Dear Conservatives

[ExiledInIllinois]

200 Million guns didn't kill anyone yesterday.

 

Your child is more likely to be struck by lightening than injured by a legally held firearm.

 

Your uniformed opinions are just that.

355867[/snapback]

 

Was this directed towards me? I have seemed to have touched a nerve?

 

I here what you are saying Darin. I guess the randomness of getting struck by lightening makes it easier to deal with? Then again if you are observing all safety percautions in dealing with lightening, you are not going to get struck. The same can be said for firearms... Yet, firearms are still left in the control of man... Which means (at least to me, IMO) that all accidental deaths, random, what not can be avoided.

 

Don't let that whoosh over the top of your head distract you or throw you off course?

[Alaska Darin]

Was this directed towards me?  I have seemed to have touched a nerve?

 

I here what you are saying Darin.  I guess the randomness of getting struck by lightening makes it easier to deal with?  Then again if you are observing all safety percautions in dealing with lightening, you are not going to get struck.  The same can be said for firearms... Yet, firearms are still left in the control of man... Which means (at least to me, IMO) that all accidental deaths, random, what not can be avoided.

 

Don't let that whoosh over the top of your head distract you or throw you off course?  

355875[/snapback]

As usual, you give yourself entirely too much credit.

[Chilly]

is this what sent you spiraling downward into liberalism? 

354968[/snapback]

 

On Social Policies, for the most part yeah. I started valuing individual freedom more after I came here.

 

Tracking the bullets is going to be difficult. As the monkey mentioned, putting a chip in the bullet itself is difficult for many reasons:

 

1) If the chip is IN the bullet, you have to make sure it can survive the smelting process of creating the bullet. If it is on the outside, you now have issues of balance and aerodynamics of the bullet. You also need to find a way of making sure it can withstand items 2 and 3 when fired. Depending on th elocation of the chip, you now may have isses with the pressing of the casing.

2) the shock on the bullet when firing

3) the shock on the bullet when it hits its target

 

Bullets can fragment. All of this needs to be considered if you want to add a chip to a bullet (plus some considerations I am probably missing).

As far as tracking weapons, there is a crude system in place now. The problem you have is that you need to wait until a crime is committed before you can add a gun to the system, or you risk infringing on civil liberties. The BATF can trace weapons, but that is not always effective or reliable.

 

Don't even get me started on ballistic fingerprinting. Talk about a COMPLETE waste of taxpayer resources. 

355006[/snapback]

 

I'd like a system in which we can track bullets because thats the most important thing. If it takes a long time, and we have to put taxpayer money into researching it, it'd still be worth it IMO.

 

Being at UT Austin sent me spiraling towards conservatism.  I can't handle all these hippies! 

355155[/snapback]

 

There are a lot of them for sure. The Keep Austin Weird folks freak me out, although all of my friends are from Dallas/Houston and are conservatives. Seems like those liberal hippies don't really go to UT for hte most part, they're just the homeless guys on Guadalupe.

[blzrul]

Was this directed towards me?  I have seemed to have touched a nerve?

 

I here what you are saying Darin.  I guess the randomness of getting struck by lightening makes it easier to deal with?  Then again if you are observing all safety percautions in dealing with lightening, you are not going to get struck.  The same can be said for firearms... Yet, firearms are still left in the control of man... Which means (at least to me, IMO) that all accidental deaths, random, what not can be avoided.

 

Don't let that whoosh over the top of your head distract you or throw you off course?  

355875[/snapback]

Naturally he attacks instead of discusses. No-one wants to take away your guns AD. If all gun owners were responsible and conscientious as you must be, there would be no issues. Which family value is it though that says it's ok to leave a loaded, unlocked gun around for a kid to kill his friend with during playtime? I guess in your mind it's just A-OK and it's what the parents deserve for being careless.

 

I don't give a rat's ass about the parents. I'm talking about the kids. And yeah, maybe it doesn't happen very often. But when it happens to someone you know or love, it's once too many.

 

Come on, let's see some of that compassion!

[Alaska Darin]

Which family value is it though that says it's ok to leave a loaded, unlocked gun around for a kid to kill his friend with during playtime?  I guess in your mind it's just A-OK and it's what the parents deserve for being careless.

355976[/snapback]

Nothing more than another strawman argument. Parent your own kids - in my experience the government isn't going to do a better job.

 

Yeah, it's all about the children. Bill Clinton was really good at pulling on those emotional heartstrings, too. At the end of the day, you're not doing anybody any good.

[blzrul]

Nothing more than another strawman argument.  Parent your own kids - in my experience the government isn't going to do a better job.

