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="ezrider" data-source="post: 51652"><p>Susie </p><p> </p><p>The issue does bring out extremes, I'd agree. I would add that there can be more than two sides to the issue, and that's what adds to the maze of misunderstanding and rather "fuzzy" statistics provided by one side or another...or another...etc. </p><p> </p><p>I'm not very big on making radical changes to the U.S. Constitution. I don't think the founding fathers meant for it to be treated like some decorative multi-layer cake where each hand tried to cut and slice it in an effort to avoid the the corner pieces or the gross hard flowers made from the icing nobody wants to eat. It was meant for everybody. Since every individual has different views of what would be ideal, the document will never be perfect for the individual. The best that can be achieved are laws that can be agreed to be acceptable to all or at least most. Most I'm willing to bet would agree, at least in principle, with the 2nd Ammendment. </p><p> </p><p>The real issue with the that principle and whether it has or has not been eclipsed, circumvented or violated revolves around where is the line drawn on the individual's right and at what point does it start to supercede the common good (or public safety) to all as a group (society). Restrictions and stiff penalties if done right would perhaps yield positive changes over time if done right and compromises reached. Frankly, I doubt it will ever happen. Mass proliferation of firearms has become big bussiness in this country. Gun manufacturers don't want background checks or testing or any comprehensive measures because the longer a fair percentage of buyers have to wait, the less likely that percentage will follow through with making the purchase. Less buyers mean a shrinking marketplace, and big bussiness wants more buyers, not less. </p><p> </p><p>You don't think the typical small time hack selling this stuff out of his van during the tent-sale wouldn't be throwing a hissyfit at the prospect of having to be held accountable for who he sold what to? Of course not. That would take more time and attention to detail, and that means effort, money and responsibility. Those types don't want any part of it, and that's why so many of the guys making the easy money cry that river about how they are protecting the American way citing the right to bear arms. </p><p> </p><p>What a load of tripe. What it's really about is they want to keep thier seat on the gravy train and make sure it never leaves the station. Most often it's never about thier "right to bear arms", it's about keeping thier privilige to sell arms as quick and easy as they can to whoever is willing to pay, regardless of what the buyer's intentions happen to be. From what I've seen these gun peddlers are in the same group as the crack dealer on the corner or the loser "entreprenuer" running the crystal-meth lab. The 2nd Ammendment is no justification for what they are doing, and they know it. </p><p> </p><p>The only way I'd have less respect for them is if they started calling themselves "independent contractors".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ezrider, post: 51652"] Susie The issue does bring out extremes, I'd agree. I would add that there can be more than two sides to the issue, and that's what adds to the maze of misunderstanding and rather "fuzzy" statistics provided by one side or another...or another...etc. I'm not very big on making radical changes to the U.S. Constitution. I don't think the founding fathers meant for it to be treated like some decorative multi-layer cake where each hand tried to cut and slice it in an effort to avoid the the corner pieces or the gross hard flowers made from the icing nobody wants to eat. It was meant for everybody. Since every individual has different views of what would be ideal, the document will never be perfect for the individual. The best that can be achieved are laws that can be agreed to be acceptable to all or at least most. Most I'm willing to bet would agree, at least in principle, with the 2nd Ammendment. The real issue with the that principle and whether it has or has not been eclipsed, circumvented or violated revolves around where is the line drawn on the individual's right and at what point does it start to supercede the common good (or public safety) to all as a group (society). Restrictions and stiff penalties if done right would perhaps yield positive changes over time if done right and compromises reached. Frankly, I doubt it will ever happen. Mass proliferation of firearms has become big bussiness in this country. Gun manufacturers don't want background checks or testing or any comprehensive measures because the longer a fair percentage of buyers have to wait, the less likely that percentage will follow through with making the purchase. Less buyers mean a shrinking marketplace, and big bussiness wants more buyers, not less. You don't think the typical small time hack selling this stuff out of his van during the tent-sale wouldn't be throwing a hissyfit at the prospect of having to be held accountable for who he sold what to? Of course not. That would take more time and attention to detail, and that means effort, money and responsibility. Those types don't want any part of it, and that's why so many of the guys making the easy money cry that river about how they are protecting the American way citing the right to bear arms. What a load of tripe. What it's really about is they want to keep thier seat on the gravy train and make sure it never leaves the station. Most often it's never about thier "right to bear arms", it's about keeping thier privilige to sell arms as quick and easy as they can to whoever is willing to pay, regardless of what the buyer's intentions happen to be. From what I've seen these gun peddlers are in the same group as the crack dealer on the corner or the loser "entreprenuer" running the crystal-meth lab. The 2nd Ammendment is no justification for what they are doing, and they know it. The only way I'd have less respect for them is if they started calling themselves "independent contractors". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Pro-Gun / Hunting Thread
Top