.
Once again, sorry about that.

[Akitu]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

Akitu, I do not agree with you one little bit on this statement .

You asked the question , do you NEED a gun to carry around with you for protection. NO.

Well tell me then why do the police carry them?? They don't need no stinking guns. And a lot of the police departments are telling there citizens to get training and know how to use a firearm. The reason in saying this is cause the police cannot protect you. You have to protect yourself.

I'm 60 years old , NOW I need my gun. It's all about defense my friend. NOT offense . Were not all nut jobs here looking for a shootout.

There are always exceptions to every rule. The police carry firearms because they've been properly trained and had a psychiatric evaluation clearing them for the possession and use of a firearm within certain guidelined circumstances. Britain is a prime example of a police force that can serve without guns, but again, a different locale and different laws regarding the matter.

That was one of the points I was attempting to make, every person does not need to carry a gun now because the police are the intermediary between civilians and a higher court. There are laws in place to attempt to reduce the amount of random violence that occurs everywhere daily. The police are right, everyone can and probably should get training and know how to use one. Did they tell everyone to go outright buy a gun? No. It can be inferred from what was told, and should you feel the need to own one you have the right as per the second amendment to go buy a gun.

I'm not disputing the right to own it, I'm discussing the need. Nor did I state everyone was a nutjob looking for a shootout. I would very much like for what I've been saying to actually be considered rather than just blatantly assuming I'm anti-gun and all guns should be locked away and nobody ever should have guns. That's so far off the point I was making that I don't feel it's relevant to the discussion topic.

To answer the original quoted post - I will back my original statement. Nobody needs to carry a gun with them for self defense. There are many types of hand-to-hand self defense methods that work at a close range. If it came to a shootout, hell yes give me a gun. As a normal sane citizen though, my first instinct is to get out of the line of fire or even prevent it from coming to a shootout in the first place.

Speaking to you personally, at 60, there's a circumstance that may and probably could/should skirt around some of the lines drawn in the sand. You may have a health problem preventing you from fully defending yourself in a hand-to-hand situation or any number of things. As an example, some dipshit gang-banger 15 year old who thinks he's tough shit because he's got "his boys" waiting to back him up probably deserves to have a cap busted in his face or knee cap, all power to you in this situation to defend yourself with the gun you have on hand. To tie it in to my original point, you likely received training at some point in those 60 years on the proper care and use of a firearm, and have a reasonable enough sense of judgement to determine if the course of action was necessary. This is the element of the entire discussion - keeping the firearms away from the people who don't know how to use them properly or lack that sense of judgement to determine if using the firearm was appropriate.

[Akitu]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

*Snip*

There are 2 problems with this system:
1) The FBI database, by law, cannot contain certain very relavent information - HIPAA and ObamaCare regs do not permit the sharing of information relevant to a person's mental health. While that's good in most situations, it's pretty important in determining if you should have a firearm.
2) The government is using it as a registry. The only reason for them to register firearms is so they know where to come collect them when they decide to violate the 2nd A.

All the current "gun control" proposals the liberals are trying to push on us now simply place new restrictions on law abiding citizens, and do nothing to remove the loopholes that allow nut cases to buy a gun. I will only support new legislation under the following conditions:
1) It closes the loopholes. Mental health issues that disqualify a citizen must meet certain criteria that the person could be a real threat, so that the government can't just disqualify everybody because they had a prescription for Valium to get a good night's sleep, or some silly nonsense like that.
The law must update HIPAA and whatever other regs to allow for the transfer of this information, but still keep it protected from general release in the FBI's hands, and the FBI must report an attempt to purchase a firearm by a banned person to their mental health provider for investigation and treatment.
2) The process must remain quick and simple as it is now - no jumping through hoops to excercise a constitutionally protected right.
3) No form of registry is to be maintained. The purpose of the 2nd A was to give citizens the ability to defend ther life, property, and liberty from any menace, especially our own government. (again reference that Tyrant -> Declaration of Indepenednce -> Constitution -> 2nd Amendment chain of thought)
4) Firearms are for citizens ONLY. Sorry Illegal Aliens - you don't belong here to begin with, why the hell would I want to give you a gun.
5) No restrictions on personal arms - It's really no business of the government if I want a 1911 pistol with a 17 round magazine or an AR-15 with a 30 round mag - Don't punish me for being a law abiding citizen

I fully support your above listed criteria.


So only the criminals should be able to get a gun and randomly shoot people? Legal gun owners aren't the problem here. If I fire my weapon defending my life, liberty, or property that shouldn't make me a criminal... and yes, I said property - it makes no sense that a burglar should be protected by law so long as he wears a sign while breaking into your house that reads "I'm not going to hurt anybody, I'm just going to steal everything you own... please don't shoot me"

Not what I was saying, you seem to have changed my wording and added context that I didn't imply myself. Legal gun owners are not the problem, it's the method about how a gun is obtained legally as I stated above, and I agree with you regarding self defense as well, especially in the stupid circumstance of a criminal being protected by some technicality


We do have a formally drafted constitution, and it says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringement, in part, means assuming somebody is stupid with no evidence to support it.