 

Yeah, it's all about the children.  Bill Clinton was really good at pulling on those emotional heartstrings, too.  At the end of the day, you're not doing anybody any good.

356017[/snapback]

That's it, trot out Bill Clinton. As I scan my posts above I don't see mention of any politician. It transcends administrations. I guess that's what I'd expect, you have no answer so you'll sputter and out with some childish stuff that has nothing to do with anything.

 

Here are some facts: in 1999, according to the University of Michigan, 3,385 children between 0 (that's less than a year in case it's confusing) and 19 were killed with guns. These break down with the bulk, some 1,990 being homicide. There were over 1000 suicides. One could argue that the homicides come from guns OUTSIDE the child's home - but they come from someone's home.

 

In 2001 LESS THAN 3000 PEOPLE were killed in a terror attack. Given that we've had two terror attacks by outsiders on our soil in some 240 years, that would be statistically more a remote happenstance than lightening striking.

 

But look at the reaction - people have willingly given up some of their freedoms and the government is starting wars and spending a bazillion dollars on it to avoid it happening again.

 

Sure, they're different. They're different like dropping dead of a heart attack versus wasting away from cancer. Once's sudden and final. The other one gives more notice. But in the end they both end in death.

 

Statistically then it is probably more likely that a child will die from a gun injury that a terror attack. So why is one so important and the other just gets poo-pooed?

 

I don't want to take anyone's guns away. I just don't feel like burying another kid because someone else isn't responsible. Is that so much to ask?

 

I wonder, do you have children?

[Alaska Darin]

That's it, trot out Bill Clinton.  As I scan my posts above I don't see mention of any politician.  It transcends administrations.  I guess that's what I'd expect, you have no answer so you'll sputter and out with some childish stuff that has nothing to do with anything.

 

Here are some facts:  in 1999, according to the University of Michigan, 3,385 children between 0 (that's less than a year in case it's confusing) and 19 were killed with guns.  These break down with the bulk, some 1,990 being homicide.  There were over 1000 suicides.  One could argue that the homicides come from guns OUTSIDE the child's home - but they come from someone's home.

 

In 2001 LESS THAN 3000 PEOPLE were killed in a terror attack.  Given that we've had two terror attacks by outsiders on our soil in some 240 years, that would be statistically more a remote happenstance than lightening striking.

 

But look at the reaction - people have willingly given up some of their freedoms and the government is starting wars and spending a bazillion dollars on it to avoid it happening again.

 

Sure, they're different.  They're different like dropping dead of a heart attack versus wasting away from cancer.  Once's sudden and final.  The other one gives more notice.  But in the end they both end in death.

 

Statistically then it is probably more likely that a child will die from a gun injury that a terror attack.  So why is one so important and the other just gets poo-pooed? 

 

I don't want to take anyone's guns away.  I just don't feel like burying another kid because someone else isn't responsible.  Is that so much to ask?

 

I wonder, do you have children?

356052[/snapback]

Typical liberal heartstring pulling lahjik. Pulling out a statistic about "Children between the ages of 0-19"? I wonder why the included "children" aged 18-19?Gee, that couldn't mean that the majority of those were gang/drug related? Nah. Too easy and doesn't help the ridiculous argument. According to NCJRS, nearly 2/3rds of all homicides involving guns are gang related. Stunning.

 

As far as people being willing to give up freedom for the perception of security, that's the inherent weakness of the terminally stupid. The answer isn't to give the government more money or power, rather it's to do the inverse. The entire reason that the American populous is now the target has everything to do with our government not being able to keep its hands to itself.

 

Good luck on your quest to not bury another kid because someone else isn't responsible. You're not going to get much sleep.

[blzrul]

Typical liberal heartstring pulling lahjik. Pulling out a statistic about "Children between the ages of 0-19"?  I wonder why the included "children" aged 18-19?Gee, that couldn't mean that the majority of those were gang/drug related?  Nah.  Too easy and doesn't help the ridiculous argument.  According to NCJRS, nearly 2/3rds of all homicides involving guns are gang related.  Stunning.

 

As far as people being willing to give up freedom for the perception of security, that's the inherent weakness of the terminally stupid.  The answer isn't to give the government more money or power, rather it's to do the inverse.  The entire reason that the American populous is now the target has everything to do with our government not being able to keep its hands to itself.

 

Good luck on your quest to not bury another kid because someone else isn't responsible.  You're not going to get much sleep. 

356065[/snapback]

You can ask UM about why they included those children. That's the way the numbers were given.

 

To each their own - but I think the government mandating a reasonable thing like a gun lock at manufacture is not much different than the government mandating airbags, seatbelts and other safety features in autos. There are always the idiots who won't wear the seatbelts and will maybe even disable the airbags just to show the government who's boss...but then there are idiots everywhere.

[Alaska Darin]

You can ask UM about why they included those children.  That's the way the numbers were given.

Thanks for the copout. I'll remember that the next time you bash the current administration for presenting information that makes them look good. Hypocrite.

but then there are idiots everywhere.

356068[/snapback]

You prove that here virtually everyday.

[Thurman's Helmet]

So if there are id codes on bullets and/or guns and I steal someone's guns and go on a 5 state killing spree, they'll come and get that person and I'm off scot-free?

 

Cool

 

 

And if I have a gun thats locked and hidden away and someone breaks into my house are they going to patiently wait while I fiddle with the numerous locking mechanisms that have my gun in their grasp?

 

I'm more worried about my kids getting killed by strangers, cars and dogs than I am about guns.

[Chilly]

So if there are id codes on bullets and/or guns and I steal someone's guns and go on a 5 state killing spree, they'll come and get that person and I'm off scot-free?

 

Cool

356209[/snapback]

 

Uh, no. But it DOES give the cops a place to start.

 

Without fingerprinting, phroensics, and ltos of other evidence it'd have no chance in court.

[Ghost of BiB]

Uh, no. But it DOES give the cops a place to start.

 

Without fingerprinting, phroensics, and ltos of other evidence it'd have no chance in court.

356221[/snapback]

 

They teach no spelling and diction at UT?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Uh, no. But it DOES give the cops a place to start.

 

Without fingerprinting, phroensics, and ltos of other evidence it'd have no chance in court.

356221[/snapback]

 

What the !@#$ is "phroensics"?

[Ghost of BiB]

Hey, PM or email me on the UbiSoft solution. I forgot. Copy to HD?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Hey, PM or email me on the UbiSoft solution. I forgot. Copy to HD?

356244[/snapback]

 

What was the question?

[Chilly]

lmfao. Wow, that was quite the typo.

[SilverNRed]

They teach no spelling and diction at UT?

356227[/snapback]

*slaps forehead*

 

Um, Hook 'Em Horns..?

[Chilly]

*slaps forehead*

 

Um, Hook 'Em Horns..?

356301[/snapback]

 

Hey hey hey, no hatin.

[RuntheDamnBall]

this might sound silly, but...if women who didn't want children would stop manufacturing them...it would help put a dent in the abortion problem.

354967[/snapback]

Yeah, they should just quit poppin' 'em out. Men have no responsibility at all for producing children.

[Alaska Darin]

Yeah, they should just quit poppin' 'em out.  Men have no responsibility at all for producing children. 

356355[/snapback]

No means no.

[KD in CA]

Dear Conservatives,

Do you really believe that outlawing abortions will solve the abortion problem?

 

Thanks,

Bluefire

354889[/snapback]

 

 

What's the 'abortion problem' that you think needs to be solved?

[Thurman's Helmet]

What I'm REALLY worried about is kids being killed by strange dogs driving cars.

 

 

GUNS KILL PEOPLE!

WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

MORE LAWS ARE NEEDED!

[Ghost of BiB]

What I'm REALLY worried about is kids being killed by strange dogs driving cars. 

GUNS KILL PEOPLE!

WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

MORE LAWS ARE NEEDED!

356406[/snapback]

 

Oh great. Now I have to go to New Jersey.

 

Thanks a lot. (where's my ammonia?)

[SilverNRed]

Hey hey hey, no hatin. 

356319[/snapback]

Don't worry, we're in this together.

[Bill from NYC]

Wow, that's blindingly stupid.  There are currently 20,000 gun laws on the books but that's not enough for you.  Now you're advocating using some kind of cheap technology that doesn't exist on a platform that isn't anywhere near designed for that kind of thing.  Forgetting altogether that if it's a cheap computer chip it's also easily hacked. 

 

The problem isn't laws, it's enforcement.  Try doing that once in awhile instead of sending cops into bars to look for ashtrays.

 

Gun "control" isn't about guns.  It's about control and every law that gets passed doesn't do anything except make good citizens into criminals because it's virtually impossible to keep up to date.  Criminals don't care about laws and law enforcement (especially at the federal level) is far too selective on what they enforce.  I'm sure having highly trained guys sit on the side of the road picking out people who aren't wearing seatbelts is alot more important than catching criminals who commit violent crimes.

354928[/snapback]

 

 

>>> The problem isn't laws, it's enforcement. Try doing that once in awhile instead of sending cops into bars to look for ashtrays.<<<

 

Well stated AD. Here in NY, "health inspectors" are free to go behind the bar and literally "search" for ashtrays. Great, huh?

