Re: "Blanks" kill actors

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

Shaun Eli wrote:


> Disingenuous comment #1: NYC and DC have high crime rates and strict
> gun control laws, so the laws don't work.

If they don't work then why pass them? If you pass them and don't
enforce them they wont work.
>
> First of all, the laws were passed IN RESPONSE to the crime- so you
> can't make that comparison.  Secondly, since most of the guns used in
> crimes in NY and DC were bought in Virginia and brought to NY or DC and
> sold illegally, obviously the need is for federal laws, not state laws
> that vary from state to state.

You just said the laws don't work. And if guns are passing from state
to state, your suggestion implies that you'd have to ban them
altogether, and that still would't stop it. If an area is a high crime
rate area, it's because the good people don't have access to firearms
because they obey the laws and the bad people who get them illeaglly
don't.
>
> Disingenuous comment #2: Hammers and chain saws are just as dangerous
> as guns.
>
> Come on- first of all, I can outrun a chain saw.

Just exactly how fast can you run? Can you also outrun a construction
power hammer?

> Secondly, I can see one coming.

That's a gory thought ........ just before it rips your head off.


> Thirdly, how many chain saw murders are there?

What difference does it make? My firearms have never been involved with
a murder either.

>  You can
> state that guns aren't bought by legal gun owners to murder people,
> but you can't argue the fact that guns do get used for that purpose
> (yes, I know, that shouldn't mean we take the guns away from the
> law-abiding, and to state once more, I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT).

Then there is no reason to pass laws the affect law abiding citizens
and that criminals will ignore. You said the laws are not obeyed.

>
> #3: "You don't know how a business is run."
>
> Okay, I've never worked in the newspaper business. But I have a
> business degree and twenty years of business experience, and I
> understand about profits.

Would you run a newspaper business at a loss because you wanted to
print unpopular articles or would you print popular articles so you
could keep in the black or outsell your competition?

>
> I'm being accused here of not looking at DOJ statistics.  Actually, I
> have.  And when you call the NY Times the NY Slimes, well, what can I
> saw except that you are displaying such bias that you are actually
> swaying undecided people FROM your point of view.

I didn't say I wasn't biased. I think that any laws that are passed
that infringe upon my right to own a firearm are unconstitutional.
Anyone or any media that supports that I think is wrong in doing so.
I'm biased
in favor of the Constitution of the United States.

>
> The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, which took no stand on
> gun issues until they studied the issue, and is not affiliated with gun
> control organizations, studied suicide in the home and determined that
> the suicide rate is much higher in homes with guns (again, probably not
> because people are more suicidal so much as that they're more
> successful with a gun than with other implements).

So .... do you think by passing laws and reqireing training, your going
to reduce the suicide rate?  So when someone wants to commint suicide
and they gone to a training course, they're going to have a real
problem getting the trigger guard off the gun ............ yeah sure.
And of course if they CAN'T, I guess they'll just never be able to
think of another way to end it all.

>
> That, and that there are problems with kids getting their hands on
> guns, is what made me choose to want stronger legislation when it comes
> to gun ownership.  NOT banning guns, but requiring the owners of guns
> to take classes, pass tests, etc.

You don't seem to get it. The people that wont safe keep their guns are
not going to safe keep them any better just because it's mandatory to
go to a training course and are required to use a trigger guard. It's
not out of ignorance that gun accidents happen it's neglect. You can
pass all the laws you want regarding the private ownership of firearms.
No one is going to be able to enforce them. Stupid people will do
stupid things and no laws will ever change that. But they WILL affect
all the others and infringe upon THEIR rights and access to their
firearms. That's wrong. You can't pass laws that respond to the least
common denomiator. It exactly that portion of the populace that will
ingore them.

>
> And I'm curious- if you're against bike helmets for children, is
> there anything you are for?  Should companies be allowed to pollute
> endlessly, because if it's important to you you'll wear a gas mask?

Here's where you lose me. I didn't say anything as to whether I'm for
or against helmets. It's irrelevent here.

>  Part of the purpose of government is to protect people from others.

That's a liberal myth. The govenment, according to our Forefathers, is
only there to protect us from outside invaders. Not ourselves.


Shaun, I read the rest of this and I think I'll stop responding to you
now.

Since you can't even respond to what I said. Since you assume things I
didn't say. Since you cherry pick the points I make to respond to,
Since you respond to someone else and think it's me......


It's obvious that you can't ..... well let me hold the possible insult
here.

It was nice ............... up to a point, but it's begun to be too
arduous a task to keep your replies in some logical order so that I can
reply in a resonably cogent manner. I'm sure you will hold on to your
beliefs. The difference between us is ..... I actively work on, and
financially support,  maintaining the right to bear arms. I have for
decades and will coninue to be active. From your posts here, I'd have
to guess that you only hold opinions ... for which I am greatful.



I can only say that over the last 30 or so years, I've read books on
the founding of our country and the Federalist Papers, treatises on the
Constitution and histories of a number of the founding fathers. The
Founding Fathers though that the Second Amendment was the second most
important item to the importance of maintainging a free nation. And in
my opinion it is the right that makes all the others possible. Anything
.... that is ANYTHING, that infringes upon that right is not
acceptable. You can rationalize it. You can try to color it any shade
you want ............. but if you are in favor of ... or try to limit,
restrict, license, modify, register it in any, ANY way whatsoever, you
are infringing upon my right. In my opinion it's ALREADY gone too far.
As long as I have the ability to fight any further infringement
............. I will.

FEELGOOD librials .......... be damned.





> In some cases, it's to protect kids from the errors of their
> parents- helmet laws, child seat laws, etc.
>
> I'm not an expert on parenting, but to respond to this:
>
> "live for ways to invade the civil liberties of its citizens, that
> you're
> suddenly experts on parenting. It's not that anyone is caring, or
> uncaring.
> These laws don't effect much of reality, they provide a "feel good" for
> the liberal who thinks he or she is doing something good. But that's
> where it
> ends. Reality is, you don't give two shits about other people's kids,
> nor do
> you know them, or their parents. You can give verbal indication that
> you do,
> so people get the warm and fuzzy you're a good person, but, the bottom
> line
> is, in reality, it's just a speech.
> Does the law contain a fund, for kids who wear helmets, and are injured
> from
> an accident, money for medical bills? Probably not. Does the law
> contain a
> fine to parents who's kids are injured who weren't wearing a helmet?
> Probably so. How does either benefit the welfare of the child? Neither
> does.
> It just assumes those parents are irresponsible. But in the eyes of the
>
> idiots creating these laws, it gives them a feeling that it will
> protect the
> welfare of a child."
>
> Bicycle helmets do 'effect much of reality' to the extent that they
> increase helmet-wearing.  This is not about 'feel good' but about
> saving lives.  I do care about other people's kids- which is why I
> am for all this stuff.  You can make all the claims you want about my
> motives, but you don't know me, so don't put words in my mouth and
> don't purport to know how I think.
>
> If you don't think that taking legal action against a negligent
> parent decreases negligence, you're missing the point.  This isn't
> assuming (your words) that the parent is negligent- it's
> discouraging negligence and also dealing with the aftermath of such
> negligence to discourage further negligence.
>
> When you call strangers idiots, you aren't helping your cause.  Oh, I
> forgot.  You don't care.
>
> I do.
>
> Have a nice evening.