100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > Drivinmenutz
|
|
|
Adju, cheers to you my friend. Love that post. 
Dodo, great point. Furthermore, what some don't seem to understand, is that a successful push to regulate firearms in an extreme way (like requiring permits) will be met with resistance. If masses are being disarmed at any point, you may have a fight on your hands. So much for gun control "saving lives" in that instance. Just sayin... disrarming is no more a reality than sending back the millions of children who grew up here as illegals but are now adults,,, and right now there is an OVERWHELMING number of firearms in the hands of citizens, because the right to arms is VERY Alive AND WELL And always will be that's a far cry though, from enforcing common sense regulation and paying more attention from here FORWARD,,, Your common sense and my common sense seem to differ. Your reaction is attempt to gain control. Mine is to help. Meaning; an increase of funding to mental healthcare would go far in this issue. Would also help weed out those who are unstable. Those identified as unstable are not allowed to purchase or possess firearms already. We have all the laws we need. As Adju pointed out, we just need help enforcing them. Again, any legislation that would disarm a mass number of people may be met with a lot of angry, armed people. In the interest of human life, perhaps we should not push the issue to that point. there is no difference, my reaction is a BALANCE< where we address both underlying issues like healthcare, AND the end result like keeping weapons out of the hands of the unstable and paranoid amonst us you cant disarm without having arms in the first place, cant take away what someone doesn't have I am not advocating an attempt to 'disarm' or TAKE AWAY The guns people have, IM advocating more care in assessing who WILL BE ARMED that isn't already there is a substantial difference kind of like advocating for revoking the license of anyone who drove without insurance before insurance laws were passed,,, or advocating for enforcing the requirement for insurance on those SEEKING licenses AFTER The law passed,, Im not a fan of retroactive actions,,,Im more into progressve I never stated we should adopt "retroactive" actions, and "progressive" does not necessarily constitute progress. Guess we may be more aligned than once thought. But I don't see where we need any more laws. Nothing needs to be added as they seem to be adequate, just lack enforcement. As stated, anyone with a violent past cannot ever buy or possess firearms. Anyone who is considered unbalanced mentally (at risk of committing violent acts against himself or others) cannot buy or possess firearms. Don't see where we need to include anything else in this. Now, lets expand mental healthcare to aid in identifying these people. Heck, the NRA even offered to help fund such a project if we stop trying to ban firearms... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not gun control, bullet control... they are taking a different approach now... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/instead-of-gun-control-try-bullet-control.html?_r=0 after December, we may not be able to get bullets... This is smart  (sarcasm) Now the responsible folk will have a hard time maintaining proficiency in accuracy as practice ammo will become more expensive. Another law endangering the lives of many... Beginning to think anti-gun activists don't care who they hurt as long as they get their way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A 13 minute crock of Chit!
-The Gov doesn't want assault weapons... true, not because they're afraid of them being used on the establishment and not because criminal elements use them... No, because mentally deranged mass murderers are killing your children! Simple. -The fact that weapon carriers haven't stopped armed aggressions... and they're getting more frequent as economic hard times are getting harder... law enforcement wouldn't know who was who during an armed assault... This should wake up the pro-gun lobby... but nooo You guys don't have the balls to start an armed rebellion against your gov... Soft targets, Now that's the American way! 
woohooo! the gun hating Canadians are chiming in! there is already a law stating that mentally deranged people may not own a firearm of any kind they have enough laws now all they have to do is enforce them not far enough, imho I know from observation and living that plenty of mentally unstable people have never bothered to get help or feel like they need it,,,,so they wouldn't be documented anywhere as being as unstable as they are perhaps a psych eval, like that given to police, should be required to own a gun and ANYONE caught with a weapon without that permit should face stiff penalties in worst case and have guns ceased in best case 3 issues: #1 Police aren't any less trigger happy than the general populace. They often "accidentally" kill many civilians #2 Who would prevent the government from denying stable people weapons? Veterans return home. Many receive counseling for a few months. Veterans are labeled as potential threats by many... Who is going to prevent this demographic from permit denial? Stats show hispanics or blacks are more likely to crimes. Who is to prevent uncle sam from denying them permits based on these statistics? #3 Who is going to pay for the increase in police force to uphold these regulations? You are now turning average people into criminals and therefore taking effort away from tracking down crime lords and putting it into a search for anyone with a firearm. no sane person would advocate using statistics to profile whole groups of people based upon BIOLOGIC realities they have nothing to do with,,(like their ancestry or their gender,,etc) I advocate a search for the INDIVIDUALS Based upon that INDIVIDUALS mental and emotional health,, period there would need to be no more increase in police force to check for gun permit in those instances when a gun is found than there is to check for a drivers license when someone is driving or to check for immigration papers when one is 'suspected of being illegal' in many places or checking for a permit when one is on the side of the road selling fruit,,,, etc. its not actively seeking out anyone, its checking on those already observed engaging in an activity,, Takes a few minutes to check for a permit and do searches. These minutes add up. Also backs up our prisons with people who have committed victim-less crimes. (Like pot smokers) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adju, cheers to you my friend. Love that post.
Dodo, great point. Furthermore, what some don't seem to understand, is that a successful push to regulate firearms in an extreme way (like requiring permits) will be met with resistance. If masses are being disarmed at any point, you may have a fight on your hands. So much for gun control "saving lives" in that instance. Just sayin... disrarming is no more a reality than sending back the millions of children who grew up here as illegals but are now adults,,, and right now there is an OVERWHELMING number of firearms in the hands of citizens, because the right to arms is VERY Alive AND WELL And always will be that's a far cry though, from enforcing common sense regulation and paying more attention from here FORWARD,,, Your common sense and my common sense seem to differ. Your reaction is attempt to gain control. Mine is to help. Meaning; an increase of funding to mental healthcare would go far in this issue. Would also help weed out those who are unstable. Those identified as unstable are not allowed to purchase or possess firearms already. We have all the laws we need. As Adju pointed out, we just need help enforcing them. Again, any legislation that would disarm a mass number of people may be met with a lot of angry, armed people. In the interest of human life, perhaps we should not push the issue to that point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahhh Finally... a voice of reason, able to communicate with words instead of closed fists. Economics... Why must the safety of your school children depend on economics? I mean, it's inevitable, the economy goes up... the economy goes down... Chisel that in stone! George W... planned this economic disaster in order to thrive economically post war. Your present administration is picking up the pieces of a failed war on terror by negotiating with axis of evil nations. About time too (can't be fighting forever yes?) Only when your troops come home can your nation prosper by supplying logistics and building supplies abroad... There's a catch... China is gaining on your historical strategy of post war prospering. America is imploding with hate, racial divide and anarchy. Your bill of rights to bear arms is dated and must be reviewed... Owning a weapon to defend your family is much different from carrying a Glock to the supermarket? Even us "unarmed Canadians" will punch a few holes in you if you puck with our families...  The point I'm trying to make is if your bill of rights allows to carry a loaded weapon in public... when there's so many hotheads, crackheads and puckheads... that have no problem unloading their clips in public. There's a major problem yes?
I'll call that right flawed! Defend your home all you want... Don't think for a second I need you to defend me in Wallmart. I call a total ban on weapons possession in public... If you're caught with a weapon, you're either a dead man or you're doing 25yrs in the gulag with special training to be deployed in the most dangerous situations abroad... They become expendable! There ya go, the right to defend yourself and your family without risking public safety. We'll keep our military pros here at home to defend our borders.
I agree on extremism being an issue. Sometimes people get trigger happy. Can't justify spreading broad legislation that will hurt normal folk though. Not sure where you came up with G.W. planning the economic disaster, but you, yourself said the economy was an issue. What if that were the focus instead of laws that attack average people? I feel it necessary to point out a hipocracy in your statement... If you're caught with a weapon, you're either a dead man or you're doing 25yrs in the gulag with special training to be deployed in the most dangerous situations abroad... They become expendable! and "America is imploding with hate" Is that anything like hating people who want to maintain independence, enough to wish them death? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adju, cheers to you my friend. Love that post.
