another example of how current laws fails to keep guns out of hands of crazies - Page 3 - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Jan 30, 2013, 07:06 PM
Libertas in Infinitum
logan5's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by micro_builder
His reasoning seems to be the same as a person buying a fire extinguisher because they realize there is some chance that a fire could happen. Better safe than sorry is not the same as living in fear. IMO.
Apparently wearing a seatbelt is also living in fear .... Or wearing a helmet for that matter. Heck if risk mitigation is living in fear .... Then why are all the progressives so hellbent for getting free condoms and birth control pills? YOLO!
Jan 30, 2013, 07:16 PM
It's ok to be white.
RCWorks's Avatar
The ammusment parks are full of people living in fear, you never seen so many safety devices and speed limits.
Jan 30, 2013, 07:58 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Adlam
No offence taken - although I don't know why you seem to have problems with people being sympathetic.

Your words seem to say to different things ("I'm not afraid" and "I wish to be armed in case very bad things happen") which leaves one confused.

(It's rather like saying that you are "in fear" might lose your man card, or summat.. )

I suspect you'll just say that it's being 'prepared' - which also doesn't make sense. No-one prepares in such a way unless one is fearful of something bad happening.

Look, it's your life etc - I was just asking questions to try to figure out how it hangs together. I'm just interested / nosy.
The parts in bold should not 'leave one confused.' A person does not need to experience 'fear' to desire to prepare for possibilities.
Jan 30, 2013, 08:02 PM
It's gonna be YUGE!!!
LVsoaring's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by n00b-E
The laws are fine, enforcement is a joke.
How unsanitary! You took the words right out of my mouth!


Typical liberal logic is on display here.... the laws we have are not properly enforced, so let's pass some more laws that will do nothing to solve the problem, and will only place more burden on the law-abiding citizen.
Jan 30, 2013, 08:05 PM
It's gonna be YUGE!!!
LVsoaring's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Harris
Maybe the problem is a patchwork of local and state laws. Perhaps the solution would be a single set of unified national firearms laws. Heaven forbid, but that is a direction it's headed.

--Bill

I rarely agree with you Bill, but your comment, IMHO, actually has some merit. The patchwork of laws you mention seemed to work pretty well 40, 50, 60 plus years ago. But nowadays our society is so mobile that uniform laws (and uniform enforcement) seems kinda reasonable, or at least worth discussing.
Jan 30, 2013, 08:09 PM
Restful User
Jacques Flambeau's Avatar
Quote:
We already have a single set of unified firearms laws... it says that a citizens right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Constitutional amendments are not laws.
Jan 30, 2013, 08:13 PM
It's gonna be YUGE!!!
LVsoaring's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Harris
Constitutional amendments are not laws.
Back to disagreeing. But in this case it's not a disagreement. You are simply wrong. To wit:

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Jan 30, 2013, 08:18 PM
Restful User
Jacques Flambeau's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by LVsoaring
I rarely agree with you Bill, but your comment, IMHO, actually has some merit. The patchwork of laws you mention seemed to work pretty well 40, 50, 60 plus years ago. But nowadays our society is so mobile that uniform laws (and uniform enforcement) seems kinda reasonable, or at least worth discussing.
Yes, I think this is why so much is unenforcable-- there is such a Gordian knot of loopholes that even the most agressive, law-an-order magistrate or District Attorney has to tread lightly (or not really stomp). Not good for morale when a miscreant walks on a technicality.

--Bill
Jan 30, 2013, 08:20 PM
It's gonna be YUGE!!!
LVsoaring's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Harris
Yes, I think this is why so much is unenforcable-- there is such a Gordian knot of loopholes that even the most agressive, law-an-order magistrate or District Attorney has to tread lightly (or not really stomp). Not good for morale when a miscreant walks on a technicality.

--Bill
Gordian knot..... had to look that up. Yes, we're back to agreeing. Good post.
Jan 30, 2013, 08:21 PM
Restful User
Jacques Flambeau's Avatar
Quote:
Back to disagreeing. But in this case it's not a disagreement. You are simply wrong. To wit:
Well-- semantics. The Constitution is the Law of the Land, but not laws or regulations. It is the basis for all law, but not a law.

I agree with you, but tend to be picky on details.

--Bill
Jan 30, 2013, 08:23 PM
It's gonna be YUGE!!!
LVsoaring's Avatar
call it semantics if you wish.... when it says "shall be the supreme law of the land", it doesn't seem to have much wiggle room for loose interpretation.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Looking forward to more comments tomorrow.
Jan 30, 2013, 09:37 PM
Libertas in Infinitum
logan5's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by LVsoaring
call it semantics if you wish.... when it says "shall be the supreme law of the land", it doesn't seem to have much wiggle room for loose interpretation.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Looking forward to more comments tomorrow.
He's a progressive .... Everything in his opinion is open to lose interpretation.
Jan 30, 2013, 10:15 PM
One of the Deplorables
Colt SAA's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by n00b-E
The laws are fine, enforcement is a joke.
This.
Jan 30, 2013, 11:26 PM
Restful User
Jacques Flambeau's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by LVsoaring
call it semantics if you wish.... when it says "shall be the supreme law of the land", it doesn't seem to have much wiggle room for loose interpretation.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Looking forward to more comments tomorrow.
Well, yes. We could go back and forth all day, but in the end, it works and work long after we're gone...

Jan 31, 2013, 05:07 AM
Official Old Git!
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan5
You might want to consider your wife's safety as well .... The UK has a higher rate of rape per 100000 than here in the US .... At least here we can chose to do something about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
Well, it hasn't happened - or come anywhere near the vaguest possibility from what I know - in 63 years logan5!

How much 'preparation' do you think I might need to take?


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help! GoPro Hero 2 Live Video Out Examples... RxFPV FPV Talk 28 Jan 03, 2013 09:45 PM
Discussion Just another example of Government and Corporations working hand in hand ... logan5 Life, The Universe, and Politics 1 Nov 17, 2011 12:51 PM
Discussion Watch the other hand... Obama and new gun laws rcjetpilot Life, The Universe, and Politics 179 Mar 30, 2011 08:54 PM
Discussion Swiss voters throw out gun law reform aerogel Life, The Universe, and Politics 21 Feb 16, 2011 08:15 PM
Discussion Yet another example of how the militarization of our Police has failed... FrogChief Life, The Universe, and Politics 63 May 21, 2010 08:48 AM