Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Pro-Gun / Hunting Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 51647"><p>I'm personally against so-called background checks not because I'm against the checks themselves but because the broader taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for those gun owners who choose to exercise the right of gun ownership which by the way I'm for 100% if one chooses to exercise that right. I'll also agree many people aren't capable of properly and responsibly exercising that right so here we are. I also believe the same is true for a rather surprising large number of licensed automobile drivers and stats. suggest you're risk of death or injury from a automobile is some degree greater than from a gun. However I'm sure those risks would change for someone who found themselves in close proximity to an irresponsible gun owner or gun possesser. </p><p></p><p>I'd rather see organizations like NRA for example along with gun manufactures to come up with their own system using criminal data bases, finger printing and I'm not opposed to consideration of the prospective gun owner being required to post some type of bond in order to purchase a gun from the manufacturers. If you didn't pass the industry itself would bar you from purchasing. If as a private individual or maker you sold a weapon to a non authorized person, then by contract you could be heavily fined with huge economic sanctions which could include confiscation of properties if said levies weren't satisfied. Now before you cry 2nd amendment, those rights are only forced upon gov't but do not apply to individuals or private companies acting in a voluntary relationship or contract with one another. In other words, what I'm suggesting is gun owners policing and do background checks on themselves rather than sitting on their butts forcing the taxpayer to foot the bill and then subjecting themselves to the perils of those who would choose to politize the whole issue for political gains while at the same time coming up with solutions that really don't and won't address the problem to begin with. </p><p></p><p>I believe pro-gun organizations as well as anti-gun organizations have no real interest in completely winning their positions because this would mean the task is 100% complete and the need for their organizations and them having a job with political clout and excess would cease to exist. This Hegelian Dialectic exists across the board with most if not all political stripes and movements within the corridors of power and will continue to do so as far as the eye can see IMO.</p><p></p><p>The problem itself is not the gun. The problem is people. We no longer respect the other fella in his property or his thoughts and opinions. We've come to view the world from our standpoint only and nothing else will satisfy. If our neighbor won't live like we want them too then we generally take several courses of action. One is to get the gov't to force them to live our way and this entails political organizing and getting "our kind of people" in office. Once done we change the laws so that our neighbor has no choice but to live our way or face sanctions within the criminal justice system. This is a case of where we use gov't as the mechanism of force, the gov't becomes the gun if you will. At first, it's in it's holster but visable with the hopes this with scare the offender into compliance. If this isn't enough thne the situation could esculate to where the weapon is brought to bare. </p><p></p><p>The other means would be for the individual themselves to brannish their own weapon and go over and then force the neighbor into complying with their desires. At least in this case it's more honest although still very wrong. Is this an extreme view? In one sense yes it is but consider this. A group of businessmen go to a town council and convince them that their business development plan would greatly enhance the revenue coffers of the town while bringing in economic growth for the overall town. The plan requires the town to seize privately owned land in order to enact this plan and this happens daily around this country in light of the Kelo decision. This is the private will via the use of public force and if the private property owner refuses to sell or subject to the control of the public will of the private developers then the guns will come out. 100 plus years ago, land barons hired "regulators" to impose their wills on the small individual land owners around them so they could expand for profit and gain. Now the "regulators" are law enforcement forced by law to do the bidding of the 21st century land barons like Walmart for example. </p><p></p><p>This is just 1 example of 1000's and 1000's that just shows the problem is ourselves, not some man-made mechanism. We can outlaw every gun on the planet to the point of destroying them all but we'd find some other means of imposing our wills on others. Until we in our individual capacity find the means to police ourselves first and foremost, then gun control will be as fruitless an effort as trying to herd cats!</p><p></p><p>Here's something real ironic to think about. Let's say you could convince everyone around the globe for the next year to practice to the letter "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not kill", what impact would this have? To clarify, these precepts aren't just limited to judeo-christian teaching but are found around the world in most all belief systems in one way or another so don't construe the above as my way of espousing a certain religious creed or doctrine. I myself am open to the best of what all have to offer.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 51647"] I'm personally against so-called background checks not because I'm against the checks themselves but because the broader taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for those gun owners who choose to exercise the right of gun ownership which by the way I'm for 100% if one chooses to exercise that right. I'll also agree many people aren't capable of properly and responsibly exercising that right so here we are. I also believe the same is true for a rather surprising large number of licensed automobile drivers and stats. suggest you're risk of death or injury from a automobile is some degree greater than from a gun. However I'm sure those risks would change for someone who found themselves in close proximity to an irresponsible gun owner or gun possesser. I'd rather see organizations like NRA for example along with gun manufactures to come up with their own system using criminal data bases, finger printing and I'm not opposed to consideration of the prospective gun owner being required to post some type of bond in order to purchase a gun from the manufacturers. If you didn't pass the industry itself would bar you from purchasing. If as a private individual or maker you sold a weapon to a non authorized person, then by contract you could be heavily fined with huge economic sanctions which could include confiscation of properties if said levies weren't satisfied. Now before you cry 2nd amendment, those rights are only forced upon gov't but do not apply to individuals or private companies acting in a voluntary relationship or contract with one another. In other words, what I'm suggesting is gun owners policing and do background checks on themselves rather than sitting on their butts forcing the taxpayer to foot the bill and then subjecting themselves to the perils of those who would choose to politize the whole issue for political gains while at the same time coming up with solutions that really don't and won't address the problem to begin with. I believe pro-gun organizations as well as anti-gun organizations have no real interest in completely winning their positions because this would mean the task is 100% complete and the need for their organizations and them having a job with political clout and excess would cease to exist. This Hegelian Dialectic exists across the board with most if not all political stripes and movements within the corridors of power and will continue to do so as far as the eye can see IMO. The problem itself is not the gun. The problem is people. We no longer respect the other fella in his property or his thoughts and opinions. We've come to view the world from our standpoint only and nothing else will satisfy. If our neighbor won't live like we want them too then we generally take several courses of action. One is to get the gov't to force them to live our way and this entails political organizing and getting "our kind of people" in office. Once done we change the laws so that our neighbor has no choice but to live our way or face sanctions within the criminal justice system. This is a case of where we use gov't as the mechanism of force, the gov't becomes the gun if you will. At first, it's in it's holster but visable with the hopes this with scare the offender into compliance. If this isn't enough thne the situation could esculate to where the weapon is brought to bare. The other means would be for the individual themselves to brannish their own weapon and go over and then force the neighbor into complying with their desires. At least in this case it's more honest although still very wrong. Is this an extreme view? In one sense yes it is but consider this. A group of businessmen go to a town council and convince them that their business development plan would greatly enhance the revenue coffers of the town while bringing in economic growth for the overall town. The plan requires the town to seize privately owned land in order to enact this plan and this happens daily around this country in light of the Kelo decision. This is the private will via the use of public force and if the private property owner refuses to sell or subject to the control of the public will of the private developers then the guns will come out. 100 plus years ago, land barons hired "regulators" to impose their wills on the small individual land owners around them so they could expand for profit and gain. Now the "regulators" are law enforcement forced by law to do the bidding of the 21st century land barons like Walmart for example. This is just 1 example of 1000's and 1000's that just shows the problem is ourselves, not some man-made mechanism. We can outlaw every gun on the planet to the point of destroying them all but we'd find some other means of imposing our wills on others. Until we in our individual capacity find the means to police ourselves first and foremost, then gun control will be as fruitless an effort as trying to herd cats! Here's something real ironic to think about. Let's say you could convince everyone around the globe for the next year to practice to the letter "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not kill", what impact would this have? To clarify, these precepts aren't just limited to judeo-christian teaching but are found around the world in most all belief systems in one way or another so don't construe the above as my way of espousing a certain religious creed or doctrine. I myself am open to the best of what all have to offer. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Pro-Gun / Hunting Thread
Top