[quote]rainjack wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Laws which enable people to possess firearms for reasons other that hunting or for farmwork should be changed. The constitutional right to bear arms was written for a different, more rugged time. Now the negative impact of these weapons far outweighs their effect on personal safety.
Absolutely the worst idea on this thread so far.
[/quote]
For every intruder shot with a firearm designated for ‘home protection’ in America, 41 family members are killed or wounded in accidents.
Of course it would never happen to you, would it? Only to those people who are careless. Well, it seems that is a lot of people.
On the weekend a 4 year-old shot and killed his 2-year old sibling. Just one of the sadder examples of this phenomenon.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
For every intruder shot with a firearm designated for ‘home protection’ in America, 41 family members are killed or wounded in accidents.
Of course it would never happen to you, would it? Only to those people who are careless. Well, it seems that is a lot of people.
On the weekend a 4 year-old shot and killed his 2-year old sibling. Just one of the sadder examples of this phenomenon.
[/quote]
On a thread where the theme is less government intrusion and more personal responsibility, you propose to intrude on most law abiding citizens’ rights to self determination because of the irresponsibility of a few idiots. That doesn’t sound like a free society to me.
Where did you come up with this 41-1 ratio? What types of accidents? That sounds like propaganda to me.
I agree that the shooting was a tragedy, but my guns didn’t kill a single person. The dad should be tried for capital murder.
Aah, blare music all night long? Walk around in a drunken stupor?
Blasting music at all hours of the night disturbs others’ quest for peace and quiet. It’s a GREAT law to prohibit this from happening.
Drunks often get their “beer muscles” and do stupid things where if they weren’t intoxicated, they’d never act that way. Most of 'em couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag, but oh my what alcohol does to one’s self-confidence.
I’m surprised some want to legalize drugs like marijuana and cocaine but take away a person’s right to own a firearm. Yowzer! What the heck are we coming to?
[quote]jcbart wrote:
Aah, blare music all night long? Walk around in a drunken stupor?
Blasting music at all hours of the night disturbs others’ quest for peace and quiet. It’s a GREAT law to prohibit this from happening.
Drunks often get their “beer muscles” and do stupid things where if they weren’t intoxicated, they’d never act that way. Most of 'em couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag, but oh my what alcohol does to one’s self-confidence.
I’m surprised some want to legalize drugs like marijuana and cocaine but take away a person’s right to own a firearm. Yowzer! What the heck are we coming to?[/quote]
Drugs only damage the user, but guns damage those in the cross-hairs. You go on about how drunks do stupid things while intoxicated. One of those drunks could snuff out your life in an instant with a firearm.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
And one of those same guns saved my friends life when he was confronted by a gang of thugs at the West End in Dallas.
But I bet those types of stats never cross your radar, do they Deano?[/quote]
And a Japanese boy was killed while on an exchange program. He knocked on the wrong door, the wife screamed when she saw a stranger(of another race), and the husband shot him dead as he stood on the doorstep, waiting for his friends to come out to play.
And a Japanese boy was killed while on an exchange program. He knocked on the wrong door, the wife screamed when she saw a stranger(of another race), and the husband shot him dead as he stood on the doorstep, waiting for his friends to come out to play.
[/quote]
Deano
If you are gonna try the “If it saves one kid” propaganda ploy dont. In thet above case teh person who did the shooting should be in jail.
The 41 -1 stat you threw out is bogus as well. The reason it looks real to those who dont delve into the study that magically came up with it is because…
Family member was extended out to remote cousins, friends of these family members were included, in most of the anti-gun stats the term chld or youth includes people up to age 25.
If you home is broken into the vast majority of the time you know the person doing the breaking in. It is either a family member, friend, or friends of a fmaily memeber. These are the people that know what kind of cool stuff you’ve got and know when you shouldnt be home. They see what you have in the house durring family get togethers and parties.
A guy I know who lives in the inner city owns his mothers old house. Since her death he hasnt changed a thing on the main floor. Smae old furnature, same old TV, same plastic runners on the carpet and furnature.
Upstairs is a totally different thing. There behind 2 locked doors he has his sterio and big screan tv. The house is all updated. He only lets a very small chosen few upstairs. Reason he gave me. Because others would break in and steal from him if they saw what he had.
If you want too throw around stats then how about we use the stat that a firearmm is used to prevent a crime over 2 million times a year in the USA. I can site the auhor of this one.
It seems that most on the thread agree with me. If a law is meant to protect you from you, such as the ridiculous seat belt law, we can do without it. Those who are worried about insurance costs for the injured should instead worry about the fat lady who eats two or three meals per day at McDonalds!
Taking away a persons right to own a firearm is a step in the wrong direction. This is without question the single worst idea posted on this thread. I have read (don’t ask me where and I’m not doing any research today ha)that certain places in our country where there are more gun owners have less crime. If you were a criminal would you want to break into a house where you knew that the owner possessed a firearm?
Those who stated that there should be no profanity laws are of course wrong. However, I forgive them as I know that they do not have children yet (most of them at least). Taking your child to school stopping at a traffic light and being treated to someone urinating, or just walking around nude is not something we need. It’s a huge step in the wrong direction.
The poster who wants to eliminate automobile insurance laws can be forgiven too, as he is most likely under the age of 24 and pays a high premium. Hey, I hated that law when I was that age, but we do need it.