Dodo, great point. Furthermore, what some don't seem to understand, is that a successful push to regulate firearms in an extreme way (like requiring permits) will be met with resistance. If masses are being disarmed at any point, you may have a fight on your hands. So much for gun control "saving lives" in that instance. Just sayin... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A 13 minute crock of Chit!
-The Gov doesn't want assault weapons... true, not because they're afraid of them being used on the establishment and not because criminal elements use them... No, because mentally deranged mass murderers are killing your children! Simple. -The fact that weapon carriers haven't stopped armed aggressions... and they're getting more frequent as economic hard times are getting harder... law enforcement wouldn't know who was who during an armed assault... This should wake up the pro-gun lobby... but nooo You guys don't have the balls to start an armed rebellion against your gov... Soft targets, Now that's the American way!
woohooo! the gun hating Canadians are chiming in! there is already a law stating that mentally deranged people may not own a firearm of any kind they have enough laws now all they have to do is enforce them not far enough, imho I know from observation and living that plenty of mentally unstable people have never bothered to get help or feel like they need it,,,,so they wouldn't be documented anywhere as being as unstable as they are perhaps a psych eval, like that given to police, should be required to own a gun and ANYONE caught with a weapon without that permit should face stiff penalties in worst case and have guns ceased in best case 3 issues: #1 Police aren't any less trigger happy than the general populace. They often "accidentally" kill many civilians #2 Who would prevent the government from denying stable people weapons? Veterans return home. Many receive counseling for a few months. Veterans are labeled as potential threats by many... Who is going to prevent this demographic from permit denial? Stats show hispanics or blacks are more likely to crimes. Who is to prevent uncle sam from denying them permits based on these statistics? #3 Who is going to pay for the increase in police force to uphold these regulations? You are now turning average people into criminals and therefore taking effort away from tracking down crime lords and putting it into a search for anyone with a firearm. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish all the 2nd amendment and gun ownership advocates would realize that if all the honest law abiding gun owners would surrender their firearms to the authorities then all the criminals would do the same thing. 
I just wish they fought as hard for addressing the issues which feed violence as they do on the obsession with guns and their right to kill others when in fear if we can continue to decrease the violence and fear, we wouldn't need to obsess so much over the guns,,,,,imho Perhaps if the initial reaction to violence were an initiative to confront the causative issues instead of knee-jerk gun control laws, we could work together to actually diminish the violence... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
good people don't NEED to have a gun unless they live in crime ridden areas where guns are RAMPANT already there is no real compelling evidence to back up either side of the argument, in my opinion there are plenty of studies showing those with guns being more likely to be shot or killed in confrontations than those without the best self defense is between the ears, being aware of your surroundings and how to approach and work with them simple 
ah....a glimmer of sanity....thanks harmony. OK I'm outta here....this argument gets too emotionally charged which means no one is thinking that well. Also, there is too much at stake financially for the pro gun lobby for them to be objective. Anyone who cannot accept reasonable controls on firearms has no business having one. So the discussion should be on what is reasonalbe with both sides willing to put forth solutions that are negotialbe and workable. For those who cannot do that, the decision will be made for you, by others capable of objectivity and adult decision making. I guess my suggestion is to be level headed and remove the emotion, scare tactics and propaganda to be a valuable contributor who others take seriously. Again knowing that NRA supporters and the gun lobby have too much at stake financially to be making these types of rules alone. Got to agree that the mainstream on both sides of the issue seem incapable of objective thinking. NRA really doesn't stand to make a profit though, they simply tend to be extreme. As are the liberals on this issue. As I stated before neither laws nor guns seem to have much impact on violence or crime, so perhaps underlying causes should be explored before we pit one half of the country instead of the other. None of this is about gun control. Not the issue at all. Its violence and crime. One thing everyone can agree on is we don't like to see violence spreading. Economics is a great place to start. Hey, then we'd get to take care of the economic issues as well. Win, win, win. I disagree NRA doesn't make profit from supporting the gun industry. its not so much the money its the 'profit' the manufacturers who finance the NRA continue to make Its kind of a viscious circle where, in return for keeping the guns and ammo on the street, the gun industry 'contributes' to the NRA and the NRA continues to lobby for them so they can also keep making profit,,, but otherwise, I agree about underlying problems being a great place to start when looking at violence trends... I don't think its so much the gun industry, perhaps more donations made by people? Membership fees? Either way, it seems I've spoken before adequate time and energy has been given to researching the NRA's revenues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
