Gun laws do they work

A question for the americans on this forum. Which is more important "Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" or "The right to bear arms"
 
Adam Caramon said:
There won't be new laws, at least not in the USA. The pro-gun lobby is one of the strongest there is.
Click to expand...

Shold the gun lobby have any less say than the teamster, techers, etc.?
 
Dick how do you see the rights of the Tobacco lobby? Should they also have those same right?

Given that it's still a legal industry, would you support their right to run adds like these ones from yesteryear?

smoking.jpg
 
Dick how do you see the rights of the Tobacco lobby? Should they also have those same right?

Given that it's still a legal industry, would you support their right to run adds like these ones from yesteryear?

I am against smoking, but when they had a referendum in my town to ban smoking in my town against smoking in restaurants I voted against it. People know the consequences of smoking, and it’s not my job or desire to tell them how much soda to drink. To answer your question, as repulsive as those ads are to me I have to let them have their voice, else I can’t have mine, as gun lobby is repulsive to others. However I think that “Lobby” and “Ad’s” might be lightly different, but I am not sure as I have never really ponded the question.
 
Well; they are both promoting intrinsically dangerous products. However the dangers in one are more immediately observable in one than the other.

I'm also a little mystified at your intolerance of unions, given your military background. It is my understanding that a large part of military doctrine revolves around the fact that the success of a venture lies the coordinated actions of a cohesive group with a common goal. Surely this is all that a union is providing it's members, an improved chance of success at the negotiating table.
 
John Big Booty said:
Well; they are both promoting intrinsically dangerous products. However the dangers in one are more immediately observable in one than the other.

I'm also a little mystified at your intolerance of unions, given your military background. It is my understanding that a large part of military doctrine revolves around the fact that the success of a venture lies the coordinated actions of a cohesive group with a common goal. Surely this is all that a union is providing it's members, an improved chance of success at the negotiating table.
Click to expand...

There are thousands off dangerous products out there. I am always leery of taking away the rights of the masses for the possible safety of a few. For example here in FL some well-meaning woman state legislator was on a big campaigned to outlaw four wheel ATV’s. She cited numerous accidents, including death resulting. Until, probable the 4w ATV lobby, pointed out there were huge number of deaths from 2 wheel bicycles, way more than from 4w ATV’s.
I am not opposed to unions. In one of my earlier post I mention my grandparents saying how the unions broke the child labor practices, in the woolen mills in Woonsocket, RI where I was born. I am not even against them lobbing to get all they can. I am opposed them making union mandatory as mean of employment. I am fully aware without mandatory there are going to be some scabs that won’t join, which weakens the union’s position. Make the unions better and the majority will flock. That’s when you would see the union officials get their act together. How can you protest a union hack getting $500,000 a year and a company jet, when union is mandatory?
 
Dick7Access said:
... How can you protest a union hack getting $500,000 a year and a company jet, when union is mandatory?[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...
Granted it's not a good look, but then how is it any worse than the CEO who gets a seven figure golden hand-shake when he's driven the corporation into the ground?
 
John Big Booty said:
Granted it's not a good look, but then how is it any worse than the CEO who gets a seven figure golden hand-shake when he's driven the corporation into the ground?
Click to expand...

Probable not much better, but at least the CEO is not asking me directly to pay for it (although indirectly), and for the most part the CEO is not telling me it is because he is doing it for me. Also the CEO supposedly has to answer to a board of directors, which is another big laugh

Another thing, John that just accrued to me, I am also opposed to thugs. If someone’s position is so strong why do they have to use violence to get their way? If they don’t like the position the legislators took, vote thm out. Campaign hard, lobby, do all you can to win your position, but don’t beat up those that have a different position. Evidently there were enough voters in Michigan, that probable didn’t hold the same position as the union official since they voted in a republican majority, who ran on just such a position. I see it happened on this forum all the time. If someone’s position gets creamed with a counter argument the looser gets threaten they resorts to name calling. Even on battles I choose not to jump into. I am glad you don’t do that John.
 
Dick7Access said:
Probable not much better, but at least the CEO is not asking me directly to pay...

...
Click to expand...
If you invest in shares the CEO that is exactly what the CEO is doing.

Dick7Access said:
...

Another thing, John that just accrued to me, I am also opposed to thugs. If someone’s position is so strong why do they have to use violence to get their way? If they don’t like the position the legislators took, vote thm out. Campaign hard, lobby, do all you can to win your position, but don’t beat up those that have a different position. Evidently there were enough voters in Michigan, that probable didn’t hold the same position as the union official since they voted in a republican majority, who ran on just such a position. I see it happened on this forum all the time. If someone’s position gets creamed with a counter argument the looser gets threaten they resorts to name calling. Even on battles I choose not to jump into. I am glad you don’t do that John.
Click to expand...
I agree whole heartedly, it is that sort of thing that unfortunately taints the whole movement. However on the whole I see unions as a goods thing.
 
John Big Booty said:
If you invest in shares the CEO that is exactly what the CEO is doing.


I agree whole heartedly, it is that sort of thing that unfortunately taints the whole movement. However on the whole I see unions as a goods thing.
Click to expand...

CEO is doing. that is why I said inderectly.

I would not want to do away with unions, I just want them better than CEO.
 
Guns and sick (mentally) people are not a good mix. The mother had become a party to this crime for not seeing the potential danger her gun collection hobby would lead to. I cannot believe she needed five guns (including high powered rifles) to protect her. Her carelessness led to this carnage. Every gun owner needs to take steps to prevent their guns falling into the hands of unstable people. Be proactive, not reactive. I believe in gun ownership for defensive purposes.
The killer lacked common sense and values. The mother was irresponsible in this matter. My heart-felt sympathies for the victims' families.
 
Rabbie said:
A question for the americans on this forum. Which is more important "Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" or "The right to bear arms"
Click to expand...

The first one of course.

Dick7Access said:
Shold the gun lobby have any less say than the teamster, techers, etc.?
Click to expand...

You're living in the past. Teamsters & teacher's unions have been declining in power for years now. The gun lobby is so powerful that after a mass shooting, politicians are scared to talk about gun control. That's sad.

Jacob Mathai said:
Every gun owner needs to take steps to prevent their guns falling into the hands of unstable people. Be proactive, not reactive. I believe in gun ownership for defensive purposes.
Click to expand...

Its too bad her being irresponsible has resulted in all of these deaths. Its also sad that so many people will see this and think "too bad, they're not taking MY guns away."
 
Adam Caramon said:
Its too bad her being irresponsible has resulted in all of these deaths. Its also sad that so many people will see this and think "too bad, they're not taking MY guns away."
Click to expand...

I suppose that us being in agreement in this thread and so far apart on the cyber bullying is what makes life and relationships interesting.

Brian
 
Nothing can be done quickly, and America seems to suffer from the modern desease of wanting things to be instant, but a law restricting the number and type of guns that can be held and more importantly the number of rounds of ammunition would be a start, with the removal of all rights of ownership if the law is broken.

6-10 rounds in a handgun should be enough for defence.

Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Another mass shooting
15 16 17
Replies
323
Views
11,091
AccessBlaster
A
The_Doc_Man
Yet another tragedy
2 3
Replies
55
Views
1,058
The_Doc_Man
The_Doc_Man
K
Florida banns social media for minors.
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2,209
Isaac
Isaac
Steve R.
The Law Perverted
2
Replies
24
Views
1,662
Pat Hartman
P
S
Penalties applied according to a table
Replies
6
Views
237
arnelgp
arnelgp

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom