Printable View
Apparently, there have been 1 or 2 "mishaps' in several different states this wkend at various gun shows. Simply because of safety concerns, should there be some minimum level of training in the use of firearms for NEW gun owners? Not to drag the Gov`t into this...realistically, perhaps at the state or local level? Kinda like to legally get a driver`s license?
I wouldn't be against a showing of "competency" before being able to purchase a firearm.
Musta been them liberal "moles" confused about shooting guns or BS.
It sounded fishy to me. 3 accidental shootings in one day???
Id like to see news links
Agreed, and 3 injured in 1 place (NC) seemed a bit much, but...honestly, if only for the purchaser`s own personal safety, let alone there family`s. Here in the Dayton Ohio area in the last 72 hrs there were 2 new gun owners who accidently shot themselves or a family member with "unloaded" guns; 1 isn`t expected to live. I know I would NOT want to drive a vehicle (unless armored) if there was no requirement at all to pass any kind of test to drive...
CBS Evening News, MSNBC, Dayton (Ohio) Daily News among others. And believe it was 5 injured in 3 seperate accidents in 72 hrs...
There were between hundreds and thousands that turned-out all across the country. Doubt you'll see a total count as there were so many gatherings....and I'm sure lame stream media doesn't want the sheeple knowing Zero is lying to the public about "who" wants gun control of any sorts. Then again, Zero probably personally called EB and LT since they're all such good pals and always seem to have the "inside scoop". :Rofl
Firearms owners, advocacy groups rally against tougher gun control measures during 'appreciation day' | Fox News
You could Google state by state, and might get an idea, but a few states and numbers were given above.
Oh....and since LibT had to quote "accidents"...........I guess cars need banned too, since they have "accidents"
Well since you DID bring that subject up, allow me to lenghten a short story: Planes crash, so ban them, Ships sink, so ban them too. Doctors make medical mistakes, so do the same. Dogs bite people, so make them extinct. People kill other people so extreminate us all...uh, let me re think that 1...will get back to you. Just as "logical' as you...
How about Kill the ones that kill. This will help with the numbers in the FSAQuote:
Originally Posted by Lowellhturner
But wouldn't further their agenda of disarming Americans....request denied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big H trucking
A car decides on its own to kill. Never heard of banning cars when one was used to kill, just prosecute the one who used it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowellhturner
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger R61
LT believes "Christine" is the real deal.
It's shown that you don't have to have any "competency" to vote, so I'm not at all in favor of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by bwillaub
That is a general requirement in Europe. I could go with that much myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by bwillaub
How would you propose this? Some sort of phsycological test? I'm betting that the majority of our veterans couldn't pass a physcological test.Quote:
Originally Posted by no1son
1st question on the test....Have you ever been involved in a violent act involving a firearm? Answer....Yes. FAIL!
Most European systems test both competency with the firearm desired, generally acquired through training including at a firing range with rented units, and some sort of assurance of responsible behavior. In most cases military veterans are positively credited in those considerations for their service, with honorable military service being considered sufficient by itself in many places.
Cars don't decide to kill, but each is licensed and each operator is also licensed and limited to a particular level of vehicle and then in most places only after documented training, including having to carry a photo id during operation. It is far more difficult for plane pilots who must also be licensed and qualified for specific levels of aircraft. The qualifications are significantly higher for aircraft operation. The aircraft are subject to rigorous and regular inspections and can be ordered grounded and pilots can not only be removed from aircraft for violations of conditions, they are also subject to criminal prosecution for those violations just like car operators are.
I do not see all that much difference between either of them and firearms. No where in the Constitution are firearms for civilian use singled out for special consideration on their own anyway. It isn't there. That is a recent re-interpretation rejected by the Supreme Court for over 200 years and rejected in fact by the framers of the 2nd Amendment at the time it was written. It was proposed and debated at that time too, as were several other related proposals, but the purpose of the 2nd Amendment that was finally agreed upon and ratified was to protect the militias in the new States from being absorbed into the Federal government. There has always been some opposition to complete gun control, but it has been implemented multiple times in multiple ways all over the country, when it was felt to be needed both federally and state by state. Only now in recent years has the current Supreme Court reversed all previous rulings and that by only a scratch majority. It remains a shaky standard. The American people want some official control and in the past they have always been able to implement it, too,when they felt they needed it. We will just have to wait a bit to see how long this aberrant ruling lasts.
Well put AGAIN, No1son. Your logic and perception are good. As far as my OWN personal beliefs on "penalties" towards crime, will say it yet again. I BELIEVE in the DEATH PENALTY becoming MANDATORY for ANY murder not commited in direct SELF DEFENSE. Also DEATH for treason, rape, robbery, car jacking, kidnapping, arson, KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY polluting on a vast scale, KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY defrauding on a vast scale. Having or threatening to use a weapon (gun, knife, baseball bat) to commit a crime whether you actually USE it or not. There`s a couple others. Oh yeah, and no prison sentences longer than 10 yrs. If longer than 10 yrs, you are PUT TO DEATH. I do not believe in "warehousing" convicts at taxpayer expense. The ONLY 'proven" cure for most criminal behavior is DEATH, plus you have ZERO "repeat offenders, EVER. Can I make that any CLEARER?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowellhturner
Wow....
You forgot conspiracy. Since it only takes two witnesses to prove someone's guilt, I'm not all for your KILL everyone theory. Many people have been wrongly imprisoned and, dare I say, put to death because two people didn't like another.
Do you also understand that you're a criminal? Every person that has a drivers license is a criminal. Ever been 1 mile over the speed limit? Have you always made a complete stop when at a stop sign or traffic light? Do you always use your turn signal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowellhturner
Most people feel like they can get away with speeding as long as they're not going more tha 5 mph over the posted limit. If someone feels I wrong, surely speak up. Why do we exceed the speed limit? Because we think we can get away with it. I mean it's only a ticket....but isn't it still breaking the law?
Don't sign me up for anything copying European laws. Been in most of their countries and have no desire to live like they do with the laws they have.
Won't be a problem cray....we're headin' 3rd world or BustQuote:
Originally Posted by cray
My personal thoughts are if you WILLINGLY commit an act that you injure or kill another person with profit in mind, DIE. Betray your country for profit? DIE. Use ANY weapon to help commit a crime? DIE. Kidnap someone for ransom? LOSE YOUR LIFE. Commit rape, or molest a child? FORFEIT YOUR LIFE. Drive drunk and injure or kill someone? EXECUTION. KNOWINGLY market a product that is harmful to others? BE KILLED. Burn down a house or blding for ANY REASON? GET SENT SOMEWHERE VERY WARM (and AIN`T talking about the Bahamas or Acapulco). Carjack somene? GET "JACKED" YOURSELF. Commit the crime, get convicted, have 1 appeal, and within say 5yrs "it`s DYING TIME." TELL ME that would NOT take a BIG ole BITE out of crime`s ass. After 10 yrs of that, except for speeders there wouldn`t BE any criminals LEFT alive to COMMIT any crimes...you forget; I`m "old school"...
You did come from my "old school".
Actually not a criminal unless convicted. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a very good standard for the protection of individual rights. We fudge that at our own risk as a society. No question that some folks play on technicalities to use that to their own benefit, but government violating the rights of any innocent is far worse, IMO. But the law must not only be fair, it must be administered fairly. That last is really the usual gripe against government and the biggest danger from government.Quote:
Originally Posted by filletfetish
I certainly try not to violate either traffic laws or the rules of the road. That was drilled into me years ago when I was a bus driver and "chargeables" were a ticket to unemployment. That stuck and I have come to accept that as the best course for operating a motor vehicle. I generally get passed on the highway if the speed limit is over 65 and below that I set my auto to what the occasional speed marker says that I am not traveling over the posted limit. I take those speed signs to be correct enough to know what my speedometer is actually reading. Furthermore I would rather have those who fudge the limits and the right of way ahead of me where I can see emergencies developing rather than overtaking me from the rear, where I have far less ability to react. I will actually pull over for a tail gater. I defintitely want such a driver ahead of me rather than on my bumper. Surprising how often I still catch up to those people at the next stop sign or traffic light. All they gain is a couple of minutes anyway in most cases, not valuable enough under any circumstances to chance harming someone else.
I am convinced that execution is appropriate in some cases, though I may not agree on which ones. The huge BUT that I carry is that IMO the execution of an innocent is the worst possible offense any society can take against the personal rights of its citizens. There is no possibility of any kind of restitution for mistakes in that case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowellhturner
OTOH I do not see any reason why incarcerated convicts are not liable for the expense of their convictions and incarceration. Either pay up or work it off at least to the best of their abilities. I don't say incarceration at brutually hard labor but definitely at productive labor against the expense involved, including restitution to any victims. I do not see the legitimacy of "country club" prisons either.
When one gets to corporate offenses one gets out onto really thin ice. Originally they were only "persons" in a commercial sense. Endowing them with political rights is part of what led to the Revolution, when the English crown and its Prime Minister North chose to subsidize one and use it as a surrogate to add India to the Empire through the colonial taxation and suppression rather than seating colonial representatives in the Commons which is what they started out requesting. That initial movement is where "No Taxation Without Representation" originated. Virtually all of the original patriots started out agitating for the same rights as other English commoners to have their representatives seated in the House of Commons to have some say in English taxation. Not blankedly opposed to taxation but rather participating in ruling on it. Some important exceptions to be sure, but most of the originals wanted complete commer English citizenship rights to begin with.
The crown opted for corporate subsidy at the expense of the colonists, (also to a certain degree native English who provided extensive if mostly futile resistance in the English Parliament as well). Virtually of the original patriots proved to be quite antagonistic to corporately organized business as the new republic established itself. They knew exactly why George III acted against their interests from the beginning. They would have been aghast at the Citizens United ruling freeing corporate interests to intervene in politics and especially at the application of it allowing completely hidden sources of revenue for that purpose.
Personal opinion, but I don't think someone has to have a criminal record to be a criminal. Just like I don't have to see someone sin to know they're a sinner.Quote:
Originally Posted by no1son
I was simply using the analogy because no one can dispute the fact they've never broken the law, or rather, engaged in criminal activity. However, to what extent and nature a person conducts their criminal activity is only up to the person.
Innocent until proven guilty is embedded in the Constitution, criminal only on conviction, and then one that stands up to appeal, that derived from principles in preceding English Common Law. It is a civic definition and a basic American principle, one to be handled carefully, which your analogy does not do.Quote:
Originally Posted by filletfetish
No argument that some people habitually break laws they can get away with. Most of us have accidentally or rarely broken the law, also, myself included, no argument about that either. I do not personally subscribe to the notion of no harm no foul, though. Barring any other intervention, we each have to judge ourselves, which I try to do, and I think most everybody else does for the most part anyway.
As for your statement about sin, it requires that you have to subscribe to a religion that considers humans to be inherently corrupt, which I do not; I do not believe that the overwhelming majority of humans ever mean to harm others, depending a lot on what cultural standards (apart from legal ones) are in force for them. We are a social animal after all and tend to go along with our fellows. That religious freedom is also embedded in the Constitution.
I like the Constitution; I do not like to see it twisted to support personal bias neither civic, cultural nor religious. This country has done an almost impossible job of merging backgrounds from a very pluralistic set of origins into a more or less workable national identity. That is something to be proud of and I am. I do not see the disagreements that arise in that process to be evil, though some uses made of them certainly are, and some humans are definitely mostly evil as well, and absolutely have to be dealt with as such. But then that is my personal outlook.
FWIW I don't consider most if not quite all postings here to be more than disagreement, hardly evil or even close to it, if you want to put it that way. Some are mean spirited to be sure but that is a different thing entirely, and generally grows out of some perception, accurate or not, of endangerment.
Sticks and stones and all that ... As pluralistic as we are as a people, Americans definitely need thick skins to get along.
I agree with this post. I used to not be for...believe it or not... any executions, the Death penalty. Then, I realized one day for the most part the savages are not being rehabilitated. They serve their time and put back on the streets. As LT stated above the list of those who deserve to forfeit their lives by commiting certain crimes; now I believe for society best interest is for them to die before being set free.
A far a taxation, ask Phil Michelson..spelling on last name...the golfer, about taxation. He says he is paying 62%...WTH, anybody in here paying that would be screaming bloody murder. I would say most people in here don't mind paying taxes as long as they are beneficiaries of those enityies where our money goes. Sure we benefit from utilities, law enforcement, fire protection, department of human services, but the wasted money needs to stop. A lot of welfare needs to stop, though it is not all the economic woo's.
My fear is that this POS in the Whitehouse is trying his hardest to divide the country. Spineless Republicans are with him. That they now realize, they are distroying this countries economy that they need to disarm the people as much as possible. They will start a civil war or a revolution. Either way there will be much blood shed. If you don't think it can happen in this country, hell, just look at the radical leadership on both sides. Both parties are leading us to the same place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1son
What about Hillary??? She just let Americans die! And Barry is a liar and a thief! Tax me to give raise to politicians (buy votes) and give to lazy people and illegals.
Again, no1son, your grasp of both history and politics are impressive plus (unlike myself AND "others") you stay pretty much unflappable. I have never remotely implied I am guilt free. No major felonies though, at least not yet. And NEVER said or implied doing away with the concept or practice of "INNOCENT untill PROVEN guilty beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT". You know, HARD evidense, RELIABLE witnesses, trial by jury of 1`s peers, and right to appeal. THAT SAID, and those conditions met, DIE. There is NO known PROVEN "cure" (save for 1) for most felony behavior. And SHOW ME even 1 convicted EXECUTED murderer who EVER killed again...show me 1. But I can name more than a few "rehabilatated" murderers whom upon release KILLED again. As far as the other felonies, many "civilized" countries simply DO NOT TOLERATE criminal behavior; they put felons to DEATH, PERIOD. Do innocent people get convicted? YES, unfortunately happens frequently. Do people die in car crashes due to drunk drivers? YES, unfortunately happens frequently. Used to be you just had to "live" with it. I think you should "DIE" because of it, UNLESS you can bring them back to life, whole and unharmed. Same with rapists and child molesters- if you can UNrape or UNmolest your vicim, okay. Otherwise, DIE. Same with using a gun to commit robbery. Point that gun as a threat to commit the crime and you just commited SUICIDE ie you just commited an act that SHOULD cost you your LIFE. DIE because of it. Sell out your country and the security of EVERYONE in it for personal PROFIT? Commit a terrorist act? Would recommend the little used asphalt smoother applied slowly or death by burning in those cases, but I will also admit to being somewhat "extreme' on certain subjects...
And as far as Hillary, SHE is NOT the ONLY person who works at the State Dept. She is NOT the person in charge of "security" at EVERY Embassy, and it was NOT an "embassy"; it was an ad hoc "councellet' ie, a former residentual HOUSE ie, no dedicated defensive features. PLUS it had many other CIVILIAN occupied residenses on 2 sides of it. The terrorists who attacked it reportedly were HOPING FOR large numbers of US inflicted civilian CASUALTIES caused by airstrikes and Marine rescue troops. IT WAS POORLY CHOSEN IN THE 1ST PLACE. The FOOL who picked it might have done as well to have picked a MATERNATY WARD full of pregnant women and new mothers and infants- the terrorists were NOT "worried" about `collateral damage". QUITE THE OPPOSITE. Hillary Clinton DID NOT personally see the place and exclaim in joy "OH! THIS looks just about absolutely UNDEFENDABLE, with LOTS of potential VICTIMS if we strike back; put it right HERE..." Btw, I personally am no big "Hillary" fan, but you are IGNORING or "cherry picking" FACTS...it was simply a VERY POOR CHOICE.
Now! Now! Hillary IS the Secretary of State. She IS in charge! She MUST bear the responsibility. I don't care what twisted logic you attempt to use, the one in command bears that responsibility as well as the credit when things go well. And since she is the BOSS, she really is responsible for security at EVERY work place where she has personnel. That's not because of her political affiliation, either. It has been a fact of life through out history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowellhturner
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
:yikesWow, just going by the topic of this thread I thought it was about "Gun Show Accidents".
If a person wants to completely eliminate the possibility of being shot at a gun show the only sure fire way is to not attend a gun show! Wonder out of all the shows going on with hundreds of thousands of patrons & vendors how many folks were injured in parking lot fender benders or just tripped & fell?
As far as all the execution stuff goes, reducing prison population is anti-capitalist, prisons are big business! LH, you tryin to put more Americans out of work?
Benghazi - Well lets see, there were several very reliable FBI agents hopping up and down red faced tryin to get folks to pay attention to the 9/11 hijackers ..... oops. Allegedly the FDR administration had prior warning about 12/7/41. Ford knew their Pintos would explode in rear end collisions...................
You don't get to the top of the food chain by taking responsibility for the mistakes of others or even for your own actions. Of the necessary skill sets maybe the most important is the ability to deflect blame for mistakes and to take credit for things you had little or no part in. (Teflon Ronnie? What the definition of "it" is, "bad" intelligence, etc.)
It ain't right but it's the way things work, always have and likely always will. If you vote(for anyone) you support it, if you buy a product you support it, in many cases you even support it by tithing.
Benghazi was a tragedy but a small one in terms of things government and cooperate leaders have been "not" responsible for. Had it occurred under Republican leadership liberals would be outraged and Republicans would be down playing it or defending the Secretary. It's us against them, even though we are all Americans, and that works out really well for the politicians and the media.
What difference does it make?
LT, is #1 your hero or are you looking for a "roomy"? :yikes
would like to know more about this , i know in arkansas you can not take a loaded gun into the building and if you take one in to sale they check it at the door .
The incident at the Dixie Classic in NC happened at the door. The guy ignored the rules and removed his shotgun from the case at checkin, security was supposed to do that. He sat/dropped it on the counter and it went off. 3 ppl were injured by birdshot(I believe), went to the ER and were released. Didn't amount to much but could have been a lot worse.
Ain't no such thing as foolproof, as the sayin goes ........