JerrySharrett
Senile Member
The press believes? They are co-conspirators!!
Weapon, Firearm, Assault Rifle, Target Rifle, Hunting Rifle, Pistol, Revolver, Gun
- Thread starter vtmarmot
- Start date
The press believes? They are co-conspirators!!
T
TheoW
Guest
Canada's failed Registration Act
After years and billions of dollars of dollars, Canada dumped the registration of long guns because:
1. Not a single crime was solved after years of enforcement.
2. More than 50% of the gun owners refused to register.
3. U.S. hunters chose NOT to hunt in Canada when they would be charged $60/gun registration at the border.
4. Canadian outfitters and guides were put out of business and bitched like hell.
5. The Act wasted valuable Police personnel.
We must learn something from from this waste and the defiance of the Canadian people.
After years and billions of dollars of dollars, Canada dumped the registration of long guns because:
1. Not a single crime was solved after years of enforcement.
2. More than 50% of the gun owners refused to register.
3. U.S. hunters chose NOT to hunt in Canada when they would be charged $60/gun registration at the border.
4. Canadian outfitters and guides were put out of business and bitched like hell.
5. The Act wasted valuable Police personnel.
We must learn something from from this waste and the defiance of the Canadian people.
Where was the clamor?
I recall a small amount of resistance to the smoking bans that are now prevalant - not much. Sure, smoking is not directly addressed nor does it have its own amendment but it's in there somewhere. Did y'all not realize that was a step in the direction....or did you go along with it because it suited your preference.
I don't intend to argue the difference because there is none. Actually, the point is rhetorical and not worthy of a response but rather a moments thought the next time you see legislation that limits liberty.
I recall a small amount of resistance to the smoking bans that are now prevalant - not much. Sure, smoking is not directly addressed nor does it have its own amendment but it's in there somewhere. Did y'all not realize that was a step in the direction....or did you go along with it because it suited your preference.
I don't intend to argue the difference because there is none. Actually, the point is rhetorical and not worthy of a response but rather a moments thought the next time you see legislation that limits liberty.
vtmarmot
P Magoon, Livin' Free NH
Good Point, Wilbur!
I think that blanket smoking bans across whole cities or other large geographic areas are an invasion of personal liberty. If you don't want to patronize, or work in, a smoking-allowed restaurant or bar, that is your preference, but I believe such places should be available for those that want them. I quit smoking when I was 23, after having done so for about 3 years. I don't recall ever being particularly bothered by smoke in a restaurant or bar thereafter, but things could get a little close on an airplane, which is one place I think the ban makes sense. Kids fly, and a lot of flight attendants would rather not breathe that smoke on every flight.
Myself, I work in a large hospital. We have a smoke free campus. Again, I think that makes some sense. We have people trying to get well and smoke doesn't help. Also, cleaning up after smokers, even outside on the grounds, gets expensive. Hospital care is expensive enough already. Asking people not to smoke when they come to the hospital is not too much to ask.
I quit as a result of seeing tumor-filled preserved lungs in two hospitals where my father-in-law was cared for while in a coma. It took awhile, but the message sank in that my lungs would look like that some day probably. How this translates to guns is another matter. It doesn't. In a lifetime of shooting and many years of reloading, I have not seen anything to convince me that these hobbies in themselves are a personal or public health threat. Shooting and reloading equipment are not dangerous when used properly, but tobacco items are. Therefore, I can go along with smoke-free areas (not bans) as a public health issue, but not gun bans or gun free areas. Our docs are split on this, but I make the civil liberties argument that my gun use (or anyone else's) is not their business.
I think that blanket smoking bans across whole cities or other large geographic areas are an invasion of personal liberty. If you don't want to patronize, or work in, a smoking-allowed restaurant or bar, that is your preference, but I believe such places should be available for those that want them. I quit smoking when I was 23, after having done so for about 3 years. I don't recall ever being particularly bothered by smoke in a restaurant or bar thereafter, but things could get a little close on an airplane, which is one place I think the ban makes sense. Kids fly, and a lot of flight attendants would rather not breathe that smoke on every flight.
Myself, I work in a large hospital. We have a smoke free campus. Again, I think that makes some sense. We have people trying to get well and smoke doesn't help. Also, cleaning up after smokers, even outside on the grounds, gets expensive. Hospital care is expensive enough already. Asking people not to smoke when they come to the hospital is not too much to ask.
I quit as a result of seeing tumor-filled preserved lungs in two hospitals where my father-in-law was cared for while in a coma. It took awhile, but the message sank in that my lungs would look like that some day probably. How this translates to guns is another matter. It doesn't. In a lifetime of shooting and many years of reloading, I have not seen anything to convince me that these hobbies in themselves are a personal or public health threat. Shooting and reloading equipment are not dangerous when used properly, but tobacco items are. Therefore, I can go along with smoke-free areas (not bans) as a public health issue, but not gun bans or gun free areas. Our docs are split on this, but I make the civil liberties argument that my gun use (or anyone else's) is not their business.
M
mike in co
Guest
the difference is your smoking habit can kill a nonsmoker....
sorry but there is a big difference.
no one said you cannot smoke
no one limited the size of a pack of cig's
no one banned thier sale
you can still smoke....
not even close....
big difference in personal LIBERTIES and personal RESPONSIBILITIES...
just as freedom of speech is a liberity, yelling FIRE in a crowded auditorium is IRRESPONSIBLE.
IS THERE A FFINE LINE...YES...one must open ones eyes and look at the whole picture...
taxation with out representation was the original cause, and is the current cause...plain and simple
your "representation" responses to dollars only..not to you.
mike in co
sorry but there is a big difference.
no one said you cannot smoke
no one limited the size of a pack of cig's
no one banned thier sale
you can still smoke....
not even close....
big difference in personal LIBERTIES and personal RESPONSIBILITIES...
just as freedom of speech is a liberity, yelling FIRE in a crowded auditorium is IRRESPONSIBLE.
IS THERE A FFINE LINE...YES...one must open ones eyes and look at the whole picture...
taxation with out representation was the original cause, and is the current cause...plain and simple
your "representation" responses to dollars only..not to you.
mike in co
Whatever.....
A gun can kill a non-gun owner. I believe that is the current outrage against gun ownership. You made my point in that we can justify it if we agree with it. There's no difference when run to ground.
Guys or government is killing us but no one seems to give a dam! Pick Pick Pick that's how they take everything we care about. Or GOD AND SAVIOUR in the White House is going to raise your taxes again. We going to sit for this again. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! Your right Wilbur.
M
mike in co
Guest
no wilbur...a gun cannot kill a person...another person can kill....with a smoke or a gun....
neither are outlawed at this point...
smoking as a rule contaiminates the smokers lungs and the air breathed by ohters..not thier choice...
owning a gun does not, safe reasonable shooting of a gun does not, but smoking in an enclosed area, does....
mike in co
neither are outlawed at this point...
smoking as a rule contaiminates the smokers lungs and the air breathed by ohters..not thier choice...
owning a gun does not, safe reasonable shooting of a gun does not, but smoking in an enclosed area, does....
mike in co
M
mike in co
Guest
your cig and my gun are legal in most places...
i cannot randomly use my gun in a cafe because of the danger to the public
you cannot use your cig in a cafe beacuse of the danger to the public....
no diff
i cannot randomly use my gun in a cafe because of the danger to the public
you cannot use your cig in a cafe beacuse of the danger to the public....
no diff
Thanks for understanding my point Joe. Pick, Pick, Pick! Raise public awareness, convince us that we're outnumbered, and pass a law.
Wilbur just tell Mike in co. when they shut his selling of ammo off, then he will understand what we are talking about . Most liberals don't have the mental capacity or commonsense to figure out that things aren't right till it's to late. Besides what you think is going to kill you, probably won't. You'll likely get run over by a BUS! People that think there going to live forever make me laugh. Eat right and exercise your still going to die.
Joe Salt
Joe Salt
Vern
Morethan1waytoskinacat
Just a couple of examples
These are just examples and not meant to be an expression of political views
As I remember the lessons from school so many decades ago, our form of Govt. was based on the majority.
Back then the Conservatives and the Christians were the majority and the laws for or against most anything were reflected by that.
Today Conservatives and Christians still claim to be the majority however it seems the laws past especially those that create the most controversy are in favor of those considered to be in the minority.
I pose that either one of two things has happened. One - either our form of Govt. for the majority has changed or failed. Two that Conservatives and Christians are no longer the majority they once were.
I have worded things to leave myself and my beliefs and position out of it.
This next example is in no wise meant to be racial in anyway or form, just how thoughts and politics have changed.
At one time in this country it was against the law for inter-racial marriage. I know an 83 year old Filipino woman who was initially denied marriage status to a caucasion who was born in the Philippines.
When a white man married an Indian the children were called half breeds.
Not to long ago when Black and White married kids were referred to as malotto (sp?)
Examples go on and on. Neither race wanted to give full acceptance to the child or adult.
Yet we have a president that is born of a mixed set of parents. He is only referred to as black or the first African-American president. Why is this.
