Gun Issues page 20

2293 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

That’s because driving a car is a privilege and owning a gun is a right. a privilege can be taken away at a whim where a right can’t.

Driving a car is something that cannot be legally ‘taken away at a whim’. There must be solid reasons. Either you are proven unfit to drive it, or it is proven unfit to be driven. Once you have a lisence, it is your right to be on the road.


EDIT:

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Looks like they pretty accurately predicted what you were going to say.

It is word for word, the same argument he has used a hundred times before, Twilight. Jhco is a lot like a book – every time you look at it, it says the exact same thing, word for word.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Hey guys, i heard you will have to be implanted tracking chips because of some saftey regulation in USA is that true?

They want to but there is to much push-back on it. It really isn’t about safety, they claim it will be a convenience to our daily lives. Recently they have been chipping children’s backpacks in Texas and the parents are getting a bit PO’d about it. I also remember one school that was letting students take computers home and the school staff was watching them through the camera’s. It become public when the school accused a student of selling drugs in their bedroom. It proved false but I believe the school got a nice little lawsuit from it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by jhco50:

That’s because driving a car is a privilege and owning a gun is a right. a privilege can be taken away at a whim where a right can’t.

Looks like they pretty accurately predicted what you were going to say.

Probably because it was true. They hate truth.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPeeR:

Funny.
Without a gun nothing would changed for me.
Without a car I would not have been able to get higher education.

Talk about priorities.



And why is it so out of the question to question present situation?



At the post below:
COMPUTERS?!
Could you at least try to make some sense when posting in here?

It sounds bad doesn’t it? Yet if you go after something they like the crap would hit the fan. They aren’t interested in firearms or shooting them so it isn’t any skin of their teeth if someone else gives up a constitutional right. Computers would be stepping o their freedom of information, the first amendment. They wouldn’t like that type of ban.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by jhco50:

That’s because driving a car is a privilege and owning a gun is a right. a privilege can be taken away at a whim where a right can’t.

Looks like they pretty accurately predicted what you were going to say.

I honestly think he was trying to copy it.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Yes, I did and it is. If you read the founding fathers essays and letters, you will realize they meant for the citizen have the same armament the government did.

And unfortunately for some people, that’s never going to happen. Well, not anymore, at least.

The crux iof this debate is to limit a right severely.

Because wanting people to have to go through standard training procedures is severely limiting.

Oh right, it is because then they would have to actually work to get a gun, instead of now where you just wait until you get enough money and are over 18.

Even with thousand of people killed every year by the automobile,

Okay, it might just be because it’s not being compared to firearm related deaths, but that seems a little low.

you don’t see people wanting to limit that privilege to any great extent.

Yeah, this has already been gone over. A lot.

It’s funny, but nothing is said about the shooter himself,

Well in which case, because sometimes they do talk about who the shooter was.

only the tool he used, and if he had used a bomb, we wouldn’t be having a discussion about restricting them.

Wait, aren’t bombs already restricted? Well, sort of.

What I see are non-gunowners willing to establish reasonable (in their minds) restrictions on something that doesn’t affect them.

Actually, some restrictions would affect me. I still support some of them, but they probably would.

But wait, what about the current gun owners pushing for some kinds of regulations and/or restrictions?

I bet if you banned computers and other devices they would crap their pants trying to stop that.

What would be the reason behind doing that, anyway?

Originally posted by jhco50:

They want to but there is to much push-back on it. It really isn’t about safety, they claim it will be a convenience to our daily lives.

Why, exactly?

Recently they have been chipping children’s backpacks in Texas and the parents are getting a bit PO’d about it.

The reasoning behind this being?

I also remember one school that was letting students take computers home and the school staff was watching them through the camera’s.

Oh yeah, I think I heard about that too.

It become public when the school accused a student of selling drugs in their bedroom. It proved false but I believe the school got a nice little lawsuit from it.

Okay, it wasn’t that, just similar, it was a little more raunchy, but it was still mainly about stupid people making stupid decisions stupidly.

Stupid stupid stupid.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Probably because it was true. They hate truth.

Dude, do you not understand how douche-y you are sounding?

Originally posted by jhco50:

Yes it could and you know it. It is not a right my lady.

Are you going to poke the bear again tonight?

… Wat?

 
Flag Post

I’d still like to know exactly what freedom will be lost with better gun regulations.
If you want a gun, you’ll still be able to get one.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Hey guys, i heard you will have to be implanted tracking chips because of some saftey regulation in USA is that true?

They want to but there is to much push-back on it.

Who is “they”? The black suits in that evil UFO hovering over your house that your friends down the coffee shop told you about?

Punisher, wherever you heard that, its not true, no. There have been attempts to do such things, mostly in third world countries and Texas, but it simply does not work. Technology’s not there yet.

Recently they have been chipping children’s backpacks in Texas and the parents are getting a bit PO’d about it.

No they haven’t. If you are going to lie (and you do, at length), at least try to make it believable please. They have been giving children necklaces with RFID cards on them. As I called it, when the issue first cropped up, it took the students less than five seconds to figure out they could take the necklaces off, and go about untracked.

Honestly, what would be the point of tracking a backpack? It’s not with the child all the time anyway.

I also remember one school that was letting students take computers home and the school staff was watching them through the camera’s.

Good gods. You actually got one right, without filling it full of your usual lies. Although it was less the school staff doing it, and more automatic monitoring software that came with the laptops, and was run through the school’s standard monitoring software.

Unless you honestly believe school network administrators work through the night every night?

There was a similar case recently with a private company leasing laptops, and taking pictures the same way. Both adults and children in the frame. It happens. Most schools these days lease out laptops, as do a lot of companies. There are bound to be a few bad apples in the mix.

It become public when the school accused a student of selling drugs in their bedroom.

Really? That’s amazing, especially considering drugs were not mentioned at all in the original event. Do you have some sort of special clairvoyance, that enables you to see beyond the facts reported in the media, or available to the police? To discover some deeper special meaning that the courts are unaware of?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

I’d still like to know exactly what freedom will be lost with better gun regulations.
If you want a gun, you’ll still be able to get one.

Yes, but you wouldn’t be able to get a gun quickly and easily, so if you, say, need a gun within the day for X reason, you will no longer have the freedom to do it, unless you plan in advance, thus limiting freedoms. And freedoms are the main concern of the right, while the left is all about restrictions…

Wait.

That’s not the sarcasm I usually use.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

I’d still like to know exactly what freedom will be lost with better gun regulations.
If you want a gun, you’ll still be able to get one.

It’s because Jhco is convinced that any regulation of guns – even the ones already in place – are part of a slippery slope that will lead to the police coming to his house to confiscate all guns. He has been arguing over and over, that all regulations on gun use must be removed, as that is the only way to stop America turning into a police state. That every weapon the modern US military has access to, should be available to every US citizen with no questions asked.

That world would certainly be interesting. Especially when private citizens start lobbing tactical nukes at each other.

 
Flag Post

Hey tenco. No, it is a truth that driving is a privilege and the cops will tell you that face to face. they don’t have to issue a license if they don’t want to.

True, even if we could have the same armament, who could afford it?

Gun-control only starts with one thing like this and then blossoms into a ban. We were headed that way before until we organized and stopped them. We have even managed to reverse some of the draconian laws that have popped up. We have many gun organizations now and they will all be fighting this. Would you be willing to work for your right to free speech? Maybe a test to see if you have proper English skills or what about some of your other rights you take advantage of? There are 10 basic rights, choose one, besides the second, you would be willing to give up…or maybe pay in the form of a license to take advantage of.

Yes, it is low as I just guesstamated. It’s actually several times higher than firearms deaths. Firearms deaths are actually very low in the big picture.

Yes, bombs are restricted but easily made and used. I could show you how to make bathtub napalm with household products. I won’t but imagine the devastation from a bomb. Well, you only have to look at the suicide bombers overseas to see what can happen.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

I’d still like to know exactly what freedom will be lost with better gun regulations.
If you want a gun, you’ll still be able to get one.

They make a devise for people who have a drinking problem. They have to blow into a tube to start their car. On the outside it sounds reasonable, but if you take a closer look, you are going to find it causes job loss and other side effects. What if you needed to drive clients around and every time you started your car you had to blow into a tube. They wouldn’t be clients long, would they?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

They make a devise for people who have a drinking problem. They have to blow into a tube to start their car. On the outside it sounds reasonable, but if you take a closer look, you are going to find it causes job loss and other side effects.

How? Well, besides removing those who drive to work pissed as a newt, anyway.

What if you needed to drive clients around and every time you started your car you had to blow into a tube. They wouldn’t be clients long, would they?

::headdesk:: Of course they would. Because they’d be well aware that EVERY modern car has this requirement, and would be used to doing it themselves.

Besides, hopefully we won’t always have to use breathalisers. The end-game would be to incorporate a sensor to monitor the state of your eyes on the dash, or blood alcohol trackers in the steering wheel itself. The check is entirely transparent to the driver, unless they happen to be drunk or high at the time – in which case the car won’t start.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by jhco50:

They make a devise for people who have a drinking problem. They have to blow into a tube to start their car. On the outside it sounds reasonable, but if you take a closer look, you are going to find it causes job loss and other side effects.

How? Well, besides removing those who drive to work pissed as a newt, anyway.

What if you needed to drive clients around and every time you started your car you had to blow into a tube. They wouldn’t be clients long, would they?

::headdesk:: Of course they would. Because they’d be well aware that EVERY modern car has this requirement, and would be used to doing it themselves.

Besides, hopefully we won’t always have to use breathalisers. The end-game would be to incorporate a sensor to monitor the state of your eyes on the dash, or blood alcohol trackers in the steering wheel itself. The check is entirely transparent to the driver, unless they happen to be drunk or high at the time – in which case the car won’t start.

The first part you posted doesn’t make sense. I thought you said driving was a right!

Oh of course you would come up with some way out crap that may or may not happen 100 years down the road. Geez!

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/_chipping__of_humans_143_.html

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Gun-control only starts with one thing like this and then blossoms into a ban. We were headed that way before until we organized and stopped them.

Then when did this happen?

And why do I get the strange feeling you’re going to say during the Prohibition era.

We have even managed to reverse some of the draconian laws that have popped up.

Again, when in the seven hells did this happen? Also, I think you’re mixing up “laws” with “bills.”

We have many gun organizations now and they will all be fighting this.

Could you clarify how many “many” is, and possibly the size of them in regards to either influence or how many people are a part of them? (If you could, it would be nice it people who are members of more than one aren’t counted more than once.)

Would you be willing to work for your right to free speech?

Except that unlike guns, free speech isn’t material, and while could possibly be earned, doesn’t carry nearly the amount of responsibility of owning a gun.

Maybe a test to see if you have proper English skills

Wait, you mean the language or the history?

or what about some of your other rights you take advantage of? There are 10 basic rights, choose one, besides the second, you would be willing to give up…or maybe pay in the form of a license to take advantage of.

Well that’s pretty easy, the third, it really doesn’t have much practical use in today’s society.

Yes, it is low as I just guesstamated.

Protip: Don’t.

It’s actually several times higher than firearms deaths.

I’m also guessing that the number of people with cars is several times higher than those with firearms.

Firearms deaths are actually very low in the big picture.

I’m guessing you mean with percentages or ratios, as the number would get larger the broader you search.

Yes, bombs are restricted but easily made and used.

And unless I’m mistaken, that’s also illegal.

I could show you how to make bathtub napalm with household products.

And I can too, alcohol + cloth + fire.

Originally posted by jhco50:

They is the government. Poking a bit are we? I call your problem diarrhea of the mouth.

So the government simultaneously wants to destroy all that is dear to the people, but also it’s trying its darnedest to preserve the old ways. Okay, got it.

Fine, they were making them wear cards, what difference does it make?

That you weren’t being accurate when you claimed that was what was happening. I thought that would be obvious. Well, that and technically the card’s more useless than the backpack, but it’s slightly situation.

Lie? Really? I don’t lie.

And ironically that’s also a lie because logic circle.

Sometimes my memory may not be exact, but I don’t lie.

And I believe that you don’t intentionally lie, but you definitely seem to be misinformed frequently.

You kind of make me sick to my stomach sometimes.

Grumpy grumpy grump grump grump. /annoyingsingsongyvoice

Originally posted by jhco50:

The first part you posted doesn’t make sense. I thought you said driving was a right!

She was questioning how having Breathalyzer tests in cars would directly make people lose jobs.

Oh of course you would come up with some way out crap that may or may not happen 100 years down the road. Geez!

Yeah… Not helping your situation.

 
Flag Post

Firearms are designed to kill things.
Cars are designed for transportation.
This difference is significant.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Gun-control only starts with one thing like this and then blossoms into a ban.

Oh of course you would come up with some way out crap that may or may not happen 100 years down the road. Geez!

Or *gasp* not at all.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/_chipping__of_humans_143_.html

Um… Could you add to this, like why we should care, or exactly what the article’s about? It’s not vitally important, it’s just really easier to understand the point you’re trying to make if you do.

