Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Should students be allowed to walk out of school to support pro gun rights?


KCitons

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, NREC34 said:

I’m in favor of all cars being self driving. 

Before that tech becomes reality I’m in favor of a breathalyzer on all cars and cell phones being unable to work while the car is moving. 

What do I win KC

A safer place to live?

:scared:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KCitons said:

This is more in response to previous posts in this thread in regards to pro-gun protests. Some stated that they have nothing to protest for, they already have the rights. I would then ask, why were there DACA protests before any decision had been made? They had rights that were on the verge of being lost. Protesting after probably won't do any good. Effect change while decisions are still being made.

What are you babbling about here now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

What are you babbling about here now?

Back on track to the topic of the thread. Why were there DACA protests? Weren't they in the country still? Wasn't the government working, but not yet decided on a solution? Why would they need to protest? They held the status quo. 

No, they saw the potential for loss and protested. Same reason someone that supports the right to own guns would protest at the present time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KCitons said:

1. Universal background checks for all sales and transfers: no exceptions for private sales. Sure, it's the same as someone distributing home brewed beer or wine at one of their parties. This also limits the ability to sell personal property. What other items do we treat this way? I can buy a car with cash without a background check. I can by alcohol too, as long as I'm over the legal age. 

This really is not true.  You can buy a car, but each vehicle must be licensed and registered with the state and carry a minimum level of insurance. I also assume, but don't know, that each state requires an inspection of sorts to verify the safety of the vehicle on the road. In addition there are numerous laws regarding the manufacture and operation of the vehicle, including various safety measures. 

If you want to add those requirements to your gun analogy, I suspect you would find more than a few people willing to go down that road. 

And, your beer analogy also fails on its face. You acknowledge that you must be of age to purchase beer, which s itself a background check.  Plus, it is illegal, and creates civil liability, if you sell alcohol to a noticeably intoxicated individual - so again some form of background check is done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Back on track to the topic of the thread. Why were there DACA protests? Weren't they in the country still? Wasn't the government working, but not yet decided on a solution? Why would they need to protest? They held the status quo. 

No, they saw the potential for loss and protested. Same reason someone that supports the right to own guns would protest at the present time. 

Didn't the president remove those rights, and actually started deportations, before the courts stepped in to protect the individuals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Didn't the president remove those rights, and actually started deportations, before the courts stepped in to protect the individuals?

No the protection was scheduled to run out. If it was supposed to be permanent, why didn't previous administrations or congress deal with the issue when they had a chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, KCitons said:

No the protection was scheduled to run out. If it was supposed to be permanent, why didn't previous administrations or congress deal with the issue when they had a chance?

:shrug:

If it was a congressional responsibility - you have to address that to the GOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

This really is not true.  You can buy a car, but each vehicle must be licensed and registered with the state and carry a minimum level of insurance. I also assume, but don't know, that each state requires an inspection of sorts to verify the safety of the vehicle on the road. In addition there are numerous laws regarding the manufacture and operation of the vehicle, including various safety measures. 

If you want to add those requirements to your gun analogy, I suspect you would find more than a few people willing to go down that road. 

And, your beer analogy also fails on its face. You acknowledge that you must be of age to purchase beer, which s itself a background check.  Plus, it is illegal, and creates civil liability, if you sell alcohol to a noticeably intoxicated individual - so again some form of background check is done. 

False. In my current state, I can buy a car and drive it for 30 days before I need to register it. That means I can pay Joe six pack $5k for his car and I can drive it around without the government even knowing I own a vehicle. I'm sure other states have similar grace or In-transit periods. My state also does not require inspection of a vehicle unless it is brought in from out of state.  There are laws that pertain to operation of guns as well. I can't stand in my front yard and target practice. 

Purchasing beer only requires proof of age, not a background check. I could be a raging alcoholic and there is nothing on my license that states as such. They don't look at driving records or violent offenses when choosing to sell alcohol.

As far as civil liability, there are wrongful death suits that do the same thing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Back on track to the topic of the thread. Why were there DACA protests? Weren't they in the country still? Wasn't the government working, but not yet decided on a solution? Why would they need to protest? They held the status quo. 

No, they saw the potential for loss and protested. Same reason someone that supports the right to own guns would protest at the present time. 

