The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

@spendius,

Your position Bill is the same as that of somebody who says there should be no seat belt laws citing accidents where people have died due to being trapped inside their cars by the belt. And there must be a considerable number.

And that people who smoked when the bans came in should be allowed to continue smoking and the ban only applied to new smokers.

If background checks were applied to current gun owners would you be in favour?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Let me set that arguement up straight: No one suggests arming kids, and if you want to protect most arses, you must arm responsible adults. The only difference between a cop and a regular citizen with a gun is a uniform. Cops shoot, they hunt, they collect guns, just like everyone else.

0 Replies

@parados,

The murders in Luby's and Columbine ARE reality. And as for your statsitcs, they are a pile of numbers that change depending on who you talk to. Sign or no sign, the unarmed were trying to be nice, and now they are nice and dead. If one regular person had been there packin' some heat, maybe that could have been different.

1 Reply

@debrafrancis,

Quote:

The murders in Luby's and Columbine ARE reality.

The shooting in Newtown is reality that it seems you want to ignore.

Quote:

And as for your statsitcs, they are a pile of numbers that change depending on who you talk to

No, my numbers don't change since they are the numbers from the FBI statistics. If you want to pretend the FBI numbers change depending on who you talk to, then I have to wonder about your sanity.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

If you want to pretend the FBI numbers change depending on who you talk to, then I have to wonder about your sanity.

Parados, the TOS for A2K has a clause that discourages members questioning another member’s sanity. I know most people think there is no sanity clause…but you ought really to consider there might be before going further along these lines. The list of people who disobey is long…and you never know who is watching and checking.

2 Replies

Assault weapons ban isn't gonna happen in this congress; too many conservatives and democrats are at logger heads. Besides, no legislation is going to control guns; there are just too many in private hands.

They should "get real" for a change instead of wasting time discussing something they're never going to approve anywhos.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Assault weapons ban isn't gonna happen in this congress...

Or in the next or the next after that...and the next after that. Probably never.

I agree with the rest of your post also, ci.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Your position Bill is the same as that of somebody who says there should be no seat belt laws citing accidents where people have died due to being trapped inside their cars by the belt. And there must be a considerable number.

Strange as long before any law I was using seat belts dating back to the lap belts only in the late models 1960s cars as it seems a wise and cheap precaution.

However I do not see how the government should be able to mandate seat belts usage for adults where the risk they are running only involved them not others.

Children I can see mandating their protection with car seats or normal belting for older children.

I do not see the nanny state where every aspect of a citizen life is of concern and subject to control down to the seize of the soda containers they can buy.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Parados, the TOS for A2K has a clause that discourages members questioning another member’s sanity.

One can hope that the TOS in question allow an exception for JTT...... Drunk

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I'm with Chico....

1 Reply

Plenty of people have questioned my sanity. Only a few directly mind you. But there has been a lot of obtuse stuff which means the same thing. That the perps of that sort of **** think their snidey approach does not breach TOS is something of a mystery.

Generally, I think the method is brought to bear for want of any other answer to the post which causes it.

Whatever, it's pathetic and the moreso because the ones who whine about it most are often the worst offenders. The assertion addict is quick to find fault with the use of assertion by others. So also the straw man gambit.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

However I do not see how the government should be able to mandate seat belts usage for adults where the risk they are running only involved them not others.

I suppose the risk wouldn't involve us if the government mandated no medical treatment would be allowed for anyone injured when not wearing a seat belt.

Until such action by the government, not wearing a seatbelt does affect me because of medical expenses for uninsured/underinsured and insurance rates for the rest of us.

1 Reply

@parados,

That's the guy I borrowed the joke from.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

I suppose the risk wouldn't involve us if the government mandated no medical treatment would be allowed for anyone injured when not wearing a seat belt.

Until such action by the government, not wearing a seatbelt does affect me because of medical expenses for uninsured/underinsured and insurance rates for the rest of us.

Interesting however if you wish to go down that route there is not one aspect of an adult life that the government would not have a say in and be a stakeholder in.

Let see no more dangerous sports like mountain climbing or skydiving, your diet and amount of exercise control by the state along with the maximum amount of body fat, what medical tests you must have and so on and so on.

Sorry no matter who paid the medical bills it is not the government business what you do and if not then we are all slaves with zero rights to live our lives as we see fit.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

However I do not see how the government should be able to mandate seat belts usage for adults where the risk they are running only involved them not others.

You stated the only risk was the person involved so the government should not be involved. I merely pointed out it is NOT just the person taking the risk that is involved when the cost is taken on by the rest of us. It's your logic you are now arguing against it seems.

2 Replies

@parados,

Good on ya for pointing out the illogic of his position.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

You stated the only risk was the person involved so the government should not be involved. I merely pointed out it is NOT just the person taking the risk that is involved when the cost is taken on by the rest of us. It's your logic you are now arguing against it seems.

Once more we all do not live an ideal life when it come to reducing medical cost and in one manner or another so we pools the risks we run in that regards by insurance private or government insurance.

Some of us ran larger risks then others and do so at difference times in our life span for that matter.

Now stating that we must all wear seat belts under the theory of protecting the tax payers from possible medical bills would be the same as stating that to protected the taxpayers you are not allow to skydive or mountain climb or play football or be more then 20 pounds over your ideal body weight or not have certain medical testings and on and on and on.

So either we rejected the idea that the government can used the excused of reducing medical bills by mandating seat belts wearing or we leave the damn door completely open for complete control of our lives using the same logic.

There always be someone with government power who wish to used it to control our lives for the greater goods such as the mayor or New York wishing to control the seize of a contain of soda we can buy!!!!!!!

An no it is not the government business if you wish to risk your life by climbing a damn mountain or driving without a seat belt on it all one and the same and it all none of the government business.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Bill, you stated THIS.

Quote:

However I do not see how the government should be able to mandate seat belts usage for adults where the risk they are running only involved them not others.

Your statement is factually UNTRUE in the real world since the risk is not borne solely by the risk taker but is shared by society at large in some fashion.

Trying to change what I argued doesn't make your statement suddenly true.

Quote:

So either we rejected the idea that the government can used the excused of reducing medical bills by mandating seat belts wearing or we leave the damn door completely open for complete control of our lives using the same logic.

Turning your absolute statement into a requirement that all other options must be directly opposed to your statement is also not true. We have to weigh the costs vs the rights as in all things. We require insurance for driving cars even though the driver is the one taking the risk that they may or may not hit someone or be hit themselves.

What are the costs for society vs the rights of the individual? It is a question that is often asked when it comes to Constitutional questions. We can and do ask that question of every right in the US Constitution which is why the majority can't force people to pray at a government function and we can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Now along come gun rights and suddenly some seem to want to imply that there is no longer a cost to society and the rights of the individual trumps all things. That is complete nonsense.

1 Reply

@parados,

He seems unawares of the "real" laws in this country that protects the majority over the individual. I wonder if he ever yelled out 'FIRE' in a filled theater?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

An no it is not the government business if you wish to risk your life by climbing a damn mountain

If only that were true then this government employee would still be alive:

Quote:

Eight other rangers trying to retrieve the body of climbing ranger Nick Hall, 33, from the 10,000-foot level of the 14-411-foot mountain were pinned down in a ground blizzard. They planned to spend the night at Camp Schurman at the 9,500-foot level and hope for a weather window on Saturday, park spokeswoman Fawn Bauer said.

Hall slid more than 3,000 feet to his death as he was helping evacuate the Texas climbers.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mount-rainier-ranger-slides-3-000-feet-death-rescue-effort-article-1.1100567

1 Reply

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know