Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Post New Thread Reply

Register GFY Rules Calendar
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed.

 
Thread Tools
Old 05-03-2013, 08:31 AM   #1
Grapesoda
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montana
Posts: 46,238
what do you guys think of the gun regulation conceptt?

firearms (like all motor vehicles) should have a liability-insured registered keeper who is held legally responsible for any damage they might do. If you can't afford the policy, then you can't afford the gun.
Grapesoda is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 08:42 AM   #2
L-Pink
working on my tan
 
L-Pink's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida/Kentucky
Posts: 39,151
Do gangs get a group discount? Do armed robbers get a professional discount?

I read where almost 25% of Florida drivers are uninsured, sorta answers that question.


.

Last edited by L-Pink; 05-03-2013 at 08:45 AM..
L-Pink is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 08:49 AM   #3
sperbonzo
I'd rather be on my boat.
 
sperbonzo's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grapesoda View Post
firearms (like all motor vehicles) should have a liability-insured registered keeper who is held legally responsible for any damage they might do. If you can't afford the policy, then you can't afford the gun.
I like it. After all, only rich people deserve to protect their homes and families, as they are the only ones responsible, intelligent and educated enough. It's well known that poor people are not responsible enough to have the right of self protection. Can you imagine a single woman working a low paying job, trying to take care of her kids having some kind of weapon to protect herself against intruders? Everyone knows that she can't be trusted to have that right! Let her wait until the police get there, I'm sure she can some other way to protect herself. We need to keep guns out of the hands of the lower classes!







.
__________________
Michael Sperber / Acella Financial LLC/ Online Payment Processing

[email protected] / http://Acellafinancial.com/

ICQ 177961090 / Tel +1 909 NET BILL / Skype msperber
sperbonzo is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 08:50 AM   #4
BlackCrayon
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
BlackCrayon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 19,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by L-Pink View Post
Do gangs get a group discount? Do armed robbers get a professional discount?

I read where almost 25% of Florida drivers are uninsured, sorta answers that question.


.
well it would work the same way, when they finally get caught they get fined.
__________________
you don't know you're wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day..
BlackCrayon is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 08:50 AM   #5
WarChild
Let slip the dogs of war.
 
WarChild's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bermuda
Posts: 17,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by sperbonzo View Post
I like it. After all, only rich people deserve to protect their homes and families. Poor people are not responsible enough to have the right of self protection. Can you imagine a single woman working a low paying job, trying to take care of her kids having some kind of weapon to protect herself against intruders? Everyone knows that she can't be trusted to have that right! Let her wait until the police get there, I'm sure she can some other way to protect herself. We need to keep guns out of the hands of the lower classes!







.
So your argument against is that it would be prohibitively expensive for the lower class? That seems odd that insurance would be so expensive given how safe firearms are!
__________________
.
WarChild is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 08:52 AM   #6
BlackCrayon
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
BlackCrayon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 19,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by sperbonzo View Post
I like it. After all, only rich people deserve to protect their homes and families, as they are the only ones responsible, intelligent and educated enough. It's well known that poor people are not responsible enough to have the right of self protection. Can you imagine a single woman working a low paying job, trying to take care of her kids having some kind of weapon to protect herself against intruders? Everyone knows that she can't be trusted to have that right! Let her wait until the police get there, I'm sure she can some other way to protect herself. We need to keep guns out of the hands of the lower classes!







.
so why don't we lower rent/groceries/insurance in general for all these poor people? surely a decent place to live and good food isn't only for rich people...
__________________
you don't know you're wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day..
BlackCrayon is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:10 AM   #7
sarettah
see you later, I'm gone
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 14,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grapesoda View Post
firearms (like all motor vehicles) should have a liability-insured registered keeper who is held legally responsible for any damage they might do. If you can't afford the policy, then you can't afford the gun.
Why do you have trouble understanding what a "right" is ?

.
__________________
All cookies cleared!
sarettah is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:17 AM   #8
tony286
lurker
 
tony286's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: atlanta
Posts: 57,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarettah View Post
Why do you have trouble understanding what a "right" is ?

