What's new
By:
5thGenRams Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Freedom Convoy

Status
Not open for further replies.
jerrybob said:
You make many incorrect assumptions in your post....BTW....thanks for your permission to think whatever you want.......I feel much better. Almost everything you say can be applied to your comments.....you argue with emotion.....you aren't going to convince anyone who doesn't feel what you feel.....you personally draw the line at anything you want......etc.....
As for the founding fathers......how do you know what they thought.....total BS......I believe they were smart men who would adjust their thinking to modern day problems if they were still alive......something you seem to have difficulty doing. I love the Snickers comment......you emotional guy you.
Click to expand...
That wasn't permission being granted. That was an observation.

And I've actually provided statistics here, directly from the FBI in fact. You've linked several agenda-driven, anti-gun, emotionally-driven pieces of garbage "journalism."

jerrybob said:
As for the founding fathers......how do you know what they thought.....total BS......I believe they were smart men who would adjust their thinking to modern day problems if they were still alive......something you seem to have difficulty doing. I love the Snickers comment......you emotional guy you.
Click to expand...
Because they were intelligent enough to put their thoughts to paper, and I was intelligent enough to read them. This stuff isn't hidden from us.
 
Shots said:
And the same argument could be made for automobile safety, which was my point. Yes cars are regulated and we're all safer because of it. Likewise, guns are also regulated and we're all safer because of it.
At what point do you stop regulating though? At an all out ban, or so heavily regulated that everyone must do/have (or nobody can do/have) whatever is being regulated? No, that's not the answer either.
I certainly don't think it should be a free for all (with guns or cars). However, proposed regulations on anything should have something substantial to back them. Using the capacity limit as an example. What specifically lead you to believe that limiting rounds will help? Is there something about reload times which would significantly increase a potential victim's chance of escape, is it because you believe the assailant would only carry 10 total rounds, or is there something else? How did you get to the number 10? Was this based on studies that show 11 rounds or more are needed to kill multiple people, or is it an arbitrary number that "sounded" good or was proposed by some other source? If it just sounded good, then that's an okay place to start a study. That would be similar to the government saying they want to reduce the maximum speed limit to 45 nationwide. Why 45? Did a study show 46+ caused more deaths, or did it sound good? Do a study to see if there's some merit to the proposal, but don't snap to that regulation without justification.

I'm not opposed to researched, studied and supported regulations. I'm just saying the government can't control everything, nor should they. Somewhere along the line, that means they shouldn't be imposing regulations.
And to bring the thread full circle for SpeedyV. That includes mask mandates, which is why the convoy and this thread started.


No need to go back at all, it's been here all along. And now you only need to look up a line or two. :D
Click to expand...
Auto regulations have changed many times over the years as new technologies were introduced and new safety measures were implemented........seems that with guns.....we just don't do that effectively and hide behind adequated rules and regulations. As for capacity.....you're right....I think they need to be limited......nothing magical about 10....in fact....I'd be OK with 6 but that's me. Limiting capacity would save lives.....I realize you will not agree with that....I will never agree that it won't. I also believe that masks helped save the lives of many folks over the past few years.......I am glad they were required for a period of time.......sometimes reulations are important.
 
SnowBlaZR2 said:
That wasn't permission being granted. That was an observation.

And I've actually provided statistics here, directly from the FBI in fact. You've linked several agenda-driven, anti-gun, emotionally-driven pieces of garbage "journalism."


Because they were intelligent enough to put their thoughts to paper, and I was intelligent enough to read them. This stuff isn't hidden from us.
Click to expand...

Intelligence is based on adapting to new things.......the FFs would have adapted to new problems if here today......what do you think......they sat around a table and said....."Let's write up some stuff based on laws and regs written 250 years ago".....give these boys some credit.
 
Scram1500 said:
Our founding fathers knew more about civilization and human nature than we will ever know
Click to expand...

Our FFs were smart men........who lived in different times......most of them owned slaves.......didn't think women should vote and wrote with feathers........they were not gods.....just smart men from a different era.
 
jerrybob said:
Intelligence is based on adapting to new things.......the FFs would have adapted to new problems if here today......what do you think......they sat around a table and said....."Let's write up some stuff based on laws and regs written 250 years ago".....give these boys some credit.
Click to expand...
Hold on, are you trying to say there wasn't crime or murder when the Second Amendment was written?
 
59411b986625cd1e0edf97d58e787f38.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jerrybob said:
Auto regulations have changed many times over the years as new technologies were introduced and new safety measures were implemented........seems that with guns.....we just don't do that effectively and hide behind adequated rules and regulations. As for capacity.....you're right....I think they need to be limited......nothing magical about 10....in fact....I'd be OK with 6 but that's me. Limiting capacity would save lives.....I realize you will not agree with that....I will never agree that it won't. I also believe that masks helped save the lives of many folks over the past few years.......I am glad they were required for a period of time.......sometimes reulations are important.
Click to expand...
I do agree that rules/regulations associated to guns are slower to adapt than those associated to cars, but I suspect that's because guns themselves are also slower to evolve than cars. Sure they've evolved from the old flint lock, but in the last 40 years have guns really changed a whole lot? No, but cars sure have. Cars are evolving faster so the regulations are evolving faster.
As for disagreeing about capacity limits saving lives. Currently, yes I disagree, but my heals aren't dug in on it. If there were some actual unbiased data to support that it would work, I would support the restriction. To date I haven't seen any actual data that would suggest capacity limits could save lives. So far everything I've seen has been opinion based and/or theoretical from lobbyist groups citing small sample sizes.
The problem is that to test if it would work, you'd have to implement the restriction. I don't think testing in a single city, or even a single state would give a real world result. It would almost have to be nation wide for a diverse result, but then you're implementing a restriction without any basis. Which is why there's push back. So the catch 22 is, how do you get accurate real world data without implementing restrictions that aren't supported by data? You don't, at least as far as I can figure.
 
Shots said:
I do agree that rules/regulations associated to guns are slower to adapt than those associated to cars, but I suspect that's because guns themselves are also slower to evolve than cars. Sure they've evolved from the old flint lock, but in the last 40 years have guns really changed a whole lot? No, but cars sure have. Cars are evolving faster so the regulations are evolving faster.
As for disagreeing about capacity limits saving lives. Currently, yes I disagree, but my heals aren't dug in on it. If there were some actual unbiased data to support that it would work, I would support the restriction. To date I haven't seen any actual data that would suggest capacity limits could save lives. So far everything I've seen has been opinion based and/or theoretical from lobbyist groups citing small sample sizes.
The problem is that to test if it would work, you'd have to implement the restriction. I don't think testing in a single city, or even a single state would give a real world result. It would almost have to be nation wide for a diverse result, but then you're implementing a restriction without any basis. Which is why there's push back. So the catch 22 is, how do you get accurate real world data without implementing restrictions that aren't supported by data? You don't, at least as far as I can figure.
Click to expand...
California already restricts magazine capacity. We see how well that works there. As always, those who follow the laws aren't the problem, and those that don't follow the laws, obviously don't care about any restrictions.
 
HSKR R/T said:
California already restricts magazine capacity. We see how well that works there. As always, those who follow the laws aren't the problem, and those that don't follow the laws, obviously don't care about any restrictions.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why I said "testing" would have to be nation wide instead of by city or state to get accurate results.

I wonder if there would be any change in a gun friendly state like Texas or Ohio. Would it balance out with the non-friendly like New York and California? What about population. Would it be more or less effective in a more rural state like Wyoming than it would in Georgia? The county is too diverse to base the entire country off any single state.
 
I absolutely agree, that the law abiding citizens aren't the ones we need to worry about, which is why I don't think magazine capacity limits will work. It's no different than restricting the use of Fentanyl to those with a prescriptions (limited and restricted use, just like a limit on bullets). The law abiding citizens use it like they should and aren't dying from it. However people still abuse it and deaths occur on a regular basis.
Just like guns. Restriction/Regulation isn't the problem. We need to address the root cause, not the tool.
 
In the news many times the Parkland school shooting is brought up whenever it is convenient to talk about people getting killed with guns like it is the classic blueprint for mass shootings.

Whenever magazine capacity comes up that it is the number one root cause of mass shootings, Parkland is not mentioned. Throughout the preaching that taking standard capacity magazines from law abiding citizens as the answer to solving crime the news forgets that the Parkland shooter used low capacity magazines of 10 rounds each.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Site Vendors

https://www.jasonlewisautomotive.com/

Members online

... and 1 more.
Total: 413 (members: 51, guests: 362)
Back
Top