Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
desifemlove wrote:lolol......any more regulations added in any state area has to account for the culture we does have. and a gun is a weapon designed to kill. corruption in house allocation may not be good, but nobody eh use no house or flat to kill.
src1983 wrote:desifemlove wrote:lolol......any more regulations added in any state area has to account for the culture we does have. and a gun is a weapon designed to kill. corruption in house allocation may not be good, but nobody eh use no house or flat to kill.
But according to your statements, because of "trini mentality" we not capable of knives, rolling pins, vehicles etc.
desifemlove wrote:src1983 wrote:desifemlove wrote:lolol......any more regulations added in any state area has to account for the culture we does have. and a gun is a weapon designed to kill. corruption in house allocation may not be good, but nobody eh use no house or flat to kill.
But according to your statements, because of "trini mentality" we not capable of knives, rolling pins, vehicles etc.
i'm sorry? dunno what rolling pins you does use, but cooking utensils aren't used nor designed to kill and maim.
desifemlove wrote:i'm sorry? dunno what rolling pins you does use, but cooking utensils aren't used nor designed to kill and maim.
All I am hearing is "criminals have guns so I want guns to".
Also, what are you thoughts on the fact that increased number of households with guns is likely to lead to the increased likelihood of guns falling into the wrong hands
I am yet to see a good argument for this. You guys are talking about regulating it, which I am in full agreement with. And for 88sins "legal exercise" it might surprise you to know that not everyone (myself included) in as into being anally raped as you are. But feel free to cut through the crap (no pun intended) and state your point.Slartibartfast wrote:I'm all for proper regulations and a full overhaul of the current system which I fully agree is a load of bollocks that does way more harm than good. But from the second you have any sort of qualification process to attain legal firearms it becomes regulated and by definition is not a "right to bear arms"
I fully agree with you. But how will they know who is deficient and who is not? By regulating it and have proper qualification/training. Which means it no longer becomes a "right" to bear arms as you have to fulfill certain criteria before you are allowed to do so.Redman wrote:Also, what are you thoughts on the fact that increased number of households with guns is likely to lead to the increased likelihood of guns falling into the wrong hands
I feel that I should not be restricted on the basis that some one else is deficient.
Slartibartfast wrote:I fully agree with you. But how will they know who is deficient and who is not? By regulating it and have proper qualification/training. Which means it no longer becomes a "right" to bear arms as you have to fulfill certain criteria before you are allowed to do so.Redman wrote:Also, what are you thoughts on the fact that increased number of households with guns is likely to lead to the increased likelihood of guns falling into the wrong hands
I feel that I should not be restricted on the basis that some one else is deficient.
No one has said mass ownership...and WE have advocated exactly the opposite...freedom WITH the responsibility to deserve the privilege.
88sins wrote:desifemlove wrote:i'm sorry? dunno what rolling pins you does use, but cooking utensils aren't used nor designed to kill and maim.
So what's your take on the cutlass? They were designed for that exact purpose, & they proliferate this country today. I am pretty sure over 80% of homes in T&T have at least 1 cutlass.
Using your logic, it seems odd that every Trini isn't dead or at least scarred from chop wounds
src1983 wrote:desifemlove wrote:src1983 wrote:desifemlove wrote:lolol......any more regulations added in any state area has to account for the culture we does have. and a gun is a weapon designed to kill. corruption in house allocation may not be good, but nobody eh use no house or flat to kill.
But according to your statements, because of "trini mentality" we not capable of knives, rolling pins, vehicles etc.
i'm sorry? dunno what rolling pins you does use, but cooking utensils aren't used nor designed to kill and maim.
They aren't but the mentality of the people you described will use it for that.
Redman wrote:No one has said mass ownership...and WE have advocated exactly the opposite...freedom WITH the responsibility to deserve the privilege.
Slartibartfast wrote:Redman wrote:No one has said mass ownership...and WE have advocated exactly the opposite...freedom WITH the responsibility to deserve the privilege.
The bold part would be a pg 17 post...which you agreed with.
So evidently I speak English....the challenge seems to be you reading it.
Slartibartfast wrote:A right to bear arms means that anyone over 18 years old with a valid form of ID can walk into gun store and walk out with a gun without and approval process. Is this what you guys are advocating?
Slartibartfast wrote:Also, judging by the way that we treat our rules and regulations concerning rolling boxes of metal that can completely destroy multiple human beings on impact, what makes you think that we (meaning general populace, not just 88sins and frens) would treat something that is able to take one life with any more caution?
Slartibartfast wrote:Also, what are you thoughts on the fact that increased number of households with guns is likely to lead to the increased likelihood of guns falling into the wrong hands (i.e. somebody takes their daddy's gun to school to deal with another child that stepped on his $1200 clarks)?
88sins wrote:I believe that a concealed carry provision related to sidearms would lead to problems very quickly, potentially that criminals would be able to access pistols a little more freely w/o a license(just steal a pistol, or buy one from some shady character willing to sell it to them). Or some unstable hothead fool that believes he's superman because he has a concealed weapon on him might be all too happy to shoot someone w/o proper cause. Or a child could hide a pistol in his bag & take it to school in a rage or to show off & we all know the possible scenarios of that. That's why I personally wouldn't recommend starting with allowing pistols or cc from the beginning. Most rifles are not as easy to hide as a pistol, unless trini's plan to start wearing trench coats & dashiki's on a regular basis in the kinda heat we get here. Too easy to hide=too easy to be misused & abused. Businessmen with a desire to protect their stores can keep a weapon concealed behind the register, or have concealed armed security if need be.
Slartibartfast wrote:Let's not forget how many irresponsible parents we have out here.
they can't sneak a full length .410 shot gun into school either, thus your point is mootSlartibartfast wrote:Children can't sneak cutlasses to school
Slartibartfast wrote:and knives are melee weapons (i.e. a lot easier to outrun and fight back against, so they cannot be compared.
Slartibartfast wrote:Ever wonder why you never hear of mass school stabbings?)
Slartibartfast wrote:All I am hearing is "criminals have guns so I want guns to".
desifemlove wrote:src1983 wrote:desifemlove wrote:src1983 wrote:desifemlove wrote:lolol......any more regulations added in any state area has to account for the culture we does have. and a gun is a weapon designed to kill. corruption in house allocation may not be good, but nobody eh use no house or flat to kill.
But according to your statements, because of "trini mentality" we not capable of knives, rolling pins, vehicles etc.
i'm sorry? dunno what rolling pins you does use, but cooking utensils aren't used nor designed to kill and maim.
They aren't but the mentality of the people you described will use it for that.
cos if our civil service and ting corrupt, then how would a licensing system escape that? people will pass ting under table for gun, with no background check, or give gun wit no licence to dey son, daughter, lil nephew.
88sins wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:A right to bear arms means that anyone over 18 years old with a valid form of ID can walk into gun store and walk out with a gun without and approval process. Is this what you guys are advocating?
I never made such a statement. You need to read the thread from the beginning again.
You are a special kind of stupid aren't you. Look again at the title of he thread. Now read up on how native english speakers use the work "right" in this context http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RightsSlartibartfast wrote:Also, judging by the way that we treat our rules and regulations concerning rolling boxes of metal that can completely destroy multiple human beings on impact, what makes you think that we (meaning general populace, not just 88sins and frens) would treat something that is able to take one life with any more caution?
Because killing someone with a vehicle may be construed as a accident, but intentionally aiming at or in the direction of someone & then shooting someone is murder unless it can be proven that it was either self defense or accidental, either of the three earning the shooter either a brief, long or terminal prison sentence if they're dumb enough to do such. At the end of the day, the punishing someone for an accidental killing does not bring the person back. I am more concerned about prevention and was highlighting the irresponsibility that is clearly already evident in out society.Slartibartfast wrote:Also, what are you thoughts on the fact that increased number of households with guns is likely to lead to the increased likelihood of guns falling into the wrong hands (i.e. somebody takes their daddy's gun to school to deal with another child that stepped on his $1200 clarks)?
I ain't in the mood to type this again, so look it, do what yuh want with it88sins wrote:I believe that a concealed carry provision related to sidearms would lead to problems very quickly, potentially that criminals would be able to access pistols a little more freely w/o a license(just steal a pistol, or buy one from some shady character willing to sell it to them). Or some unstable hothead fool that believes he's superman because he has a concealed weapon on him might be all too happy to shoot someone w/o proper cause. Or a child could hide a pistol in his bag & take it to school in a rage or to show off & we all know the possible scenarios of that. That's why I personally wouldn't recommend starting with allowing pistols or cc from the beginning. Most rifles are not as easy to hide as a pistol, unless trini's plan to start wearing trench coats & dashiki's on a regular basis in the kinda heat we get here. Too easy to hide=too easy to be misused & abused. Businessmen with a desire to protect their stores can keep a weapon concealed behind the register, or have concealed armed security if need be.
Try to figure out if that makes sense you can. Lol... I didn't say thisSlartibartfast wrote:Let's not forget how many irresponsible parents we have out here.
Parents can be held accountable for their child's actions if their negligence assisted/enabled said actions. Thus motivating parents to be more responsible, both for their offspring, & their firearm.Still.... a life lost is still a life lost. I am more concerned about prevention than the aftermath.they can't sneak a full length .410 shot gun into school either, thus your point is moot You need to learn to argue better. They can sneak a 9mm pistol in their bookbag. Did you know a 9mm pistol can also be lethal?Slartibartfast wrote:Children can't sneak cutlasses to schoolSlartibartfast wrote:and knives are melee weapons (i.e. a lot easier to outrun and fight back against, so they cannot be compared.
If you think so, I won't debate that with you. But keep these tidbits the back of your mind.
The most dangerous weapon against an individual is the one they cannot see coming.
A knife with a 2" blade will kill a man just as dead as a cutlass with a 20" blade, particularly if the wielder knows how & where to use it. Actually I would argue that a knife is a lot more dangerous because it is easier to wield than a cutlass. The thing with a knife is that the attacker has to be close to the victim. So at least the victim has a chance to fight back. An assailant could point and shoot from 5 feet away and kill their target. Unless their target is Yao Ming then the assailant would be out of reach of the victim and the victim would therefore be defenseless.Slartibartfast wrote:Ever wonder why you never hear of mass school stabbings?)
Had a rash of them a while ago, seems to have died down thank God. I neither know or care where you were when they were occurring. Link to articles please. It seems a lot easier to run from a guy with a knife than a guy spraying bullets.Slartibartfast wrote:All I am hearing is "criminals have guns so I want guns to".
Best I could tell you is yuh should buy Q-tips & ear drops wholesale. Your hearing seems defective.... uh... ok...
rspann wrote:88, in the wtf thread,you said the woman would come up missing the same day if it was your yute. Do you think that is the right temperament for an applicant for a firearm license? Alot of people cannot control their temper and would use a firearm for the slightest reason, that is what makes it hard for the ones who really qualify. There are licenses given out still, so it's not like there is a ban or anything.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 115 guests