.
Voting is a right and its regulated.
tony286 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:18 AM   #9
tony286
lurker
 
tony286's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: atlanta
Posts: 57,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grapesoda View Post
firearms (like all motor vehicles) should have a liability-insured registered keeper who is held legally responsible for any damage they might do. If you can't afford the policy, then you can't afford the gun.
I agree and they have to take classes and pass a test. Then you can own whatever u want. All guns start as legal.
tony286 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:21 AM   #10
Rochard
Jägermeister Test Pilot
 
Rochard's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NORCAL
Posts: 73,486
I am not sure if I see the point in this. I guess it makes sense. It's like car insurance - I you can't afford the car insurance, you cannot drive. The huge downside here is it would require you to register any / all firearms with the local government. While I am fine with this - If find it highly unlikely that the US government is going to take our firearms away from us - but I can see the vast majority of gun owners have large issues with this.

I honestly believe our first step is mental health issues. My wife works for a doctor's office, and her computer system is set up with local hospital systems. They do this for "our protection". For example, a patient came in and needed an operation and failed to mention he just had a heart attack two weeks prior. If you see one doctor, every other doctor in the system knows about it.

I've mentioned this before on GFY and was told this would be an issue due to privacy concerns. No, it isn't. The doctor files already exist, the government already has access to this, and you've already signed away your privacy rights when you asked for the background check.

Then... If you have seen a counselor/therapist or if you are on certain medications in the past three years, you are restricted from owning a firearm. If anyone in your house has seen a counselor/therapist in the past three years, or been on certain medications, you are restricted from owning a firearm.

99.9% of firearm owners are legal, law abiding citizens. It's the mentally ill that is the problem.
__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION
Rochard is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:23 AM   #11
AaronM
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
AaronM's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐
Posts: 46,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grapesoda View Post
firearms (like all motor vehicles) should have a liability-insured registered keeper who is held legally responsible for any damage they might do. If you can't afford the policy, then you can't afford the gun.

That would never fly and would be impossible to regulate due to all the non registered firearms in the country.

However, taxing ammo and/or the components thereof and using the money to fund an insurance carrier might be possible. The more you shoot, the higher the probability of an accident and the more you pay on ammo tax.

Not a perfect system as all anybody needs is a single round to cause harm but there could be something to it. Obviously as a "concept" it would require a lot more thought.

Last edited by AaronM; 05-03-2013 at 09:33 AM..
AaronM is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:28 AM   #12
sarettah
see you later, I'm gone
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 14,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony286 View Post
Voting is a right and its regulated.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

Quote:
The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.
__________________
All cookies cleared!
sarettah is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:38 AM   #13
SuckOnThis
So Fucking Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In my head
Posts: 6,844
Do rednecks hate Lynyrd Skynyrd now?


SuckOnThis is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:48 AM   #14
mikesouth
Confirmed User
 
mikesouth's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: My High Horse
Posts: 6,334
Cant happen it is a restraint on a constitutionally recognized right to bear arms. Wouldnt begin to pass constitutional muster with this or any foreseeable supreme court.

I like the idea of voters insurance meaning if you misuse your vote you can be sued but alas that wont happen either....
__________________
Mike South

It's No wonder I took up drugs and alcohol, it's the only way I could dumb myself down enough to cope with the morons in this biz.
mikesouth is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:53 AM   #15
tony286
lurker
 
tony286's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: atlanta
Posts: 57,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarettah View Post
Ok but its still regulated.
tony286 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 10:09 AM   #16
sarettah
see you later, I'm gone
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 14,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony286 View Post
Ok but its still regulated.
Because the constitution does not say that it cannot be abridged or infringed except where they have specified. ie: race, sex, age over 18, poll taxes.

The 1st amendment specifically states that free speech, free press, assembly and grievance cannot be abridged and the second amendment specifically states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

If the constitution stated that the right to vote cannot be abridged or shall not be infringed the comparison between the right to vote and the right to bear arms or free speech would be valid but since the constitution does not state that, the comparison is invalid.

Ok Honey Buns ?

I still love you even when you are wrong and deluded ;p

.
__________________
All cookies cleared!

