The Cysko Kid Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Apples and oranges. Two different items for two totally different purposes. Yes one is designed to get you from point a to point b. One is designed to kill people. Only one has implemented any measures to reduce accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Yes one is designed to get you from point a to point b. One is designed to kill people. Only one has implemented any measures to reduce accidents. You can buy all sorts of trigger locks and gun safes. Just like someone can buy a sports car that will blow into dust in an accident or buy a very safe mini van. The options are out there if gun owners or car owners wish to be more safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Fair point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 I hate to think of the kind of world some people will live in. They trust good old Government to take care of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 I hate to think of the kind of world some people will live in. They trust good old Government to take care of them. Its a choose your own dystopian future adventure book. Will it be 1984 or mad max? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Yes, exactly. There's nothing that says gun crime can only be solved by a single silver bullet law/method. This would reduce the Adam Lanza killing sprees and little kids having accidents. that's all it's trying to do - that it doesn't solve much else is not a problem. So are we forcing everyone to buy this magic handgun (those of us that already abide by the law anyway, that is)? Or just an option for "responsible parents" (again, those of us that already keep guns locked in a safe(s), never leave a loaded gun lying around, and always practice/teach gun safety/responsibility around our children)? What problem are you really solving here? Does apple quit trying to build security into their hardware because a tiny percentage of users know how to jailbreak their iPhones? No. They don't. The thought of giving up on security because a few users will get around it is absurd. The truth is most people aren't that smart. Users have the option between Android / Apple / Windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 So are we forcing everyone to buy this magic handgun (those of us that already abide by the law anyway, that is)? Or just an option for "responsible parents" (again, those of us that already keep guns locked in a safe(s), never leave a loaded gun lying around, and always practice/teach gun safety/responsibility around our children)? What problem are you really solving here? Users have the option between Android / Apple / Windows. Yes, you'd force everyone to buy the 'magic handgun' otherwise there's no point. Now, I understand that's going to rub you and others the wrong way because it feels like you're being 'punished' for the misdeeds of others, and to a degree you are. But that's the way law is made, generally, the idiocy of a few ruins the fun of the others, and the idea would be to make a device that is unobtrusive - and preferably can be easily retrofitted to existing guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 This 'magic handgun' will never fly in the USA. Perhaps you can issue it to the Bobbies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Users have the option between Android / Apple / Windows. All of which are continually updating security Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 You can buy all sorts of trigger locks and gun safes. Just like someone can buy a sports car that will blow into dust in an accident or buy a very safe mini van. The options are out there if gun owners or car owners wish to be more safe. The question is if these levels of safety should be mandated or left up to the individual. I'd like to see gun-safety mandated, its the only compromise that can be reached between gun-control opponents and advocates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 rfid, what a stupid idea. Unless you want all guns at the control of the gov. Any hurricane, tornado, and the gov could shut down all rfid guns in an entire area. And, the gov would know anytime any gun was shot, and from where. Just another way for gun confiscation to be possible, in the long run. Criminals will never buy them, and most law abiding citizens see throught the ulterior motives. and don't bother to deny the ulterior motives being out there already. http://www.storyleak.com/new-rfid-smart-gun-retina-scans/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 rfid, what a stupid idea. Unless you want all guns at the control of the gov. Any hurricane, tornado, and the gov could shut down all rfid guns in an entire area. And, the gov would know anytime any gun was shot, and from where. Just another way for gun confiscation to be possible, in the long run. Criminals will never buy them, and most law abiding citizens see throught the ulterior motives. and don't bother to deny the ulterior motives being out there already. http://www.storyleak.com/new-rfid-smart-gun-retina-scans/ Everything looks like a scheme to take your guns away to you. You're one of those people that thinks that literally any move to try and control gun violence is an apocalyptic doomsday scenario. I just don't buy it. Do you think the joker is behind it all? Or maybe lex luthor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 haha. No, but the ability to take away guns is only a farce, until it actually happens. Like during Katrina. Martial law someday. Right now, only a fool would think that registration of guns, with privacy legally required, would never be a problem. Except, when it happened. A judge recently ordered the release of those records. And gun permits went public in newspapers. So, sure, it's an open door to gun confiscation, whenever a left wing gov gets a hold of the law. Then, the door simply gets walked through. Either admit that historically, the gov knowing where guns are, has led to eventual confiscation, and admit that gun confiscation cannot happen without that registration, knowing where they are... or continue to smart off about subjects you don't know about, don't want to know about... and your ulterior motives are then showing. How about this - the rfid chip can be turned off completely by the legal user of the gun, while it's in use? And add an ability to have a user defined numerical password. So, only the legal owner can use or authorize the use of an rfid gun, and the legal owner can still turn it off completely, to remain off the radar, via said password? How about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 So, in Conn., legal owners went and registered their guns. Know that the gov did? They simply defined certain guns as illegal. Overnight, many honest, decent Americans became guilty of owning illegal firearms, so they said to turn those in, we know who you are, and what you have, and where you have it. Or sell them somewhere else. Which has nothing to do with stopping crime. It's a devious way to win a major political battle over the LEGAL ownership of guns. The only reason to "get" legal, responsible Americans to register their guns in one fashion or another, is to control them, tax/fine them, and eventually confiscate them. Because criminals do not obey the laws you gun control people want to pass. So, it really isn't crime gun control people want. It's the win against gun ownership by everybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Why do you have to register your vehicle do you imagine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Why do you have to register your vehicle do you imagine? To collect taxes. It gets inspected to be deemed "safe". Unless it travels less than a 10 mi radius from your "farm" it can go un-inspected as a "farm vehicle." Or it can be >25 years old and forego the annual "safety" inspection. If they want to make the same exemptions for my guns, fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Why do you have to register your vehicle do you imagine? Cysko ******************************************************* Oh, is there a lib movement to ban all vehicles? Libs all over saying that "you don't need a vehicle" ? and "you vehicle owners want people to die via being hit by vehicles" ? There is no ulterior motive toward registration regarding vehicles, and there is no 2nd Amendment guaranteeing us the right to bear vehicles. No anti-vehicle lobby. No libs blame the AAA for any nutjob who drives into the ocean with her kids. get with the program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Yes, you'd force everyone to buy the 'magic handgun' otherwise there's no point. Now, I understand that's going to rub you and others the wrong way because it feels like you're being 'punished' for the misdeeds of others, and to a degree you are. But that's the way law is made, generally, the idiocy of a few ruins the fun of the others, and the idea would be to make a device that is unobtrusive - and preferably can be easily retrofitted to existing guns. The difference is that the "idiots" in your scenario will never be effected by the laws create to stop them. They will continue doing what they are doing thus the law will change nothing. It will just make it more difficult for the law abiding and some bureaucrat will line their pockets with the extra revenue generated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Yes, and btw, there is no historical precedence where a gov takes away cars from a society, and the society ends up oppressed. Obviously, we've noted this in the past. Again and again. There sure the heck is with the banning of guns from a society. Complaining about bad guys with guns committing crimes, and then supporting laws to restrict/ban guns from the good guys...who will be the only guys obeying the laws... only makes for reason to suspect ulterior motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Yes, and btw, there is no historical precedence where a gov takes away cars from a society, and the society ends up oppressed. Obviously, we've noted this in the past. Again and again. There sure the heck is with the banning of guns from a society. Complaining about bad guys with guns committing crimes, and then supporting laws to restrict/ban guns from the good guys...who will be the only guys obeying the laws... only makes for reason to suspect ulterior motives. Do you really think that the USA is in danger of being run by a militant government? Seriously now, how would that work? You'd be getting Obama's secret police coming round to rough you up if you didn't obey the leftist agenda? This is the 21st century, as soon as any of that shit starts happening it becomes world news immediately, and China, Russia, North Korea and a bunch of other places jump at the chance to going in and bomb the crap out of the white house. So tell me, what possible motive could someone have for trying to create an oppressive dictatorship in the US besides destroying both the country and himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Others may disagree, but I don't think people are presuming that 1984 and FEMA death camps are ready to happen now. But in say, 100 years or so no one knows how things will shake out. The world could be a completely different place. If you allow your rights to be chipped away, you could be shit out of luck when you need them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Others may disagree, but I don't think people are presuming that 1984 and FEMA death camps are ready to happen now. But in say, 100 years or so no one knows how things will shake out. The world could be a completely different place. If you allow your rights to be chipped away, you could be shit out of luck when you need them. These are presumably the same people who say that we shouldn't do anything about global warming because it won't affect us for 100 years, by when they'll be dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Not the same issue. If all of our gun laws internationally were linked, they would be similar in scope. A gun law in China doesn't effect me at all. When China dumps millions of tons of toxins in to the atmosphere, no one can do a damn thing about it but we will be effected. So gun laws in the U.S. a 100 years down the road can be positively or negatively effected now. Unless you intervene militarily or clean energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels, the emerging world is not going to impede their rise due to fears of climate damage. So you deal or run around screaming about it to no avail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 You'll never take our guns let's see you try Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Is that Russell Brand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Is that Russell Brand? It is Rusty Brand, Russell's cousin from Alabama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 Do you really think that the USA is in danger of being run by a militant government? Seriously now, how would that work? You'd be getting Obama's secret police coming round to rough you up if you didn't obey the leftist agenda? This is the 21st century, as soon as any of that shit starts happening it becomes world news immediately, and China, Russia, North Korea and a bunch of other places jump at the chance to going in and bomb the crap out of the white house. So tell me, what possible motive could someone have for trying to create an oppressive dictatorship in the US besides destroying both the country and himself? Chris ************************************************************************ No, not this decade. A century later, who knows? Did anybody really think the Nazi's would ever be starving millions of Jews in death camps? Did anybody ever think that the nazis, for all the uplifting talk, really meant to dominate and destroy? Would anybody ever have have thought that Stalin would starve out millions of Ukrainians? Did anybody ever think that Mao would cause millions and millions to be killed? Did anybody think that Putin the scum, would invade the Ukraine just recently? Does anybody think he wants to resurrect the soviet union type of control over surrounding countries again? He said, in 2010, that the great mistake they made, was dissolving the soviet union, and giving those countries their freedom. And now, Crimea is their prize. Did you see that coming, Chris? The world is becoming a more dangerous, smaller place all the time. Well, the world had better damn good and well watch Poland, Hungary, Lithuania and other countries very, very closely. Did you miss the Russian outrage over us putting DEFENSIVE missile systems in place in Poland and a few other countries? Because they wouldn't be able to instill fear and control over those countries again in the "near" future, that's freakin why. If you had been there just before WWII, would you have scoffed at the possibility of the nazis blasting your country with bombs? Your are adopting the old "Neville Chamberlain" utopian viewpoint of the world. Despite the corruption of this ObaMao gov - all the scandals, I expect maybe more like chaos and insecurity, even instilled fear if we have a national crisis - like a financial crash. So, Chris, you libs don't get principles. In principle, a society gives up it's guns, it ends up with oppression in one fashion, by rogue oppressive gov, or oppression by rampant crime like home invasions... The Australians want their guns back. Crime went up, and they are defenseless against violent crime in their own homes. In principle, most Americans will not give up their RIGHTS and FREEDOMS, period. And no amount of insipid lib whining and rationalization will ever change that. I say again, there just isn't any kind of legit motive to go after law-abiding citizens when you want to stop the criminals from committing gun crimes. The criminals do not obey the law in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.