login
At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas (Page 2)
-
No new posts
| Other Resources | My Cup of Joe » At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas | Rss Feed  |
|
 2012-07-23 11:04 AM in reply to: #4324929 |
Master 2083   Houston, TX |  Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in TexasSorry but comparing a car accident to a mass shooting is SERIOUSLY reaching. There was no intent to kill here, just intent to transport cheap labor (possibly illegal). I would much more easily accept an argument that the "liberal media" is hiding the proliferation of illegal immigrants than an argument about gun control vs blow outs (or at worst DWI). |
| 2012-07-23 11:14 AM in reply to: #4325496 |
Champion 15211  Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas dsand97 - 2012-07-23 10:59 AM The government needs to step in and ban high occupancy vehicles, as they pose an obvious danger to society. Also as a native born Texan it is not unusual to see the passenger capacity of a given vehicle to be pushed well beyond its normal limits especially as you venture further south. I've also seen them pushed well beyond their normal limits up north, and NOT just by immigrants. I've seen them packed with kids, Mennonites, school groups, church groups......... etc. |
| 2012-07-23 11:35 AM in reply to: #4325515 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas jgaither - 2012-07-23 11:04 AM Sorry but comparing a car accident to a mass shooting is SERIOUSLY reaching. The problem that I have with the gun/motor vehicle analogy that’s so popular among gun owners is that it is MUCH harder to drive a car legally in many places than it is to own a firearm. You have to pass an exam and get insurance and renew your license regularly and prove you have a minimum level of correctable vision, and have liability insurance, etc. You have to be a certain age before you can drive, and if you’re caught being irresponsible with the car, even if no one is hurt, you can lose your privilege to drive legally. You can’t just go down to the Wal-Mart and get a pickup truck. If we applied the same standards to gun ownership that we apply to motor vehicle ownership/operation, I would be 100% fine with it. And yes, I know that owning a pickup truck is also not a right expressly guaranteed by the Constitution, and that’s obviously significant. But I don’t understand, at all, the knee jerk defensiveness every time anyone suggests that making guns a *little* more difficult to acquire might not be a bad thing. I have friends in AZ and TX who own guns for no reason other than that they were easy to get and they thought it would be cool to have one. They have no intention whatsoever to learn how to safely use, maintain or store their gun. Considering that, there is virtually zero chance that this gun could be used for anything other than something that would end tragically—an accident, a suicide, a crime of passion, or a burglary that put it in the hands of a criminal. If an armed intruder burst into their home, there’s no way, even if they had it somewhere where they could easily get to it, that they could load it and fire it accurately in time to protect themselves. I know they are disgracefully irresponsible and aren’t representative of all gun owners. But they aren’t alone, either. I’m certain that if someone like that had to jump through maybe one or two more hoops to get the gun—a longer waiting period, a required training course, many of them would decide that it wasn’t worth the trouble and that would be one less gun in the hands of someone who had no business having one. As a responsible driver, I’m all in favor of anything that helps keep irresponsible drivers off the road. I don’t understand why more responsible gun owners aren’t more strongly in favor of measures that would potentially keep the guns out of the hands of people who aren’t willing to accept the responsibility that comes with owning one. |
| 2012-07-23 11:48 AM in reply to: #4325589 |
| Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas jmk-brooklyn - 2012-07-23 12:35 PM I know they are disgracefully irresponsible and aren’t representative of all gun owners. But they aren’t alone, either. I’m certain that if someone like that had to jump through maybe one or two more hoops to get the gun—a longer waiting period, a required training course, many of them would decide that it wasn’t worth the trouble and that would be one less gun in the hands of someone who had no business having one. As a responsible driver, I’m all in favor of anything that helps keep irresponsible drivers off the road. I don’t understand why more responsible gun owners aren’t more strongly in favor of measures that would potentially keep the guns out of the hands of people who aren’t willing to accept the responsibility that comes with owning one. Good, then you'll agree to mandating firearms safety classes as a requirement for graduating from HS. Then you know everyone who owns firearms has had at least one and you don't have a registration requirement. Better yet, you can opt out of the class and they'll keep a list of those who opted out and that can be part of the NICS check, if your name is in the opt out list you cannot buy a firearm. When you take a course your name is then deleted from that list. Waiting period? Have you ever heard of the saying "A right delayed is a right denied"? Marting Luther King. |
| 2012-07-23 12:08 PM in reply to: #4325629 |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas DanielG - 2012-07-23 12:48 PM Good, then you'll agree to mandating firearms safety classes as a requirement for graduating from HS. Then you know everyone who owns firearms has had at least one and you don't have a registration requirement. Better yet, you can opt out of the class and they'll keep a list of those who opted out and that can be part of the NICS check, if your name is in the opt out list you cannot buy a firearm. When you take a course your name is then deleted from that list. Waiting period? Have you ever heard of the saying "A right delayed is a right denied"? Marting Luther King. Why not just make the safety classes mandatory for those folks who want to buy a gun? Seems a lot easier to manage and a lot more focused on the intended audience. Nice King quote by the way, but I don't think he'd equate the decades long fight for civil rights with a few days or even weeks to wait for a gun. |