He is equally both. Was it because of his looks or the advantage it gives in our present political state?
These are just examples and not meant to be an expression of political views
As I remember the lessons from school so many decades ago, our form of Govt. was based on the majority.
Back then the Conservatives and the Christians were the majority and the laws for or against most anything were reflected by that.
Today Conservatives and Christians still claim to be the majority however it seems the laws past especially those that create the most controversy are in favor of those considered to be in the minority.
I pose that either one of two things has happened. One - either our form of Govt. for the majority has changed or failed. Two that Conservatives and Christians are no longer the majority they once were.
I have worded things to leave myself and my beliefs and position out of it.
This next example is in no wise meant to be racial in anyway or form, just how thoughts and politics have changed.
At one time in this country it was against the law for inter-racial marriage. I know an 83 year old Filipino woman who was initially denied marriage status to a caucasion who was born in the Philippines.
When a white man married an Indian the children were called half breeds.
Not to long ago when Black and White married kids were referred to as malotto (sp?)
Examples go on and on. Neither race wanted to give full acceptance to the child or adult.
Yet we have a president that is born of a mixed set of parents. He is only referred to as black or the first African-American president. Why is this.
He is equally both. Was it because of his looks or the advantage it gives in our present political state?
G
Guy Pike
Guest
Well.....
The President IS Mulatto, not black and he IS a real African American, his father being Kenyan and his mother a US citizen. It's all part of the dumbing down of America through Political Correctness.,Fear of offending someone, etc.
The President IS Mulatto, not black and he IS a real African American, his father being Kenyan and his mother a US citizen. It's all part of the dumbing down of America through Political Correctness.,Fear of offending someone, etc.
M
mike in co
Guest
i hate to point this out on an open forum vern..but no we are not run by the majority...
we have 50 independent republics with a representative federal govenment.
it is not majority rule..if it was, most likely women and blacks would not vote..in a democracy majority rules...WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY...inspite of what politicians say..the word supports thier party , thier agenda but is not OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT....WE ARE A REPUBLIC.........ALWAYS HAVE BEEN
we have 50 independent republics with a representative federal govenment.
it is not majority rule..if it was, most likely women and blacks would not vote..in a democracy majority rules...WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY...inspite of what politicians say..the word supports thier party , thier agenda but is not OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT....WE ARE A REPUBLIC.........ALWAYS HAVE BEEN
JerrySharrett
Senile Member
Not only liberals, One of the genius pretty legs on FOX last night was talking about "high capacity ammunition"....HELLO!!
M
mkihne
Guest
In your defense of the second ammendment, I don't think I've seen a better rebuttal to the gun control advocates than the video I"ve linked below. Dr. Suzanna Hupp(teaches in Va, I believe) testifies before Chuck U Schumer's senate sub-committee on gun control. She escaped the Luby's restaraunt massacre in Tx but lost her parents. If everyone had that on their smartphone or ipad and were confronted on the isssue, just hand them your phone/ipad and let them watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM
Vern
Morethan1waytoskinacat
Thanks for being careful Mike however FWIW I was very careful not to use the word Democracy, that is your interpretation. I always remember what Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Last I knew it takes a majority vote in either the House or Senate to pass anything presented to them.
FWIW
M
mike in co
Guest
simple majority will not get passed the president if he so choses..and there is the rub...
no we are not a democracy and majority does not rule.....
in the end, the path some have chosec, it will again be the people with the guns and the guts the fix the problem.
the house and the senate, together were designed to prevent majority rule. your over simplification of the process as designed, is wrong.
500 or so people in the upper controlling positions of OUR government, is not a majority...
mike in co
no we are not a democracy and majority does not rule.....
in the end, the path some have chosec, it will again be the people with the guns and the guts the fix the problem.
the house and the senate, together were designed to prevent majority rule. your over simplification of the process as designed, is wrong.
500 or so people in the upper controlling positions of OUR government, is not a majority...
mike in co
Last edited by a moderator:
The piece of Crap legislation in NEW YORK is not just about the AR 15 or high capacity magazines.
By next year {if it stands in New York you will have to buy ammo from a dealer face to face and sign for it. The result will
be The New York government knowing how many rounds a person shoots. That said that leaves the door open to
more restrictions. What would be next? Ca liber restrictions on ammo ? Definately no more internet sales of ammo.
By next year {if it stands in New York you will have to buy ammo from a dealer face to face and sign for it. The result will
be The New York government knowing how many rounds a person shoots. That said that leaves the door open to
more restrictions. What would be next? Ca liber restrictions on ammo ? Definately no more internet sales of ammo.