| Not logged in - | | |
| Not logged in - | | |
| Hello and Welcome to the RomeNewswire.com Forum! You are currently logged in as a guest. We welcome you to register and join the conversation! |
| Moderated by: RomeNewswire, MrTonkle | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 |
|
|||||||||||||
| guns - Where Old Threads and Topics Go To Die! - Archives - RNWforum.com | |||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||
|
cross stitch girl Member 
|
I know that this is change in thought, but I wonder why all these people are saying that the guns are bad. Do they not know that they gun by itself can not hurt anyone on purpose. It is the people that use the guns that are in the wrong. Why is that so hard to see?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
ROP Member 
|
Law Suites.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
Jess Member 
|
cross stitch girl wrote: I know that this is change in thought, but I wonder why all these people are saying that the guns are bad. Do they not know that they gun by itself can not hurt anyone on purpose. It is the people that use the guns that are in the wrong. Why is that so hard to see? It's not hard to see. I'm not sure who actually says that, but I have heard it tossed around. I think it's kind of silly for either side to use it--of course a machine in and of itself is not dangerous or "bad." It's all dependent on the user. You could liken it to the cigarette debate. Cigarettes are not bad for you--smoking cigarettes or being exposed to cigarette smoke is what causes cancer. A plain unwrapped cigarette sitting on a bench in a park is not going to cause anyone any harm--it needs someone to pick it up and light it to do that. A gun sitting on the same park bench isn't going to cause anyone any harm--until someone picks it up and fires it. As we've recognized that smoking cigarettes causes cancer (for the smoker and those around her), we've put some restrictions on who can do it and where that can happen, and we make sure the smoker is educated by the little labels printed on the box. Seems prudent to do that with guns, too. Safety training and common sense restrictions on who can use them where (to account for user error and idiocy) doesn't seem like too much to ask. Wouldn't that fall under the category of "well-regulated" in the phrase "well-regulated militia"?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
ROP Member
|
No. Check it out out better, second hand smoke does not cause cancer, just stinks. Learn to use your gun.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
ROP Member
|
Just what is a constitual right?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
jpgreen007 Member 
|
gunsmoke and cigarette smoke... my two most favorite things... i try to inhale them both every chance i get... jpg Attachment: m_53188d4164fc37d6a3922f0be9f980e0.jpg (Downloaded 63 times)
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
anderson457 Member
|
i am ok with people carrying concealed firearems but i do not believe they should be allowed in bars. yes that is a place where you might want one but guns and alsohal are a bad mixture...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
Jess Member
|
Dude, exactly. Cause if you have a guy with a gun in a bar, there's going to be a shootout! Anyone who watches old Westerns knows that.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
Spice Moderator 
|
Jess, didn't you learn anything from them? You know Matt Dillion will quell it before it ever gets started. He's 10 feet tall and bullet proof
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
BillT962 Member 
|
Jess wrote: cross stitch girl wrote:I know that this is change in thought, but I wonder why all these people are saying that the guns are bad. Do they not know that they gun by itself can not hurt anyone on purpose. It is the people that use the guns that are in the wrong. Why is that so hard to see? I think that the USSC has made a distinction vis'a vis the well regulated militia thingy. Not a requirement under the 2nd. We do have restrictions now. Felons cannot own or possess firearms, folks with a documented mental health history are prohibited as well, convicted family violence offenders take no for an answer. That's about all the restriction we need methinks.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
romegasir Member 
|
vis' a vis? Come on Bill, English please
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
BillT962 Member
|
romegasir wrote: vis' a vis? Come on Bill, English please Bi-fon-goo LOL. ever since reading it pays to increase your word power, I occasionally will misuse a new word 
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
ArmedCitizen Member 
|
BillT962 wrote: I think that the USSC has made a distinction vis'a vis the well regulated militia thingy. Not a requirement under the 2nd. We do have restrictions now. Felons cannot own or possess firearms, folks with a documented mental health history are prohibited as well, convicted family violence offenders take no for an answer. That's about all the restriction we need methinks. And while that little part of me, that same characteristic more prevalent in others, feels that dangerous felons and crazies should not own firearms, I am mixed in my feelings. On one hand, if you've proven by your past record that your a danger to society, a threat so to speak, or someone who sees elephants and trolls and Gary Coleman telling you to eat your own feces for the sake of humanity, maybe a firearm isn't for you. BUT.... I believe in the Constitution. And in no other circumstance, does a right, set forth by said Constitution, have prerequisites, unless clearly stated or clearly miswritten. (see amendments 13, 15, 18, 19) Any questions? Even criminals and crazies have freedom of speech. You don't have your first amendment right taken away because you've committed a crime. Just recently, an inmate sued a judicial system because the food was unfit. His voice was heard, this a man, awaiting trial for murder. Wait, wait...I understand. You say I can't compare the first and second amendments. Guns kill, they are bad.....blah blah blah blah, spare me, please. I can, and I have compared the two. And I will continue to do so. I guess where the rubber meets the road, as my grandfather would say, is that we are on a slippery slope when we "tack on" certain rules to this, the mighty paper and ink, that we call our Constitution. I am in disagreement with such tactics in the same way I am against abortion. If we can kill babies, when do we start getting rid of the old people.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
BillT962 Member
|
ArmedCitizen wrote: BillT962 wrote:I think that the USSC has made a distinction vis'a vis the well regulated militia thingy. Not a requirement under the 2nd. We do have restrictions now. Felons cannot own or possess firearms, folks with a documented mental health history are prohibited as well, convicted family violence offenders take no for an answer. That's about all the restriction we need methinks.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
ArmedCitizen Member
|
Bill, I think we agree, somewhat. There's that part of me that agrees. And that other, ye student of the Constitution, that doesn't. I'm not mad about felons not being able to own guns, but I ain't exactly happy about it.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 10:31 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 |
| RNWforum.com > Archives > Where Old Threads and Topics Go To Die! > guns | |