| 2012-07-23 12:09 PM in reply to: #4325629 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas DanielG - 2012-07-23 11:48 AM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-07-23 12:35 PM I know they are disgracefully irresponsible and aren’t representative of all gun owners. But they aren’t alone, either. I’m certain that if someone like that had to jump through maybe one or two more hoops to get the gun—a longer waiting period, a required training course, many of them would decide that it wasn’t worth the trouble and that would be one less gun in the hands of someone who had no business having one. As a responsible driver, I’m all in favor of anything that helps keep irresponsible drivers off the road. I don’t understand why more responsible gun owners aren’t more strongly in favor of measures that would potentially keep the guns out of the hands of people who aren’t willing to accept the responsibility that comes with owning one. Good, then you'll agree to mandating firearms safety classes as a requirement for graduating from HS. Then you know everyone who owns firearms has had at least one and you don't have a registration requirement. Better yet, you can opt out of the class and they'll keep a list of those who opted out and that can be part of the NICS check, if your name is in the opt out list you cannot buy a firearm. When you take a course your name is then deleted from that list. Waiting period? Have you ever heard of the saying "A right delayed is a right denied"? Marting Luther King. Daniel what are your thoughts on former felons owning a gun? |
| 2012-07-23 12:11 PM in reply to: #4325688 |
| Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas mr2tony - 2012-07-23 1:09 PM DanielG - 2012-07-23 11:48 AM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-07-23 12:35 PM I know they are disgracefully irresponsible and aren’t representative of all gun owners. But they aren’t alone, either. I’m certain that if someone like that had to jump through maybe one or two more hoops to get the gun—a longer waiting period, a required training course, many of them would decide that it wasn’t worth the trouble and that would be one less gun in the hands of someone who had no business having one. As a responsible driver, I’m all in favor of anything that helps keep irresponsible drivers off the road. I don’t understand why more responsible gun owners aren’t more strongly in favor of measures that would potentially keep the guns out of the hands of people who aren’t willing to accept the responsibility that comes with owning one. Good, then you'll agree to mandating firearms safety classes as a requirement for graduating from HS. Then you know everyone who owns firearms has had at least one and you don't have a registration requirement. Better yet, you can opt out of the class and they'll keep a list of those who opted out and that can be part of the NICS check, if your name is in the opt out list you cannot buy a firearm. When you take a course your name is then deleted from that list. Waiting period? Have you ever heard of the saying "A right delayed is a right denied"? Marting Luther King. Daniel what are your thoughts on former felons owning a gun? It's illegal. |
| 2012-07-23 12:11 PM in reply to: #4325629 |
| Master 2083 Houston, TX | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas DanielG - 2012-07-23 11:48 AM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-07-23 12:35 PM I know they are disgracefully irresponsible and aren’t representative of all gun owners. But they aren’t alone, either. I’m certain that if someone like that had to jump through maybe one or two more hoops to get the gun—a longer waiting period, a required training course, many of them would decide that it wasn’t worth the trouble and that would be one less gun in the hands of someone who had no business having one. As a responsible driver, I’m all in favor of anything that helps keep irresponsible drivers off the road. I don’t understand why more responsible gun owners aren’t more strongly in favor of measures that would potentially keep the guns out of the hands of people who aren’t willing to accept the responsibility that comes with owning one. Good, then you'll agree to mandating firearms safety classes as a requirement for graduating from HS. Then you know everyone who owns firearms has had at least one and you don't have a registration requirement. Better yet, you can opt out of the class and they'll keep a list of those who opted out and that can be part of the NICS check, if your name is in the opt out list you cannot buy a firearm. When you take a course your name is then deleted from that list. Waiting period? Have you ever heard of the saying "A right delayed is a right denied"? Marting Luther King. Actually as gun owner and staunch supporter of armed bears, I actually agree with both points. IMO the concealed hand gun license needs a psych evaluation prior to approval, not just a class (and the class is a joke, by the way). I don't think the majority of concealed handgun permitted owner's have any business carrying a handgun. To DanielG's point, you can take a look at Switzerland where this does take place and then look at the instance of violent gun crimes being committed. The only difference is that in Switzerland they receive actual training and not just gun safety. Gun safety is only about a quarter of the knowledge needed to responsibly own a gun IMO. |
| 2012-07-23 12:16 PM in reply to: #4325688 |
Extreme Veteran 1260 Miami | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas mr2tony - 2012-07-23 1:09 PM DanielG - 2012-07-23 11:48 AM Daniel what are your thoughts on former felons owning a gun? jmk-brooklyn - 2012-07-23 12:35 PM I know they are disgracefully irresponsible and aren’t representative of all gun owners. But they aren’t alone, either. I’m certain that if someone like that had to jump through maybe one or two more hoops to get the gun—a longer waiting period, a required training course, many of them would decide that it wasn’t worth the trouble and that would be one less gun in the hands of someone who had no business having one. As a responsible driver, I’m all in favor of anything that helps keep irresponsible drivers off the road. I don’t understand why more responsible gun owners aren’t more strongly in favor of measures that would potentially keep the guns out of the hands of people who aren’t willing to accept the responsibility that comes with owning one. Good, then you'll agree to mandating firearms safety classes as a requirement for graduating from HS. Then you know everyone who owns firearms has had at least one and you don't have a registration requirement. Better yet, you can opt out of the class and they'll keep a list of those who opted out and that can be part of the NICS check, if your name is in the opt out list you cannot buy a firearm. When you take a course your name is then deleted from that list. Waiting period? Have you ever heard of the saying "A right delayed is a right denied"? Marting Luther King. This actually an interesting article in regards to the stand your ground law in FLorida that is view by many as a very good law. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/22/2906214_p2/stand-your-ground-law-used-often.html |
| 2012-07-23 12:25 PM in reply to: #4325717 |
| Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas Cuetoy - 2012-07-23 1:16 PM mr2tony - 2012-07-23 1:09 PM DanielG - 2012-07-23 11:48 AM Daniel what are your thoughts on former felons owning a gun? jmk-brooklyn - 2012-07-23 12:35 PM I know they are disgracefully irresponsible and aren’t representative of all gun owners. But they aren’t alone, either. I’m certain that if someone like that had to jump through maybe one or two more hoops to get the gun—a longer waiting period, a required training course, many of them would decide that it wasn’t worth the trouble and that would be one less gun in the hands of someone who had no business having one. As a responsible driver, I’m all in favor of anything that helps keep irresponsible drivers off the road. I don’t understand why more responsible gun owners aren’t more strongly in favor of measures that would potentially keep the guns out of the hands of people who aren’t willing to accept the responsibility that comes with owning one. Good, then you'll agree to mandating firearms safety classes as a requirement for graduating from HS. Then you know everyone who owns firearms has had at least one and you don't have a registration requirement. Better yet, you can opt out of the class and they'll keep a list of those who opted out and that can be part of the NICS check, if your name is in the opt out list you cannot buy a firearm. When you take a course your name is then deleted from that list. Waiting period? Have you ever heard of the saying "A right delayed is a right denied"? Marting Luther King. This actually an interesting article in regards to the stand your ground law in FLorida that is view by many as a very good law. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/22/2906214_p2/stand-your-ground-law-used-often.html Imagine that, people using defenses that are in the law. When you're reading that, also check out that more than a few still are arrested and more than a few are still convicted. I have to ask, so what? Those that are within the law use the defense and are not arrested and/or not convicted. If the person is committing a crime at the time of the defense or is the aggressor then stand your ground does not apply. |
| 2012-07-23 12:27 PM in reply to: #4325629 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas DanielG - 2012-07-23 11:48 AM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-07-23 12:35 PM I know they are disgracefully irresponsible and aren’t representative of all gun owners. But they aren’t alone, either. I’m certain that if someone like that had to jump through maybe one or two more hoops to get the gun—a longer waiting period, a required training course, many of them would decide that it wasn’t worth the trouble and that would be one less gun in the hands of someone who had no business having one. As a responsible driver, I’m all in favor of anything that helps keep irresponsible drivers off the road. I don’t understand why more responsible gun owners aren’t more strongly in favor of measures that would potentially keep the guns out of the hands of people who aren’t willing to accept the responsibility that comes with owning one. Good, then you'll agree to mandating firearms safety classes as a requirement for graduating from HS. Then you know everyone who owns firearms has had at least one and you don't have a registration requirement. Better yet, you can opt out of the class and they'll keep a list of those who opted out and that can be part of the NICS check, if your name is in the opt out list you cannot buy a firearm. When you take a course your name is then deleted from that list. Waiting period? Have you ever heard of the saying "A right delayed is a right denied"? Marting Luther King. Quoting MLK, a guy who stood for nonviolence and who was murdered by a guy with a gun, in your attempt to justify less oversight over gun ownership, is more than a little ironic. But, to your question: Why would it make sense to make firearm safety classes mandatory for everyone? I don’t have to take drivers’ ed if I don’t want to drive a car. But, then why not make safely classes mandatory for anyone who wants to own a gun? Would you be in favor of that? If you don’t take (and pass) the safety class, you don’t get to legally buy a gun. If I thought that everyone who legally bought a gun had to take and pass a class to learn how to use it, store it, and maintain it, I’d be less inclined to see the need for a waiting period. |
| 2012-07-23 12:35 PM in reply to: #4325758 |
| Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas jmk-brooklyn - 2012-07-23 1:27 PM Quoting MLK, a guy who stood for nonviolence and who was murdered by a guy with a gun, in your attempt to justify less oversight over gun ownership, is more than a little ironic. But, to your question: Why would it make sense to make firearm safety classes mandatory for everyone? I don’t have to take drivers’ ed if I don’t want to drive a car. But, then why not make safely classes mandatory for anyone who wants to own a gun? Would you be in favor of that? If you don’t take (and pass) the safety class, you don’t get to legally buy a gun. If I thought that everyone who legally bought a gun had to take and pass a class to learn how to use it, store it, and maintain it, I’d be less inclined to see the need for a waiting period. MLK owned firearms and from all reports had a carry permit. No, in order to do the class thing you must have a list of those who took the class. If the class is only to buy a firearm then you have a listing of people who own firearms. That's illegal per US Code. My way, everyone gets firearms safety training does quite a few things that you're not seeing: Sooner or later you will get in a situation where there's a firearm. Especially children, if they're over at a friend's house and the friend has a firearm, wouldn't it be best if all involved have training? It is NOT illegal to have a listing of people who do not own firearms so if everyone is required to take the class for HS graduation then a listing of those who opt out is not in violation of federal law. Again, to get off that list, take the class. All NICS checks would have that class as one of its checks so if you opted out you would have to then take the class prior to taking possession of a firearm. Would you mind explaining the purpose of a waiting period for anyone who already owns firearms? That's possibly the dumbest thing on the planet. Even for those that do not. Criminals will steal theirs or buy them black market. They don't do gun shops generally. |
| 2012-07-23 12:38 PM in reply to: #4325698 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas DanielG - 2012-07-23 12:11 PM mr2tony - 2012-07-23 1:09 PM DanielG - 2012-07-23 11:48 AM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-07-23 12:35 PM I know they are disgracefully irresponsible and aren’t representative of all gun owners. But they aren’t alone, either. I’m certain that if someone like that had to jump through maybe one or two more hoops to get the gun—a longer waiting period, a required training course, many of them would decide that it wasn’t worth the trouble and that would be one less gun in the hands of someone who had no business having one. As a responsible driver, I’m all in favor of anything that helps keep irresponsible drivers off the road. I don’t understand why more responsible gun owners aren’t more strongly in favor of measures that would potentially keep the guns out of the hands of people who aren’t willing to accept the responsibility that comes with owning one. Good, then you'll agree to mandating firearms safety classes as a requirement for graduating from HS. Then you know everyone who owns firearms has had at least one and you don't have a registration requirement. Better yet, you can opt out of the class and they'll keep a list of those who opted out and that can be part of the NICS check, if your name is in the opt out list you cannot buy a firearm. When you take a course your name is then deleted from that list. Waiting period? Have you ever heard of the saying "A right delayed is a right denied"? Marting Luther King. Daniel what are your thoughts on former felons owning a gun? It's illegal. Not in all states. I actually got into an argument about his very thing with someone. They said once you do your time, your rights under the Constitution should be fully restored. I disagreed. In states including Texas you can get your gun rights back after a set number of years after your time is up. That, to me, is just craziness. |
| 2012-07-23 12:52 PM in reply to: #4325796 |
| Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas mr2tony - 2012-07-23 1:38 PM DanielG - 2012-07-23 12:11 PM Daniel what are your thoughts on former felons owning a gun? It's illegal. Not in all states. I actually got into an argument about his very thing with someone. They said once you do your time, your rights under the Constitution should be fully restored. I disagreed. In states including Texas you can get your gun rights back after a set number of years after your time is up. That, to me, is just craziness. Yes, in all states. No, you do not get this one automatically restored. The ATF has very specific steps you must go through to get the RKBA restored. By the way it's not just felonies that get you barred. There are quite a few state misdemeanors that carry greater than 1 year in jail as a punishment or as an add on so that brings this question into play as well. PLEASE get yourself informed before having strong feelings about these things. Here's US Code about it: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. There's no gray area. There's no blurring your eyes and seeing a way out of it and restoration is not automatic. Your conviction must either be expunged, a pardon issued or going through the process of restoration of rights. Even then it may not meet the federal government's standards to get them restored. http://www.atf.gov/contact/faq/#firearms-relief Q: I want information on relief of federal firearm disability? (I am a felon but want to own a firearm, how do I get my privilege restored?) Persons convicted of a state offense may contact the office of the attorney general in the state where their conviction occurred, or the state’s Department of Justice, for information concerning restoration alternatives that may be available. (For example, the state may have a procedure for a gubernatorial pardon, a set-aside or expunction of the conviction, or a restoration of firearm rights.) Persons convicted of a federal offense may elect to apply for a presidential pardon. Information on applying for a presidential pardon may be obtained at: U.S. Department of Justice The Pardon Attorney’s Office 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 11000 Washington, DC 20530 USA Voice (202) 616-6070 Texas specific, you have to get the governor to restore your rights, it's not automatic: http://www.recordgone.com/texas/civil-rights-restoration/faq/#quest... Does this expunge my conviction? No. Applying for a civil rights restoration only restores the civil rights that you may have lost because of a conviction or convictions in federal court or a court in another state. If you are eligible, there are separate processes you can use to clear an arrest or conviction. How does the process work? We would file your motion with either the Sheriff in the county where you reside or the Board of Pardons and Paroles. You must submit at least three affidavits attesting that you are a person of good moral character and you must show proof that you have completed the sentence for the offense that resulted in the loss of your civil right(s). The Governor will have the last word on whether your civil right(s) should be restored regardless of what state you received your conviction. If the Governor grants your application, you will receive a “certificate of restoration of civil rights” indicating which particular rights are restored. Who is not eligible to have their civil rights restored? If you have been convicted of a felony (regardless of where you received the felony) involving violence, the threat of violence, drugs, or firearms, you cannot restore your civil rights. Also, if you are still serving a sentence for a crime that caused you to lose your rights, you are not eligible to apply. Also, you cannot be convicted of any other crimes since the conviction that caused you to lose your civil rights. Finally, if your felony is a federal felony or a felony from another country, there is a waiting period before you can apply. What rights are restored? Any civil rights that may have been lost (voting, serving on a jury, running for office, gun rights, etc.) could be restored. However, the Governor does not have to restore all of your rights; he/she can make any exceptions. |
| 2012-07-23 1:03 PM in reply to: #4325786 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas DanielG - 2012-07-23 12:35 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-07-23 1:27 PM Quoting MLK, a guy who stood for nonviolence and who was murdered by a guy with a gun, in your attempt to justify less oversight over gun ownership, is more than a little ironic. But, to your question: Why would it make sense to make firearm safety classes mandatory for everyone? I don’t have to take drivers’ ed if I don’t want to drive a car. But, then why not make safely classes mandatory for anyone who wants to own a gun? Would you be in favor of that? If you don’t take (and pass) the safety class, you don’t get to legally buy a gun. If I thought that everyone who legally bought a gun had to take and pass a class to learn how to use it, store it, and maintain it, I’d be less inclined to see the need for a waiting period. MLK owned firearms and from all reports had a carry permit. No, in order to do the class thing you must have a list of those who took the class. If the class is only to buy a firearm then you have a listing of people who own firearms. That's illegal per US Code. My way, everyone gets firearms safety training does quite a few things that you're not seeing: Sooner or later you will get in a situation where there's a firearm. Especially children, if they're over at a friend's house and the friend has a firearm, wouldn't it be best if all involved have training? It is NOT illegal to have a listing of people who do not own firearms so if everyone is required to take the class for HS graduation then a listing of those who opt out is not in violation of federal law. Again, to get off that list, take the class. All NICS checks would have that class as one of its checks so if you opted out you would have to then take the class prior to taking possession of a firearm. Would you mind explaining the purpose of a waiting period for anyone who already owns firearms? That's possibly the dumbest thing on the planet. Even for those that do not. Criminals will steal theirs or buy them black market. They don't do gun shops generally. See, I love when this happens. The pro gun people try to make the argument that owning a gun is no different than owning a car (or a pickup truck, in this case). “Cars kill people every day! Why aren’t there more stringent laws related to car ownership? Why aren’t we up in arms every time someone kills someone with a car? No one is saying we should have a 5-day waiting period to own a car!” Then, the people like me, who aren’t against guns but who would like more oversight over the process that allows people to get them, say, “Ok, fine. If they’re like cars, let’s make people take tests and get insurance, and meet certain standards of ownership…just like we do with cars.” Then the pro-gun people object vehemently to that as well, because owning a gun is constitutionally protected, and therefore is nothing at all like owning a car. It’s the same circular argument every time. Either it’s like a pickup truck or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways. I don’t remember saying anything about a waiting period for people who already own guns. I agree with you that that doesn’t make much sense. Btw, The thing about MLK and guns was interesting. Apparently, after receiving constant death threats and hearing that the Alabama KKK had publicly claimed that they would murder him, he sought a concealed carry permit. A request, by the way, that was rejected by the local law enforcement, despite the fact that he was a clergyman whose life was threatened on a daily basis. It seems the local cops didn’t like the idea of an African-American having a cc permit. Another proud moment in the history of this nation. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2012-07-23 1:04 PM |
| 2012-07-23 1:12 PM in reply to: #4325851 |
| Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas jmk-brooklyn - 2012-07-23 2:03 PM DanielG - 2012-07-23 12:35 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-07-23 1:27 PM Quoting MLK, a guy who stood for nonviolence and who was murdered by a guy with a gun, in your attempt to justify less oversight over gun ownership, is more than a little ironic. But, to your question: Why would it make sense to make firearm safety classes mandatory for everyone? I don’t have to take drivers’ ed if I don’t want to drive a car. But, then why not make safely classes mandatory for anyone who wants to own a gun? Would you be in favor of that? If you don’t take (and pass) the safety class, you don’t get to legally buy a gun. If I thought that everyone who legally bought a gun had to take and pass a class to learn how to use it, store it, and maintain it, I’d be less inclined to see the need for a waiting period. MLK owned firearms and from all reports had a carry permit. No, in order to do the class thing you must have a list of those who took the class. If the class is only to buy a firearm then you have a listing of people who own firearms. That's illegal per US Code. My way, everyone gets firearms safety training does quite a few things that you're not seeing: Sooner or later you will get in a situation where there's a firearm. Especially children, if they're over at a friend's house and the friend has a firearm, wouldn't it be best if all involved have training? It is NOT illegal to have a listing of people who do not own firearms so if everyone is required to take the class for HS graduation then a listing of those who opt out is not in violation of federal law. Again, to get off that list, take the class. All NICS checks would have that class as one of its checks so if you opted out you would have to then take the class prior to taking possession of a firearm. Would you mind explaining the purpose of a waiting period for anyone who already owns firearms? That's possibly the dumbest thing on the planet. Even for those that do not. Criminals will steal theirs or buy them black market. They don't do gun shops generally. See, I love when this happens. The pro gun people try to make the argument that owning a gun is no different than owning a car (or a pickup truck, in this case). “Cars kill people every day! Why aren’t there more stringent laws related to car ownership? Why aren’t we up in arms every time someone kills someone with a car? No one is saying we should have a 5-day waiting period to own a car!” Then, the people like me, who aren’t against guns but who would like more oversight over the process that allows people to get them, say, “Ok, fine. If they’re like cars, let’s make people take tests and get insurance, and meet certain standards of ownership…just like we do with cars.” Then the pro-gun people object vehemently to that as well, because owning a gun is constitutionally protected, and therefore is nothing at all like owning a car. It’s the same circular argument every time. Either it’s like a pickup truck or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways. I don’t remember saying anything about a waiting period for people who already own guns. I agree with you that that doesn’t make much sense. Btw, The thing about MLK and guns was interesting. Apparently, after receiving constant death threats and hearing that the Alabama KKK had publicly claimed that they would murder him, he sought a concealed carry permit. A request, by the way, that was rejected by the local law enforcement, despite the fact that he was a clergyman whose life was threatened on a daily basis. It seems the local cops didn’t like the idea of an African-American having a cc permit. Another proud moment in the history of this nation. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Please, please, PLEASE can we make gun ownership like cars? PLEASE!!!! I keep a copy of this for just such an occasion (I've deleted some "you're a liar" comments from it) We license cars ... yackyackyack I see that the gun grabbers have resurrected the old "We license cars, so why can't we license guns?" meme. I tell you what -- every time you hear a gun grabber snivel about licensing guns like cars, call him a liar to his face. I would absolutely love to license guns just like we do cars and drivers -- for the same reason that every gun grabber who suggests it is lying through his or her snaggle teeth. Think about it. We give a drivers license to every seventeen-year-old high school student who can pass a lowest-common-denominator Drivers Ed course. A course that can be successfully passed by a lobotomized chimpanzee. In a large percentage of cases, we give drivers licenses to 16 year-old kids who state that they have a particular hardship. Tell me, Mr or Ms. Gun Grabber, that you want to license guns just like cars. You'll give a gun license to every 17 year-old who wants one -- just like a drivers license. Any person who possesses a drivers license can drive on any public road on any state in the Union. They can drive on school grounds, they can drive on college campuses, and they can drive to any courthouse in the Union. Tell me, Gun Grabber, that you want to license guns just like cars. You'll let anyone with a gun license carry a gun anywhere they want to, in every State in the Union -- just like a drivers license. Drivers licenses issued by one State must be honoured by all other States. Anyone with a Texas Drivers License can drive any car he (or she) wants to, anywhere in New York City that he can fit. And the New York authorities don't have a thing to say about the matter. Tell me, Gun Grabber, that you want to license guns just like cars. You'll let any 17 year-old cowboy from Bugscuffle, West Texas carry his gun anywhere he wants to in New York and tell the New York authorities they can't do anything about it -- just like a drivers license. If you get caught driving a car without your drivers license, you get a $90 traffic ticket that comes off your record in three years. Tell me that you want to license guns just like cars. Tell me that if that Texas cowpoke is visiting Chicago, and gets caught carrying his gun without his license, he gets a traffic citation -- just like a drivers license. No one must undergo a background check to get a license, any felon can get a drivers license, no mental checks are required for a drivers license. Tell me again that you want to license guns just like cars. You'll let everyone -- 17 to 70, felons, no mental checks, pay your money, take your test, here's your gun license -- just like a drivers license. If I'm on private property, I don't even need a driver license to drive any car I want to, the only limit to the number of cars I can possess is the size of my bank account, I can buy as many cars at once as my wallet can stand, and I can buy a car off a street corner in Compton today, another from a back-yard in New York tomorrow, I can import cars as many as a I want, from any country that I want, and I can sell or trade any or all of them to anyone I want -- and the Federal Government doesn't have word one to say about the matter. I build any car I want to -- with no Federal permission; I can modify, cut-down, trick-out, customize or skeletonize any car I want to without so much as a "Yes", "No", "Boo", "Kiss my arse" or "By your leave" from the Federal Government. Tell me, Mr or Ms. Gun Control, that you really want to treat guns just like cars. Tell me that your "gun license" that is "just like we license cars" will let us treat guns just exactly like we treat cars. |
| 2012-07-23 1:18 PM in reply to: #4325851 |
| Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas jmk-brooklyn - 2012-07-23 2:03 PM Btw, The thing about MLK and guns was interesting. Apparently, after receiving constant death threats and hearing that the Alabama KKK had publicly claimed that they would murder him, he sought a concealed carry permit. A request, by the way, that was rejected by the local law enforcement, despite the fact that he was a clergyman whose life was threatened on a daily basis. It seems the local cops didn’t like the idea of an African-American having a cc permit. Another proud moment in the history of this nation. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Alabama's been "may issue" forever but today is essentially "shall issue" Good thing they went that way, now AL realizes it's a civil right. Oh, BTW, and AL permit is $10-$50 depending on the county, requires no formal testing, requires no training, requires no background check, and is actually available to 18 year olds if the Sheriff of that county agrees. Just something to think about. I got one there in '91. Paid my $10, got the same NICS background check used to buy a firearm and was handed my permit in about 45 minutes. |
| 2012-07-23 1:23 PM in reply to: #4325851 |
Expert 962 | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas jmk-brooklyn - 2012-07-23 1:03 PM DanielG - 2012-07-23 12:35 PM See, I love when this happens. The pro gun people try to make the argument that owning a gun is no different than owning a car (or a pickup truck, in this case). “Cars kill people every day! Why aren’t there more stringent laws related to car ownership? Why aren’t we up in arms every time someone kills someone with a car? No one is saying we should have a 5-day waiting period to own a car!” Then, the people like me, who aren’t against guns but who would like more oversight over the process that allows people to get them, say, “Ok, fine. If they’re like cars, let’s make people take tests and get insurance, and meet certain standards of ownership…just like we do with cars.” Then the pro-gun people object vehemently to that as well, because owning a gun is constitutionally protected, and therefore is nothing at all like owning a car. It’s the same circular argument every time. Either it’s like a pickup truck or it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways. I don’t remember saying anything about a waiting period for people who already own guns. I agree with you that that doesn’t make much sense. Btw, The thing about MLK and guns was interesting. Apparently, after receiving constant death threats and hearing that the Alabama KKK had publicly claimed that they would murder him, he sought a concealed carry permit. A request, by the way, that was rejected by the local law enforcement, despite the fact that he was a clergyman whose life was threatened on a daily basis. It seems the local cops didn’t like the idea of an African-American having a cc permit. Another proud moment in the history of this nation. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-07-23 1:27 PM Quoting MLK, a guy who stood for nonviolence and who was murdered by a guy with a gun, in your attempt to justify less oversight over gun ownership, is more than a little ironic. But, to your question: Why would it make sense to make firearm safety classes mandatory for everyone? I don’t have to take drivers’ ed if I don’t want to drive a car. But, then why not make safely classes mandatory for anyone who wants to own a gun? Would you be in favor of that? If you don’t take (and pass) the safety class, you don’t get to legally buy a gun. If I thought that everyone who legally bought a gun had to take and pass a class to learn how to use it, store it, and maintain it, I’d be less inclined to see the need for a waiting period. MLK owned firearms and from all reports had a carry permit. No, in order to do the class thing you must have a list of those who took the class. If the class is only to buy a firearm then you have a listing of people who own firearms. That's illegal per US Code. My way, everyone gets firearms safety training does quite a few things that you're not seeing: Sooner or later you will get in a situation where there's a firearm. Especially children, if they're over at a friend's house and the friend has a firearm, wouldn't it be best if all involved have training? It is NOT illegal to have a listing of people who do not own firearms so if everyone is required to take the class for HS graduation then a listing of those who opt out is not in violation of federal law. Again, to get off that list, take the class. All NICS checks would have that class as one of its checks so if you opted out you would have to then take the class prior to taking possession of a firearm. Would you mind explaining the purpose of a waiting period for anyone who already owns firearms? That's possibly the dumbest thing on the planet. Even for those that do not. Criminals will steal theirs or buy them black market. They don't do gun shops generally. Ya'll did notice the sarcasm font didn't you. My intent was to mock the governements incessant need to protect us from ourselves. Not start yet another thread regarding gun laws here in this great country. Perhaps we should have some sort of certification to post in online forums, or a mandatory waiting period before replying. (please make note of sarcasm font....Lord knows the only thing more hotly debated than the second ammendment is the 1st) |
| 2012-07-23 1:31 PM in reply to: #4325851 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas What's interesting to me in this thread is that many of the same folks who are against ANY sort of conditions being placed on the constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote (i.e. Voter ID) are all for all sorts of conditions on the constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms (background checks, waits and outright bans). Seems a little... inconsistent. Carry on. |
| 2012-07-23 1:36 PM in reply to: #4325938 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas scoobysdad - 2012-07-23 1:31 PM What's interesting to me in this thread is that many of the same folks who are against ANY sort of conditions being placed on the constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote (i.e. Voter ID) are all for all sorts of conditions on the constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms (background checks, waits and outright bans). Seems a little... inconsistent. Carry on. Beautiful. |
| 2012-07-23 1:50 PM in reply to: #4325938 |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas scoobysdad - 2012-07-23 12:31 PM What's interesting to me in this thread is that many of the same folks who are against ANY sort of conditions being placed on the constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote (i.e. Voter ID) are all for all sorts of conditions on the constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms (background checks, waits and outright bans). Seems a little... inconsistent. Carry on.
Wouldn't the reverse apply as well? Those who want no restrictions on gun control want restrictions on voting?
Everyone is a hypocrite, oh my. |
| 2012-07-23 2:09 PM in reply to: #4325882 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas We license cars ... yackyackyack I see that the gun grabbers have resurrected the old "We license cars, so why can't we license guns?" meme. I tell you what -- every time you hear a gun grabber snivel about licensing guns like cars, call him a liar to his face. I would absolutely love to license guns just like we do cars and drivers -- for the same reason that every gun grabber who suggests it is lying through his or her snaggle teeth. Think about it. We give a drivers license to every seventeen-year-old high school student who can pass a lowest-common-denominator Drivers Ed course. A course that can be successfully passed by a lobotomized chimpanzee. Some people oppose literacy tests, or tests at all, for gun ownership: http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2009/02/04/109312-literacy-test-for... In a large percentage of cases, we give drivers licenses to 16 year-old kids who state that they have a particular hardship. Like, a handicap? I'm confused here. Maybe if someone has a handicap they should be allowed to get a gun at 16? Huh? Tell me, Mr or Ms. Gun Grabber, that you want to license guns just like cars. You'll give a gun license to every 17 year-old who wants one -- just like a drivers license. As opposed to 18 years old? Any person who possesses a drivers license can drive on any public road on any state in the Union. They can drive on school grounds, they can drive on college campuses, and they can drive to any courthouse in the Union. Anybody who possesses a concealed carry permit can do all those things with a gun, too. Last I checked, you can't take your car into a school, a college building or into a courthouse. Doors aren't big enough. Tell me, Gun Grabber, that you want to license guns just like cars. You'll let anyone with a gun license carry a gun anywhere they want to, in every State in the Union -- just like a drivers license. Just the ones where it's legal. Drivers licenses issued by one State must be honoured by all other States. Anyone with a Texas Drivers License can drive any car he (or she) wants to, anywhere in New York City that he can fit. And the New York authorities don't have a thing to say about the matter. You can legally carry a gun into New York, you just can't have it concealed. Just like you can legally drive a car into NYC, but you just can't have it concealed. Tell me, Gun Grabber, that you want to license guns just like cars. You'll let any 17 year-old cowboy from Bugscuffle, West Texas carry his gun anywhere he wants to in New York and tell the New York authorities they can't do anything about it -- just like a drivers license. See above. If you get caught driving a car without your drivers license, you get a $90 traffic ticket that comes off your record in three years. Couldn't find the federal law on short notice but I found this from Virginia: HB 26 Concealed handgun permits; failure to produce upon demand of a law-enforcement officer, penalty. Failure to carry concealed handgun permit; penalty. Provides that failure to produce, upon demand of a law-enforcement officer, a concealed handgun permit and a government-issued photo identification while carrying a concealed handgun is punishable by a $25 civil penalty. A court may waive this penalty if the person presents a valid concealed handgun permit and government-issued photo identification to the court. The bill also introduces an affirmative defense of having a valid concealed handgun permit to a charge of violating the concealed weapons statute with a handgun. Tell me that you want to license guns just like cars. Tell me that if that Texas cowpoke is visiting Chicago, and gets caught carrying his gun without his license, he gets a traffic citation -- just like a drivers license. Unsure of the law for not producing your permit in Illinois. No one must undergo a background check to get a license, any felon can get a drivers license, no mental checks are required for a drivers license. Nobody must undergo an eye exam to get a gun and in many states you don't have to prove you can drive a gun to get one. I dont recall going to the Department of Guns and taking an old guy in a short-sleeve shirt with a paisley tie to a gun range and parallel parking my gun. Tell me again that you want to license guns just like cars. You'll let everyone -- 17 to 70, felons, no mental checks, pay your money, take your test, here's your gun license -- just like a drivers license. Also true, but drunk drivers have their licenses suspended for life, and often people buy guns from private dealers or gun shows where they don't have to do any background testing. If I'm on private property, I don't even need a driver license to drive any car I want to, the only limit to the number of cars I can possess is the size of my bank account, I can buy as many cars at once as my wallet can stand, and I can buy a car off a street corner in Compton today, another from a back-yard in New York tomorrow, I can import cars as many as a I want, from any country that I want, and I can sell or trade any or all of them to anyone I want -- and the Federal Government doesn't have word one to say about the matter. You mean, just like the Aurora shooter did? Oh wait, you're right, he has a license to carry, meaning he was responsible. What!? I build any car I want to -- with no Federal permission; I can modify, cut-down, trick-out, customize or skeletonize any car I want to without so much as a "Yes", "No", "Boo", "Kiss my arse" or "By your leave" from the Federal Government. Yeah, just like you can with a gun, less making it fully auto and shortening the barrel. Also, in most states there are emissions laws that prevent you from customizing your car to make it faster. Tell me, Mr or Ms. Gun Control, that you really want to treat guns just like cars. Tell me that your "gun license" that is "just like we license cars" will let us treat guns just exactly like we treat cars. Ha ``gun grabbers'' ... the author must be very paranoid. |
| 2012-07-23 2:19 PM in reply to: #4325938 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas scoobysdad - 2012-07-23 1:31 PM What's interesting to me in this thread is that many of the same folks who are against ANY sort of conditions being placed on the constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote (i.e. Voter ID) are all for all sorts of conditions on the constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms (background checks, waits and outright bans). Seems a little... inconsistent. Carry on. You have to register to vote. Just like you have to register for a weapons permit. Also, allow me to reiterate my stance on guns: I don't like them. They're dangerous. If we could get rid of all of them, we should. But since we can't, we will have to live with allegedly responsible people owning them and HOPE they don't do crazy stuff with their guns and truly use them only for protection. If you legally own one, I have no problem with that. Just be responsible. |
| 2012-07-23 2:19 PM in reply to: #4326002 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas JoshR - 2012-07-23 1:50 PM scoobysdad - 2012-07-23 12:31 PM What's interesting to me in this thread is that many of the same folks who are against ANY sort of conditions being placed on the constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote (i.e. Voter ID) are all for all sorts of conditions on the constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms (background checks, waits and outright bans). Seems a little... inconsistent. Carry on.
Wouldn't the reverse apply as well? Those who want no restrictions on gun control want restrictions on voting?
Everyone is a hypocrite, oh my. Except we already DO have qualifications and restrictions on guns, not so much on voting. Take, for instance, the very fact that we have to have CCW laws to be allowed to carry guns. Um, if we already have the right to bear arms, why do we need a law to allow it? |
| 2012-07-23 2:22 PM in reply to: #4326086 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas scoobysdad - 2012-07-23 2:19 PM JoshR - 2012-07-23 1:50 PM scoobysdad - 2012-07-23 12:31 PM What's interesting to me in this thread is that many of the same folks who are against ANY sort of conditions being placed on the constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote (i.e. Voter ID) are all for all sorts of conditions on the constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms (background checks, waits and outright bans). Seems a little... inconsistent. Carry on.
Wouldn't the reverse apply as well? Those who want no restrictions on gun control want restrictions on voting?
Everyone is a hypocrite, oh my. Except we already DO have qualifications and restrictions on guns, not so much on voting. Take, for instance, the very fact that we have to have CCW laws to be allowed to carry guns. Um, if we already have the right to bear arms, why do we need a law to allow it? Societies evolve. Edit: That's unclear. What I mean is that women and black people couldn't vote at one time, and now they can. The U.S. used to have no gun control laws because people needed guns to protect themselves against a tyrannical government in the event one would arise again. Depending on who you ask, I suppose, we haven't had one of those in a while. We could, I suppose, but it seems to be we, as a society, have evolved and laws come and go for the betterment of society. Edited by mr2tony 2012-07-23 2:27 PM |
| Other Resources | My Cup of Joe » At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas | Rss Feed |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK