AsteroidX Posted January 31, 2013 #51 Share Posted January 31, 2013 It is not irrelevant if the guy calling you a liar evidently does not know the first thing about the theme and all he can come up with is a link to the New York City Firearms Dept. touche good sir. Im only pointing out that things that are in our history do remain relevant. Thats all. Not trying to jump into your argument with az. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 31, 2013 Author #52 Share Posted January 31, 2013 touche good sir. Im only pointing out that things that are in our history do remain relevant. Thats all. Not trying to jump into your argument with az. The argument is over, we all seem to know what to take his opinion for by now. And I don't seem to recall saying that the Constitution was irrelevant because it happened a long time ago...but maybe I was drunk at the time... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted January 31, 2013 #53 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) The forbidden in New York is something you seem to interpret, restricted is what I said, or in plain English, out of 10 applications maybe 4 got a permit, hence the Jersey trick. But keep on changing the theme. Or better yet, if you can't answer something you should know according to your own bragging we might as well ignore you "esteemed opinion" in the future. lol trying to get out of lie with another lie?? lol, you just a pathological lier. you should throw some truth in the mix sometimes, it might help, but not with me. you said forbiden, read your post on page one. if you said restricted i would not object to it. ok, it is a deal, ignore me, and i'll do the same for you, might as well start now. Edited January 31, 2013 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted January 31, 2013 #54 Share Posted January 31, 2013 The argument is over, we all seem to know what to take his opinion for by now. And I don't seem to recall saying that the Constitution was irrelevant because it happened a long time ago...but maybe I was drunk at the time... Like I said I wasnt sure either. My bad. But Im looking for that poster because that particular argument isnt over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gummug Posted February 1, 2013 #55 Share Posted February 1, 2013 when in New York handguns were forbidden one used to take the ferry from Manhattan to Jersey and within a block of the landing there used to be a gun store (maybe is still there), you bought your gun and took the ferry back home. As for banning guns everywhere, also leads nowhere. We need gun control. Yep. Looks like the word "forbidden" to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aus Der Box Skeptisch Posted February 1, 2013 #56 Share Posted February 1, 2013 OK OK everyone... lets relax a bit. Questionmark is by no means a liar. Abrasive at times .... well I suppose he is to some. I have disagreed with him many times and have never once had the type of conversation I have seen the last few pages. As for aztek I cannot really make a comment on personally as I haven't had much contact that I recall with. I will say that I have almost forgotten the while point of this discussion due to the last few pages and over something as asinine as symantics and who needs to price themselves. BTW I have been known myself to participate in asinine trails of discussions myself so I'm not berating anyone here. so guys gals single celled organisms whichever is more revelant can we get back on topic. Please. I think this conversation has merit and could be worthwhile continuing less the prattle. If gun restrictions do not offer any real effect on gun crime. Then its safe to say these decisions are made with instant gratification in mind. Ie.guns were involved must remove guns. Solved!.... unfortunately we need a more cause and effect decision if we are to gain any semblance of progress. Ie. Education with handling and safe use of firearms. Some sort of evaluation period which would be deemed temporary to which a gun may not be possessed after major psychological events. With the assurance of a pathway back to ownership with counseling until issue is resolved without fear of never retaining those rights again otherwise those who have momentary issues will not seek the help they need. Mild depression should not be considered in this evaluation. Limitations on clips is a instant gratification type of regulation and would not serve any real benefit. Same with banning what's been labeled assault weapons. A .223 is essentially a glorified .22 round with more powder behind it which is the platform for most ar style rifles. Come to think of it I can get an after market stock to a Ruger 10/22 that makes it look scary also. Same with shotguns which are not on the list for banning yet I can get a neat polymer stock that makes it look scary. It equivalent to buying a boring car and putting a coat of paint new rims and a sport kit on it to make it seem more appealing. The engine is still the same and so is the driver so nothing has really changed except for perception. I enjoy responsible firearms use whether it be hunting or target or trap. I was raised responsible. That is why I was ingrained with certain ideals suck as a gun is always loaded no matter how many times you checked the chamber. Never point a gun at anyone because as above it is always loaded. Even some trivial ones that actually made a difference in my youth the responsibility that if I ever shot anything I WAS going to eat it. That took cats dogs and people off the list immediately. And through education and a responsible environment growing up I know what a tool like a firearm does, is capable of, and what its uses are. If your a city folk I know a gunshot is terrible to hear but remember there was a person pulling that trigger who was never taught how to treat a firearm properly. Maybe each one of you can learn and teach your children what's proper and responsible and who knows maybe the next time your kids friend pulls out a gun your kid will say hey be careful with that its not a toy. Which just may teach that next kid what responsibility in action is. I apologize if I babbled. Ill try to keep it shorter next time I post. For now this should be good for some conversation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted February 1, 2013 #57 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Some sort of evaluation period which would be deemed temporary to which a gun may not be possessed after major psychological events. With the assurance of a pathway back to ownership with counseling until issue is resolved without fear of never retaining those rights again otherwise those who have momentary issues will not seek the help they need. Mild depression should not be considered in this evaluation. lol so if someone got robbed, assaulted, divorced, lost a lawsuit etc... suffered a major psychological events, his\her guns are removed, until counseling decided he\she is fit to get them back?? wow, that is the most retarded thing I ever heard. ppl never seize to amaze me. why don't you just put them in jail for a while, until you see them fit to come out, after such event, cuz you know they just might go nuts with cars, or other means. Edited February 1, 2013 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aus Der Box Skeptisch Posted February 1, 2013 #58 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) lol so if someone got robbed, assaulted, divorced, lost a lawsuit etc... suffered a major psychological events, his\her guns are removed, until counseling decided he\she is fit to get them back?? wow, that is the most retarded thing I ever heard. ppl never seize to amaze me. why don't you just put them in jail for a while, until you see them fit to come out, after such event, cuz you know they just might go nuts with cars, or other means. OK now that I have had some interaction with you I can safely say your pretty much useless in a conversation. I'm talking nervous breakdowns man. I'm talking about people unstable whom have no clue what they are going to do next that need to seek serious medical help but would be deterred by losing their firearms permanantly otherwise. I'm saying that people who are temporarily mentally unstable should be able to feel free to seek help knowing that after they become stable again they will not be restricted from firearms. I also said mild depression would not be included. What is your game buddy? Do you suffer some superiority complex that prevents you from asking questions and having adult conversations or debates? Besides this is just a platform for starting discussion nothing is absolute hence the numerous references to cause and effect decisions versus instant gratification decisions. If I thought my first idea is absolutely correct black and white... well then why would I want to discuss anything? What is your issue with people other than those you find in a mirror? For gods sake man I want discussion and it appears your incapable of anything resembling such. Edited February 1, 2013 by Aus Der Box Skeptisch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aus Der Box Skeptisch Posted February 1, 2013 #59 Share Posted February 1, 2013 And aztek its cease.... people never CEASE to amaze me. I don't usually correct grammer but in this case I have no qualms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aus Der Box Skeptisch Posted February 1, 2013 #60 Share Posted February 1, 2013 To better clarify what I'm talking about ill say one more thing. With Obama's executive order initiatives concerning mental health and firearm ownership there is concern people simply will not seek help thinking they will lose their firearm rights forever. I was looking for a discussion on a way to prevent people from not seeking the help they need while reassuring them try will not lose their rights permanently. It wasn't even the major part of my post. Responsibility and education was my main focus. And asinine regulations preventing law abiding citizens from owning a firearm that is deemed scary when in reality it is just perception and how clip size is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted February 1, 2013 #61 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) OK now that I have had some interaction with you I can safely say your pretty much useless in a conversation. the feeling is mutual, adios amigo Edited February 1, 2013 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Sam Posted February 1, 2013 #62 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Aus Der Box Skeptisch, the very idea you gave is pretty vague if not, can be used for good or bad. Social Breakdown, Nervous Breakdowns, and other forms of mental issues. In my opinion, we shouldn't limit the guns at all regardless if what people think or not, it is after all ingrained into the constitution. But we should get help for those who are suffering from mental problems. The lack of mental help and increasing control of guns creates a unstable environment of America which is unique to others. Our problems are completely different than the worlds, we can't find anywhere were we can relate except for a few. Remember those who had mental breakdowns are actually people who are highly intelligent and put under loads of pressure, then they snap because they are being mistreated or feel mistreated. The actually snap happens months before mass shootings happen, because they plan and plan, they look for ways to overcome their obstacles like a intelligent person does. Sometimes they travel abroad to other states to get a gun or they kill gun owner and steal the gun to use later, after that happen their plan is set into motion. Methodically they head to their predetermine area of mass shooting, then locking those people in before he or she attacks. Because no one has a gun to counter this individual, we are faced with the fact that dozens or even hundreds of people can be mowed down before the police actually arrive. I suggested individuals who own guns and there to protect the citizens should be located in public domains, thus allow for someone to hinder or stop the lone gunman. But the individual probably could snap, that is why you have mental evaluations of the person do that job monthly, thus ensuring you are not letting a deranged into the position. You don't have to limit guns as a knee jerk reaction, you need to actually study the problem and figure out a solution for it. Opinion on what a solution does sometimes fall along a person party lines, of course I have no party lines at all. Yes an