Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 72 of 128

Thread: Suggs and Guns

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,123

    Re: Suggs and Guns



    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    so youre saying you wont pass a psych eval? because than no you should lose your right just like a convict. a convict proved he was incapable of being responsible. a psych eval does the same thing as a background check but would be a preemptive measure as opposed to reactive. thats all.

    as far as who pays and if you cant afford it, well thats no different than a car and car insurance, imo. you cant afford it you dont get one. can afford it but not the insurance, you still dont get one. i dont see how thats any different regardless of the law.
    I made no mention of passing a psych eval. Let's not muddy the waters.

    A psych eval is subjective to the person performing it anyway. So, if you think it's lawful to require me to pay for a background check and require me to pay for for a psych eval to leave it in the hands of someone who as far as I know could be anti-gun. No I don't think psych evals are a good idea. If you think people should get a psych eval to own a gun, why not to drive a car?

    I don't know why you even think they are a good idea, you've already admitted to more laws on owning guns won't stop people who shouldn't have them from getting them. At this point you're arguing against yourself.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  2. #62

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    The preamble is not legally binding.

    And you didn't answer my question. Are you ok with breathalysers in every car? What does it matter what a gun is designed to do anyway? It's their simplest forms, both a car and gun are mere tools, both capable of good and bad in the hands of a human.

    FAR more folks are killed across the country by drunk drivers than they are by a gun. So why not apply your same standard to something as every day as driving?



    No it's not within the constitution to deny rights without due process. Requiring someone to see a shrink caters to the few exceptions all the while placing an undue burden on the vast majority folks who are doing the right thing (note the word "undue" and it's literal definition; something that is outside the bounds of due process is "undue").

    And nobody is advocating giving guns to those who should not have them. What I am saying is there's a way to do it without infringing on my rights.
    im curious how youre suggesting to do so without stricter screening processes or gun control?

    As far as breathalyzers go, i dont think its a horrible idea honestly. if it was something that was standard when cars were invented wed be used to it by now and it would be no issues, but since the world progresses and this is something newer than the original invention and people arent used to it and generally dislike "change", it would be. If my car had a breathalyzer it would not effect me because i would not drive drunk regardless. it would only effect those that do drive drunk, which again, would be the point. its not taking away your right to own and operate a vehicle, but the state in which you can. its not taking away the right to own and operate a fire arm, but the state in which you can. i dont see the dilemma here.
    -JAB




  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    21,143

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    I think Texas' standards are the perfect balance between liberty and sensible regulation. Instant background check when you buy a gun, of which includes a check to see if you've been committed or otherwise are mentally unfit to own a weapon. To carry concealed, you must pass a background check, attend a 10 hour training class, submit to fingerprints and qualify with the style of weapon you wish to carry (semi-auto, or revolver).

    I don't think it's a coincidence that states with more liberal gun laws have a much lower violent crime rate per capita than states whose gun restrictions are more strict.

    Like I said, its a philosophical ideal we're not going solve here.

    Liberty is not eliminated in one giant swoop. It's piddled at one small piece at a time and it's always in the name of security, safety or "the children".

    A small inconvenience here, another small regulation there and voila, you're nothing close to the true intent of the right and nobody is safer.

    You're fine with the process. I am not.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  4. #64

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    I made no mention of passing a psych eval. Let's not muddy the waters.

    A psych eval is subjective to the person performing it anyway. So, if you think it's lawful to require me to pay for a background check and require me to pay for for a psych eval to leave it in the hands of someone who as far as I know could be anti-gun. No I don't think psych evals are a good idea. If you think people should get a psych eval to own a gun, why not to drive a car?

    I don't know why you even think they are, you've already admitted to more laws on owning guns won't stop people who shouldn't have them from getting them. At this point you're arguing against yourself.
    First, I didnt say more laws wouldnt stop ALL people that shouldnt have them from getting them, merely the criminal aspect of it will be unaffected. if you think the only two sides are responsible gun owners and criminals than were at a disagreement in general. I always look at the gray in black and white situations and this topic has one as well. there are people unfit to own and operate a gun while also not being criminals. this is who any gun law would be made for. any, because gun laws shouldnt effect you and HR as responsible gun owners and it wont effect criminals. its merely an inconvenience which youve both admitted is something you just dont want and pointing to your right to own as the reasoning why, which this doesn't infringe upon. youll still own it at the end of the day.

    I really dont think were all that far apart in views despite the obvious differences. as Ive said numerous times, Im pro gun. i think you should be able to go out and buy whatever you want, full auto, AR, bazooka, i really dont care, i just dont think a stricter screening process and the burden on the purchaser is asking too much.
    -JAB




  5. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,123

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    First, I didnt say more laws wouldnt stop ALL people that shouldnt have them from getting them, merely the criminal aspect of it will be unaffected. if you think the only two sides are responsible gun owners and criminals than were at a disagreement in general. I always look at the gray in black and white situations and this topic has one as well. there are people unfit to own and operate a gun while also not being criminals. this is who any gun law would be made for. any, because gun laws shouldnt effect you and HR as responsible gun owners and it wont effect criminals. its merely an inconvenience which youve both admitted is something you just dont want and pointing to your right to own as the reasoning why, which this doesn't infringe upon. youll still own it at the end of the day.