EDIT: Is it just me, or has it gotten easier for me to argue against your points, or argue in general? Because it feels like easy mode is turned on for this forum.

 
Flag Post

I think its just that you’ve seen the entire gamut of Jhco’s arguments, Tenco. They don’t change, so on the second or third time round, they are easy to dismiss. Hard not to sigh or snicker at, but easy to dismiss.

EDIT: Okay, I’ve looked at the link. You actually got me to snicker aloud at this part:

The RFID chips will be accessed via satellites through tiny GPS systems within the chips.

HOW the hell are you going to get a GPS chipset, something that requires enough power to broadcast a signal into orbit to fit onto a tiny, 1mm in length RFID chip, exactly? Where’s the power going to come from? How the heck are you going to fit the tranceiver in there too? Is there some hundred-year advance in battery miniturization technology I’m unaware of on top of all that?

School officials may then contend for further invasion of privacy, and require RFIDs to be worn on clothing, or possibly injected.

Slippery slope fearmongering anybody?

So, on top of having an orbit-capable tranceiver, a small computer (to work out the GPS location, typically four satellites are pinged, and the computer works out the triangulation) and a powerful battery on the 1mm RFID chip, we now also have a cooling system designed to keep it within the temperature constraints of the human body. Amazing! None of this technology existed oh, an hour ago.

The United Kingdom has concrete plans to implant RFID chips into prison populations.

Really? I was under the impression they were only contemplating the feasability of such things, and investigating what the possibilities were. I didn’t realise they were actually going ahead with the idea. Have you told the UK government that they’re going ahead with the idea? I don’t think they know they are going ahead with it yet.

I could go on, but what’s the point? That article is a pile of steaming guano, fearmongering, and blatant ignorance of our electronics tech’s stage of development – they’re vastly overestimating our capabilities and passing them off as fact.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by jhco50:

They make a devise for people who have a drinking problem. They have to blow into a tube to start their car. On the outside it sounds reasonable, but if you take a closer look, you are going to find it causes job loss and other side effects.

How? Well, besides removing those who drive to work pissed as a newt, anyway.

What if you needed to drive clients around and every time you started your car you had to blow into a tube. They wouldn’t be clients long, would they?

::headdesk:: Of course they would. Because they’d be well aware that EVERY modern car has this requirement, and would be used to doing it themselves.

Besides, hopefully we won’t always have to use breathalisers. The end-game would be to incorporate a sensor to monitor the state of your eyes on the dash, or blood alcohol trackers in the steering wheel itself. The check is entirely transparent to the driver, unless they happen to be drunk or high at the time – in which case the car won’t start.

The first part you posted doesn’t make sense. I thought you said driving was a right!

Oh of course you would come up with some way out crap that may or may not happen 100 years down the road. Geez!

OKAY…I can easily address the part of vika’s post he isn’t able to make sense of.
She’s talking about how the EARNED RIGHT (I guess ya could call it a “privildge”?) of driving is subject to specific “rules” (CONSTITUTIONAL laws spelling out those rights),,,and how that right can be “defaulted” because it IS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY enough by the driver in a manner that PROTECTS THE RIGHTS of the rest of us citizens….OUR FUCKING RIGHT TO LIVE, NOT BE MAINED, OR OTHERWISE HARMED.

Kinda sounds a lot like what many ppl also want via gun CONTROLS….eh?

The second quote of vika’s that he tries to dismiss as being some kind of sci-fi magic when she’s talking about CONTROLS on vehicles that can (almost?) foolproof it from being driven while LEGALLY drunk. Ya see, LEGALLY…as w/in the bounds of CONSTITUTIONAL laws.

Anyway, vika’s right. There is research going into such systems.
HOWEVER, interestingly enough—even though there are 10,000 alcohol-related deaths each year—there is damn little funding (only $10,000,000 spread among 16 auto makers & the Govt.) and is likely TEN YEARS away…..that’s approx. 100,000 many unnecessary deaths because of this idiotic obesession w/ “rights” and the utterly ignored RESPONSIBILITIES that MUST BE OBSERVED in order to protect that such rights are shared equally by all.

How fucking crazy is this? Ten million bucks is NOTHING to the Govt. budget….esp. if ya compare it to a whoooole lot of crazy-ass things it already does spend (waste?) money on. So, don’t look for “logic” by those who CAN MAKE a difference to do anything much in the way of SENSIBLE effort to solve the issue.

But…B U T,,,the thing that ya JUST HAVE TO LISTEN to in that link-video is at the end of it. It talks about the American Beverage {booze} Insitute that represents 8,000 chain restaurants in the U.S. and that the ABI IS ACTUALLY AGAINST this technology. Yeah…. I said AGAINST it.

Listen to the link. Hear what it says about that fucking ABI.
THEN, see if their “statement” doesn’t sound a whoooole lot like those being made by the NRA & jake-o’s other “good-ol’-buddy-gun-group”.

For me, I shall contact the ABI and as many of their associates as I can & let them know how I feel about:

Positions:

ABI works to bring attention to policies that would scale back an individual’s ability to safely and responsibly consume alcohol. These policies include alcohol advertising bans,6 alcohol sale restrictions,7 zero tolerance policies,8 alcohol sensors in all cars,9 sobriety checkpoints,10 lower legal limits,11 and alcohol tax increases,.12
{{It is unclear to me just exactly what the ABI’s purpose is in bringing attention to such policies. BUT, a creepy-crawlly feeling in my gut tells me that it SURE AS HELL AIN’T to help bring them into being or expand them…eh?}}

ABI supports the use of interlocks for repeat DUI offenders and opposes the device for all other Americans.13

ABI also opposes raising taxes on alcohol, citing the fact that the federal, state, and local governments already collect more than one-third of the shelf-price on alcohol.14

Now, I think most of the sane ppl on this forum well know that America sure as hell ain’t gonna give up her guns anytime soon….that “slippery-slope” shit just ain’t gonna happen,,,,even though there is a whooooole lot of bullshit being flung around—by both sides…yeah—mostly by the paranoidal gun nutz and somewhat by the “emotionally-challenged” ppl who hate to see kids get killed.

America ain’t gonna give up her booze either. Hell, the moonshiners still exist…big time.
But, we are making a rational effort to combat drunk-driving (I lost a nephew to a drunk driver) via CONSTITUTIONAL laws. What the fuck is the problem w/ doing the same thing w/ “guns”?

Dead is dead….regardless of the tool used.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by jhco50:

That’s because driving a car is a privilege and owning a gun is a right. a privilege can be taken away at a whim where a right can’t.

Driving a car is something that cannot be legally ‘taken away at a whim’. There must be solid reasons. Either you are proven unfit to drive it, or it is proven unfit to be driven. Once you have a lisence, it is your right to be on the road.


EDIT:

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Looks like they pretty accurately predicted what you were going to say.

It is word for word, the same argument he has used a hundred times before, Twilight. Jhco is a lot like a book – every time you look at it, it says the exact same thing, word for word.

Yes it could and you know it. It is not a right my lady.

ANTECEDENTS….ANTECEDENTS….ANTECEDENTS.
Give us a fucking antecedent for YOUR “it” there. Doing so helps a bunch in trying to know what it is that ya’re referring to.

Plus, are ya now threatening Ninja, too?
Ya added her quote and it’s not at all clear to me how, or even IF, ya addressed it.
Whateverthefuck do YOU mean w/ this shit of: “poking the bear”?
Fuck man, most of us on this forum are beating the shit outta ya w/ HUGE STICKS of serious facts, figures, opinions, etc.
We ARE “poking holes” in most everything YOU present.
All we hear in return is the “hisssssssssing” noise of an old wind-bag trying to run a lot of trite pap by us. Ya know, like this. Did YOU write that? No? I see. YOU are merely “passing along” (w/o credit given) nearly verbatim that very link.

jake-o, it is when YOU give out these weird tacit “threats” about “poking-the-bear” (cousin to Smokey?) that causes me to become very concerned about the “standards” used in granting CCW’s in YOUR state.

I guess YOU just don’t understand what the many of us here are talking about when we are seeking rational dialogue on such standards for carrying and even ownership. For me, any asshole who is known to make such threats of violence is not responsible enough to enjoy the RIGHT of gun ownership.

Are you going to poke the bear again tonight?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Yes it could and you know it. It is not a right my lady.

Are you going to poke the bear again tonight?

Please clarify—who exactly are you talking to?

 
Flag Post

I think that guns should be more restricted.

Everyone should only be allowed to own 1 gun.

You only need 1 gun for self defense so any arguments for more guns are worthless.

Also hunting is immoral unless you eat the animals.

Discuss

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Yes it could and you know it. It is not a right my lady.

Are you going to poke the bear again tonight?

Please clarify—who exactly are you talking to?

Vika