The drug laws are an interesting mix. I don’t think that alcohol is any worse than pot (I don’t do either). One is illegal and the other is perfectly acceptable. I think there needs to be some parity with this one.
Asset forfeture without having been convicted of a crime is another unjust law. It’s a way for locals to raise funds, but it’s simply wrong, and unjust.
When we are through with changing the laws I will ask BB to draft the new constitution for T-Nation and those are the laws that we will live by when this nation morphs from a forum to a real nation with our justice system…Now wouldn’t that be nice!
[quote]Tadpole wrote:
All laws prohibiting someones actions that do not physically and directly harm other individuals should be eliminated. In other words it should not be illegal for me to do something because it is offensive to people. This includes public nudity, blaring my music at all hours of the night, public drunkennes, drug use, etc.[/quote]
Or the law against shooting people that blare their music at all hours of the night, thus waking up the sleeping baby and preventing the neighbors from getting a good nights sleep before work the next morning, since that would not be infringing on anyone’s rights directly…
Taking away a persons right to own a firearm is a step in the wrong direction. This is without question the single worst idea posted on this thread. I have read (don’t ask me where and I’m not doing any research today ha)that certain places in our country where there are more gun owners have less crime. If you were a criminal would you want to break into a house where you knew that the owner possessed a firearm?[/quote]
Zeb,
There is a small town in GA that has a law REQUIRING every citizen to own a firearm. Once the law was passed , the crime rate dropped to near Zero%. Unfortunately, I can’t find the article where I read this.
I think the anti-gun lobby tends to be shortsighted. While there ARE accidents, the biggest danger comes from criminals who own guns. And guess what? Banning guns won’t keep them out of the hands of the criminals, it will just make the criminals even more powerful.
Also, I have a problem with reading the Constitution in terms of “if they knew then what we know now.” The Bill of Rights is supposed to establish inalienable rights that the government has no legitimate intrerest in abridging. One of those rights is the right to protect oneself and one’s family.
[quote]Chewman wrote:
How about abolishing the “No knock entery” that the cops are doing now days.
This is just asking for someone to get shot either a cop or a homeowner and it’s just wrong to bust into someone’s home.[/quote]
I can see in a very few cases where such a thing would be in the best interest of the police and society. However, it’s abused like crazy, some cops falsify information to get a no-knock warrant or they take the word of a snitch who’s just trying to save his own ass.
Ismael Mena died in Colorado because the cops had the wrong address.
In Ohio, a girl listened as her father was shot to death because he thought someone was breaking into his house. The cops only found a single roach in the ashtray.
How about the priest in New York who had a heart attack and died as he was cuffed and thrown to the ground? Oops, wrong house padre.
If you want to talk about laws that need to be gotten rid of, how come no one has mentioned the income tax laws? Get rid of income tax, and big government will just dry up and go away. I also think that we should elect people to congress and the senate the same way we get people for jury duty. This would also eliminate a lot of these bullshit laws. While I am on this subject there should be a law prohibiting the use of air conditioning in any elected officials offices or places where they conduct business. This country was founded by the people, for the people. These small steps should help get it back there.
Being brought up in the hills and hollers of the Ozark’s hunting, fishing, working cows and generally doing what hillbillies do, the anti gun issue is close to my heart. Not to mention my extreme Libertarian bend… So I’m going to kick this dead horse just once.
I don’t understand the opposition to guns. If I go out and kill someone with a brick are we going to outlaw bricks? Motor vehicles undeniably kill more people than guns do, yet we have no problem allowing every 16 year old who can pass a laughable written test to pilot one.
It seems people are afraid of violence, which in and of itself is not a bad thing. Violent acts perpetrated by responsible and thoughtful human beings have contributed immensely to mankind; wars of revolution including our own, and the innumerable acts of police and other armed citizen responders are part and parcel of maintaining the peace. Violence is an inseparable part of existence.
As our society pacifies we become more and more unwilling to take a hard line, to stand up for anything. Perhaps it’s not having to kill our even work for our food, but we are denying our nature as biological consumers. It seems liberals want some sort of touchy feely fantasy land where no one ever hurts anything and we all shit gold nuggets and fly on rainbows. It ain?t gonna happen.
We should all have the ability to reasonably protect our lives and health and our livelihood and property with deadly force, namely the right to be armed. Obviously those who have proven themselves to be irresponsible should not; felons, mental patients etc. Minors should not be able to purchase arms but should be able to keep them under the guidance of an adult.
Lastly, the argument that the closing quarter of the 18th century was a rougher time and we no longer need to bear arms doesn’t fly with me. When we formed this union there were no prohibitions on the arms one could buy or trade. Our government vested in us the right to own the most powerful weapons on the face of the earth. If that isn’t a clear vote for our individual sovereignty and personal responsibility, I don’t know what is.
And a Japanese boy was killed while on an exchange program. He knocked on the wrong door, the wife screamed when she saw a stranger(of another race), and the husband shot him dead as he stood on the doorstep, waiting for his friends to come out to play.
[/quote]
He was a college student, drunk off his ass banging loudly on the door and trying to force his way into what he thought was his friends house in the middle of the night, not a little kid asking if Johnny can come out and play.