This is why the safety course is a prerequisite. The claim of ignorance can't be used if you're required to pass a course exercising the maintenance and care and proper storage requirements etc. You are correct, assuming someone is stupid is not only an infringement, it's also a discrimination of sorts. Hence, with prerequisites - driving as an example, one can prove they're no longer ignorant and are aware of proper procedures. Any moron can claim they didn't know, but then why should they have gotten it in the first place? Is a 16 year old joy rider not breaking the law taking the parent's car without permission? Yes, he is, because he has not yet received proper documentation stating it is okay for him to be operating a motor vehicle. So tell me what makes a firearm, which has the intent of point, shoot, kill - so much different from an automobile in that the driver must show competence?


1) You have no idea what sort of gun I need to hunt with. Should I choose to go after some of the ferrel hogs that are becoming a real problem around here, I really do need a semi-auto 12GA shotgun or an AR-15 both with a large magazine - them damn things are built like a tank, and sometimes can take several rounds of buckshot or even slugs and keep on charging at you. Point is, you don't know what my needs are, and neither does the government.

Circumstantial, I will agree. There are varying degrees of need, my apologies for being vague. If it is a requirement, there should be no obstruction other than a course informing the user of proper care and handling. Everyone should have access to them if need be, which again is one of my main points. If there is a NEED for it, it should be available.

2) Freedom is exactly that. If I want to purchase an "assault weapon" as a trophy to have on my mantle that's my freedom. If I want a high grade 1911 pistol with 15 round magazine for competition shooting, that's also my freedom.

Again, circumstantial and I will agree. All I've been saying is that there is nothing more dangerous than uneducated masses without any proper idea of what it is they're handling. If you have the proper training on the use of that weapon, you have every right to do with it what you please, as you are knowledgeable on what it's capable of and what a situation where it would be appropriate would be.

Have you completely misunderstood the concept of deterrence? Maybe I don't need a firearm, but if a would be mugger knows I'm packing he's a heck of a lot less likely to try stealing my wallet. So did I actually need my gun? Maybe not. Maybe if I didn't have it, then I would have.

Deterrence is a very simple concept to understand and demonstrate. Street lights, as an example, are crime deterrent. The convexed mirror of the convenience store, or the security cameras that are there, but not recording or plugged in are deterrents. This is where we start getting into hypotheticals however, and can't ideally be using a hypothetical to support an argument. Did you know that over 90% of people who are crazy were at one point sane? What's to stop a sane person from purchasing and owning a firearm and completing the prerequisite safety courses, only to one day snap and say to hell with it all? Absolutely nothing, but again, it's a hypothetical situation.

Why would you assume you're going to need a gun? Violence tends to be random unless you are doing something to attract it's attention. Maybe you're rich and stand a good chance of being mugged for your $10k Rolex. Maybe you're a bookie and pissed some people off. Maybe you've requested one too many manuals on CTN... or maybe you are a gangster. We don't know, and it's not fair to make assumptions based off of nothing, but if you have cause to believe you will need a firearm, then you might just be a bigger menace to society than people who want a firearm "just in case." The whole point is that our legal system is based on the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty.

One of the points I failed to clarify myself on, you're completely right. The system is based on the premise of innocence until proven guilt. Violence is random unless you're doing something to attract its attention, which is another point I had tried and failed to make evidently. One of the majour problems I'm attempting to point out, is tied in with your closing statement. Everyone feels like they have cause to believe they need a firearm presently, for those "just in case" scenarios, and it's creating a flood of excess firearms making their ways to uneducated masses where they'll get to "normal" "sane" people who couldn't be approved for a firearm because of a past criminal offense from 20+ years ago, then said "normal, sane" person snaps and it's a vicious circle that keeps repeating itself, and we find ourselves right back where we started.

Answered within the quote, cbf to break it up.

[Akitu]

Re: Hey folks, you remember common sense?

Actually, sorry about that, I meant no offense to Canada or anyone who lives there. I was only replying specifically to Akitu, as while they are a pretty good tech, it appeared to me they weren't fully thinking out their posts in this thread.
Once again, sorry about that.

You were right, I didn't get time to fully put the finishing touches on that post to clarify some of the bold statements I was making. I've been stupidly swamped with service calls since my previous co-tech left his position. I've attempted to clarify my posts in some responses that came after I left. Hopefully I've clarified any misconceptions in my previous posts, if not, I'm willing to discuss them.