assault rifle can do loads of damage, so can a lone gunman with a single shot rifle and tons of magazines, it really doesn't matter what gun they use because there is no one to stop them. Sometimes killing the gunman is not ideal, but it is the only option left because there is no reasoning with him or her. Edited February 1, 2013 by Uncle Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aus Der Box Skeptisch Posted February 1, 2013 #63 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Aus Der Box Skeptisch, the very idea you gave is pretty vague if not, can be used for good or bad. Social Breakdown, Nervous Breakdowns, and other forms of mental issues. In my opinion, we shouldn't limit the guns at all regardless if what people think or not, it is after all ingrained into the constitution. But we should get help for those who are suffering from mental problems. The lack of mental help and increasing control of guns creates a unstable environment of America which is unique to others. Our problems are completely different than the worlds, we can't find anywhere were we can relate except for a few. Remember those who had mental breakdowns are actually people who are highly intelligent and put under loads of pressure, then they snap because they are being mistreated or feel mistreated. The actually snap happens months before mass shootings happen, because they plan and plan, they look for ways to overcome their obstacles like a intelligent person does. Sometimes they travel abroad to other states to get a gun or they kill gun owner and steal the gun to use later, after that happen their plan is set into motion. Methodically they head to their predetermine area of mass shooting, then locking those people in before he or she attacks. Because no one has a gun to counter this individual, we are faced with the fact that dozens or even hundreds of people can be mowed down before the police actually arrive. I suggested individuals who own guns and there to protect the citizens should be located in public domains, thus allow for someone to hinder or stop the lone gunman. But the individual probably could snap, that is why you have mental evaluations of the person do that job monthly, thus ensuring you are not letting a deranged into the position. You don't have to limit guns as a knee jerk reaction, you need to actually study the problem and figure out a solution for it. Opinion on what a solution does sometimes fall along a person party lines, of course I have no party lines at all. Yes an assault rifle can do loads of damage, so can a lone gunman with a single shot rifle and tons of magazines, it really doesn't matter what gun they use because there is no one to stop them. Sometimes killing the gunman is not ideal, but it is the only option left because there is no reasoning with him or her. You see this is what I was hoping for. An intelligent response with a bit of thought into the subject. I agree with the idea your portraying. Maybe not to the letter but that's of no consequence. Thank you for responding. While I don't agree everyone is capable of responsiblyowning a firearm the majority are and should not be punished forever. I think mandatory education is a good first step. As far as mental health as I said I don't think people should be punished for seeking help. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Sam Posted February 1, 2013 #64 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) You see this is what I was hoping for. An intelligent response with a bit of thought into the subject. I agree with the idea your portraying. Maybe not to the letter but that's of no consequence. Thank you for responding. While I don't agree everyone is capable of responsiblyowning a firearm the majority are and should not be punished forever. I think mandatory education is a good first step. As far as mental health as I said I don't think people should be punished for seeking help. You know alone on the fact there is very little to no education what-so-ever about gun safety and gun handling classes. I think we should hold them, because it teaches and even burns the safety measures into the individuals mind, thus making it second nature for them to handle a gun. Kids will know what they are for, what they can be used for, and why we need them. Also notice loads of parents don't hold their children accountable for their actions, this also creates a unstable atmosphere for the children. A parent that is involved in their children's lives is an good parent, luckily for me, I paid attention to my parents and learned from their mistakes. As for my morals of know right and wrong, I looked up to my founding fathers and heroic figures, because I want to be a person who saves life but doesn't judge to quickly, understands the problems and tries to find the right solutions. As for questionmark, he states things that baffle me and makes me question his sanity. He doesn't acknowledge what I am say, he holds confrontational conversations with me which makes don't even want to hold a debate with him. He doesn't take the time to explain his reason behind his opinion and logic, he throws up useless facts that can be look at in different views that doesn't help or hinder his argument. Instead of being crafty with his words, he needs to be more direct and make sense on the topics he talk about. But I do give him one thing, I become extremely hostile when someone from a foreign nation tells me I should get rid of the constitution. I view it as an foreign national forcing his views upon my beliefs, stating me and millions of other Americans are idiots for wanting to uphold the constitution. Edited February 1, 2013 by Uncle Sam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aus Der Box Skeptisch Posted February 1, 2013 #65 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Ah questionmark is a good Guy with quite a bit of interesting experience. He tends to only become unreasonable with those who approach him in an unreasonable fashion. I've had quite a bit of great conversation with very successful conversations/debates over the last few years here on UM. He asks the same as I do. Approach me with a conversation as an adult. That's all. You see how aztek approached versus how you approached this conversation and the results each of you received. Though I don't think that's limited to just me or questionmark I think everyone feels the same way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aus Der Box Skeptisch Posted February 1, 2013 #66 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) BTW I just thought I'd add I think your spot on with parents and how important they are in childhood development. Edited February 1, 2013 by Aus Der Box Skeptisch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Sam Posted February 1, 2013 #67 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Ah questionmark is a good Guy with quite a bit of interesting experience. He tends to only become unreasonable with those who approach him in an unreasonable fashion. I've had quite a bit of great conversation with very successful conversations/debates over the last few years here on UM. He asks the same as I do. Approach me with a conversation as an adult. That's all. You see how aztek approached versus how you approached this conversation and the results each of you received. Though I don't think that's limited to just me or questionmark I think everyone feels the same way. You can understand me getting upset when someone is telling me my constitution is useless? The constitution is one of the founding documents of my nation, of my ancestors who only wants what is best for us Americans. Yes times change, but the document will always be valid in the eyes of the America. It is the golden rule we live by. Adding new amendments that allows for more rights is nice, but taking away is a big no-no in the eyes of patriot Americans. I just happen to be one of them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aus Der Box Skeptisch Posted February 1, 2013 #68 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Patriot Americans is subjective. Case in point the patriot act that patriotic Americans were so proud of when they first enacted it. One of the top three things that have been terrible for America and freedom. Given away due to what I call and instant gratification decision. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Sam Posted February 1, 2013 #69 Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Patriot Americans is subjective. Case in point the patriot act that patriotic Americans were so proud of when they first enacted it. One of the top three things that have been terrible for America and freedom. Given away due to what I call and instant gratification decision. Your talking about band-aid solutions that have short lasting effect, instead of long lasting solutions. An patriot wants what is only best for the people, but he will do so in a manner that is well-thought, meaning we must put our all into finding the solution, like our founding fathers spend countless days writing up the declaration of independence and the constitution. A patriot also is willing to lay down their lives to protect the constitution and the people of this great nation. For others to understand, they must understand that they just fought a tyrant state for 2 years and they knew there would be a time again we must do so. They knew that one day, we will have to do it again, reason for the creation of the 2nd amendment. Those that don't believe power will draw the corrupt, they are either blind or ignorant of human nature. Edited February 1, 2013 by Uncle Sam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aus Der Box Skeptisch Posted February 1, 2013 #70 Share Posted February 1, 2013 UNC thanks for the conversation tonight. I'm heading in now. See you around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted February 1, 2013 #71 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I suggested individuals who own guns and there to protect the citizens should be located in public domains, security guards are some the most angry people Ive encountered. If we plan on changing the scope of the job we need to change the type of people doing it and likely the pay scale.. I mean like for real. The security guards today can be very ill trained and Im not sure I want them having guns. It would be so much nicer if we had a society where that wasnt even necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Sam Posted February 1, 2013 #72 Share Posted February 1, 2013 security guards are some the most angry people Ive encountered. If we plan on changing the scope of the job we need to change the type of people doing it and likely the pay scale.. I mean like for real. The security guards today can be very ill trained and Im not sure I want them having guns. It would be so much nicer if we had a society where that wasnt even necessary. True... but sadly our society isn't like that and we need security guards. Proper screening and evaluations is what we need for security guards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted February 1, 2013 #73 Share Posted February 1, 2013 You know alone on the fact there is very little to no education what-so-ever about gun safety and gun handling classes gun safety classes should be like CPR classes. CPR card has to be updated every 2 years for every medical worker. Those that have cwp permit or carry a gun on the job can certainly maintain a gun safety class biannually. And it creates jobs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted February 1, 2013 #74 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I think Chicago wouldn't be so bad if some of the neighborhoods weren't so scary that even the cops are afraid to go there at night. I'm pretty sure that was part of the point of blue lights. Even during the day some neighborhoods are pretty frigging scary. When ANY neighborhood reaches that point I think tactical units should be employed to go hunting. Take the fight to THEM, make THEM afraid. Call it what it is - evil in control, total lawlessness. If it flourishes anywhere it grows. Sound like war? That's because it IS. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted February 1, 2013 #75 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Give the people a govnmt thats trustworthy first or that "tac" unit be shooting grandmas and grandpas in those communities. Theres a long history of distrust in them towards law enforcement. Its not just the gangs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now