Dear Gun Culture: THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE WROUGHT
- Thread starter Buzzword
- Start date
WizardofOz
New member
You can't really be this dense. I am talking about homicide and I know the penal code. I'll speak slower.
In 2014 there were 45 187's in the city of San Francisco yet there were 135 in the county.
So far in 2015 there have been 33 187's in the city of SF yet there have been 78 in the entire county.
Do you even comprehend the statistics you're looking at and citing?
Wow
I liked Peggy. Where can I meet a woman like that !! :chuckle:
Just speak clearer Aaron. After spending all of that time defending anti gun San Francisco, go ahead and say it:
Cities that restrict gun rights are safer.
SF must be safer because of their gun buy back program.
"A gun buyback program jointly operated by the San Francisco and Oakland police departments saw huge crowds of people looking to trade in their guns for cash this past weekend, many of whom said they were motivated by the recent events in Connecticut."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/san-francisco-gun-crime_n_2317901.html
Greg Jennings
New member
While I understand your point, banning guns just doesn't make sense based on this. Do you remember a few weeks back two teenage girls brutally stabbed a classmate many times and left her for dead after taking her out into the woods? They claimed she was an offering for a fictional boogeyman of sorts. Should we do the knee jerk thing and ban all knives? Why not all instruments with a sharp edge? They could be dangerous too, right?
Curious: if all guns were banned, would you be okay with crossbows being allowed?
Do you really mean "required" (as "In order to own a firearm in the United States, which is a constitutional right, you must first show a government bureaucrat that you have a gun safe in your home") or did you mean "encouraged"?
Greg Jennings
New member
I mean required, at least for those who have children if not for everyone. It's not asking much and it would cut out almost ALL of these accidents from ever happening. Either a gun safe or a mechanism that prevents the weapon from firing and is removed by a lock (they sell these at many gun stores).
When they made the second amendment such safes and preventative locks did not exist, and the problem that we have today with gun related "accidents" did not exist. You have to adapt to the times while at the same time upholding the constitution as is. With the tweak I am suggesting then the right to bear arms is upheld so long as you show responsibility in being able to store them safely. If you can't store them safely then you shouldn't own them.
You seem to believe that the second amendment is a guaranteed personal liberty for all citizens. Do you believe that everyone, regardless of crimes committed or mental health, should be allowed to own a firearm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Do you really mean "required" (as "In order to own a firearm in the United States, which is a constitutional right, you must first show a government bureaucrat that you have a gun safe in your home") or did you mean "encouraged"?
I was giving you an opportunity to have a way out of an asinine statement, I see that you didn't take it.
How would this invasion on constitutional rights work in your nanny state world Greg? Would anyone wanting to purchase a firearm first have to purchase a gun safe as well? I assume that a big government bureaucrat would come visit your home to make certain that you're abiding by nanny state rules. How often would that be done: weekly, monthly, yearly?
What did "exist" is people who believed in God and personal responsibility. You're putting yet another band aid on a societal cancer with your nanny state vision.
I read you loud and clear fuhrer.
It's a guaranteed constitutional right for all citizens until they abuse that right. Kinda like having the right to free speech. You lose it when you yell "Bomb!" in a crowded sports stadium. The 2nd Amendment is the same thing.
You've just changed the subject from gun ownership requirements (having a gun safe in your home) to those convicted of criminal activities. You are aware that being convicted of a misdemeanor doesn't effect your constitutional right aren't you? For that matter, being convicted of a felony doesn't necessarily mean that you're banned for life from possessing a firearm.
Study up on laws and more specifically the original intent of our Founding Fathers before you get back to me (your ignorance is an embarrassment).
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Do you really mean "required" (as "In order to own a firearm in the United States, which is a constitutional right, you must first show a government bureaucrat that you have a gun safe in your home") or did you mean "encouraged"?
I was giving you an opportunity to have a way out of an asinine statement, I see that you didn't take it.
How would this invasion on constitutional rights work in your nanny state world Greg? Would anyone wanting to purchase a firearm first have to purchase a gun safe as well? I assume that a big government bureaucrat would come visit your home to make certain that you're abiding by nanny state rules. How often would that be done: weekly, monthly, yearly?
What did "exist" is people who believed in God and personal responsibility. You're putting yet another band aid on a societal cancer with your nanny state vision.
I read you loud and clear fuhrer.
It's a guaranteed constitutional right for all citizens until they abuse that right. Kinda like having the right to free speech. You lose it when you yell "Bomb!" in a crowded sports stadium. The 2nd Amendment is the same thing.
You've just changed the subject from gun ownership requirements (having a gun safe in your home) to those convicted of criminal activities. You are aware that being convicted of a misdemeanor doesn't effect your constitutional right aren't you? For that matter, being convicted of a felony doesn't necessarily mean that you're banned for life from possessing a firearm.
Study up on laws and more specifically the original intent of our Founding Fathers before you get back to me (your ignorance is an embarrassment).
When written they also had a citizenry that'd just fought a war and knew how to use firearms responsibly. We're nothing like the people the Second Amendment was intended for.
Yet the Founding Fathers had our current leaders in mind when they gave us the right to keep and bear arms:
Defense against tyrants ("Give me liberty or give me death", etc. etc. etc.)
Your above statement certainly is true when it comes to the First Amendment and freedom of speech:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams
HisServant
New member
This entire affair is the tragic result of two things...
1.) the lack of accountability culture that came out of the 60's.. free love, do as you want.. the man is putting you down.
2.) The treatment of kids these days as little snow flakes instead of being innately evil just like all the rest of us. Discipline has been replaced with TV and video games and parents are too busy working multiple jobs to correctly parent their kids.
1.) the lack of accountability culture that came out of the 60's.. free love, do as you want.. the man is putting you down.
2.) The treatment of kids these days as little snow flakes instead of being innately evil just like all the rest of us. Discipline has been replaced with TV and video games and parents are too busy working multiple jobs to correctly parent their kids.
Careful HS, common sense isn't popular in these times.
Greg Jennings
New member
I see you're about as reasonable to converse with on this topic as you are on homosexuals. I don't see a reason to bother wasting time arguing with a wall, so I'll leave you with this: Those who wrote the Constitution were actually not all believers in God or Christianity. This is well documented. And our founding fathers modeled their documents on Enlightenment era principles of philosophy, not the Bible. That's a tidbit of knowledge that you can take with you for no charge
Last edited:
So hippies lead to gun violence.:rotfl:
Greg Jennings
New member
Well of course. Not to mention a much smaller population so that gun related accidents were few and far between in comparison to today with our bloated population. However I do not in any way want a ban on guns. I find that preposterous. What are your thoughts on such a potential ban?
I think calling a gun ban "potential" in this country is totally ridiculous.
Greg Jennings
New member
I didn't mean that as a literal statement. Just as a hypothetical. Anyway, what is your thought on a gun ban?
Well I don't know. What kind of ban on what kind of gun? I personally see zero good reason for anyone to walk around with the militarized carbines you can get easily and for cheap, so cleaning those up wouldn't faze me at all.
HisServant
New member
It lead to lack of self restraint... yes.