 

Cops are also pretty busy standing at road blocks doing seat belt enforcement. "Click-it or Ticket," ya know what I mean?

Let's see.....you MUST wear a seat belt in a car, but motorcycles are legal....make sense?

Do you think that politicians are getting money from the insurance companies for the seat belt enforcement, or does the left enact these rules because they care about our safety?

[Adam]

Dear Conservatives,

Do you really believe that outlawing abortions will solve the abortion problem?

 

Thanks,

Bluefire

354889[/snapback]

 

No, it will not solve the problem. You solve the problem through education- and make it something that people fear, and will only use as a last resort.

 

The thing that people lose sight of is that nobody is actually pro-abortion.

[Chilly]

What's the 'abortion problem' that you think needs to be solved?

356380[/snapback]

 

The # of abortions needs to be reduced and the risk factor during abortion needs to be reduced. I know of no one that doesn't think there currently is a problem, or wouldn't like to see the number of abortions reduced.

 

>>> The problem isn't laws, it's enforcement. Try doing that once in awhile instead of sending cops into bars to look for ashtrays.<<<

 

Well stated AD. Here in NY, "health inspectors" are free to go behind the bar and literally "search" for ashtrays. Great, huh?

 

Cops are also pretty busy standing at road blocks doing seat belt enforcement. "Click-it or Ticket," ya know what I mean?

Let's see.....you MUST wear a seat belt in a car, but motorcycles are legal....make sense?

Do you think that politicians are getting money from the insurance companies for the seat belt enforcement, or does the left enact these rules because they care about our safety?

356487[/snapback]

 

The gun control laws that I'd avocate aren't laws to control guns, but to allow for much better and easier enforcement of our criminal laws. This is what the issue is.

 

I'm not a fan, at all, of grandfather rules such as seat belt laws. Wasting taxpayer money to enforce a click it or ticket campaign is one fo the stupidest things that can be done with that money.

 

Educate the public about seat belts - why they're good to wear and why its important to do so for your safety. After that, its up to each member of society to decide for themselves whether they want to or not. If they don't, natural selection baby!

 

No, it will not solve the problem. You solve the problem through education- and make it something that people fear, and will only use as a last resort.

 

The thing that people lose sight of is that nobody is actually pro-abortion.

356490[/snapback]

 

Indeed, and I agree with you. Although I don't think I'd use the term "fear". Trying to instill fear into a society using shock to regulate soemthing hasn't worked in the war on drugs, and I doubt it would work with abortions. (We might be able to use the tactic to make people ashamed to have an abortion, lol )

[Bill from NYC]

The # of abortions needs to be reduced and the risk factor during abortion needs to be reduced.  I know of no one that doesn't think there currently is a problem, or wouldn't like to see the number of abortions reduced.

The gun control laws that I'd avocate aren't laws to control guns, but to allow for much better and easier enforcement of our criminal laws.  This is what the issue is.

 

I'm not a fan, at all, of grandfather rules such as seat belt laws.  Wasting taxpayer money to enforce a click it or ticket campaign is one fo the stupidest things that can be done with that money.

 

Educate the public about seat belts - why they're good to wear and why its important to do so for your safety.  After that, its up to each member of society to decide for themselves whether they want to or not.  If they don't, natural selection baby!

Indeed, and I agree with you.  Although I don't think I'd use the term "fear".  Trying to instill fear into a society using shock to regulate soemthing hasn't worked in the war on drugs, and I doubt it would work with abortions. (We might be able to use the tactic to make people ashamed to have an abortion, lol )

356518[/snapback]

 

What about the issue that AD and I raised about smoking in bars?

You claim to be a "liberal" who stands for "individual freedom."

Please, tell us of your stance on this issue!

[Chilly]

What about the issue that AD and I raised about smoking in bars?

You claim to be a "liberal" who stands for "individual freedom."

Please, tell us of your stance on this issue!

356530[/snapback]

 

I don't give a damn if you wanna smoke in bars. I think the laws against it are silly.

[Bill from NYC]

I don't give a damn if you wanna smoke in bars.  I think the laws against it are silly.

356532[/snapback]

 

Then you sir are a rare example of a liberal who is not a hypocrite.

My sincere compliments.

 

Btw, it is not the rights of the smoker that concerns me in this instance. It is the rights of the bar (private property) owner.

[VABills]

Then you sir are a rare example of a liberal who is not a hypocrite.

My sincere compliments. 

 

Btw, it is not the rights of the smoker that concerns me in this instance. It is the rights of the bar (private property) owner.

356539[/snapback]

That's okay, I am a conservative who thinks the exact opposite. So we balance each other.

[Bill from NYC]

That's okay, I am a conservative who thinks the exact opposite.  So we balance each other.

356540[/snapback]

 

Hypocrisy is not confined to those who label themselves as "liberals."

[Chilly]

Then you sir are a rare example of a liberal who is not a hypocrite.

My sincere compliments. 

 

Btw, it is not the rights of the smoker that concerns me in this instance. It is the rights of the bar (private property) owner.

356539[/snapback]

 

Haha, thanks.

[VABills]

Hypocrisy is not confined to those who label themselves as "liberals."

356541[/snapback]

 

I am not. I have been consistent on this issue foreevr. Barking up the wrong tree there Billy Bob.

 

As far as i am concerned all smoking should be outlawed as the second hand smoke is annoying, and dangerous to those within your radius.

[Alaska Darin]

I am not.  I have been consistent on this issue foreevr.  Barking up the wrong tree there Billy Bob. 

 

As far as i am concerned all smoking should be outlawed as the second hand smoke is annoying, and dangerous to those within your radius.

356566[/snapback]

Yeah, we should put another 50,000,000 people in jail. After that, we can go after fatty foods. Eventually we're going to get to golf, which is environmentally unsound.

 

Get off your high horse and try freedom. It doesn't suck.

[Ghost of BiB]

I am not.  I have been consistent on this issue foreevr.  Barking up the wrong tree there Billy Bob. 

 

As far as i am concerned all smoking should be outlawed as the second hand smoke is annoying, and dangerous to those within your radius.

356566[/snapback]

 

Kiss my marlboro, weenie.

[VABills]

Yeah, we should put another 50,000,000 people in jail.  After that, we can go after fatty foods.  Eventually we're going to get to golf, which is environmentally unsound.

 

Get off your high horse and try freedom.  It doesn't suck.

356573[/snapback]

Freedom comes with responsibility. The responsibility not to blow smoke in the air I breath. I don't see how me eating a cheesesteak or hitting a white ball around a field affects anyone else. Of course you smoke in a building I am in or in the doorway just outside that building and I have to breath that sh-- because you have no responsibility to others.

 

Fine smoke, just do it in your car, your house, and out of public doorways, and out of public places.

[Ghost of BiB]

Freedom comes with responsibility.  The responsibility not to blow smoke in the air I breath.  I don't see how me eating a cheesesteak or hitting a white ball around a field affects anyone else.  Of course you smoke in a building I am in or in the doorway just outside that building and I have to breath that sh-- because you have no responsibility to others.

 

Fine smoke, just do it in your car, your house, and out of public doorways, and out of public places.

356584[/snapback]

 

Well, you don't like the smell, and it's something you don't like period - therefore, in Bill's terms it must be eliminated. What a solution. You want to know what you breathe everyday in downtown DC? People can't smoke in the building anyway, and the indoor air quality probably isn't going to affected much by the random puffs around the doorway. You're probably getting a lot more health damage from the biphenols and such in the air than someone's cancer stick.

[erynthered]

Freedom comes with responsibility.  The responsibility not to blow smoke in the air I breath.  I don't see how me eating a cheesesteak or hitting a white ball around a field affects anyone else.  Of course you smoke in a building I am in or in the doorway just outside that building and I have to breath that sh-- because you have no responsibility to others.

 

Fine smoke, just do it in your car, your house, and out of public doorways, and out of public places.

356584[/snapback]

 

Freedom also say's kiss my azz. While you're out there on that nice Golf course, you take a nice big swig of air that stinks. Do you know where you're going to wag you finger at? No. you don’t.

 

How about sitting in traffic and smelling the exhaust from the thirty cars around you. They're in my space, my public space. They drive there because they have no rights? No responsibility to others? Should they care about others who smell their exhaust?

 

Light em if you gott'em. I quit smoking, but this BS about public smoking is like being in a Socialist country.....

[Alaska Darin]

Freedom comes with responsibility.  The responsibility not to blow smoke in the air I breath.  I don't see how me eating a cheesesteak or hitting a white ball around a field affects anyone else.  Of course you smoke in a building I am in or in the doorway just outside that building and I have to breath that sh-- because you have no responsibility to others.

 

Fine smoke, just do it in your car, your house, and out of public doorways, and out of public places.

356584[/snapback]

A bar is PRIVATE property. Tough concept. As far as your eating a cheesesteak, let me know if you're affecting my pocketbook once you're on medicare/caid because that's when it's a hell of alot more intrusive than some guy's cigarette.

 

Second hand smoke outdoors is less dangerous than the sh-- your car puts out.

 

Fug do you sound like a liberal. Go pop a midol.