good people don't NEED to have a gun unless they live in crime ridden areas where guns are RAMPANT already there is no real compelling evidence to back up either side of the argument, in my opinion there are plenty of studies showing those with guns being more likely to be shot or killed in confrontations than those without the best self defense is between the ears, being aware of your surroundings and how to approach and work with them simple
ah....a glimmer of sanity....thanks harmony. OK I'm outta here....this argument gets too emotionally charged which means no one is thinking that well. Also, there is too much at stake financially for the pro gun lobby for them to be objective. Anyone who cannot accept reasonable controls on firearms has no business having one. So the discussion should be on what is reasonalbe with both sides willing to put forth solutions that are negotialbe and workable. For those who cannot do that, the decision will be made for you, by others capable of objectivity and adult decision making. I guess my suggestion is to be level headed and remove the emotion, scare tactics and propaganda to be a valuable contributor who others take seriously. Again knowing that NRA supporters and the gun lobby have too much at stake financially to be making these types of rules alone. Got to agree that the mainstream on both sides of the issue seem incapable of objective thinking. NRA really doesn't stand to make a profit though, they simply tend to be extreme. As are the liberals on this issue. As I stated before neither laws nor guns seem to have much impact on violence or crime, so perhaps underlying causes should be explored before we pit one half of the country instead of the other. None of this is about gun control. Not the issue at all. Its violence and crime. One thing everyone can agree on is we don't like to see violence spreading. Economics is a great place to start. Hey, then we'd get to take care of the economic issues as well. Win, win, win. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if the bill of rights were perfect, why were there amendments that followed them some soldiers may be dying to protect the bill of rights, others also die to protect the right to disagree with or question their intent The Amendments ARE The Bill Of Rights! The first Ten Amendments to your Constitution are called The Bill Of Rights! re read why were there amendments that FOLLOWED THEM we could stop at ten if they were perfect, couldn't we? yet we keep revising, because as humans , times change, we change and so do our standards,,,,, if it was capable of needing revisions then, why is it so insulting to suggest it may need revisions now? To a point yes, revisions need to be made. But there needs to be certain rights that can never be revised. Keeps powers in check, as it is any government's responsibility to take freedom from people so they may be controlled (this is the way they all work by design). It also prevents 75% of people saying "Hey, lets just enslave the other 25% then we won't have to work, ever". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your bill of rights is flawed... Nothing is ever perfect. However I must ask, why people shouldn't have rights? Our country was founded the principle that people should be independent and not be forced to rely on anyone or anything. Free thinking. Personal responsibility. Independence. Deterring tyranny. Not sure how the Bill of Rights doesn't support that... Perhaps you can elaborate...? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
good people don't NEED to have a gun unless they live in crime ridden areas where guns are RAMPANT already there is no real compelling evidence to back up either side of the argument, in my opinion there are plenty of studies showing those with guns being more likely to be shot or killed in confrontations than those without the best self defense is between the ears, being aware of your surroundings and how to approach and work with them simple I agree with about 90% of what you are saying. I too have an issue with folks thinking all they need is a firearm and they will be safe. I also believe that having a gun, or being around them, puts you at greater risk for injury from a gunshot wound, just as having a swimming pool or being around one puts you at greater risk of drowning (which has taken a bigger toll i would like to add). If carrying one always made it more dangerous for the carrier, secret service, police, and the military would all be disarmed. A firearm is a tool, but it can come in handy under a specific set of circumstances. Training needs to surpass "using both hands" and "shooting straight" to include intelligent approaches to situations. Any decent civilian course will include this. As a matter of fact they often stress property can be replaced, if someone just wants your wallet, hand it over. I would also like to point out that the possibility of people being armed can be a deterrent to potential assailants. I would also like to point out the dangers of being comfortable just throwing away rights that are supposed to be guaranteed to us in our bill of rights. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But the facts are that these armed assaults are increasing in frequency... Why is that? Must say, you hit it on the head. There is a direct correlation between violence and the state of the economy. That being said, perhaps the focus should be on economics instead of taking away rights. Just sayin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
proof only means six to twelve people convince each other of your guilt or innocence again, property shouldn't be worth anyones life,,thats just my opinion and neither should 'threats' , unless they are deadly ones,,, I wonder what would happen if someone kicked down the door at the white house after being told to leave? Do you think secret service would just sit the man down and talk things out calmly? Or would they shoot? unfortunately, certain jobs come with the legal right to assume deadly force in any confrontation and meet it with deadly force Interesting, as it is a legal right (or it should be) to defend yourself... Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point. Let us explore a different approach so I can be clear as to where you are coming from. Let us say I am a crazed stalker whom you told to leave your premise. You have kids at home. Shortly after your close the door I kick it in and start angrily walking toward you. What do you do? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Hazing? Consentual bullying?
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sat 11/30/13 08:11 PM
|
|
Ritual, tradition, right of passage. That just goes with the wussification of people. When I went through airborne school and graduated we had a tradition of getting "blood wings" Where at graduation the jump masters would hold your winds to your chest and punch them in so they stuck to your chest. Then you had some whine and cry about it and they no longer do it. If you ask me it created a stronger bond of brotherhood between us. But hey what do I know. Cheers for the bloodwings!  Got mine back in '02 (I think my group was an exception). But these hazing rituals helped many develope coping skills. Skills that become useful in an animalistic world of kill or be killed. Not to mention the brotherhood you speak of also helped when dealing with extreme situations/emotions. They started getting softer during basic training because people were whining so much. Terrible idea if you ask me. Most will never understand. "The more you sweat in training the less you bleed in combat"
I do see that as almost a separate issue though as it is a different world. Back to the topic at hand, who is responsible in "consensual bullying"? the Bully, or the one who consents? Both are guilty as either party can stop it. Stupid? I extreme cases, yes. Can (or should) we pass a law preventing people from being stupid? That is still up for debate... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Fri 11/29/13 02:58 PM
|
|
proof only means six to twelve people convince each other of your guilt or innocence again, property shouldn't be worth anyones life,,thats just my opinion and neither should 'threats' , unless they are deadly ones,,, I wonder what would happen if someone kicked down the door at the white house after being told to leave? Do you think secret service would just sit the man down and talk things out calmly? Or would they shoot? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
than, ALLEGEDLY the door was 'kicked in',,, yet the body was found on the porch If the door was "kicked in", there would be strong evidence of it. No one has yet challenged that aspect of the story so one could reasonably assume that it's accurate. At least I would think. And if the door was, in fact, kicked in, that constitutes a very strong threat. Especially to anyone with any training... The rest is hard to prove. There are multiple witnesses with collaborating stories in the defense and that's all you can go on (besides a broken door). Thing about the legal system is, by design, you shouldn't be imprisoned unless you are PROVEN GUILTY, not just suspected of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Why I like America
|
|
Jeannie, don't if you're a drinker, but here's to you...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are you guys resorting to insults and name calling of a country.If you are educated and intelligent,lets debate and argue based on facts.Thats more civil please actually you have been insulting People since you came on this Site! What makes you so morally superior! We all put on our Pants One Leg at a time! But how do we know they are truths? You are not sharing your thought process, nor siting facts. These are, of course, the keys to have an "intelligent" debate, are they not? |
|
|
|
|
Previous
