Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Register
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 54
  1. #31
    Forum Frontman It's Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.26.06
    Age
    45
    Location
    Vaughan, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    42,755
    Favorite VH Album

    like them all, no favourite
    Last Online

    02.19.20 @ 09:01 PM
    Likes
    2,544
    Liked 12,391 Times in 6,968 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bsbll4 View Post
    Here's the problem: If someone is already going to dubious means to get a gun when they aren't supposed to (like they do already), what good does it do to add more steps for legal gun owners? Is that really going to stop crime?
    i hate when people make that counter argument. We can use it for every check we have in society. If a 16 year old really wants to drink we can get liquor, so should be stop asking for id at the liquor store? If someone without a license wants to drive then can get a car, so should we stop issuing licenses?
    If an illegal wants to get in the country he will, does this mean we stop asking for id at border crossings?

    We could argue ourselves into complete chaos using this logic.

  2. #32
    Atomic Punk ziggysmalls's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.24.03
    Location
    Cleveland, Oh
    Posts
    15,434
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    Dance the Night Away
    Last Online

    02.19.20 @ 01:33 PM
    Likes
    4,186
    Liked 6,999 Times in 3,655 Posts

    Default

    Well the difference is one is constitutional right, the other two are not. I see your point but the fact of the matter is a large group of people believe that their rights are protected by our constitution. Another doesn't care about the constitution or don't think the content in there is set in stone.

    No matter what, neither side will ever agree on this topic. It's a mindset. All I know is as we get closer to the 2014 elections, the topic of gun control will start to fade away. Nobody will want to lose their seat in Congress.

  3. #33
    Forum Frontman It's Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.26.06
    Age
    45
    Location
    Vaughan, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    42,755
    Favorite VH Album

    like them all, no favourite
    Last Online

    02.19.20 @ 09:01 PM
    Likes
    2,544
    Liked 12,391 Times in 6,968 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ziggysmalls View Post
    Well the difference is one is constitutional right, the other two are not. I see your point but the fact of the matter is a large group of people believe that their rights are protected by our constitution. Another doesn't care about the constitution or don't think the content in there is set in stone.

    No matter what, neither side will ever agree on this topic. It's a mindset. All I know is as we get closer to the 2014 elections, the topic of gun control will start to fade away. Nobody will want to lose their seat in Congress.
    i guess my point is more you're either for or against background checks. If you're against them then you think weapon ownership should be a complete free for all and that's fine, I think it's crazy but it's certainly a consistent position. If you're for them then I don't understand why you wouldn't want them for all legal gun sales.

  4. #34
    Atomic Punk bsbll4's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.18.03
    Age
    36
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    10,226
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot For Teacher
    Last Online

    02.19.20 @ 12:11 PM
    Likes
    1,378
    Liked 3,963 Times in 1,962 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by It's Mike View Post
    i guess my point is more you're either for or against background checks. If you're against them then you think weapon ownership should be a complete free for all and that's fine, I think it's crazy but it's certainly a consistent position. If you're for them then I don't understand why you wouldn't want them for all legal gun sales.
    Because having a national background check on all purchases is a de facto federal registry. No thanks.
    CNN may think my opinion matters, but you shouldn't.

  5. #35
    Atomic Punk ziggysmalls's Avatar
    Join Date
    11.24.03
    Location
    Cleveland, Oh
    Posts
    15,434
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    Dance the Night Away
    Last Online

    02.19.20 @ 01:33 PM
    Likes
    4,186
    Liked 6,999 Times in 3,655 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by It's Mike View Post
    i guess my point is more you're either for or against background checks. If you're against them then you think weapon ownership should be a complete free for all and that's fine, I think it's crazy but it's certainly a consistent position. If you're for them then I don't understand why you wouldn't want them for all legal gun sales.
    I am not against background checks but it depends on the how they go about implementing them. So far I have not heard anything that gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

    I don't trust our government. Especially the one in office today because they definitely do not want guns around. I look at them like an abortion rights activist viewed GW. Would you expect them to trust the Bush Administration? Probably not.

  6. #36
    Atomic Punk bsbll4's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.18.03
    Age
    36
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    10,226
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot For Teacher
    Last Online

    02.19.20 @ 12:11 PM
    Likes
    1,378
    Liked 3,963 Times in 1,962 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by It's Mike View Post
    i hate when people make that counter argument. We can use it for every check we have in society. If a 16 year old really wants to drink we can get liquor, so should be stop asking for id at the liquor store? If someone without a license wants to drive then can get a car, so should we stop issuing licenses?
    If an illegal wants to get in the country he will, does this mean we stop asking for id at border crossings?

    We could argue ourselves into complete chaos using this logic.
    It's not the same argument at all. We are talking about these gun laws to stop crime, right? In your example you are looking to stop underage drinking. With that example it would be like carding for age appropriate alcohol purchases to stop alcohol overdose. Carding for under age drinkers doesn't stop alcohol overdose, and background checks don't stop crime. If they did, it would already stop them.

    Again, it does nothing. I'll repeat, It does NOTHING TO STOP CRIME. So why would we infringe on the rights of the law-abiding citizens by making them jump through hoops to engage in their Constitutional right? Years ago we had hoops for other rights, like poll taxes. Those were deemed unconstitutional. I don't understand why some rights (free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to vote) are considered untouchable, but another (right to bear arms) is considered antiquated, unnecessary, and expendable.

    My guess is you being from Canada makes it hard to understand where I'm coming from a little bit. We aren't talking about new rights. These are existing ones in our Constitution already. Ones deemed "inalienable" by our founders not to be granted by government, but out of hand (or by God, if you will).
    Last edited by bsbll4; 02.22.13 at 02:05 PM.
    CNN may think my opinion matters, but you shouldn't.

  7. #37
    Forum Frontman It's Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.26.06
    Age
    45
    Location
    Vaughan, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    42,755
    Favorite VH Album

    like them all, no favourite
    Last Online

    02.19.20 @ 09:01 PM
    Likes
    2,544
    Liked 12,391 Times in 6,968 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bsbll4 View Post
    Because having a national background check on all purchases is a de facto federal registry. No thanks.

    Why?

  8. #38
    Atomic Punk
    Join Date
    06.05.03
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    18,124
    Last Online

    02.19.20 @ 07:55 PM
    Likes
    1,405
    Liked 4,721 Times in 2,852 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bsbll4 View Post
    It's not the same argument at all. We are talking about these gun laws to stop crime, right? In your example you are looking to stop underage drinking. With that example it would be like carding for age appropriate alcohol purchases to stop alcohol overdose. Carding for under age drinkers doesn't stop alcohol overdose, and background checks don't stop crime. If they did, it would already stop them.

    Again, it does nothing. I'll repeat, It does NOTHING TO STOP CRIME. So why would we infringe on the rights of the law-abiding citizens by making them jump through hoops to engage in their Constitutional right? Years ago we had hoops for other rights, like poll taxes. Those were deemed unconstitutional. I don't understand why some rights (free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to vote) are considered untouchable, but another (right to bear arms) is considered antiquated, unnecessary, and expendable.

    My guess is you being from Canada makes it hard to understand where I'm coming from a little bit. We aren't talking about new rights. These are existing ones in our Constitution already. Ones deemed "inalienable" by our founders not to be granted by government, but out of hand (or by God, if you will).
    I think the right to vote is a different category. Voting isn't a product that requires a purchase like a gun, nor is it as explicit in the constitution as the second amendment is.

    I think there are 4 distinct groups in this argument. One group believes that the Constitution is antiquated. There's no danger of tyranny, and even if there was, there's no way we could defeat the military. So, in order to be a more civilized society, we should make some changes that don't eliminate the amendment, but err on the side of saving human life--safety--by giving up some of our access to arms--liberty.

    Another group is more extreme than this. They actually prefer we do away with as many guns as possible and if they could wish all guns out of the hands of anyone but government (and perhaps not even them), they would.

    Third group believes that the possible misuse of guns by another is not a reason to infringe on "my" right to have guns. Misusing them is a tragedy, but the justice system will do its job to keep that at a minimum and liberty and personal responsibility are of the utmost importance. Tyranny could very well infect us and no matter how remote the possibility, it's quite important that the government knows we have the ability to reject them. This right should not be taken away because others misuse them. Some sensible guidelines are okay, as there's no absolute right of speech or religion either.

    Last group is more extreme and wants to see a society that no matter where you go, every person could be carrying a weapon and probably should be. They believe the only answer to a gun is another gun.

    It's the first and third groups that are the majority of America. I fall into the 3rd group, and I've never met someone in any other group that I felt I could ever compromise with.

  9. #39
    Forum Frontman It's Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.26.06
    Age
    45
    Location
    Vaughan, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    42,755
    Favorite VH Album

    like them all, no favourite
    Last Online

    02.19.20 @ 09:01 PM
    Likes
    2,544
    Liked 12,391 Times in 6,968 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bsbll4 View Post
    It's not the same argument at all. We are talking about these gun laws to stop crime, right? In your example you are looking to stop underage drinking. With that example it would be like carding for age appropriate alcohol purchases to stop alcohol overdose. Carding for under age drinkers doesn't stop alcohol overdose, and background checks don't stop crime. If they did, it would already stop them.

    Again, it does nothing. I'll repeat, It does NOTHING TO STOP CRIME. So why would we infringe on the rights of the law-abiding citizens by making them jump through hoops to engage in their Constitutional right? Years ago we had hoops for other rights, like poll taxes. Those were deemed unconstitutional. I don't understand why some rights (free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to vote) are considered untouchable, but another (right to bear arms) is considered antiquated, unnecessary, and expendable.

    My guess is you being from Canada makes it hard to understand where I'm coming from a little bit. We aren't talking about new rights. These are existing ones in our Constitution already. Ones deemed "inalienable" by our founders not to be granted by government, but out of hand (or by God, if you will).
    So u have no issue with the mentally unstable legally purchasing weapons or convicted criminals buying them too, right?

  10. #40
    Emperor of VHLinks.com Brett's Avatar
    Join Date
    09.02.99
    Age
    49
    Location
    Somewhere Near LA
    Posts
    74,681
    Favorite VH Album

    Fair Warning
    Favorite VH Song

    Unchained
    Last Online

    02.20.20 @ 12:01 AM
    Likes
    2,324
    Liked 17,322 Times in 7,636 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by It's Mike View Post
    So u have no issue with the mentally unstable legally purchasing weapons
    Cheddymon owns a gun?
    Webmaster
    VHLinks.com - Your Van Halen Internet Resource Guide
    http://www.vhlinks.com

    Check Out My YouTube Guitar Videos!
    http://www.youtube.com/banoneguitar
    Direct Link To Subscribe To My Channel!
    http://www.youtube.com/banoneguitar?sub_confirmation=1

  11. #41
    Forum Frontman It's Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.26.06
    Age
    45
    Location
    Vaughan, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    42,755
    Favorite VH Album

    like them all, no favourite
    Last Online

    02.19.20 @ 09:01 PM
    Likes
    2,544
    Liked 12,391 Times in 6,968 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brett View Post
    Cheddymon owns a gun?

    He got them by proxy.

  12. #42
    carpe damn diem billy007's Avatar
    Join Date
    04.19.00
    Age
    56
    Location
    On to Cincinnati...
    Posts
    30,797
    Favorite VH Song

    "Dance The Night Away"
    Last Online

    02.19.20 @ 07:29 PM
    Likes
    1,652
    Liked 2,461 Times in 1,659 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bsbll4 View Post
    Again, it does nothing. I'll repeat, It does NOTHING TO STOP CRIME. So why would we infringe on the rights of the law-abiding citizens by making them jump through hoops to engage in their Constitutional right? Years ago we had hoops for other rights, like poll taxes. Those were deemed unconstitutional. I don't understand why some rights (free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to vote) are considered untouchable, but another (right to bear arms) is considered antiquated, unnecessary, and expendable.
    But the right to vote is not absolute. I have two sons that can't vote due to their age. Also, if I remember correctly, if you are a convicted felon you can't vote. You're supposed to be an American citizen to vote. You're supposed to vote in your home district, etc. Seems to me, if there can be limitations on who can vote and how, there should be able to be limitations on who can own a gun and what kind.

  13. #43
    Atomic Punk bsbll4's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.18.03
    Age
    36
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    10,226
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot For Teacher
    Last Online

    02.19.20 @ 12:11 PM
    Likes
    1,378
    Liked 3,963 Times in 1,962 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by It's Mike View Post
    So u have no issue with the mentally unstable legally purchasing weapons or convicted criminals buying them too, right?
    Who gets to set the criteria on "mentally unstable"? And more importantly, what is that criteria?
    CNN may think my opinion matters, but you shouldn't.

  14. #44
    Atomic Punk bsbll4's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.18.03
    Age
    36
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    10,226
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot For Teacher
    Last Online

    02.19.20 @ 12:11 PM
    Likes
    1,378
    Liked 3,963 Times in 1,962 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by billy007 View Post
    But the right to vote is not absolute. I have two sons that can't vote due to their age. Also, if I remember correctly, if you are a convicted felon you can't vote. You're supposed to be an American citizen to vote. You're supposed to vote in your home district, etc. Seems to me, if there can be limitations on who can vote and how, there should be able to be limitations on who can own a gun and what kind.
    So should we have an age limit on buying a gun? We already have those.

    As for felons voting, it varies by state, and there are only two states that currently have a lifelong ban--and one now has a restoration process. I guess to gun-ban advocates, once proven guilty means always guilty, but it doesn't apply to voting.

    And just for everyone's reference, here's what is currently already under law:

    The following list of prohibited persons[5] are ineligible to own firearms under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.[6]
    - Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors except where state law reinstates rights, or removes disability.
    - Fugitives from justice
    - Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs
    - Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.
    - Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S.
    - Illegal Aliens
    - Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship
    - Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and the age of twenty-one for handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen.
    - Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)
    - Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition

    Those who already own firearms would normally be required to relinquish them upon conviction.
    So the right to own a gun isn't absolute either. Again, this isn't about stopping crime. The existing laws are already ignored, adding more laws that will just be ignored will not solve anything. And adding pointless laws that infringe on the rights of citizens in complete legal standing? No thanks. We don't need a TSA of firearms. They're too busy groping 3 year girls in wheel chairs. This is what happens when government gets involved in civil security:

    http://www.usatoday.com/videos/trave...02/22/1939509/
    CNN may think my opinion matters, but you shouldn't.

  15. #45
    Atomic Punk
    Join Date
    01.10.12
    Posts
    29,518
    Favorite VH Album

    The Magnificent 7
    Last Online

    02.19.20 @ 06:52 PM
    Likes
    22,269
    Liked 19,926 Times in 11,446 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bsbll4 View Post
    Who gets to set the criteria on "mentally unstable"? And more importantly, what is that criteria?
    Good point. This administration is already coming under fire for rewriting the classification of mentally unstable to include soldiers under financial hardship. You see, if you're deemed mentally unstable you are prohibited from owning a gun.
     "He has a swaggering retro machismo that will give hives to the Steinem cabal" -Camille Paglia on Donald Trump

    "But, fucking with Brook is like fucking with hot shit on and ax handle. You just don't get a grip"-track5

    "Make way for the bad guy"- Tony Montana

    'This hamburger don't need no helper"- David Lee Roth

    "I wish Bon Jovi would've given me a call before he recorded all of his hits, because the lyrics would've been smarter, the melodies would've been much more smashing, and they would've sold a lot fewer records." -David Lee Roth

    "My beef is people thinking Bon Jovi is good cuz they sold lots of records to housewives." -tango

    "But being number one doesn’t really mean jack fuck all. We sold twice as many records as other records that year (1984) that landed in the Number One position." ~Eddie Van Halen

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. President Bush And Vice President Dick Cheney To Be Arrested Upon Visiting Vermont
    By chefcraig in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03.06.08, 03:39 PM
  2. Super Columbine Massacre RPG
    By voivod in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09.14.06, 05:27 PM
  3. The Post-Columbine World: Watch What You Write!
    By LLFHS in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03.07.05, 01:58 PM
  4. Bowling For Columbine
    By strungout in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11.10.02, 08:38 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •