Question of the day on court tv

[othromas]

And how those same bleeding-heart liberals are always calling for these kids' heads when they do shoot up their schools. Oh, and then call for the implementation of zero-tolerance policies that, in effect, don't do much.

Not to the same level, of course, but this brings to mind something from when I was in school in my very small, Midwest hometown. The school board wanted to implement a more extreme essentially zero-tolerance punishment policy since they felt that violence at school had started to get out of hand. I stood up and told them that the policy they had right then was fine; they just needed to actually follow the d@mn thing so there'd be consequences for doing the wrong thing. They'd been making exceptions for people (i.e., the uber-jocks) instead of just playing by the book, so they wanted to change the book first. This isn't liberalism per se, it's just idiocy.

 

[Fly Navy]

zero-tolerance policies

Zero-tolerance = zero-think.

 

[Herc_Dude]

Same thing with the retractable butt stock on m-4 types. WTF?!? Where was the brain child who thought he was saving lives by making my Bushmaster 3 inches longer? My home state (WA) just made it illegal to smoke in ANY public building .. bars, privately owned buildings ... what is the world coming to? My father-in-law runs a bar in a town of 150 people, and the bar is the only place in town that sells smokes - yet you cant have them there! The fear mongers have made everyone so damn affraid of every little thing that might hurt you, or that "they" tell you might hurt you. Good thing I can still go somewhere to blow out my liver...

 

[A4sForever]

^^ Washington was a GREAT state --- a GREAT place to live, raise kids and retire @ 20+ years ago.

And then ... it all started.

The migration of the beautiful people from California with a lot of money from just having sold their overheated CA real estate. It progressed throughout the decades of the '80's and 90's with the influx of "New York White Trash" .. as one bartender FROM New York not-so succinctly phrased it .... and with the "eastern" migration(s) with lots of Japanese investment money from the "Ponzi pyramid" house of cards that WAS the Japanese economy and the influx of (rich) Chinese $$$$ from the former British Crown Colony ....

The long and short of it was "they" all brought their ideas and preferences to the Pacific Northwest and started doing what "they" do best: destroying what had attracted them to the Northwest in the first place.

If "another" Washington or Pacific Northwest were to become available for the "rich & famous & beautiful" to migrate to ... "they" would do it all again.

Some people just never learn ....

Just my $20 worth ... :icon_rast

 

[HOORAH]

My non-gun-owning-college-edumacated self says that there shouldnt be a limit. Maybe I'm not doing any creative thinking outside the box here, but I can't see how limiting the number of guns a person owns is going to do anything. I can understand an anti-gun person's argument - and I understand that they're retarded. But what can possibly be accomplished by limiting guns?

I don't think we're supposed to use that word anymore.


HAHAHA!!

 

[Herc_Dude]

^^ Washington was a GREAT state --- a GREAT place to live, raise kids and retire @ 20+ years ago.

And then ... it all started.

The migration of the beautiful people from California with a lot of money from just having sold their overheated CA real estate. It progressed throughout the decades of the '80's and 90's with the influx of "New York White Trash" .. as one bartender FROM New York not-so succinctly phrased it .... and with the "eastern" migration(s) with lots of Japanese investment money from the "Ponzi pyramid" house of cards that WAS the Japanese economy and the influx of (rich) Chinese $$$$ from the former British Crown Colony ....

The long and short of it was "they" all brought their ideas and preferences to the Pacific Northwest and started doing what "they" do best: destroying what had attracted them to the Northwest in the first place.

If "another" Washington or Pacific Northwest were to become available for the "rich & famous & beautiful" to migrate to ... "they" would do it all again.

Some people just never learn ....

Just my $20 worth ... :icon_rast

Another Evergreen state lover! I couldnt have said it all better myself. And they give us all a bad name! All my buddies think we are all hairy, pot smokin hippies! I tell them that once you leave the greater Seattle area, things are quite different ... heavenly, if you will. Im from the east side, just got back from there this past weekend. I plan to go back and try to chase them out as soon as Im done with my time. You are exactly right about the way "they" do things, and people wont learn. They are so arrogant that they think they can make it better. Only God can do that, and I hope its another place that they want to move to.

s/f

 

[GMan1976]

Or indoor smoking (cigars ONLY -- kill all cigarette smokers). Or mandatory seat belts. Or mandatory motorcycle helmets. Flotation devices on private boats (that's why they call the ... "Private"). Or speed limits in rural areas.

I'm NOT saying there isn't merit to some or all of these "control" measures ... it's just that I'd like to decide for myself.

as a fairly libertarian minded individual (more of a traditional conservative), I believe in small govt. I def think that they should only step in to help prevent members of society from harming EACH OTHER, not themselves. I def think that helmet laws and flotation device laws are ridiculous. However, seatbelt laws in cars do not just affect the individual wearing (or not wearing) it. When you lose control of a car, if you get thrown across to the back seat of passanger seat, you lose all possibility of regaining control. That alone might be the deciding factor on whether you kill another person (be it an innocent bystander or whatever).

Anyway, apart from that (just doing some rambling), to answer the thread, I don't think there should be any limit on how many guns.... but laws on how they should be stored (i.e. locked) if there are kids in the household.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

.... but laws on how they should be stored (i.e. locked) if there are kids in the household.

So who enforces those laws and how should they be enforced? Do we need to register every weapon we own so big brother can come in to make sure our firearms are locked up per code? If this is a law, big bro is gonna want some kind of formal declaration of weapons in the home. How else are they to enforce to law?

 

[Fly Navy]

but laws on how they should be stored (i.e. locked) if there are kids in the household.

Education is the key to this problem, NOT laws.

 

[Harrier Dude]

This debate is not about guns. It's about freedom. It's about drawing the line that divides what is your own personal business and what is a collective (i.e.governmental) concern. Limiting the number of guns in a house is saying that the collective will of the people has oversight of your house. I respectfully disagree. If you are, for example, harming somebody against their will in your house, then it is a public concern. Not because it's in your house, but because you're harming somebody against their will. The setting is immaterial. For the record:

I own a (1) gun. I don't concern myself with how many guns you have.
I wear my seatbelt when I drive. I couldn't care less if you do.
I don't smoke, but as long as I can breath and we're not in my house or car, then smoke 'em if you got 'em.
I'm married and have 3 kids. You do what you want with whatever consenting adult you want to do it with.

Now, if you blow yourself up reloading your own rounds or if your kid (God forbid) shoots himself with your unsecured weapon, or if you fly out of your vehicle in a crash and get brain damaged, or if you get lung cancer, or if you contract AIDS or syphillis......you're on your own. I don't care about that either, and I don't want to pay for it. Don't let your actions affect my taxes or insurance rates.

Let freedom ring.

 

[Fly Navy]

If you are, for example, harming somebody against their will in your house, then it is a public concern. Not because it's in your house, but because you're harming somebody against their will.

They may deserve to be harmed, like a bad guy

 

[Harrier Dude]

They may deserve to be harmed, like a bad guy

True. But the context I had in mind wasn't self-defense. You're always allowed to defend yourself, even by anti-gun type standards.

That is, of course, excluding the truly pacifist ideologues that believe in no violence under any circumstances, but they're a pretty insignificant percentage of America.

 

[Fly Navy]

True. But the context I had in mind wasn't self-defense. You're always allowed to defend yourself, even by anti-gun type standards.

Of course, though the amazing thing is, some of those infected with the anti-gun sentiment truly believe that defending yourself with a gun is horrible. They'd rather you "put your keys between your fingers" or whatever other bullsh!t.

But you're right, the right of self-defense is a birth right, not something a government "gives" you.

 

[Harrier Dude]

those infected with the anti-gun sentiment truly believe that defending yourself with a gun is horrible. They'd rather you "put your keys between your fingers"

As far as I'm concerned, those people can defend themselves with feather dusters if they want to. That's not for me to say. If you want to use a gun in your house, fine. Personally, I have never lived anywhere that I was paranoid about somebody breaking in to my house. It just wasn't a realistic threat. My gun is for hunting and skeet. It isn't a realistic home defense weapon because I have 3 different locks on it and it is well hidden/secured (by my own choice). To me, I'm more worried about my kids getting ahold of it.

The ironic thing is that we ALL benefit from people who have guns in the home for defense. I say that because the criminals don't know who does and who doesn't have one with any kind of accuracy. In America (I'm from Texas, which makes this even more realistic), if you bust in to somebody's house you run a real risk of getting shot. Those of us that choose not to have a home defense weapon benefit from the bad guy's lack of intel on the threat.

 

[Fly Navy]

The ironic thing is that we ALL benefit from people who have guns in the home for defense. I say that because the criminals don't know who does and who doesn't have one with any kind of accuracy. In America (I'm from Texas, which makes this even more realistic), if you bust in to somebody's house you run a real risk of getting shot. Those of us that choose not to have a home defense weapon benefit from the bad guy's lack of intel on the threat.

Ding-ding-ding. That's where crime breaks down to a problem of economics. Is the potential cost (getting shot) worth the deed? In an area where people are free to own firearms... the cost and threat go way up. Gun-free zones are HAVENS for criminals.