George Zimmerman Trial

[HTH]

Actually I collect mostly WW2 firearms. I will get a few pics when I get time.

A good friend from collage days is into collecting old military rifles. It is quite a hobby and a bit easier on space then collecting old cars.

 

[crsublette]

I don't think the Founding Fathers created those Constitutional Rights with the intention of zero public safety concerns. The reason back then is quite likely due to "accidents" were simply just something accepted, in otherwords, "stuff happens" and then folk just continued on with their life. I understand this apathy, but this even goes a bit too far for me as well. The entire reason for the creation of background checks was for public safety concerns, which I do not believe the Constitutional Right, when taken literally, would allow these checks to be created.

Yep, driving is a privilege which is the only reason why we are able to properly address drunk driving and to make sure folk who are not blind are not allowed to drive.

If we were take to the Right to Bear Arms literally, then this would also include tanks, bazookas, etc, except we have said, for reasonable public safety concerns, these should not be allowed to be used freely by citizens.

Everytime a weapon is discharged in a public area, then you can be reasonably fined with a firearm discharge citation. I don't think the Right to Bear Arms means we can be able to discharge our firearms whenever and wherever we want to discharge the firearm.

Eventhough we have Freedom of Speech, we can not yell " Run!! Fire!! ", without justifiable cause, in a crowded movie theatre due to the consequences of folk hurting or killing others in reaction to the trampling of others to get out of the theatre.

Freedom is not perfect and we must protect our self from our self. Where is the line drawn ?? This is the reasonable debate... I am glad the progression in the debate at least said background checks were reasonable to do so we are not freely and legally giving guns to the criminally insane at the time of purchase.

 

[HTH]

I look at it this way.

Our society allows people to kill people in a number of ways. Smoking, soft drinks, booze, drugs, and yes even guns.

If on wants to be rational about this sort of debate you have to look at the big picture and not just what is illegal.

Could it be that the 'factory food' we eat is more deadly then guns? (that was rhetorical)

My point here is that if we are going to start comparing auto related deaths to gun deaths we had better look at the entire scope of how we kill people.

 

[crsublette]

We determined it was reasonable for citizens to not freely use tanks nor bazookas on their private property to settle a fight with their neighbor.

Correct, we have to be more rational, rather than emotional nor silly such as banning fast food, when it comes to being reasonable about these situations.

Yep, we also have reasonable controls on smoking, booze, and drugs for public .

We all know knives can reasonablly kill a person just as easy and, sometimes quicker, than a gun in a face to face confrontation. In a face to face fight, a knive will most definitely win out versus using a gun. Yet, how could we reasonably restrict knives?? I don't think the answer is to put all knives in a lockbox as folk approach guns. In regards to some things, I think there has not yet been a reasonable restriction discovered and so then I agree we just have to leave these things be as they are until we can reasonably think of something. The silly overreaction to this situation would be to always keep the knives in a lockbox like Fort Knox until a resonable restriction is discovered.

Determining what is "reasonable", not based on emotion or paranoia or silliness, is tough to accomplish. This gives us politics and the government system we have, for better or worst, and just hope for the best....

And stop disqualifying my vote with a vote that disagrees. :bdaybiggrin:

 

[crsublette]

Yep, driving is a privilege which is the only reason why we are able to properly address drunk driving and to make sure folk who are not blind are not allowed to drive.

Grr, meant to write... We make sure folk who are blind are not allowed to drive. It's like typing on a cellphone and spellchecker automatically changes a word into something else.

 

[pecan]

Interesting quotes from our founding fathers. They were very clear as to their intent upon building this nation. The biggest threat to our Republic is from well meaning people who put their trust in an elected man.

If you beleive this is "extreme" or "can't happen to us" you need to learn history, all great civilizations have fallen and we will be no exception. As we slowly regulate our freedom away in the name of safety, we become blind to the chains that bind us.


"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
Thomas Paine

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Benjamin Franklin

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature."
Benjamin Franklin

If my rights come from God and nature, then how can man take them away?

In order to believe it is ok for a government to regulate your rights, you must believe those rights are given to you by that government and therefore can be taken away by that government.

