Guns, Guns Guns

A little humor:



smile, poker

Is it just me or was that pharmacist a couple of months ago shooting way too close to his staff?

Commodore Oakius wrote:This is the basis of our justice system though, innocent until proven guilty. This stretches to the point that the government is not allowed to police what happens in my home with out a warrent or justifiable cause. Therefore they cannot check up on my weapon storeage.

If you think they are always obeying the law by getting warrants, etc. read "Government Bullies" by Senator Rand Paul.

Agreed, they should NOT hassle the average citizen.

DDHvi wrote:

Commodore Oakius wrote:This is the basis of our justice system though, innocent until proven guilty. This stretches to the point that the government is not allowed to police what happens in my home with out a warrent or justifiable cause. Therefore they cannot check up on my weapon storeage.

If you think they are always obeying the law by getting warrants, etc. read "Government Bullies" by Senator Rand Paul.

Agreed, they should NOT hassle the average citizen.

Yet if a drug dealer, religious fanatic, or potential terrorist in my suburb has unregistered firearms I would hope that the state has the ability to quickly check them out, and fix the problem on my behalf.

Daryl wrote:
Yet if a drug dealer, religious fanatic, or potential terrorist in my suburb has unregistered firearms I would hope that the state has the ability to quickly check them out, and fix the problem on my behalf.

I noticed you didn't mention any left wing nut jobs like say Patty Hearst and associates. Curious that. Or racists like the Black Panthers (who arguably in their own minds are left wing).

The right wing types aren't the only nut cases out there. Ever hear of eco terrorists?

If the gun carrier is just walking down the street how does that LEO know anything about it. Well of course just pull him over and check his gun registration. Except of course what people were addressing here which you seem to have missed he can't without probable cause. So like the laws about texting and driving. Just something else to throw at the wall and hope it sticks.

Have fun,
T2M

Left wing, right wing; anyone who thinks that a firearm is appropriate to use to impose their views on me or mine. I didn't specify any political slant, just nut cases of all types.

thinkstoomuch wrote:

Daryl wrote:
Yet if a drug dealer, religious fanatic, or potential terrorist in my suburb has unregistered firearms I would hope that the state has the ability to quickly check them out, and fix the problem on my behalf.

I noticed you didn't mention any left wing nut jobs like say Patty Hearst and associates. Curious that. Or racists like the Black Panthers (who arguably in their own minds are left wing).

The right wing types aren't the only nut cases out there. Ever hear of eco terrorists?

If the gun carrier is just walking down the street how does that LEO know anything about it. Well of course just pull him over and check his gun registration. Except of course what people were addressing here which you seem to have missed he can't without probable cause. So like the laws about texting and driving. Just something else to throw at the wall and hope it sticks.

Have fun,
T2M

Daryl wrote:Yet if a drug dealer, religious fanatic, or potential terrorist in my suburb has unregistered firearms I would hope that the state has the ability to quickly check them out, and fix the problem on my behalf.

I wish it was possible, but like any right given, we must wait until they abuse the right before we take action against them. I agree, and firmly wish there was a way we could check permits on those carrying without violating their rights, but we can't and I still support their right to own.

DDHvi wrote:
If you think they are always obeying the law by getting warrants, etc. read "Government Bullies" by Senator Rand Paul.

Agreed, they should NOT hassle the average citizen.

Government Bullies? HA! The entire government, on both sides of the asile, are bullies. A politician should not be elected based on what they says they will do, they should be elected based on the promise that they will do what the people wanted. It was easier in the past when the town mayor was able to call a town meeting to decide the issue out hand, the the 200-700 members of the town showed up to decide the issue. An elected official should be elected to execute the will of the people, not tell the people what they want to do if elected. This is why we need stranger states, to handle, locally, issues that are not uniformally agreed to accross the nation. This was largely lost by the 17th amendment, which allowed senators to be elected by the popular vote, rather then be choose by the state to represent itself at the federal level.
This is the issue with big government, the larger the body being governed the more distance, physically and figurtivly, between the governed and the governing. This is was cause the Revolutionary war. People making desicions far away from the people affected by the decision, which causes them to make decisions based on their wants and thoughts, and not on what the people want, due to the lack of proper communication.
In modern days the distance is not such an issue, with modern communitcation cutting the distances somewhat. however the elected officials are still out of touch with those they were elected by, and it creates a sense of seperation, of superiority in the governing people, from the governed, who's will is being usurped by the person they elected. That person is to be a spokesperson for the group that elects them, not a mouthpiece for their own personal beliefs.

The problem is the conflict between private and governmental rights. Part of the government's responsibility is to protect it's citizens. This conflicts with the Individual's right to keep and bare arms. Thus the restrictions on caring firearms in certain areas, airports, governmental offices, ect. Not to mention regulations on what kind of arms the public may possess, thus you cannot legally own a thermonuclear weapon, and must go through all sorts of hoops to own a machine gun, and for that matter cannot own a sawed off shot gun.

The arguments of where to draw the line cause heat from both sides. Government over reaction Hmm, how about a government agent enticing an unlawful act, shortening a shot gun barrel, leading to the death of a mother holding an 11 month old baby and a 12 year old boy, Ruby Ridge in the northern part of my State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

Poker

Personally, I think it's individual vs Societal rights, not government. And that's probably the issue. Yes it's the government that's supposed to represent society, and too many governments don't. But that's a seperate issue

Annachie wrote:Personally, I think it's individual vs Societal rights, not government. And that's probably the issue. Yes it's the government that's supposed to represent society, and too many governments don't. But that's a seperate issue

If I can modify your statement, it is individuals perceptions of rights vs. another individuals perceptions of those rights. The government is the middle man trying to satisfy both sides of the debate by making laws and granting freedoms.
It is up to the person to interperate the rights of the indiviual. It is the governments job to ensure those interpertations of the rights don't infringe on the right liberties and pursuit of happiness of other individuals, not develope the interperation of the right/law.
It like I was saying in another theard here in politics, the government is meant to enact the will of the people who elect them, it is not to tell people to elect them because of their wills the provlaim to practice.
The lobbys on both side of the line would run out of steam once the politicians stopped acted on their beliefs and choices and acted on the will of the people who elect them. but enough of this tangent...

Both sides in the gun debate have valid points. personally, if its not obvious, I am on the side of gun rights, with little or no additonal regulations. I think current regulations are enough. Maybe a little tweaking is needed but not much.
On the other hand, I can accept the logic of the anti gun supporters, or increased regulations supporters, to a point. Understanding is far from agreemeant though LOL