Why Sam Wants to Ban Guns

Posted in the Rosemont Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of180
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Derecho”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
May 3, 2013
 
Let the gun debate continue!

“boredom made me do it”

Since: Aug 08

ny, ny

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Not really interested in being part of a back and forth on this (I'm exhausted on the subject), but I posted something (elsewhere) a while back that I thought you guys might like as food for thought:

Thinking logically, just for a moment.

Even if you grant that the 2nd amendment and the "right to bear arms" was meant for the purpose of carrying personal firearms, and not having local militia (police, etc.) who could carry arms, what is wrong with bringing some logic to the table about HOW you are allowed to have that right?

Does it have to mean a gun? Does it actually make sense not to regulate the requirements a person must meet in order to take advantage of their "right"?

If it was written into the constitution that everybody had a right to personal transportation, would we be arguing that people didn't need a license before they could drive a car, didn't need a different license to drive a semi than to drive a sedan, and had the right to own a car just because they wanted to sit in it, and never intended to drive it?

Would we be arguing that a car was a form of personal transportation and therefore had to be allowed when there are other forms of personal transportation available?

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

animaniactoo: There are already regulations (too many) involving the purchase of guns, so what is your point? Nobody is arguing that. Sam "Implied" in her post that if guns were outlawed, then the person who brought his gun into the airport could not have since nobody would have guns.

BTW, you do not need a license to purchase a car, and I dont see the point to arguing a hypothetical situation over the real one presented.

“Derecho”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

animaniactoo wrote:
Not really interested in being part of a back and forth on this (I'm exhausted on the subject), but I posted something (elsewhere) a while back that I thought you guys might like as food for thought:
Thinking logically, just for a moment.
Even if you grant that the 2nd amendment and the "right to bear arms" was meant for the purpose of carrying personal firearms, and not having local militia (police, etc.) who could carry arms, what is wrong with bringing some logic to the table about HOW you are allowed to have that right?
Does it have to mean a gun? Does it actually make sense not to regulate the requirements a person must meet in order to take advantage of their "right"?
If it was written into the constitution that everybody had a right to personal transportation, would we be arguing that people didn't need a license before they could drive a car, didn't need a different license to drive a semi than to drive a sedan, and had the right to own a car just because they wanted to sit in it, and never intended to drive it?
Would we be arguing that a car was a form of personal transportation and therefore had to be allowed when there are other forms of personal transportation available?
No right is "absolute." I have no problem with "regulating" the right to bear arms. I DO have a problem with outlawing that right altogether.

Of all these "gun laws" that are being proposed, I have yet to see how they prevent "criminals" from having guns. I only see how they prevent "law-abiding citizens" from having them.

And on your car analogy: when someone drives his car into a crowd of people and kills someone, do we blame the car? Is there an attempt to outlaw them? Yet when someone fires his gun into a crowd of people, we blame the gun and attempt to outlaw guns. Anti-gun supporters have thus far failed to explain that type of rationale.

What is their beef with guns, exactly? That they kill people? Medical malpractice has killed more people than car accidents which have killed more people than guns. So why do guns get the bad rap?

“boredom made me do it”

Since: Aug 08

ny, ny

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
May 3, 2013
 
You can own it but you can't register it for use in your name without a license. At least not in NYS. You might be able to do it elsewhere, but here, you can't register it without proof of insurance and you can't get insurance without a license so...

Not going to debate the rest. I have a different viewpoint about said regulations and tapped out on arguing them right now. Some day in the future maybe.

“FD&S is no way to be.”

Since: Feb 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
May 3, 2013
 
Alright Mutt, what do you want to know?

“Derecho”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
May 3, 2013
 
Sam I Am GEAM wrote:
Alright Mutt, what do you want to know?
The title says it all. Your turn....
bozo idea

Nashua, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

sam can't even manage what h has on his plate now so how could you expect sam to control guns?

Consider sam and the states , cities, counties already have laws prohibitions against

Illegal drug imports, sales.
illegal immigration.
prostitution
gambling
unregistered guns
corruption in government
murder, homicides
auto thief
assault
rape
B&E
Securities fraud
false advertising
political pay offs kick backs.
voter fraud
building with out the too many numerous permits
dead people voting in elections
parking

and a whole bunch of other things I can't remember right now

but the only thing that gets enforced in Chicago is parking regulations????

government at every level has a dismal record enforcing laws on the books right now what makes you think another law prohibiting guns will be any different??

Now pass a new parking regulation and it will be enforced CAUSE IT PRODUCES REVENUE FOR THE CITY TO WASTE ON SOMETHING NEW.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Aside from the fact that I have no clue what your point was, your post was totally off topic and of no use. Either discuss the issue at hand or get a towel and wipe that slobber you just spit out off the floor.
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>Who knew their was a quota on laws? Do the states creating new laws on abortion know about Roe v. Wade? There were new voting laws created for the 2012 elections. What was the quota on those laws and has it been met? A female New Hampshire legislator voted against equal pay for women citing the new republican refrain "too many laws". The GOP also feels there are too many laws/regulations pertaining to the environment, labor, healthcare, banking and yada yada. Just what do you anarchists hate about laws?

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
No right is "absolute." I have no problem with "regulating" the right to bear arms. I DO have a problem with outlawing that right altogether.
Of all these "gun laws" that are being proposed, I have yet to see how they prevent "criminals" from having guns. I only see how they prevent "law-abiding citizens" from having them.
And on your car analogy: when someone drives his car into a crowd of people and kills someone, do we blame the car? Is there an attempt to outlaw them? Yet when someone fires his gun into a crowd of people, we blame the gun and attempt to outlaw guns. Anti-gun supporters have thus far failed to explain that type of rationale.
What is their beef with guns, exactly? That they kill people? Medical malpractice has killed more people than car accidents which have killed more people than guns. So why do guns get the bad rap?
Guns get a bad rap because their purpose is to kill people (or animals). Cars don't get that same bad rap, even though they kill people too, because their purpose is to transport people.

When I get in a car,*I* have a certain amount of control. I can drive the speed limit, be cautious during bad weather, use my turn signals, etc. Seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones all are meant to mitigate damage to me in case of an accident. So when people die in a car crash, it is clearly not the purpose of the vehicle to have people die in it.

When anyone is allowed to carry a gun,*I* have no control over how they behave and no protection if they decide to start shooting. And the only modifications made to guns is to make them kill people better. They're made to shoot faster or use more bullets - oh, yeah forgot about silencers. And then there is the ammo that is expressly made to inflict major damage to people. So when a gunman kills a bunch of people, of course we blame the gun - it was doing exactly what it was intended to do.

“FD&S is no way to be.”

Since: Feb 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
The title says it all. Your turn....
The title is wrong. If you want to have a genuine discussion, then quit being a disingenuous putz. I said today and numerous time previously that I do not want to ban all guns. If you have no interest in a sincere dialogue, just say so and quit asking me to respond to things I never said.

“boredom made me do it”

Since: Aug 08

ny, ny

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
May 3, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
Of all these "gun laws" that are being proposed, I have yet to see how they prevent "criminals" from having guns. I only see how they prevent "law-abiding citizens" from having them.
One question: Do you believe that there are no law-abiding citizens who pose a significant threat and likelihood of circumstance when in possession of a weapon that can do damage from a distance?
edogxxx wrote:
And on your car analogy: when someone drives his car into a crowd of people and kills someone, do we blame the car? Is there an attempt to outlaw them? Yet when someone fires his gun into a crowd of people, we blame the gun and attempt to outlaw guns. Anti-gun supporters have thus far failed to explain that type of rationale.
Personally I think this is a misrepresentation of the fact that there is a middle ground and people whose goal is to restrict access to certain people, to have better tracking in the same way we have tracking of who owns cars and other property, and to restrict certain *types* of guns, the same way that we regulate cars and determine that some are too dangerous to be in open usage.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
May 3, 2013
 
Whaaaaaaa! Whaaaaaaa!
Sammie is a whinnnnnerrrr!

Quit deflecting ahole and state your position, or just go away like the pathetic loser you are. Your not fooling anybody (well, maybe yourself).

You asked for the thread, well here it is, man up tough guy!

But you wont because your an ignorant stool.
Sam I Am GEAM wrote:
<quoted text>
The title is wrong. If you want to have a genuine discussion, then quit being a disingenuous putz. I said today and numerous time previously that I do not want to ban all guns. If you have no interest in a sincere dialogue, just say so and quit asking me to respond to things I never said.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

1 law abiding citizens pose no threat whatsoever to anyone, whether they own a gun or not. Do YOU pose a threat?

2 That middle ground is already being met. Your not stating anything other than what is already in place, so what is your point?
animaniactoo wrote:
<quoted text>
One question: Do you believe that there are no law-abiding citizens who pose a significant threat and likelihood of circumstance when in possession of a weapon that can do damage from a distance?
<quoted text>
Personally I think this is a misrepresentation of the fact that there is a middle ground and people whose goal is to restrict access to certain people, to have better tracking in the same way we have tracking of who owns cars and other property, and to restrict certain *types* of guns, the same way that we regulate cars and determine that some are too dangerous to be in open usage.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
May 3, 2013
 
And how much control do you have over the other drivers on the road? Anyone of them can snap at any moment and you are just as powerless to prevent it, and even if they dont snap, cars still kill more people than guns, so I can make the statement that guns are less efficient in killing people that cars are and cars are actually a better killing machine. It does not matter that they are not designed to kill people, they do!
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
When anyone is allowed to carry a gun,*I* have no control over how they behave and no protection if they decide to start shooting.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

I thought so.
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>Good comeback?

“FD&S is no way to be.”

Since: Feb 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

RACE wrote:
Whaaaaaaa! Whaaaaaaa!
Sammie is a whinnnnnerrrr!
Quit deflecting ahole and state your position, or just go away like the pathetic loser you are. Your not fooling anybody (well, maybe yourself).
You asked for the thread, well here it is, man up tough guy!
But you wont because your an ignorant stool.
<quoted text>
The last time this issue came up in the Regs thread, I laid out my position several times, and you and Mutt keep ignoring what I said and insisting I want to ban all guns. I am giving you both a chance to ask me whatever questions you want. If my position was "Ban all guns" I could say that and be done. But it's not. I recognize there are numerous aspects to the gun control issue, so if you want to ask me about any particular aspect, feel free. If you want to sit there and chasitze me for things I never said, you can do that too. Your choice. I am trying to be productive. If you'd like to keep acting like a 6 yr. old on the playground, have fun.

“Derecho”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
May 3, 2013
 
animaniactoo wrote:
One question: Do you believe that there are no law-abiding citizens who pose a significant threat and likelihood of circumstance when in possession of a weapon that can do damage from a distance?
Yep.
animaniactoo wrote:
Personally I think this is a misrepresentation of the fact that there is a middle ground and people whose goal is to restrict access to certain people, to have better tracking in the same way we have tracking of who owns cars and other property, and to restrict certain *types* of guns, the same way that we regulate cars and determine that some are too dangerous to be in open usage.
I agree. But what type of "tracking" are you proposing? There was that newspaper that made public who had conceal carry permits in New York (I think.) Subsequently, a couple of those people had their homes burglarized. Should who owns a firearm be public knowledge?

“boredom made me do it”

Since: Aug 08

ny, ny

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
May 3, 2013
 
RACE wrote:
1 law abiding citizens pose no threat whatsoever to anyone, whether they own a gun or not. Do YOU pose a threat?
2 That middle ground is already being met. Your not stating anything other than what is already in place, so what is your point?
<quoted text>
Of course I pose a threat. Depends on the circumstances as to what I will do. Every single person is a threat on some level, the question is *how much* of a threat they represent. That's why my question is about law-abiding citizens who might pose *significant* threat.

Please explain how that middle ground is already being met when in much of the country it is possible to buy a gun with no tracking of the fact that you own the gun via the sale? No need to register that you own it? And assault weapons are available for sale again?

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
May 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Oh, so at some point in the past you laid this all out but apparently it was all ignored or swept under the rug....Right, got it.
Here is a specific question for you

State your position on gun control.
I promise not to ignore it. At the very least you will get the opportunity to clarify your position and then the dog and I can never say anything to the contrary can we?

Of is being held to your word too much for you?
Sam I Am GEAM wrote:
<quoted text>
The last time this issue came up in the Regs thread, I laid out my position several times, and you and Mutt keep ignoring what I said and insisting I want to ban all guns. I am giving you both a chance to ask me whatever questions you want. If my position was "Ban all guns" I could say that and be done. But it's not. I recognize there are numerous aspects to the gun control issue, so if you want to ask me about any particular aspect, feel free. If you want to sit there and chasitze me for things I never said, you can do that too. Your choice. I am trying to be productive. If you'd like to keep acting like a 6 yr. old on the playground, have fun.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of180
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••

Flood Warning for Cook County was issued at July 12 at 4:25AM CDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

Rosemont Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Rosemont People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Rosemont News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Rosemont
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••