I was pulled in to a HR meeting at work due to the 2a.

[Gooman24]

You can't hug your children with nuclear arms.


(+1 for whoever gets the ref)

Dead's girlfriend Family Guy.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

 

[crazymjb]

I consider reckless disregard for human life a crime. Some laws discouraging actions save lives. Thats a fact. Clearly we wont agree on any of this so I'm done.

I've made my case.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

 

[mattyw]

I consider reckless disregard for human life a crime. Some laws discouraging actions save lives. Thats a fact. Clearly we wont agree on any of this so I'm done.

I've made my case.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

and some laws and restrictions cost lives, so because they get it right sometimes we should have faith in that process all the time?

hey, if it only saves one life it's worth it right?

 

[drgrant]

So lets say they killed 50... thats 10 fold more than they could with foreworks and pressure cookers.

Take an average value of the suicide bombers in Israel, that's a more realistic estimate, and it's still probably a lot lower than 50 people. Realistically even if they had something like semtex they probably wouldn't haven ended up with a device much bigger than the typical durka belt bomb over there.

Look to columbine... same thing. Their failed bombs killed nobody. Easily dozens more.

Nope, fail. Perps were too stupid/lazy/poor. School shootings are a poor example. To top it off them even trying to use "propane bombs" was highly atypical of nearly every other school shooting. For whatever it is or isn't worth, the propane bombs were pretty stupid. If they had placed real bombs in the same area and conducted thier little "raid" the same way, they would have done a lot more property damage but not much else. Most of the people were gone when those things
went off... they either were shot or fled when the shooting started. It wasn't like they cleverly snuck them into the school at lunch time and were going to touch them off when everyone was in the cafeteria.

Look at every major shooting of a crowded area. Toss in some grenades, what happens?

Mumbai is a good example of this. Point taken, but you also lose serious points here. We're talking about India here- the country that won't let you have a handgun chambered bigger than .32 to protect yourself with- what do you think the odds of them allowing grenades to be legal are? Lot of good their laws regulating guns and grenades did them.

I guess my point is that anyone who REALLY wants to use that stuff will find a way to use it. Even then...
you're also giving the perpetrators of most of these spree crimes too much credit. Most of them are minimally ambitious, lazy, worthless flesh sacks. Most of them were minimally prepared. What makes you think these guys are going to go out of their way to build REAL bombs when they can't even be bothered to do things like make molotov cocktails (which any numbskull with some rags, a bunch of glass bottles, and some gasoline can make.) Guys like Kehoe, that norwegian guy that killed all those kids on the island, and McVeigh, and the 9/11 / WTC bombers are the exception rather than the rule. Those types of people are not going to be stopped by stupid laws.

-Mike

 

[Bonesinium]

I consider reckless disregard for human life a crime.

I agree. I'm not sure how mere possession constitutes 'reckless disregard' though. Reckless disregard implies some use or action. I'm with you that those actions that cause harm to people are crimes and should be treated as such. I'm against creating crimes based on the idea that that person might commit a crime. This very idea is why people get charged with crimes simply for possessing firearms. I understand you are against that, which is why I would think you can see why many here are against that very thing, just substitute firearm for anything else.

Still waiting to hear your thoughts on OKC, 168 dead and 700 injuries using commercially available items...

 

[JoeT]

I had no intention of joining this thread but just couldn't resist reposting the If it saves just one life argument

Again, you fail to understand that if those pressure cookers were similarly sized military grade explosives we'd be looking at 100s dead.

I have no desire to be a dictator, but I do desire to be safe in my society. That includes saying some things are too dangerous for one person to posess in an unregulated fashion.

I'll also ask, rhetorically, where did we go wrong as a country. Just a generation (or 2) ago we could walk into a store and buy dynamite, sarin gas,and a multitude of other things that are now banned, yet I don't recall reading of mass killings/casualties form civilian use.

I'm not a very bright guy (just ask my wife), but with the help of google I could be making WMDs in my kitchen. Do you know what keeps me from doing so? it's not the government passing of laws forbidding it.

 

[IvIax]

If you do it right, you get punished.

 

[Jason Flare]

Like it or not laws influence many (not all, obviously). Based off your argument nothing should be illegal and there should be no legal ramifications for any of our actions because a contingent of people will never follow the law. Good luck with that.

Mike

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2

I see this as a breakthrough moment. Am I correct that you understand that laws are ineffective to the people who have no intention of following them?

Am I further correct that you have a sense that laws are unnecessary for those who respect other people's persons and property?

 

[Blitz1]

It finally happened. I had a meeting with my HR department and was asked/ warned not to discuss the second amendment, guns, ammo, or any pertaining to any kind of firearm. Here is the sad part, the only time I ever discuss any of this at work is when I am on my lunch break. During the meeting, I advised HR that if they/ or the people who made the complaint only understood the process that was required to get the permit, that they would understand that I am not one of the people who they should worry about. Then they mentioned Sandyhook. My reaction at that pont wasn't as polite. I told HR that i was extremely offended that they would bring up that conversation with me. I pointed out that by them bringing up Sandyhook, they where essentially accusing me of doing something that I would never do, and make me out to be some sort of villain. I then filed a grievance with HR against HR and advised them that next time they want to talk to me about something, that they should be more professional about it and do it with an attorney who specializes in employer to employee abuse. Now I am at my desk waiting to see if I get fired or keep my job.

