-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
ONe for the good side
- Thread starter gbu28
- Start date
ilbob
Campaign Veteran
imported post
gbu28 wrote:
Maybe. I wonder how one safely operates a firearm via a breathing tube.
I realize the 2A purists don't much care about enforcing safety on gun owners, and I am a little nervous about it myself, because it is a murky area. But there are some things that are inherently unsafe.
Iam not sure the answer is to ban him from owning firearms though.
gbu28 wrote:
Maybe. I wonder how one safely operates a firearm via a breathing tube.
I realize the 2A purists don't much care about enforcing safety on gun owners, and I am a little nervous about it myself, because it is a murky area. But there are some things that are inherently unsafe.
Iam not sure the answer is to ban him from owning firearms though.
gbu28
Regular Member
imported post
I don't know that anyone would call me a purist but more power to the guy if he feels he can handle it. If you had asked me before I saw it with my own eyes that these Americans (by that I mean physically challenged in a broad sense) can drive vehicles, participate in sports, hold down jobs, etc I would have said no way. But they would have shown me to be wrong.
Anyway, the responsibility lies on him, not the State, imo.
I don't know that anyone would call me a purist but more power to the guy if he feels he can handle it. If you had asked me before I saw it with my own eyes that these Americans (by that I mean physically challenged in a broad sense) can drive vehicles, participate in sports, hold down jobs, etc I would have said no way. But they would have shown me to be wrong.
Anyway, the responsibility lies on him, not the State, imo.
GLOCK21GB
Campaign Veteran
imported post
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”
I see nothing written, that say's only able bodied people.
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”
I see nothing written, that say's only able bodied people.
Interceptor_Knight
Regular Member
imported post
ilbob wrote:
Like running (with 2 pair of scissors tied together with a string at the handles and hanging from your neck) naked down a stairwell covered with marbles? Anyone who would propose drafting a law against such a thing would be laughed out of the room. The same should hold true for anyone making an arbitrary decision proclaiming that a quadrapalegic may not own firearms.
It is his business how he handles it safely. It is not the State's issue unless he violates a law by discharging it in an illegal manor. It is definitely not my nor your business to say that he may or may not own firearms.
ilbob wrote:
Like running (with 2 pair of scissors tied together with a string at the handles and hanging from your neck) naked down a stairwell covered with marbles? Anyone who would propose drafting a law against such a thing would be laughed out of the room. The same should hold true for anyone making an arbitrary decision proclaiming that a quadrapalegic may not own firearms.
It is his business how he handles it safely. It is not the State's issue unless he violates a law by discharging it in an illegal manor. It is definitely not my nor your business to say that he may or may not own firearms.
gbu28
Regular Member
imported post
ilbob wrote:
This isn't really directed at you ilbob but I have to address your argument of safety, which is one of my pet peeves. Just because something is inherently unsafe does not mean it should be outlawed. It is inherently unsafe for me to race down the highway at 65 mph on two wheels. There are much safer ways for me to travel. It's inherently unsafe to do the same without wearing a helmet.
Stop and think about this a minute: It is incredibly unsafe for two multiple ton vehicles (of any kind) to go past each other on a 2 lane highway with a combined speed of over a hundred miles an hour. Many many things could be called unsafe.
I say, so what. If nothing else, America should be about freedom. That includes freedom to pursue wealth, happiness, pleasures of various kinds, and yes, activities which others might deem unsafe as well.
Now that I'm older, I've made a decision I'll never jump out of a plane. More power to anyone else who wants to but it won't be me.
So the next guy's safety just might be what I get my thrill from. Please, wrap your kids in every pad available, keep them away from all sharp, loud objects and leave me alone.
Thank you.
ilbob wrote:
This isn't really directed at you ilbob but I have to address your argument of safety, which is one of my pet peeves. Just because something is inherently unsafe does not mean it should be outlawed. It is inherently unsafe for me to race down the highway at 65 mph on two wheels. There are much safer ways for me to travel. It's inherently unsafe to do the same without wearing a helmet.
Stop and think about this a minute: It is incredibly unsafe for two multiple ton vehicles (of any kind) to go past each other on a 2 lane highway with a combined speed of over a hundred miles an hour. Many many things could be called unsafe.
I say, so what. If nothing else, America should be about freedom. That includes freedom to pursue wealth, happiness, pleasures of various kinds, and yes, activities which others might deem unsafe as well.
Now that I'm older, I've made a decision I'll never jump out of a plane. More power to anyone else who wants to but it won't be me.
So the next guy's safety just might be what I get my thrill from. Please, wrap your kids in every pad available, keep them away from all sharp, loud objects and leave me alone.
Thank you.
ilbob
Campaign Veteran
imported post
gbu28 wrote:
If the guy can do this safely, more power to him. If not, he should not be handling firearms. I don't think government is the appropriate decider of who is safe or not. I do understand the chief's reluctance to issue him a purchase permit, even if I am pretty sure I do not trust bureaucrats to make these kind of decisions.
I don't havemuch desire to prohibit unsafe acts that have little or no potential to harm others, or are risks that we as a society have agreed to accept (such as driving according to the rules of the road). But people taking risks with other people's lives is something else.
gbu28 wrote:
If the guy can do this safely, more power to him. If not, he should not be handling firearms. I don't think government is the appropriate decider of who is safe or not. I do understand the chief's reluctance to issue him a purchase permit, even if I am pretty sure I do not trust bureaucrats to make these kind of decisions.
I don't havemuch desire to prohibit unsafe acts that have little or no potential to harm others, or are risks that we as a society have agreed to accept (such as driving according to the rules of the road). But people taking risks with other people's lives is something else.
Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
IlBob, I got a few questions for you, it may help others and me understand your point of view on this situation.
What are your thoughts about laws that mandate kids wear helmets when riding a bicycle?
Do you feel it is ok for someone purchase a firearm even if they do not intend to huntwith it?
The state tried to prohibitthisguyfrom exercising an enumerated right just becuase of physical disabilities! I find it disgusting that the people of this once great nation have allowed the government to become a nanny-state.
IlBob, I got a few questions for you, it may help others and me understand your point of view on this situation.
What are your thoughts about laws that mandate kids wear helmets when riding a bicycle?
Do you feel it is ok for someone purchase a firearm even if they do not intend to huntwith it?
The state tried to prohibitthisguyfrom exercising an enumerated right just becuase of physical disabilities! I find it disgusting that the people of this once great nation have allowed the government to become a nanny-state.
J.Gleason
Banned
imported post
ilbob wrote:
So I guess we should have all arms confiscated from anyone over the age of 70 because old people become frail and feeble minded and possibly could have Alzheimer's and forget all of the fire arms safety they have ever learned in their life time, putting other people lives at risk any time this individual looks at his fire arm.
Come on! Think before you type!
What gives you the right to place restrictions on anyone's rights?
We have veterans that have lost limbs and have actually returned to duty. With today's technology you would be surprised what a person can do. Leave the guy alone and take that purchase permit and shove it up your arse.
ilbob wrote:
Having a law that requires one to obtain a purchase permit before that individual is able to buy a fire arm is unconstitutional.
So I guess we should have all arms confiscated from anyone over the age of 70 because old people become frail and feeble minded and possibly could have Alzheimer's and forget all of the fire arms safety they have ever learned in their life time, putting other people lives at risk any time this individual looks at his fire arm.
Come on! Think before you type!
What gives you the right to place restrictions on anyone's rights?
We have veterans that have lost limbs and have actually returned to duty. With today's technology you would be surprised what a person can do. Leave the guy alone and take that purchase permit and shove it up your arse.