And before anyone argues that resonable regulations are ok, please think long and hard about your elected officials. Are they trust worthy? Can they be trusted with your freedom? Or are they money hungry people who are out for what is best for them? How can we trust these people to know what is better for us then we do?

 

[crsublette]

Correct. We do live in a world created by Men. We live in a Fallen world. We live in a world where emotion and paranoia and reason and trust and honor has relevance.

We also live in a world where weapons exist that can flat out wipe out entire civilizations with a flip of a switch. This is why there are many reasonable regulations in place so we can not do this where one person alone can not enact this.

To suggest any reasonable regulation to protect us from our self is the the equivalence of saying we are prisoners of a master or state, this is paranoia. It is good to have a healthy paranoia, but it can be taken too far just as with anything can be taken too far.

 

[capewind]

My point here is that if we are going to start comparing auto related deaths to gun deaths we had better look at the entire scope of how we kill people.

In my view the comparison only compares OTHER methods that people are wrongfully killed. Cars are just an "item" that most people can relate to. It is easy to say one should be a responsible driver, and MOST of the auto laws "make sense" even if the reprocussions from wrong doings are lacking some.

There was just an accident here a few days ago, where the operator was fleeing from the police, struck and killed a 62 yr old man who was simply walking along the road, and hit a car injuring a young mother and two children ... Yesterday the story was updated that it was a local man, yet he had lost his Mass license, obtained a RI license, which is expired, and his car had expired RI plates ... By the standards some set for legal gun owners, if applied to this situation, none of us should be allowed to drive cars.

 

[crsublette]

I'm not as well educated as some folk that have a good vocabulary nor can I instantly pull out quotes made by folk. Those guys say many smart things. I love philosophy, theology, and psychology, which are three of my 5 or so favorite subjects.

I bet as well a founder father or someone quite relevant in the formation of America also said... It is good to have a healthy fear of government. Now, how folk define what is "healthy" appears to be all over the place.

 

[pecan]

That is very common to hear. If you take head in our founding fathers warnings, it is paranoia. If you consider yourself a Constitutionalist you are referred to as an extremeist and branded a threat by our federal government.

It is a sad day when socialism is embraced in our country yet Constitutionalist are shunned. It is a sign our nation is not long for this earth.

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20

 

[crsublette]

Correct. And I bet they made a distinction between a healthy paranoia and unhealthy paranoia.


The idea of just sitting at home is quite despicable because someone else will disqualify their vote.


Networking, organizing, and communication is so very important. Extremely important to be involved in the process.

 

[HTH]

Grr, meant to write... We make sure folk who are blind are not allowed to drive. It's like typing on a cellphone and spellchecker automatically changes a word into something else.

It does not work like that. Vision is not a binary condition.

There are many vision impaired people who are denied the privilage of driving. In some cases this can impair ones ability to earn a living.

Can you imagine trying to farm if you weren't allowed to drive.

Bad example.

 

[crsublette]

It does not work like that. Vision is not a binary condition.

There are many vision impaired people who are denied the privilage of driving. In some cases this can impair ones ability to earn a living.

Can you imagine trying to farm if you weren't allowed to drive.

Bad example.

I gaurantee you, if I were legally blind, I would not be and not even trying to farm. If I were legally blind, I would definitely have a foreman or farm manager. I actually know a fella that is legally blind and he does not drive and still farms since it is now done through his foreman and his wife drives him everywhere.

It is like Capewind's story with they finally have to revoke her MILs driver's license due to she was dirving and simply could not see well at all. I think the bar considered to be "legally blind" is set too high. It is unfortunate that it requires fatalities to these bars to be changed.

So... You are suggesting legally blind folk should be allowed to drive a car on the freeway ??

 

[pecan]

Actually you can legally drive without a license in a unlicensed vehicle if you are doing so on your private property. Where the licensing requirements come into play is if you want the privilage of driving on public roads.

 

[crsublette]

Exactly.

And if folk would absolutely never take their firearms off their own personal private property, then I do not think gun control would be debated. However, this is not a world in which we live.