Last edited by sarettah; 05-03-2013 at 10:17 AM..
sarettah is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 10:15 AM   #17
Vendzilla
Biker Gnome
 
Vendzilla's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: cell#324
Posts: 23,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony286 View Post
Voting is a right and its regulated.
No it's not, many states do not require a state ID
__________________
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about that
Vendzilla is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 10:17 AM   #18
sarettah
see you later, I'm gone
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 14,091
If we want restrictions on the right to bear arms the proper way to attain them is through amending the constitution.

People argue "but that takes too long", "it is a long, hard process", etc.

Yes, it is a long, hard process. That is purposeful. It attempts to guarantee that the change is well thought out and has been debated properly before just haphazardly making changes to the document that is the basis of our laws.

People nowadays constantly make arguments that can be summarized as "we do not have the time to do it right". I argue the opposite. We do not have time it do it wrong.

When you do things back ass-ward they tend not to stick and we have to repeat the discussion again and again and again.

Just imho, of course.

.
__________________
All cookies cleared!
sarettah is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 10:59 AM   #19
Rochard
Jägermeister Test Pilot
 
Rochard's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NORCAL
Posts: 73,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarettah View Post
If we want restrictions on the right to bear arms the proper way to attain them is through amending the constitution.
We already have restrictions on our right to bear arms, but just no restrictions on the mentally ill owning firearms.
__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION
Rochard is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 02:35 PM   #20
WarChild
Let slip the dogs of war.
 
WarChild's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bermuda
Posts: 17,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarettah View Post
Because the constitution does not say that it cannot be abridged or infringed except where they have specified. ie: race, sex, age over 18, poll taxes.

The 1st amendment specifically states that free speech, free press, assembly and grievance cannot be abridged and the second amendment specifically states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

If the constitution stated that the right to vote cannot be abridged or shall not be infringed the comparison between the right to vote and the right to bear arms or free speech would be valid but since the constitution does not state that, the comparison is invalid.

Ok Honey Buns ?

I still love you even when you are wrong and deluded ;p

.
The 2nd amendment never specifically states that felons are exempt from this right. Isn't that regulation not specified in the text?
__________________
.
WarChild is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 02:47 PM   #21
Grapesoda
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montana
Posts: 46,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCrayon View Post
so why don't we lower rent/groceries/insurance in general for all these poor people? surely a decent place to live and good food isn't only for rich people...
how about all us guys working just pay 98% taxes so the privileged can just sit around all day, watch big screen TV's, get high and have sex with each other?
Grapesoda is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 02:47 PM   #22
DWB
Registered User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Encrypted. Access denied.
Posts: 31,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grapesoda View Post
firearms (like all motor vehicles) should have a liability-insured registered keeper who is held legally responsible for any damage they might do. If you can't afford the policy, then you can't afford the gun.
In theory it sounds great but the biggest issue is and always will be illegal firearms. It's the same where I live where most people can't legally get or afford a gun. The solution: steal them, buy cheap Chinese ones on the black market, or make your own. Many of the gun murders here are from homemade one-shot pistols. I just can't think of a way to stop someone from making their own or stealing one from someone else.
DWB is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 02:49 PM   #23
Grapesoda
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montana
Posts: 46,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard View Post
We already have restrictions on our right to bear arms, but just no restrictions on the mentally ill owning firearms.
obviously we can't suppress the mentality ill people rights...
Grapesoda is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 02:50 PM   #24
Helix
Confirmed User
 
Helix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 5,958
No...and like the fiscal cliff talks...it's not open for discussion.
__________________
Free jscott !!!
Free OneHungLo !!!
Free Baddog !!!
Helix is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 02:59 PM   #25
L-Pink
working on my tan
 
L-Pink's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida/Kentucky
Posts: 39,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard View Post
restrictions on the mentally ill owning firearms.
Sell me your AR-15 before they come to your house.

.
L-Pink is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 03:09 PM   #26
Rochard
Jägermeister Test Pilot
 
Rochard's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NORCAL
Posts: 73,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grapesoda View Post
obviously we can't suppress the mentality ill people rights...
Why not?

We don't allow the mentally ill to drive, do we? I have a friend who has a twenty-one year old son who lives in assisted living. He has a job, but he's not allowed to drive a car. Surely he shouldn't have a firearm....
__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION
Rochard is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 03:25 PM   #27
mikesouth
Confirmed User
 
mikesouth's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: My High Horse
Posts: 6,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard View Post
Why not?

We don't allow the mentally ill to drive, do we? I have a friend who has a twenty-one year old son who lives in assisted living. He has a job, but he's not allowed to drive a car. Surely he shouldn't have a firearm....

First of all driving isnt a right it is a privilege, gun ownership isnt a privilege it is a right.

second the meaning of the second amendment is whatever the supreme court says it is at a given time but saretah is right if you want to abridge the right to bear arms...amend the constitution.

finally the feds have pretty much left it up to the states as far as most gun legislation so long as the states dont run afoul of the constitution. The recent gun control bills would have taken a lot of that away from the states and made it a federal issue, at a time when many states are actually relaxing firearm restrictions. Some states like Idaho even allow the unrestricted ownership of fully automatic weapons (machine guns) some states (NY, CA, WA, DE) dont allow the ownership of machine guns at all
__________________
Mike South

It's No wonder I took up drugs and alcohol, it's the only way I could dumb myself down enough to cope with the morons in this biz.
mikesouth is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 03:45 PM   #28
AaronM
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
AaronM's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐
Posts: 46,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard View Post
We don't allow the mentally ill to drive, do we?

Of course we do, depending on the level of their "illness."

Bi-Polar and Manic/Depressive disorders doesn't keep people from driving but they certainly could be classified as something that would keep you from legally owning a gun.
AaronM is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 05:00 PM   #29
theking
Nice Kitty
 
theking's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The good old USA!!!
Posts: 21,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grapesoda View Post
firearms (like all motor vehicles) should have a liability-insured registered keeper who is held legally responsible for any damage they might do. If you can't afford the policy, then you can't afford the gun.
I do not like the idea it at all.
__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html
theking is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 05:14 PM   #30
Yngwie
I am an Alien from space
 
Yngwie's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,118
It's BARE arms.. not BEAR! lol come on!
Yngwie is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 05:17 PM   #31
Robbie
Leaner, Meaner, Faster
 
Robbie's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Vegas
Posts: 20,959
I think the insurance companies are going to be the richest companies on Earth.
We are already forced to by car insurance. Now we have ObamaCare and are forced to buy health insurance.
I own my own home so I pay home insurance and mortgage insurance.

So yeah...why not hand the insurance companies even more money? And why stop there? I love working hard and not getting to keep any of my own money...I'm taxed and insured to the hilt. lol
__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com
Robbie is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 05:19 PM   #32
Robbie
Leaner, Meaner, Faster
 
Robbie's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Vegas
Posts: 20,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronM View Post
Of course we do, depending on the level of their "illness."

Bi-Polar and Manic/Depressive disorders doesn't keep people from driving but they certainly could be classified as something that would keep you from legally owning a gun.
NOTHING stops anybody from driving. Plenty of people out there who are so low IQ they can barely function but have drivers licenses. Also a LOT of people out there who drive with suspended licenses.

The govt. can make all the laws it wants to. But they only apply to law abiding citizens. People still do whatever they want to no matter what.
__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com
Robbie is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 05:27 PM   #33
AaronM
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
AaronM's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐
Posts: 46,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie View Post
NOTHING stops anybody from driving. Plenty of people out there who are so low IQ they can barely function but have drivers licenses. Also a LOT of people out there who drive with suspended licenses.

The govt. can make all the laws it wants to. But they only apply to law abiding citizens. People still do whatever they want to no matter what.

Very true.
AaronM is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 05:59 PM   #34
Grapesoda
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montana
Posts: 46,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard View Post
Why not?

We don't allow the mentally ill to drive, do we? I have a friend who has a twenty-one year old son who lives in assisted living. He has a job, but he's not allowed to drive a car. Surely he shouldn't have a firearm....
lawyers and civil right people
Grapesoda is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 06:00 PM   #35
Grapesoda
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montana
Posts: 46,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronM View Post
Of course we do, depending on the level of their "illness."

Bi-Polar and Manic/Depressive disorders doesn't keep people from driving but they certainly could be classified as something that would keep you from legally owning a gun.
seriously I think at least 80% of peeps on the road are high on something or fucked up on pills like meds or some shit like that..
Grapesoda is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 06:28 PM   #36
Elli
Reach for those stars!
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 17,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie View Post
NOTHING stops anybody from driving. Plenty of people out there who are so low IQ they can barely function but have drivers licenses. Also a LOT of people out there who drive with suspended licenses.

The govt. can make all the laws it wants to. But they only apply to law abiding citizens. People still do whatever they want to no matter what.
Yes, there will always be people who don't obey laws for whatever reasons. But sometimes it's better to have a law in place to keep most people's behaviour in line than to ignore a situation. I'm glad it's a law that vehicle manufacturers include seat belts in their cars. Do all people wear them? no, but the fact that most people do keeps my insurance rates lower than they otherwise would be.
Elli is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 06:39 PM   #37
PornoMonster
Confirmed User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard View Post
We already have restrictions on our right to bear arms, but just no restrictions on the mentally ill owning firearms.
If the Mentally ill can own them, then we do need stronger laws. This is also a slippery slope as to what is Mentally ill? My thoughts No female should own a firearm for one week out of the month. HA

Also, I do not think many of the mentally ill people Owned the firearms? Maybe the did?

I only quoted you so I could reply on my phone...
PornoMonster is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 06:45 PM   #38
PornoMonster
Confirmed User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesouth View Post
First of all driving isnt a right it is a privilege, gun ownership isnt a privilege it is a right.

second the meaning of the second amendment is whatever the supreme court says it is at a given time but saretah is right if you want to abridge the right to bear arms...amend the constitution.

finally the feds have pretty much left it up to the states as far as most gun legislation so long as the states dont run afoul of the constitution. The recent gun control bills would have taken a lot of that away from the states and made it a federal issue, at a time when many states are actually relaxing firearm restrictions. Some states like Idaho even allow the unrestricted ownership of fully automatic weapons (machine guns) some states (NY, CA, WA, DE) dont allow the ownership of machine guns at all
I just read today that Kansas made it a felony for a federal agent to enforce any gun laws, for guns owned, made, purchased in Kansas. Big Daddy said they would take Kansas to court, and the Gov made an awesome reply...

Mr. Brownback replied to Mr. Holder on Thursday.
?The right to keep and bear arms is a right that Kansans hold dear,? Mr. Brownback wrote in a letter dated May 2. ?It is a right enshrined not only in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, but also protected by the Kansas Bill of Rights.
?The people of Kansas have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to protecting this fundamental right. The people of Kansas are likewise committed to defending the sovereignty of the State of Kansas as guaranteed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,? he said.
Mr. Brownback goes on to write that the legislation was passed on wide and bipartisan votes in the Kansas House of Representatives and the Kansas Senate (96-24 and 35-4, respectively), and that the Democratic minority leader in each chamber supported it.
?This is not a partisan issue in Kansas,? he wrote. ?The people of Kansas have clearly expressed their sovereign will. It is my hope that upon further review, you will see their right to do so.?


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2SG5nXgX3
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
PornoMonster is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 08:01 PM   #39
DWB
Registered User
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Encrypted. Access denied.
Posts: 31,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie View Post
The govt. can make all the laws it wants to. But they only apply to law abiding citizens. People still do whatever they want to no matter what.
</thread>
DWB is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 08:24 PM   #40
AaronM
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
AaronM's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐
Posts: 46,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard View Post
We already have restrictions on our right to bear arms, but just no restrictions on the mentally ill owning firearms.

How many times do I have to point out that you're wrong about this?

Here's an idea...If you don't know WTF you're talking about...STFU.
AaronM is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 08:42 PM   #41
AaronM
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
AaronM's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐
Posts: 46,909
Read.

Learn.

Stop posting ignorant and false statements.

http://www.atf.gov/files/publication...f-i-3310-4.pdf

Last edited by AaronM; 05-03-2013 at 08:45 PM..
AaronM is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:09 PM   #42
kane
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
kane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: portland, OR
Posts: 20,684
I don't see how this will help.

Most criminals who use guns to commit crimes use guns that were gotten illegally. These guys were likely stolen and then resold to the criminal (or stolen by the criminal). I can insure the hell out of my gun, but if someone steals it and uses it for a crime that insurnace likely will do no good.
kane is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:27 PM   #43
AaronM
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
AaronM's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐
Posts: 46,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane View Post
I don't see how this will help.

Most criminals who use guns to commit crimes use guns that were gotten illegally. These guys were likely stolen and then resold to the criminal (or stolen by the criminal). I can insure the hell out of my gun, but if someone steals it and uses it for a crime that insurnace likely will do no good.

I believe this thread is in reference to accidental shootings etc...Situations where you, as the firearm owner, could be exposed to liability and civil litigation.

If your gun is stolen then you would report it as such and would, in most cases, not have any liability from any crime committed with it. Common sense says that you may still be liable if it was stolen due to negligence or if you failed to report the theft.
AaronM is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 09:35 PM   #44
Grapesoda
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montana
Posts: 46,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuckOnThis View Post
Do rednecks hate Lynyrd Skynyrd now?


Grapesoda is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 10:01 PM   #45
kane
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
kane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: portland, OR
Posts: 20,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronM View Post
I believe this thread is in reference to accidental shootings etc...Situations where you, as the firearm owner, could be exposed to liability and civil litigation.

If your gun is stolen then you would report it as such and would, in most cases, not have any liability from any crime committed with it. Common sense says that you may still be liable if it was stolen due to negligence or if you failed to report the theft.
I guess I could see how it might be helpful with accidental shootings, but if the shooting happened in your house wouldn't home owners insurance cover it? If it were away from the house like out hunting or shooting, if you had health insurance and were injured it should cover it, but death might be another thing.

I guess I don't see a huge advantage to insuring a gun.
kane is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 12:00 AM   #46
Robbie
Leaner, Meaner, Faster
 
Robbie's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Vegas
Posts: 20,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane View Post
I guess I don't see a huge advantage to insuring a gun.
That's because you aren't Big Govt. and/or Big Insurance.
__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com
Robbie is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 12:37 AM   #47
kane
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
kane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: portland, OR
Posts: 20,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie View Post
That's because you aren't Big Govt. and/or Big Insurance.
This is true
kane is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 02:16 AM   #48
pimpmaster9000
Too lazy to set a custom title
 
pimpmaster9000's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 26,732
man you US guys talking about the constitution reminds me of arabs talking about the quran LOL...

its not the 10 commandments and it was written by dirty smelly ethnic cleansing traitors from europe...

and also, if you have not noticed, the government takes away your "constitutional" rights anyway...its amusing to see all of you find a false sense of security in a "magic Scroll" LOL
pimpmaster9000 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 05:23 AM   #49
Grapesoda
So Fucking Banned
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montana
Posts: 46,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by crucifissio View Post
man you US guys talking about the constitution reminds me of arabs talking about the quran LOL...

its not the 10 commandments and it was written by dirty smelly ethnic cleansing traitors from europe...

and also, if you have not noticed, the government takes away your "constitutional" rights anyway...its amusing to see all of you find a false sense of security in a "magic Scroll" LOL
'written by dirty smelly ethnic cleansing traitors from europe... pretty much... but then so is everything
Grapesoda is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 06:01 AM   #50
arock10
Confirmed User
 
arock10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,218
Second amendment needs to be amended to get with the times. Sick of just hearing but but but the second amendment says so

First amendment is for free speech but its still illegal to yell fire in a movie theater when there is none

Just like I shouldn't be allowed to buy assault rifles from private parties with no background check or registering...
__________________
Sup
arock10 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Post New Thread Reply
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >

Bookmarks



Advertising inquiries - marketing at gfy dot com

Contact Admin - Advertise - GFY Rules - Top

©2000-, AI Media Network Inc



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000- Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.