So it's your genuine belief that something initiated under an executive order and something granted to us in our Constitution are similar enough that you'd use them in comparisons because our judicial system says they aren't close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

:shrug:

If it was a congressional responsibility - you have to address that to the GOP.

Yeah, if you want to blame half the people responsible. Point was, everyone wants to blame Trump, as you just did, for a law that ran out. It's similar to the transgender situation in the military. It was a trial basis and the trial ran out. If there was a permanent solution, then why hasn't someone worked to implement that. North Korea is another one. We keep kicking cans down the road and then complain when someone puts a stop to it and wants a permanent solution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Commish said:

So it's your genuine belief that something initiated under an executive order and something granted to us in our Constitution are similar enough that you'd use them in comparisons because our judicial system says they aren't close.

Nope. I know it's becoming harder and harder to follow along as we expand the conversation. That comment was simply to point out that people don't have to wait until they lose something to protest. They can protest to make sure their opinion is known. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KCitons said:

Change gun laws to match alcohol laws. That would be the logical start, because when we discuss alcohol related deaths, people want to point to the fact that we made changes. We didn't ban alcohol or any type/size of alcohol. And we saw a drop in alcohol related deaths over the last 2 decades. 

You are cool with taxing the #### out of gun and ammo "consumption"?

Are you cool with imposing dram shop-like liability for gun / ammo dealers?

Are you also cool with setting up an insurance system that will compensate victims of gun violence?

Edited by JerseyToughGuys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Nope. I know it's becoming harder and harder to follow along as we expand the conversation. That comment was simply to point out that people don't have to wait until they lose something to protest. They can protest to make sure their opinion is known. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Sorry...you had asked why the DACA people NEEDED to protest.  Probably not the best way to make the point you say you're making here.  The example you used demonstrates an actual need to protest where that's not the case with guns.  They are protected by the Constitution.  Though, I do agree that people can protest whenever they want over whatever they want.  It's a bit silly in this scenario given the protections afforded us under the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JerseyToughGuys said:

You are cool with taxing the #### out of gun and ammo "consumption"? Sure, as long as they are in line with other taxes and we don't see a 1000% tax in order to make it impossible to purchase. I would also like to see those funds go to programs to reduce gun violence. But, let's be clear, we don't tax the mug on alcohol, we tax that which is consumed. So it would only apply to ammo.

Are you cool with imposing dram shop-like liability for gun / ammo dealers? Not sure. We hold bars and restaurants liable because they served a customer. We don't hold liquor stores liable if I buy a case of beer sober, drink it at home and then go out for a sunday drive. Do I think a gun shop should be liable for selling a handgun to a 14 year old kid, yes. 

Are you also cool with setting up an insurance system that will compensate victims of gun violence?  How are you proposing it's funded. If it's through the ammo tax, then sure. My question would be, how do you compensate someone that is killed by a knife, a baseball bat, or strangled with a rope?  In those cases, the victims family goes after the estate. Why is it more important for there to be insurance compensation for gun violence? What about kids that die as a result of frat hazing? Should there be insurance system that compensates alcohol related deaths on our campuses? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Sorry...you had asked why the DACA people NEEDED to protest.  Probably not the best way to make the point you say you're making here.  The example you used demonstrates an actual need to protest where that's not the case with guns.  They are protected by the Constitution.  Though, I do agree that people can protest whenever they want over whatever they want.  It's a bit silly in this scenario given the protections afforded us under the Constitution.

Illinois has proposed a bill to raise the age limit on certain guns and ammo. If you are an 18 year old high school student, should you protest that change if you believe it is unfair? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, KCitons said:

False. In my current state, I can buy a car and drive it for 30 days before I need to register it. That means I can pay Joe six pack $5k for his car and I can drive it around without the government even knowing I own a vehicle. I'm sure other states have similar grace or In-transit periods. My state also does not require inspection of a vehicle unless it is brought in from out of state.  There are laws that pertain to operation of guns as well. I can't stand in my front yard and target practice. 

Purchasing beer only requires proof of age, not a background check. I could be a raging alcoholic and there is nothing on my license that states as such. They don't look at driving records or violent offenses when choosing to sell alcohol.

As far as civil liability, there are wrongful death suits that do the same thing.

 

1. But, you must register your vehicle - private sale or dealership sale.

2. Your age is a background check.  Its not as extensive as a background check for owning a gun - because there are really only two requirement to buying alcohol - be of age, and not be intoxicated.  But, my understanding of a background check for guns simply is that it insures that the person buying the gun is legally able to do so - why is that a problem?  Its the same for buying beer - show me proof that you are eligible to buy this beer.  Being a raging alcoholic is not a bar to purchasing alcohol.  Being a convicted felon is a bar to buying/owning a gun.

3.  Civil liability - see Bernie Sanders for this one - right now sellers and manufacturers of guns are protected from wrongful death suits.  This was one of a few areas where I disagreed with Bernie.  I think gun manufacturers and sellers should be accountable the same as (i.e. no more, no less) than any other product manufacturer/seller.  If you sell a gun to someone who is not eligible to own a gun - you should be held civilly liable if that person commits a crime with that gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Are you cool with imposing dram shop-like liability for gun / ammo dealers? Not sure. We hold bars and restaurants liable because they served a customer. We don't hold liquor stores liable if I buy a case of beer sober, drink it at home and then go out for a sunday drive. Do I think a gun shop should be liable for selling a handgun to a 14 year old kid, yes. 

 

We don't hold bars and restaurants liable of they serve you a beer sober.

We hold them liable if they serve a noticeably intoxicated person, who then gets in a car and causes an accident.  We would hold the liquor store liable under the same circumstance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

1. But, you must register your vehicle - private sale or dealership sale. Not at the time of purchase. So, technically there is nothing keeping someone from buying an unregistered car and committing any number of crimes. 

2. Your age is a background check.  Its not as extensive as a background check for owning a gun - because there are really only two requirement to buying alcohol - be of age, and not be intoxicated.  But, my understanding of a background check for guns simply is that it insures that the person buying the gun is legally able to do so - why is that a problem?  Its the same for buying beer - show me proof that you are eligible to buy this beer.  Being a raging alcoholic is not a bar to purchasing alcohol.  Being a convicted felon is a bar to buying/owning a gun. Fair enough. We have age restrictions in most states. Maybe we need to enforce the laws we have.

3.  Civil liability - see Bernie Sanders for this one - right now sellers and manufacturers of guns are protected from wrongful death suits.  This was one of a few areas where I disagreed with Bernie.  I think gun manufacturers and sellers should be accountable the same as (i.e. no more, no less) than any other product manufacturer/seller.  If you sell a gun to someone who is not eligible to own a gun - you should be held civilly liable if that person commits a crime with that gun. Should alcohol manufacturers be liable for ever DUI death?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

We don't hold bars and restaurants liable of they serve you a beer sober.

We hold them liable if they serve a noticeably intoxicated person, who then gets in a car and causes an accident.  We would hold the liquor store liable under the same circumstance.

And we don't hold gun owners liable until they shoot someone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Illinois has proposed a bill to raise the age limit on certain guns and ammo. If you are an 18 year old high school student, should you protest that change if you believe it is unfair? 

When I was 17, Virginia passed a law changing the drinking age from 18 to 21*.  I thought that was unfair, but I did not protest.

 

 

*it did not take effect until after I turned 18, and I was grandfathered in to the old drinking age, so I really did not care, but outside of normal teenage #####ing and moaning about having to get fake IDs. I don't think anyone else really cared either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KCitons said:

And we don't hold gun owners liable until they shoot someone. 

Ok?

But, we should hold gun sellers liable if they sold a gun to someone who is ineligible, by law, to own a gun.  Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KCitons said:

And we are back to the original point of this thread. 

Thank you. (and I'm not being a smart ###)

I think you are solely responsible for taking the thread on a weird analogy goosechase because your original premise was boring and failed within the first 5 posts.

HTH

Next Up: If you your Wendy's hamburger has an eyebrow in it, do you have the right not to eat it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

When I was 17, Virginia passed a law changing the drinking age from 18 to 21*.  I thought that was unfair, but I did not protest.

 

 

*it did not take effect until after I turned 18, and I was grandfathered in to the old drinking age, so I really did not care, but outside of normal teenage #####ing and moaning about having to get fake IDs. I don't think anyone else really cared either.

Not the point of my post. Everyone decides what is important and what is worth protesting for themselves. To think that someone shouldn't because the hold the perceived status quo, is not being realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sometimes an issue is just ripe it comes of age and a generation embraces it right now that issue appears to be guns for the high school generation and when kids that age get a hold of an issue history teaches us that it can be a peace train not always but sometimes so i guess ring your hands or furrow your brows all you want and make a bunch of why didnt they care about this or that type stuff or try to discredit it all you want but everyone knows exactly what its about and why its happening take that to the bank brohans  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

Ok?

But, we should hold gun sellers liable if they sold a gun to someone who is ineligible, by law, to own a gun.  Right?

Yes. Do we have laws? Are we enforcing the ones we have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

When I was 17, Virginia passed a law changing the drinking age from 18 to 21*.  I thought that was unfair, but I did not protest.

 

 

*it did not take effect until after I turned 18, and I was grandfathered in to the old drinking age, so I really did not care, but outside of normal teenage #####ing and moaning about having to get fake IDs. I don't think anyone else really cared either.

BUT SHOULD YOU HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PROTEST~!@~!@~!@~!@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Should alcohol manufacturers be liable for ever DUI death?

Sure. Off the top of my head, I can think of a scenario where a mislabeled beer - it had more alcohol content than posted - could lead to manufacturers liability.

 

Don't confuse the issue of being able to sue - with making a gun manufacturer strictly liable for every gun death.  Nobody is saying that.  But, as with any other product, they should have the same accountability - no more, no less - than other manufacturers.  

Bernie's defense was less with the manufacturers, who are not likely to have much liability, rather, he wanted to protect the sellers from liability - but if you sell a gun, and have reason to know it will be used to commit a crime - you should be liable.  If you sell a gun to a convicted felon - you should be liable.  If you sell a gun to a person deemed mentally incompetent to own a gun - you should be liable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

Sure. Off the top of my head, I can think of a scenario where a mislabeled beer - it had more alcohol content than posted - could lead to manufacturers liability.

 

Don't confuse the issue of being able to sue - with making a gun manufacturer strictly liable for every gun death.  Nobody is saying that.  But, as with any other product, they should have the same accountability - no more, no less - than other manufacturers.  

Bernie's defense was less with the manufacturers, who are not likely to have much liability, rather, he wanted to protect the sellers from liability - but if you sell a gun, and have reason to know it will be used to commit a crime - you should be liable.  If you sell a gun to a convicted felon - you should be liable.  If you sell a gun to a person deemed mentally incompetent to own a gun - you should be liable.

This is already the law in some states.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Illinois has proposed a bill to raise the age limit on certain guns and ammo. If you are an 18 year old high school student, should you protest that change if you believe it is unfair? 

Sure.  Why not?  That's a state issue and I'm sure it would be run through the courts and all that good stuff.  But I don't know what this has to do with what was being talked about before from a federal perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KCitons said:

And again, the discussion gets moved. I never said to ban cars. Take that statement and replace it with guns vs alcohol. Tell me how killing someone with a gun, which some deem to be an unnecessary item and killing someone while under the influence of alcohol which some can also deem as an unnecessary item, are different? Should there be more regulation on alcohol purchases. Should someone that buys more than X number of ounces in a week or month be tracked in a database? Should insurance rates be determined based on that database? The point is, cars have a useful purpose in society. Some may say that alcohol has a useful purpose in society. And I contest that firearms have a useful purpose in society. Yet, when I suggest that guns and alcohol be treated the same when it comes to regulations, tracking and banning, then it's a ridiculous argument. 

Why do you want stricter gun laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the answer I understand is to save lives. 

Forgive me if the answer is earlier in this thread, but what do you mean "guns and alcohol be treated the same when it comes to regulations"? 

I assume you mean that we have greatly reduced DUI accidents - not by making either alcohol or cars illegal but by making drinking and driving illegal.  And you can't buy alcohol if you are under 21.

So ... what do you mean when you say guns should be regulated in the same way? Just nobody can buy them if they are under 21? I don't think that alone will reduce shootings. Do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whoknew said:

Forgive me if the answer is earlier in this thread, but what do you mean "guns and alcohol be treated the same when it comes to regulations"? 

I assume you mean that we have greatly reduced DUI accidents - not by making either alcohol or cars illegal but by making drinking and driving illegal.  And you can't buy alcohol if you are under 21.

So ... what do you mean when you say guns should be regulated in the same way? Just nobody can buy them if they are under 21? I don't think that alone will reduce shootings. Do you?

It is literally the thing that people here keep agreeing with him on. Over and over I (and others) have said yes we do think guns should be regulated more like alcohol and cars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

It is literally the thing that people here keep agreeing with him on. Over and over I (and others) have said yes we do think guns should be regulated more like alcohol and cars. 

But what does that mean? What are the regulations that guns should have that is similar to alcohol? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, whoknew said:

But what does that mean? What are the regulations that guns should have that is similar to alcohol? 

The same ones that have been discussed over and over here: Insurance, registration, limiting mag size, making bump stocks illegal, mandatory safety regulations for gun manufacturers, required tests/training for gun license, renew the gun license, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

The same ones that have been discussed over and over here: Insurance, registration, limiting mag size, making bump stocks illegal, mandatory safety regulations for gun manufacturers, required tests/training for gun license, renew the gun license, etc. 

I don't think KCitons agrees to those from his response to TIm. At least not all of them. And he specifically said they should be regulated like alcohol. So I'm not sure how those things you listed are anything like regulating alcohol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

The same ones that have been discussed over and over here: Insurance, registration, limiting mag size, making bump stocks illegal, mandatory safety regulations for gun manufacturers, required tests/training for gun license, renew the gun license, etc. 

I don't have to have insurance to drink. Look at a homeless person. 

I don't have to register my alcohol. 

I don't have a limit on the amount of alcohol I can buy. There is a limit on what I can make. But who really enforces that as long as I'm not selling. So, it has more to do with tax laws than it does consumption. 

I can still buy Everclear over the counter. The bump stock of the drinking world.

Since alcohol is a food, it is regulated by the FDA. So, I will give you that one. 

I'm not required to take any classes or training to drink. 

And I don't need a license. A simple state ID that requires nothing but a birth certificate will allow me to prove my age. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I don't have to have insurance to drink. Look at a homeless person. 

I don't have to register my alcohol. 

I don't have a limit on the amount of alcohol I can buy. There is a limit on what I can make. But who really enforces that as long as I'm not selling. So, it has more to do with tax laws than it does consumption. 

I can still buy Everclear over the counter. The bump stock of the drinking world.

Since alcohol is a food, it is regulated by the FDA. So, I will give you that one. 

I'm not required to take any classes or training to drink. 

And I don't need a license. A simple state ID that requires nothing but a birth certificate will allow me to prove my age. 

Yeah but you can’t legally drive without those things. Aren’t we in agreement that’s it’s the drinking driving part that’s so dangerous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Yeah but you can’t legally drive without those things. Aren’t we in agreement that’s it’s the drinking driving part that’s so dangerous?

Right and you can't legally shoot people either. It's the shooting guns into a crowd part that's so dangerous.

So, as some see it, regulating guns will solve the problem with shootings. (mass shootings to be specific).  Why wouldn't banning alcohol do the same for drunk driving fatalities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Why wouldn't banning alcohol do the same for drunk driving fatalities?

Is anyone really talking about banning all guns?

I am not even sure there is a real discussion on taking away your existing guns, let alone banning all future sales.

Regulating gun sales, is a far cry from banning gun sales.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Is anyone really talking about banning all guns?

I am not even sure there is a real discussion on taking away your existing guns, let alone banning all future sales.

Regulating gun sales, is a far cry from banning gun sales.

The only people talking about banning all guns are the NRA and some Russian bots.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2018 at 7:33 AM, -OZ- said:

To answer the OP, sure. It's always okay to protest for what you believe. But you best be ready to deal with the known consequences. 

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Some people just want to talk in circles. I’m out.

Sorry it doesn't make sense to me.

The same things that people say about gun regulations could be applied to alcohol. But they turn the argument towards cars and alcohol. Then people say there is no good use for guns, but when I say there is not good use for alcohol, that's ridiculous. 

I suspect it's because alcohol is revered by more people than guns. To want to regulate alcohol inconveniences people too much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...