social license

Status
Not open for further replies.
So instead of acting extreme on this issue, I think its in everyone's best interest to look for compromises.
Click to expand...

Translation: Everyone else should do things my way.

The constitution as stated before is becoming obsolete, in 200 years it will be interpreted significantly differently if it is used at all, self preservation matters to most people more then ideals and when it comes down to it people are going to choose self preservation over almost anything else.
Click to expand...

This is not a critique of the Constitution, but a sad perspective on humanity. It tries to cast aside the human aspirations on which the Constitution is based and wallows in cynical condemnation of man as nothing more than an unfeeling and uncaring beast of self-interest. I reject that notion, as did the Founders.
 
Translation: Everyone else should do things my way.


This is not a critique of the Constitution, but a sad perspective on humanity. It tries to cast aside the human aspirations on which the Constitution is based and wallows in cynical condemnation of man as nothing more than an unfeeling and uncaring beast of self-interest. I reject that notion, as did the Founders.
Click to expand...

Seems to me most of the people here are the ones who won't accept compromises, unlike Brady I don't wish to ban fire-arms, but I do realize they need regulation and there needs to be laws governing how a person owns and uses them.

The founders were nothing more then people looking out for their own self interest, and there is nothing wrong with that but I am tired of people touting ideals that they think should never under any circumstance be violated, without realizing what kind of damage would be done to this country if all those laws which people view as so "unconstitutional" disappeared.
 
Seems to me most of the people here are the ones who won't accept compromises
Click to expand...

It is not a compromise when the solution is to do something only the way one party wants.

You don't seem to care for open carry; let's say I do favor open carry. Where is a solution half way between your position and mine? How about unrestricted open carry on even-numbered calendar days and absolutely no open carry on odd-numbered calendar days?
 
The difference is what you want has a higher chance of causing damage then what I want, the one that cause's the most damage is the one that gets restricted.

The compromise is the level of restriction.
 
what kind of damage would be done to this country if all those laws which people view as so "unconstitutional" disappeared.
Click to expand...


What sort of law would this be? Please provide an example of a law thought by some to be unconstitutional and how it would negatively effect the country if it were repealed. (and the patriot act is a cheap out but use it if it's all you got)
 
The difference is what you want has a higher chance of causing damage then what I want, the one that cause's the most damage is the one that gets restricted.

The compromise is the level of restriction.
Click to expand...

So I guess you drive a horse and buggy right. I mean cars kill more people and cause more damage than guns.
 
True that cars do kill more people, but you have to look at the Gain verses Loss,
cars are of far more use then firearms and the loss caused by banning cars would be far greater then the gain.
 
The difference is what you want has a higher chance of causing damage then what I want, the one that cause's the most damage is the one that gets restricted.
Click to expand...

Depredations against honest, unarmed citizens cause more damage than sporadic incidents of abberant behavior by armed citizens. Clearly, citizens must be restricted from being unarmed.

As I said previously, it is not a compromise when you insist on having things your way.
 
People are humans and make mistakes, the damage caused by allowing people to make mistakes with fire-arms has the potential to be far worse then the damage caused by simply not allowing people to carry them.

My compromise is allowing people to CCW if they go through extensive training courses, background checks and mental health evaluations.
 
People are humans and make mistakes, the damage caused by allowing people to make mistakes with fire-arms has the potential to be far worse then the damage caused by simply not allowing people to carry them.
Click to expand...

Then if that is how you feel. What are you doing here. Don't you have a brady meeting to go to. This is a firearms forum. Your in the wrong place!!!
 
People are humans and make mistakes, the damage caused by allowing people to make mistakes with fire-arms has the potential to be far worse then the damage caused by simply not allowing people to carry them.
Click to expand...

You again look at only one side of the equation and ignore your own admonition about gain/loss analysis. The gain from preventing accidents is overwhelmed by the loss from people being defenseless.

Come back when there are no bad people who do bad things in the world and we can agree on the value of accident prevention.

My compromise is allowing people to CCW if they go through extensive training courses, background checks and mental health evaluations.
Click to expand...

My compromise is to allow everyone to choose whether they want to defend themselves against predators or submit to predators.
 
TwoXForr said:
I still do not understand Haydukes reason for offense at the fact a gentleman was carrying a firearm in the open. Could you please state clearly and with as much detail as you care to provide why this bothered you and why this type of behavior should not be tolerated.
Click to expand...


I would be interested to read an answer to this question as well. Hayduke, are you still here?



S832 said:
The difference is what you want has a higher chance of causing damage then what I want, the one that cause's the most damage is the one that gets restricted.

The compromise is the level of restriction.
Click to expand...

This is just your opinion. Another opinion might be that open carry is beneficial to society because it deters crime. If you have some proof that open carry has a higher chance of causing damage, let us see it.
 
Last edited:
You again look at only one side of the equation and ignore your own admonition about gain/loss analysis. The gain from preventing accidents is overwhelmed by the loss from people being defenseless.

Come back when there are no bad people who do bad things in the world and we can agree on the value of accident prevention.
Click to expand...

Conversely can you prove that if everyone had guns with them, that American would be safer? Do you honestly want most people to carry them?

Like I said before, most people shouldn't be driving, look at all the people killed in car accidents each year, and thats with all the car safety features. A gun has allot less room for mistakes, and is allot less forgiving then a car.

If someone wants to CCW they should have to go through an extensive program to do so which weeds out all the hotheads and mentally ill. I support CCW, but I just think there needs to be a process, rules and regulations which prevent accidents and tragedies just waiting to happen.
 
If someone wants to CCW they should have to go through an extensive program to do so which weeds out all the hotheads and mentally ill. I support CCW, but I just think there needs to be a process, rules and regulations which prevent accidents and tragedies just waiting to happen
Click to expand...

You would fit in with the Brady Bunch. IMO, you cant restrict or make someone ask permission to exercise a right.

For the sake of arguement, who would weed out the hotheads and so on...?
 
Which is why its not a good idea to antagonize people with your firearms.
Click to expand...
...and where did anyone on this thread mention antogonizing people with firearms? The OP said a guy was OCing in a library. From the description, we don't even know if the OCer looked in the general direction of the Hayduke...hardly antagonizing, unless you feel that feel that guns are inherently evil (personification, anyone?).

The difference is what you want has a higher chance of causing damage then what I want, the one that cause's the most damage is the one that gets restricted.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming you have no proof, since you were asked, but did not provide the slightest hint of evidence.
I will NEVER support the restriction of individual rights without strong evidence of a net gain to society.
You have provided NONE. Therefore, by your own logic, your proposal is unfounded.

So, you are for "common sense regulations." (I think I heard that somewhere before...) How many and what kind of restrictions on individual liberties do you actually support? Obviously, you want someone(...?) to screen individuals who want to protect themselves.
 
I have no CCW permit... I want to go to my fathers to shoot my .22 pistol... On a bike... How can I get the gun there legally? Open carry is not legal in florida. If it were I could put the pistol unloaded in a holster so I am not breaking the law carrying it concealed in a back pack.
Brent
 
SA32

It is not that most members of this board disagree with you, we agree with you to some extent.

One point I have never seen anyone vehemently disagree with on this board is the example of a mentally deranged (or whatever the technical term is) from owning a gun. It seems your standard would be much higher than most, would a person seeking help for mild depression be allowed to purchase a gun, who about a person who was just released from a mental health facility, how about a person on court ordered pyschotopic drugs.

Where is the line? Obviously your thoughts of where the line is somewhere different than most people around here.
 
Like I said before, most people shouldn't be driving, look at all the people killed in car accidents each year, and thats with all the car safety features.
Click to expand...

S8, this is an interesting rationale and conclusion. Do we have 25,000 traffic fatalies a year? Do we have 200 million drivers? An error rate of .0125% would lead you to conclude that most people should not be driving.

Your balancing test of gain and loss appears unbalanced.
 
S832 said:
I own firearms, I don't shoot them allot as I don't find them real enjoyable to use,
Click to expand...

If you don't like firearms, why are you on a gun forum? Causing trouble?
That's what I thought. :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top