Original OP.

Then we have some people talking about sarin gas.

Seriously?

I'll leave it at that.

If this guy (not the OP) posts up again that would suggest he has an agenda.

To the OP, sorry your thread went sideways.

 

[crazymjb]

Talkin about my secret agenda... I don't remember how it devolved to this, but probably had to do with my agenda. Being a super liberal and all.

Jason... some laws and some laws can't effect criminals in their actions. For example NFA is retarded even if they idea of an SBS being more dangerous was valid as its negated by any idiot with simple household tools. I ARGUE that that is not the case for some other items, RPGs, SAMs, Mines, C4, chemical weapons, etc.

The reason we just won't agree on many issues here is because I believe that there is a place for laws that reduce crime, many in this thread believe laws should only exist which punish another who has been wronged (as evidenced by some being against DUI laws), saying that the results of people not abiding by those laws are what should be punished. I simply disagree. I believe there is evidence to suggest that certain laws (like speed limits, DUI enforcement, etc) REDUCE the instances of death related to these issues.

It's a little sad that posters here are calling me "worse than a (gasp) liberal," dictator, fascist, when I am confident I have done more than MOST of those calling me names to wind back gun laws and prevent the passage of further gun laws. As for calling me afraid, quivering, etc... It's not even worth my time to address that. I'm no hero, but I did my part, thanks.

Mike

 

[atilla]

Talkin about my secret agenda... I don't remember how it devolved to this, but probably had to do with my agenda. Being a super liberal and all.

Jason... some laws and some laws can't effect criminals in their actions. For example NFA is retarded even if they idea of an SBS being more dangerous was valid as its negated by any idiot with simple household tools. I ARGUE that that is not the case for some other items, RPGs, SAMs, Mines, C4, chemical weapons, etc.

The reason we just won't agree on many issues here is because I believe that there is a place for laws that reduce crime, many in this thread believe laws should only exist which punish another who has been wronged (as evidenced by some being against DUI laws and speed limits, saying that the results of people not abiding by those laws are what should be punished. I simply disagree.

It's a little sad that posters here are calling me "worse than a (gasp) liberal," dictator, fascist, when I am confident I have done more than MOST of those calling me names to wind back gun laws and prevent the passage of further gun laws. As for calling me afraid, quivering, etc... It's not even worth my time to address that. I'm no hero, but I did my part, thanks.

Mike

my dig has nothing to do with your life or your experience, it references your opinion in this thread and this thread alone. that's it.

i appreciate what you've done locally for 2A, but it doesn't mean you're right all the time.

i think your opinion sucks, but opinions are like *******s and we've all got 'em.

 

[mattyw]

I believe there is evidence to suggest that certain laws (like speed limits, DUI enforcement, etc) REDUCE the instances of death related to these issues.
Mike

STRONGLY disagree, that may have been the original intent but the effectiveness is debatable

the main point here is that you drew a line you see fit based on your opinions and beliefs, easy for you, or any of us to do.
the problem in that is... that there are so many people who don't think of things remotely close to the way you do.

So why does the government get to make those decisions for them? the rights and freedoms of the minority are supposed to be protected, no matter how small and different the minority may be to you or anyone else.

thats my gripe

 

[Jason Flare]

Jason... some laws and some laws can't effect criminals in their actions.


The reason we just won't agree on many issues here is because I believe that there is a place for laws that reduce crime,... I believe there is evidence to suggest that certain laws (like speed limits, DUI enforcement, etc) REDUCE the instances of death related to these issues.


Mike

Your first sentence, above, I agree with. The second part I do not agree with.

Speed limits. Who obeys speed limits?

DUI enforcement. Punishing a drunk driver for harming/killing a person or damaging property is good and a DUI law that did just that would be more effective than DUI laws that allow sobriety checkpoints and the arrest and punishment of people who are, "driving under the influence," at .08. The legal blood alcohol level has dropped and now NY lawmakers are considering dropping it further to .05. .08 is not necessarily drunk driving. it's not even called that. The concept is whether it serves the people or harms the people to punish someone for a statutory crime that has no victim.

Whose best interest is it in to not drive drunk and kill someone?

Whose best interest is it in to fine and jail people for victimless crimes?

Does punishing people for victimless crimes cause a net gain for or a net harm to society?

 

[crazymjb]

That's just the thing... I never outlined specifics with any of this stuff. I believe most laws/regulations as they exist now are overreaching or poorly implemented.

As far as your thoughts on my opinions of gov regulation on certain items... Yup, they are my opinions. I don't exactly go out advocating on behalf of regulation of XYZ since I spend all of my time and energy trying to undo/fix gun laws, and that is a battle that won't be won in my lifetime. Quite frankly I also don't care too much about XYZ being banned, I was simply trying to drive home that I think there is a place for some gov regulation on items which are especially dangerous. As far as explosives, etc go... Heller would have to be overturned to require gov to deregulate those, I highly doubt that will EVER happen.

I'm out, I've voiced my opinion on the issue... I'll continue trying to undo gun laws with any time I put towards political activism.

Mike

 

[kalash]

Just a generation (or 2) ago we could walk into a store and buy dynamite, sarin gas...

Is that actually true? Dynamite and sarin gas?