|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jun 8, 2008 18:00:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 8, 2008 19:01:57 GMT -5
link didn't work. can you repost?
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jun 8, 2008 19:30:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 10, 2008 10:04:47 GMT -5
I react with empathy for the gun toaters in the article because they live their lives in fear. Like someone in the article mentioned, this isn't the wild west so why would anyone feel the need to walk around strapped with a gun to their hip unless they're overly paranoid? The fact is, if everyone walked around packing heat, the world would be a far more paranoid place. Imagine how many road rage incidents and other arguments would quickly get out of hand.
The fact is, a gun is a means of murdering someone. That's not something I want to be reminded of every time I go to Costco. In this day and age there is no need for this unless you're living in an area with insanely high crime rates like East Oakland.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jun 10, 2008 10:54:47 GMT -5
An armed society is a polite society.
Citizens are safer when criminals do not know who is armed.
An armed man is a citizen; an unarmed man is a subject
A gun is a means of murdering someone only when the user is a murderer. Police have guns; are they murderers?
The inordinate fear of guns by folks who do not understand or accept the basic principle of self-defence is tragic & leads to hundreds of needless deaths annually.
Should you fear the gun or the armed criminal?
Would you use one to protect your life & family?
What is worth defending w/lethal force?
Remember: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 10, 2008 11:31:47 GMT -5
You know, the state can not make a law that violates this:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 10, 2008 11:33:58 GMT -5
I believe the state has a right to say you can either carry open or concealed. But, they should not have the right to require a license, since this would interfere with Section 1. The right to protect property is unalienable, and if the perp has a gun, then requiring to have less is illegal.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 10, 2008 11:39:02 GMT -5
Would you be averse to requiring finger print sensors on gun triggers to ensure that only the registered owner can fire their gun?
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 10, 2008 12:16:40 GMT -5
The only way I would say that is okay is if the government, and every citizen who votes for it, accepts the liability caused by the very first failure of the system, costing the user his life to that of a criminal. I believe in K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid).
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 10, 2008 12:17:34 GMT -5
So, since that is not going to happen, no I am not for finger print sensors that will increase the cost of the fire arm beyond the means of the average citizen. That is wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 10, 2008 12:28:56 GMT -5
But isn't it essential for responsible gun ownership? That way, if someone is shot, there is no doubt who the shooter is. Also, it will prevent kids from taking their parent's gun to school for shooting sprees and robbers from shooting homeowners with their own gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Jun 10, 2008 12:58:15 GMT -5
Nice pipe dream, but faulty technology makes it unsafe to use.
Responsible gun ownership has nothing to do w/govt. nanny laws.
How about mandatory breathalyzers on all cars? Cars kill 200 times the # of innocents as guns. Plus, arms, not cars are part of the Bill of Rights.
Adults act like adults, & if innocents are hurt through their negligence(gun on coffee table w/6 yr old; keys in ignition all day) the law already has remedies & penalties.
Please read the Constitution! It limits Govt., not citizens!
|
|