    I really dont think were all that far apart in views despite the obvious differences. as Ive said numerous times, Im pro gun. i think you should be able to go out and buy whatever you want, full auto, AR, bazooka, i really dont care, i just dont think a stricter screening process and the burden on the purchaser is asking too much.
    Question: Do you think a psych eval is subjective to the person performing it?
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  6. #66

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    I think Texas' standards are the perfect balance between liberty and sensible regulation. Instant background check when you buy a gun, of which includes a check to see if you've been committed or otherwise are mentally unfit to own a weapon. To carry concealed, you must pass a background check, attend a 10 hour training class, submit to fingerprints and qualify with the style of weapon you wish to carry (semi-auto, or revolver).

    I don't think it's a coincidence that states with more liberal gun laws have a much lower violent crime rate per capita than states whose gun restrictions are more strict.

    Like I said, its a philosophical ideal we're not going solve here.

    Liberty is not eliminated in one giant swoop. It's piddled at one small piece at a time and it's always in the name of security, safety or "the children".

    A small inconvenience here, another small regulation there and voila, you're nothing close to the true intent of the right and nobody is safer.

    You're fine with the process. I am not.
    and i can agree with that to an extent, but i dont see how THIS is infringing on your right. Add to it more regulations and this and that and id probably agree that IF its taking away the right of fit responsible gun owners than its not something i would support either. youre looking 10 more laws down the road that would still need to be made, debated and passed, im looking at the one right in front of me and the intent of it. not unlike you looking at the constitution and the intent of it.
    -JAB




  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,123

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    and i can agree with that to an extent, but i dont see how THIS is infringing on your right. Add to it more regulations and this and that and id probably agree that IF its taking away the right of fit responsible gun owners than its not something i would support either. youre looking 10 more laws down the road that would still need to be made, debated and passed, im looking at the one right in front of me and the intent of it. not unlike you looking at the constitution and the intent of it.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  8. #68

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Question: Do you think a psych eval is subjective to the person performing it?
    can be, can not be. Theres standard tests for such a thing where answers "outside the norm" are flagged in which than you would have to go see a shrink and explain your answer. that would probably be the quickest and cheapest way to implement such a law and its something that companies already are incorporating into their hiring processes.

    I think youre reaching if youre saying that a large majority of shrinks are pro-gun control and wouldnt pass anybody if thats what youre implying. Ill admit its possible a few would have agendas but in the grand scheme of things their Drs and have taken a Hippocratic oath to help people.
    -JAB




  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    21,143

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    and i can agree with that to an extent, but i dont see how THIS is infringing on your right. Add to it more regulations and this and that and id probably agree that IF its taking away the right of fit responsible gun owners than its not something i would support either. youre looking 10 more laws down the road that would still need to be made, debated and passed, im looking at the one right in front of me and the intent of it. not unlike you looking at the constitution and the intent of it.
    What NC's pic says in jest, I will spell out.

    Psych evals ... then what?

    Ammo registration ... then what?

    Micro stamping .... then what?

    Get the point?

    There's always a new "helpful" regulation, which individually mean nothing, but as a collective make it repressive for the honest folks.

    And I am not comfortable with my government, the same government that makes mistakes an art form, deciding something as subjective as sanity without due process.

    You really think a state like Maryland would give gun owners a fair shake? All it would take would be one study from some yahoo at a university saying "Gun ownership is a sign of mental defect" and the state has all the license it needs to stop you from making the purchase.

    At some point you cross the line from sensible to burdensome (and then into unconstitutional).
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    21,143

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    Ill admit its possible a few would have agendas but in the grand scheme of things their Drs and have taken a Hippocratic oath to help people.
    And every national politician in this country takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. How's that working out?
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  11. #71

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    What NC's pic says in jest, I will spell out.

    Psych evals ... then what?

    Ammo registration ... then what?

    Micro stamping .... then what?

    Get the point?

    There's always a new "helpful" regulation, which individually mean nothing, but as a collective make it repressive for the honest folks.

    And I am not comfortable with my government, the same government that makes mistakes an art form, deciding something as subjective as sanity without due process.

    You really think a state like Maryland would give gun owners a fair shake? All it would take would be one study from some yahoo at a university saying "Gun ownership is a sign of mental defect" and the state has all the license it needs to stop you from making the purchase.

    At some point you cross the line from sensible to burdensome (and then into unconstitutional).
    so your answer is any law leads to more laws, so we should have no laws? This law is ok, but this one isnt. thats basically my argument. You can use the slippery slope tactic to debate ether side. its invalid, imo.
    -JAB




  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906
    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post

    Like I said, its a philosophical ideal we're not going solve here.

    Liberty is not eliminated in one giant swoop. It's piddled at one small piece at a time and it's always in the name of security, safety or "the children".

    A small inconvenience here, another small regulation there and voila, you're nothing close to the true intent of the right and nobody is safer.

    You're fine with the process. I am not.
    I'm not directing this at you Jab, but it's simple straw man attacking when the left paints the right as nut jobs who believe liberals are sinister and maliciously trying to infringe upon constitutional rights.

    I take the position of Hanlon's razor:

    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland