Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter]Wow, watching that is definitely an Idiocracy moment!
He does NOT “love” women, and he certainly does NOT “love” his children. He loves sex, and expects everyone else to pay for it.[/quote]
No CAR, my gut tells me the women involved knew exactly what they were doing.[/quote]
NSR: Not to beat the personal responsibility drum too hard, but, yeah, I’d agree with you.
I’ve got friends in local law enforcement that tell me about how kids growing up in this environment learn very early about “the system”: how it works and how to work it.
Your tax dollars hard at work…[/quote]
You guys have to be f’ing kidding me. A woman WANTS to have a baby with a guy whose had multiple kids by multiple women and has no relationship with any of them? Because that’s what “knowing what they’re getting into” would mean.
I understand the whole “poor women have babies just to collect welfare” BS. But wanting to have a baby with a schmuck that you know will never be able to pay for any child rearing costs? Not a chance.[/quote]
SK: And yet you have out-of-wedlock births in some black communities approaching 70%. How to explain the statistical significance of that?
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]What I’m saying is they wanted to have a baby. I seriously doubt many were accidents.
As for whether they believed smooth lines, wanted to believe smooth lines, or just didn’t care, who knows. Whether or not they wanted him there, whether or not they care, who knows and frankly, I’ve seen that said, many don’t care if the dad is around.
In the end, they wanted a baby. 22 accidents didn’t happen.
Do they have the kid to get welfare. No. Do they have the kid and know welfare will provide? Yes.[/quote]
+1. Well put and spot on.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA renter]Wow, watching that is definitely an Idiocracy moment!
He does NOT “love” women, and he certainly does NOT “love” his children. He loves sex, and expects everyone else to pay for it.[/quote]
No CAR, my gut tells me the women involved knew exactly what they were doing.[/quote]
NSR: Not to beat the personal responsibility drum too hard, but, yeah, I’d agree with you.
I’ve got friends in local law enforcement that tell me about how kids growing up in this environment learn very early about “the system”: how it works and how to work it.
Your tax dollars hard at work…
ParticipantSpdrun: I don’t know if it’s around anymore or not, but the NRA ran a program when I was a kid, using WWII surplus M-1 Garands, teaching gun safety, gun use and how to become an accurate shot. It was taught (in our area) by some former soldiers and Marines, including a Gold Cup shooter. You could also purchase the rifles for like $100, which was stupid cheap, even back then.
I think it was called the Civilian Marksmanship program.
I’d be all for that How Shit Works class, too. Seeing the vacant stares you get from kids these days when you attempt to show them something mechanical is terrifying. If the power went out, half these little SOBs would starve cuz the electric can opener doesn’t work.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Because the problem is the culture of solving problems with guns, not the guns themselves. Many European countries have 40-50% the gun ownership rate of the US, yet the number of gun crimes is MUCH lower than 40-50% of the US level. The problem isn’t the guns, it’s idiots’ and psychopaths’ extreme willingness to use them.[/quote]
Spdrun: On this, we completely agree and your point is a valid one. However, as you also stated, how does one go about doing that?
America is “Gunfighter Nation”. It’s woven into our DNA. I’m not saying that it isn’t worth trying, but how?
Even if every poster on this thread were to simultaneously agree that an outright ban is the best option moving forward, there are 300 million guns in the US. So, now what?
Participant[quote=spdrun]I’d venture to say that a larger % of car-related injuries are accidents, whereas a larger % of injuries with guns involve an intent to wound or kill. This intent may or may not be justifiable, but it’s there.[/quote]
Spdrun: Never opined as to intent. You should see how many auto-related deaths are a result of impairment due to alcohol and/or drugs and how many gun-related deaths are a result of accident or misadventure.
Might make your “venture” more correct, statistically speaking.
Participant[quote=spdrun]I think we need a wholesale change in gun culture and I have no idea how to accomplish that. Think about Vermont. Least strict gun laws in the nation, yet there’s very little gun violence (even compared to other rural states). Difference between Vermont and many Western and Southern states is that, while they have unlimited carry, walking into a bar or restaurant while strapping would be seen as weird and unseemly unless you had a reason to go armed. The culture is reserved New England, not a bunch of wannabe “western” Midwesterners getting their rocks off.
Contrast that to rural AZ, where half the people in one diner I went into were wearing a “fashion accessory.”[/quote]
Spdrun: WHY do we need a “wholesale change in gun culture”? That’s like saying we need a wholesale change in America’s “party culture”. As long as someone is behaving responsibly (not climbing into a car drunk or shooting you at that diner with their “fashion accessory”), why do you give a shit?
This is America, and to each his (or her) own.
Completely absent from these discussions is the notion of personal responsibility. If I want to own an M2 Browning .50cal, and I meet all the legal requirements to do so, what business of it is yours, as long as I’m a responsible actor?
Jesus. We have turned into a friggin Big Nanny State.
Participant[quote=spdrun]
Difference between a car and a gun is that a car isn’t intended as a weapon. [/quote]
Huh. And yet cars are used as weapons every single day. Imagine that.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]It’s okay, no oversight needed…
[quote] The Los Angeles Police Department investigates incidents involving the use force by officers in a way that makes it impossible in most cases for the city’s police watchdog to evaluate the thoroughness of those investigations, according to a recent report. [/quote]
LAPD Watchdog Find Short Paperwork on Use of Force[/quote]
NSR: Well, given that LAPD only shoots people of color; if you’re white, you should be fine.
White, and driving a BMW, Audi or large SUV on the Westside, even better.
Participant[quote=ocrenter]
#5. Firepower. At some point you have to limit guns with excessive firepower. Guns are for self defense right? Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?[/quote]
OCR: So, what if we made your response above into an analogy, by replacing the phrase “excessive firepower” with the phrase “excessive horsepower”? Then we could repurpose your sentence, “Why do we need assault weapons for self defense?” to read, “Why do you need a Ferrari Enzo if the maximum speed limit (in California) is 70mph?”
Come to think of it, it doesn’t even need to be a Ferrari Enzo. The latest Corvettes, Mustangs and Camaros all feature versions that are all capable of performance in excess of 150mph, which is double the maximum speed limit.
There are numerous street legal cars that possess well in excess of 500 horsepower and even from relatively staid manufacturers, like Cadillac and Mercedes-Benz. Isn’t that “excessive horsepower”?
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]We should just make killing people illegal.[/quote]
FSD: Winner. The heart of the argument rests with personal responsibility versus coercion from the Big Nanny State.
Liberty is freedom from coercion.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
There are plenty of ways to restrict guns and still abide by the constitution.[/quote]The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution reads (second phrase): “The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
Out of curiosity, how do you square “plenty of ways to restrict” with “shall not be infringed”?
ParticipantOCR: Thanks.
#1. Agree.
#2. Disagree. None of the gubment’s business. Plus, the BATF Form 4473 establishes, under threat of perjury and criminal penalty, that one is legally fit at time of purchase.
#3. Agree, with the caveat that all records are destroyed within 90 days and there is no federal registry.
#4. Agree.
#5. Gotta ask why on this. Assault weapons are responsible for a statistically small percentage of gun deaths annually. Why target this specific group/type of weapon?Participant[quote=ocrenter]
No one is looking at removal of guns, simply better and more effective restrictions in place. I dont think that is unconstitutional.[/quote]
OCR: Sake of argument, what sort of restrictions would you propose? Who would implement them? Who would enforce them?
I’m being genuinely serious here. With a poster like KIBU, one is confronted with “argument” that’s long on propaganda, but utterly devoid of any meaningful proposals on how to solve the problem.
So, I’m curious to hear what you think.
-
AuthorPosts
